Some years ago, I was invited to a friend’s family barbecue. As we ate generous servings of chicken, hot dogs and mashed potatoes, a boxing match was taking place. The father of the family, being an apparent fan of boxing, followed the match eagerly as the two gladiators bobbed and weaved on his television screen. Though not a huge fan of boxing, I followed the rest of the family as they also sat down to observe the event.
It was between an American boxer of caucasian decent, and a foreign boxer of african decent. The father, being both black and American, had two obvious choices for his allegiance. Who did he pick to root for?
“Give ‘em the stars and stripes!”
“Show ‘em how we do things in America!”
He hooted and hollered at the television set, willing the American to victory. It was clear what choice he made. He decided he was an American first, and a black person second. Because it was a popular fight, there must’ve been similar scenarios all across America. White families gathered and rooted for the American yelling just as loudly. Hispanic families celebrated every punch the American boxer landed. Asian families, jewish families, people of all colors looked at their television screen and saw someone with whom they could identify in a struggle for survival, and found their only option was to lend him their enthusiastic support.
The choice that all these people made was a matter of allegiance. They chose America first, race second. That is the great unifying power of America.
But there is a major problem facing America today, and we find that problem in identity politics. Identity politicians are people who owe their allegiance to something other than America first, and try to use that as a way to drum up votes. Right now, we have a political candidate running for office on his “blackness”. For all of his life, he has shown his race to be his primary allegiance. He even wrote a book about it called, “Dreams from my father: A story of race and inheritance”. When he got into political trouble over his anti-american pastor, he again tried to redirect the focus in the direction of race, giving an “historic” speech. And when his critics bring legitimate criticisms against him, he responds by turning to race again, most recently saying,
“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?“
Many of his supporters share this belief. They would rather vote for someone based on their race than someone who would actually be good for America. That is a very big problem, bigger even than the current debacle with Obama. Obama is merely taking advantage of a trend. Even more disturbing is that Obama isn’t even the race he pretends to be. He’s Arab American, not African American. He’s 50% caucasian, 43.75% arabic, and 6.25% african. One has to be at least 12.5% of a particular race to be recognized as a member of that race, according to federal law. The way he has manipulated many black Americans into identifying with him, and thus, subsequently voting for him is perverse and a sign of a sickness within our society.
The solution is to remind people who they are. We are Americans first. Our race and our heritage is important. It helps define us, makes us unique and diverse as a people – an American people. But what we must always remember, is that it was America who took us in, either from birth or by adoption and has given us the amazing opportunities that we’ve had. And it was America too, that has formed much of our culture, our identity in the world and our very being as individuals.
I know I for one am an American first. And when I saw an American struggling to survive in a boxing match, I couldn’t help but identify with him. When he took blow after he blow, he appeared to be finished, but he got up anyways and kept fighting. And when he won by a split decision, I was there, jumping up and down celebrating with my friend, his father, and the rest of the family. After all, I’m an American too.
What America needs is a wolf. We need someone with guts, someone that’ll stand up for America’s interests in foreign policy, make hard choices to fix our economy, work across the aisle even as the extreme wing of their party screams at them, someone not afraid to lead the pack rather than merely follow it, someone who is more than just a lot of fluff.
John McCain and Hillary Clinton are tough. No one doubts that. No one in their right mind doubts that they would be able to make hard decisions or stand up for America’s interests. The question is whether Obama can.
Obama doesn’t help himself very much with this question. When he gets asked hard questions, he runs away – literally. When asked for a solution to terrorists, he says he’ll cut our military and then ask them to stop. When prompted on the economy, he says he’ll raise taxes on the middle class, the absolute worst thing he could do in the middle of an economic slowdown. He claims to be against anti-Americanism and racism, but he won’t even stand up to it when he finds it within his own pastor. When tough votes on things like abortion, crime, etc are placed in front of him, he votes “present” instead of yes or no.
Actions like these paint a picture that isn’t pretty for Obama – a coward, a follower, not a leader. His campaign is aware of this image, so Obama tries to shake it. After scouring the political landscape, looking for an issue he can stand up to, what great social malefactor does he invest his resolve against? Flag pins. Yes, when Obama actually does take a stand, it’s against flag pins. Well, as it turns out, Americans don’t really care very much about whether someone wears a flag pin or not, so they have trouble understanding Obama’s vehement disdain for the flag.
Hmmm, well, since the flag pins didn’t work, what else can Obama do to shake his image as a coward – a sheep? Bomb our allies. That’s the only logical choice. After all, all those grownups like John McCain and Hillary are talking about fighting back against people that want to kill us, why not one-up them and demand we start bombing people who don’t even want to kill us, and who better to bomb first than Pakistan? Well, as it turns out, the American people don’t think bombing our allies is such a great idea. Guess it’s back to the drawing board again for the Obama campaign.
Toughness is something that can’t be faked. One of the essential elements of resolve, is that you stand on PRINCIPLES in that resolve. That leads to moderation and control. Obama doesn’t seem to have any principles in particular to stand on, so when he attempts to appear tough, he goes from one extreme to the other. He just can’t seem to figure out a way to appear tough.
If Obama wants to overcome his reputation as a sheep, he needs to start being a wolf. Merely wearing the fur isn’t going to fool most voters. If he wants to show that, yes, he can be tough, he needs to actually be tough. He needs to take a stand for something important, regardless of the popularity of such a decision. John McCain has done this, with the surge, immigration and a myriad of issues. Hillary has done this, when she defied her party bosses and almost the whole media by running for so long. As inconsistent and as short as Obama’s resume may be, one thing is certain, he is a sheep who needs to be a wolf, but he isn’t going to get there unless he demonstrates real change – the very thing he’s been promising as the basis of his campaign.
When I digest my daily dose of hatemail, I often find myself wondering, “Do Obama supporters talk to each other, ever?” Whenever I criticize Obama (or his supporters), half of his supporters will defend him with one position, and the other half defend him with an entirely opposite position. They are often such polar opposites that I suspect they have more in common with me than with each other. I’ll give some examples:
Whenever I point out Obama’s socialism,
Half of Obama supporters accuse me of dishonestly smearing Obama with socialism.
Half accuse me of smearing socialism, and defend socialism, Obama’s brand in particular.
Whenever I note the incredible propensity to scream “RACISM!” by his supporters,
Half of his supporters will accuse me of being racist.
Half will accuse me of imagining being accused racist.
In fact, you can view this exact sort of exchange in the comments of this blog. Here is an example:
Whenever I reiterate Obama’s intellectual failings,
Half of Obama supporters will acknowledge they are bad, but “not as bad as Bush”.
Half deny any errors on the part of Obama and accuse me of being too dumb to see his master plan. Apparently he was “hinting” at something with his statement that there are 57 states.
Whenever I talk about Obama’s resume (or lack thereof),
Half of his supporters acknowledge that resumes are very important. They then deny that Obama has a short one, often going so far to argue that Obama is actually MORE qualified than the other candidates.
Half will acknowledge that that his resume is as short as can be, but deny that it is important. To them, Obama is essentially GOD so it doesn’t matter, and when he becomes the new president we can put his resume on the new penny where Lincoln’s eye used to be.
You will find contradictions such as these on any of Obama’s positions. You come to expect it eventually. It’s really not surprising though, considering the candidate they support. He calls for change, yet offers up an old, outdated form of socialism which has already been shown to be ineffective as something “new”. He rails against “guilt by association” but attempts to link McCain to Bush in almost every speech. He vehemently attacks division and disunity, then, anyone who happens to have different ideas, often in the same sentence. The man is almost nothing but contradictions.
Perhaps the strategy for ‘08 should be to get them to talk to eachother. Get them to discuss Obama’s policy so they can realize how different their views of it are. That would be the antidote to “hope and change”. When a candidate speaks in completely empty platitudes, the populace which falls into the trap is apt to “fill in the blanks” themselves with whatever positions they admire. The solution to this is to get them thinking about those positions, and to question wether or not their candidate really does espouse them. Thinking coupled with information is always the best cure for Obamitis.
I came across this video about a week ago. Don’t know who made it but it’s pretty awesome. It’s a fake attack ad on John McCain, trying to make the case that McCain simply isn’t socialist enough for America (but Obama is). I linked to it in my previous post, “Barack the Black Hitler”, but I felt it deserved a post of its own. This should be our campaign slogan, hahaha.
Following my last guide, “A Guide to Obama Supporters”, I decided to write a guide on the delicate art of communicating with Obama supporters. And it IS an art. Obama supporters are remarkably predictable in their interactions and as such can be manipulated easily in creative ways. There are three principles to understand:
Overwhelm:
Whenever you’ve made a good point about the failings of Obama, the Obama supporter will invariably demand that you talk about something else, and chastize you for having brought it up. For example:
You: Obama shouldn’t have have taken Rezko’s money.
Obama supporter: You’re just attacking Obama’s character because you can’t talk about issues! YES WE CAN!
Or:
You: Obama’s foreign policy is very naive. Doesn’t he know it’s silly to negotiate without preparation and preconditions?
Obama Supporter: You’re just attacking him on issues because your candidate has less character! Obama is a clean politician! YES WE CAN!
The solution to this is to overwhelm the Obama supporter with multiple facets of Obama’s flaws. Try to talk about Obama’s character and the issues both at once. For example:
You: If Obama can’t stand up to the anti-Americanism in his own pastor and wife, how can he be expected to stand up for America abroad? That sort of character doesn’t make for sound foreign policy.
Obama Supporter: You’re just talking about Obama’s character and the issues because you can’t talk about……um…..YES WE CAN!
Mockery:
In most instances, the Obama supporter will not want to discuss any issues with you, but rather to personally attack you and make threats. It is ill advised to try and discuss issues with these types, you’ll just waste effort. The best approach to this, is to mock them playfully while remaining above the level of their attacks. You should smile as you do so and laugh about it with friends later.
Example 1: The Yeswecan.
Obama Supporter: Our economy is exploding we’re all gonna die and racism is getting worse and there are Republicans under my bed and….
You: Sounds like you need to change your attitude into something more hopeful.
Example 2: The O’Latte:
Obama Supporter: Only idiots don’t vote for Obama! YES WE CAN!
You: Wait a sec, but I thought you said you were voting for him?
Example 3: The Obamaton AKA Obamabot
Obama Supporter: OMFG U R SUX U F***ING RUHS LIMBAH BUSH HITLERY! YES WE CAN!
You: Hey, why all the hate? Doesn’t your candidate stand for unity and mutual respect? Oh wait, maybe you don’t support him? OMFG RACIST! YES WE CAN!
Obama Supporter: ??????? YES WE CAN!
You: YES WE CAN!
Obama Supporter: YES WE CAN!
You: By the way, Obama sucks.
(repeat)
(The Obamelites don’t “mingle” with normal people, Obombers don’t speak, and O’Zombies are well, basically zombies. For these reasons, you’ll only likely talk to the three types above.)
Reverse:
Oftentimes, Obama supporters will accuse you of being a racist. There is only one solution to this: use their same logic and accuse them of being more racist. Obama supporters assume that if you aren’t voting for Obama, you must hate black people. But, Obama is half-white. So, accuse them in turn of being unable to support a full-black candidate because of racism. Pick a black candidate you think will work for this. I generally use Condi because she’s both black and a woman. Thus, I can add the sexism charge too. For example:
Obama Supporter: You aren’t voting for Obama? RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! YES WE CAN!
You: Oh, so you’re voting for Obama? What, do you just hate full-black people so much you could only bring yourself to vote for someone that was half-white? Wow. I’m campaigning to elect Condi Rice. Not only is she black, but she’s also a woman, and she’s not even running for president. Obama got delegates in Michigan he didn’t earn, why not Condi?
When having such conversations, it is important to remember to have fun. As a general rule, Obama supporters are really, really, really, really, dumb and dumb people have a way of frustrating normal people. Don’t let them frustrate you. Have fun.
Right now we’re in a slowdown. Not quite a recession, but we are nevertheless economically vulnerable. In order to help us evade a depression and shift back towards a period of growth, our next president needs to do three things:
1. Lower taxes or at least not raise them.
2. Cut spending, that’s why we’re in this mess.
3. Expand our trading markets.
McCain wants to do all three. Hillary wants two out of three, also not bad. Obama says he will do the opposite of all three. He wants to raise taxes, raise spending, and diminish or eliminate many trade agreements. We’ve seen this type of economic policy before in a Republican president: Herbert Hoover, the man who led us into the original Great Depression. Most Republicans and most Democrats learned from Hoover’s mistakes and have avoided repeating them. Bill Clinton, for example, did all three. That’s why our economy was strong in the 1990’s. If Obama becomes president, we may be staring at a new depression.
For reference, here’s Obama’s stated positions on the above economic issues.
Taxes:
Obama has stated that he wants to raise the capital gains tax, which will affect one third of Americans.
You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”
It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
Spending:
To his discredit, Bush raised spending. At the current government spending level, we are already spending too much. Obama has not vowed to eliminate any of Bush’s domestic programs, but instead intends to add more expensive programs to the already too long list. One would think that the candidate of “change” would want to avoid following the policies of Bush, rather than doubling down on them.
Obama’s Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
1. Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
2. Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
3. Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
4. Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
All of this, especially the subsidies, will require large amounts of money from the government. All of these proposals, including insurance for the self-employed, are already available through non-government or limited government means. Obama’s plan will ultimately just make them more expensive.
He [Obama] will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks.
In other words, Obama will oppose any free trade agreements that he doesn’t feel disperse his labor policies. He wants to force other countries to adopt his standards instead of FREE trade agreements which allow nations to trade, well, freely. When you use pressure (in this case economic) to force another country to adopt your ways, that’s called imperialism. Not only that, but closing markets simply because the leaders think differently than Obama, will hurt the economy – not just ours, but the third world countries cut off from us because Obama doesn’t like them.
As in the Great Depression, if the U.S. should be steered into an economic ditch, the whole world will suffer. The world is already suffering needlessly because of our excessive spending. Food prices are too high. Gas is too high. Obama’s stated policies will make that all much worse.
For years, the far left has compared every person it disagrees with to Hitler. From Bush (Bushitler) on the right, to Hillary (Hitlery) on the left, no one but far left politicians were safe from this talking point. For those of us on the right, middle, and moderate left, this sort of behavior seemed both childish and annoying.
Just for the fun of it, I thought I’d try making a similar comparison between the new rising star of the far left, Obama, and Hitler. I decided I’d try to make as strong an argument as possible, given whatever evidence I could find. As it turns out, there was quite a bit more than I would’ve expected. That’s the nature of research – the idea you start with is never the same when you’re done. I still consider it to be something of a joke, since I don’t believe it fair to compare any U.S. politician to Hitler.
With that said, I was surprised at the mild negative reaction from Obama supporters. Only five death threats. I think I’ve averaged at least a dozen per article (in other publications) regarding things such as Obama’s record and contradictions. Perhaps it’s the product of under-exposure. Perhaps some of the Obama supporters saw it and thought, “Wow, that’s really absurd to compare Obama to Hitler. Hmm, maybe that’s how conservatives feel when we compare Bush to Hitler, or how Hillary supporters feel when we compare Hillary to Hitler?” Or, perhaps I’m just being a little over-optimistic.
Barack the Black Hitler: How Obama’s stated goals may lead to the deaths of roughly six million people and the striking similarities between Obama’s personality and methods for acquiring power and Hitler’s.
For most people, Hitler embodies pure evil. Because of this, his name is often invoked in debates over character. These sorts of comparisons are almost always unwarranted and wildly exaggerated. But now America has a new star politician, Obama, and the parallels between he and the most loathed man in history are very real. In this article, we will examine the methods of assuming power employed by both men, and the role of their decisions in the lives (and deaths) of six millions jews.
The substance behind words:
We can tell a lot about what a politician thinks of his audience based on his approach to speaking to them. A politician that believes his audience is mature and intelligent will appeal to their logic rather than emotion. He will tell them the unpleasant truth because he believes his audience can handle it. A politician that does not think very highly of his audience will do the opposite. He will remain as vague as possible and appeal to their emotions above all else.
“All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”
— Adolf Hitler
It is not hard to deduce Obama’s opinions of his audience. When he’s in public he uses vague terms such as “hope” and “change” rather than attempt to define exactly what it is he intends to do. He appeals to the authority of examples in history in order to imbue their qualities into his words rather than extoll the virtues of any specific policy he proposes. Let’s not forget his creative “borrowing” of other people’s words either. (see: Deval Patrick) In essence, he aims to inspire, not inform.
“I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.”
— Adolf Hitler
Behind closed doors, however, Obama shows another side to him as he attempts social psychoanalysis on the people whose votes he seeks:
“[People in small towns] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
— Obama, at a San Francisco fundraiser. (Behind closed doors)
Insults and condescension aside, what is wrong with this picture? Why doesn’t Obama share his amatuer psychoanalyst-side with the rest of the people? Surely a great orator as Obama can do it without insulting them, right? It would be impressive for Obama to tell the American people exactly what they’re thinking (as he seems to think himself capable of doing), but it appears he doesn’t seem to think highly enough of voters to tell them what he thinks, only what he wants them to feel.
Tactics for seizing control:
“He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future.”
— Adolf Hitler
Its no big secret that Obama bases most of his appeal with youth voters. This is a common occurrence in the history of the rise of tyrants. Most are supported fervently by the young. Hitler famously used this technique to gain power. The tyrant-to-be must hide his true ambitions behind a mask of emotional appeal in order to seduce the gullible and unwary. The youth most often falls into this category, not yet “broken in” to the number one rule in electing a ruler: watch their actions, not their lips.
“The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.”
— Adolf Hitler
In the year 2000, a fierce primary raged in the Republican party. Two candidates, John McCain and George W. Bush polarized the party. Some sleazy personal attacks against McCain appeared at a crucial moment. In the end, Bush won, but not without sowing the seeds of animosity. McCain believed he had been the victim of some dirty tricks and attributed the attacks to the Bush campaign. Bush denied it. The vitriol was so bad that many expected McCain to leave the party. By most accounts, including the Democrats that met with him to discuss such matters, he almost did. Nevertheless, to the surprise of many wide-eyed pundits, McCain strolled into the convention in support of Bush. Chalk it up to character or political posturing for another run. Despite this, the rivalry did not subside. The two men represented opposite ends of the Republican party.
In the years to follow, McCain became a vocal critic of the management of the Iraq war. When the blueprints for the Surge rolled out, he was one of the first to embrace it while rejecting the Bush doctrine. He has also been critical of the wasteful spending which the administration allowed and even its tax cuts. He earned the scorn of a lot of Republican leaders for this, as well as his “maverick” handle from the media, seeing him as a thorn in the administration’s side. Despite their many differences and long history of rivalry, Obama attempts to caricature McCain as essentially a Bush-clone in many of his speeches.
“No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term…”
— Barack Obama
Returning to the subject of Obama’s views of voters, what do you think this tells us about Obama? Surely the people must know Bush’s policies, they’ve been the law of the land for nearly eight years. Surely, any voter interested in the issues would study the policies of the candidates carefully. If one candidate’s policies were identical to the current administration’s, wouldn’t it be readily obvious even to the most untrained eye? Why would the average voter need Obama to tell them that Bush and McCain are the same person if its obvious? Only if they wouldn’t get that impression from looking at the record, only if it weren’t true.
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
— Adolf Hitler
(For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that a version of this quote first originated with Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. In this particular quote, Hitler was paraphrasing him.)
“Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be “discovered” by an election.”
— Adolf Hitler
January 2nd, 1996, Obama began his under-handed crusade for the senate. With a crack team of lawyers, he challenged hundreds of vote petitions and managed to eliminate all of his fellow Democrats from the ballot. One fellow candidate was Alice Palmer. Up to that point, she had been grooming Obama to succeed her once she retired. Not willing to wait, Obama took matters into his own hands and denied her the right to run for her own seat. Alice Palmer is the same woman who essentially launched his political career. Apparently, Obama didn’t trust the voters to “discover” a great man in that election, so he chose for them.
The genes of tyranny:
Obama and Hitler both have displayed a penchant for eliminating “undesirable” infants. Hitler’s case is well known; he believed he could create a master race through selective breeding, mandatory sterilization of “undesirable parents” and abortions. Obama’s methods lack the scope of ambition but the end result is similar – Obama has legalized the murder of already-born infants.
In 2002, an important bill known as the “Induced Infant Liability Act” cropped up in the Illinois senate. The purpose of the bill was to protect infants who had been born alive after a failed abortion from being “aborted” after birth. In the United States, the second a person is born, they become a U.S. citizen. Taking the life of such a citizen is murder. That is something both pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on. Even the most pro-abortion lobby in the country, NARAL, did not oppose it nor the federal version of the law.
Obama on the other hand, did oppose it, TWICE. In doing so, he helped establish the legality of murder of infant Americans in his state.
Both Obama and Hitler are of mixed racial heritage, and distort this heritage to control public opinion. Hitler hated jews and made a career of it, so he hid the fact that jewish blood ran through his veins. Obama has made a career out of embracing his “blackness” and African American heritage. His first book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, was based entirely on that premise. There’s just one problem: Obama isn’t an African American, Obama is an Arab American.
Obama is 50% caucasian, 43.75% arab, and 6.25% black. According to federal law, an American citizen must be at least 1/8th, or 12.5% of a particular race to be considered a member of that race. Obama meets that criteria easily to be considered an Arab American but not African American.
(The astute reader will have noticed that being that Obama is not truly African American, the title of this article is inaccurate. I have decided upon that title rather than an alternative due to the public’s general familiarity with Obama as an “African American”.)
Dead-end philosophy:
Pop Quiz: Which of these quotes was said by Hitler and which was said by Obama?
A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”
B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”
If these two statements seem similiar, it’s because they both derive from the same philosophy: socialism. NAZI stands for “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The socialists of Hitler’s era aren’t much different from those of today in terms of ideology, though most socialists of the modern era are called “latte liberals”. Indeed, Hitler would’ve fit right in with such a group. He was a vegetarian, pro-abortion, an advocate for strict gun control, desirous of universal health care, and continually extolling the virtues of state control.
Someone once asked me how Obama could become a socialist. I replied by asking how he could not. Obama has been surrounded by marxists his entire life. I’m not sure that he has contacted non-marxist/socialist ideas within his close circle of friends even once.
His father was a communist. His mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist. Obama explicitly admits to seeking out marxist professors in his autobiographical work and attending socialist meetings. His close friends, like Bill Ayers the former terrorist, leadership at Trinity, all hold distinctly socialist/marxist views. Obama had the most left-wing voting record in the entire senate for 2007. He was even more radical than senators who were openly socialist.
Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown himself to be extremely “loose” with the facts. This is not unusual with politicians in general. However, while most politicians fib or exaggerate when telling stories in order to look more grandiose, Obama lies to cover up the real Obama. Apparently, Obama doesn’t trust voters enough to tell them his real positions. The lies of Obama are well documented, so I will only discuss one, an important one, here.
The Obama claim:
“When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause…
…He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.”
The Facts:
“A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.”
So, not only did the bill not pass as Obama claimed, but it wasn’t even his anymore, after he let others rewrite it. Most disturbing of all, is WHY he allowed Exelon to essentially take control of the very bill meant to reign in their practices of radioactive leaks:
“Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”
In this particular Obama lie, Obama protrays himself as a champion of the people, taking up their concerns and confronting special interests run amok. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
What is also particularly troubling is our press’s unwillingness to ask Obama the sorts of questions to expose these falsehoods. The above New York Times article is something of an exception, you’ll notice it is dated February 3, before they became shills for Obama. Indeed, in the rare instances in which Obama has been confronted with questions regarding his deceptions or questionable ties, he responds by fleeing – literally.
“The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.”
— Adolf Hitler
Hitler’s antisemitism is well documented. But what of Obama’s?
In the 1930’s, Hitler ran on a platform that included open antisemitism. At that time and place, it was politically viable to do so. In the modern era and in the U.S., it is not viable to be openly opposed to any race, including jews. Nevertheless, Obama has knowingly jeapordized his chances for the presidency by willfully associating himself with countless antisemites: Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Powers, Robert Malley, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, El-Hady, etc. Some of his own advisors have called for the U.S. to cut off funding to Israel, have been caught negotiating with known islamic extremist groups, and have expressed sympathy and praise for Hamas.
There appears to be only two conclusions we can reach from this:
A. Obama is antisemitic but hides it from voters.
B. Obama is incredibly tolerant of antisemitism.
Regardless of Obama’s true feelings, this sort of approach to something as poisonous as racism is disturbing and dangerous.
“Obama has taken no steps to moderate his church’s anti-Israel invective. Obama’s affiliation with Wright aligns with his choice of financial backers and foreign policy advisors. To varying degrees, all of them exhibit hostility towards Israel and support for appeasing jihadists.”
— Jerusalem Post.
The second coming of the holocaust:
The next president of the United States will inherit a looming crisis: Iran. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the annihilation of Israel on more than one occassion, and has promised to be the man to do it. In that same breath, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s nation is in the process of developing nuclear weapons. As he has stated his aim is to annihilate israel, has the power to give such an order, and is developing the capacity to meet such an end, it is reasonable to take this threat seriously. Very seriously.
The best solution to this problem will come from careful diplomacy, not appeasement. Appeasement is a word that is tossed around rather carelessly these days, so please allow me to explain the distinctions with an analogy:
Scenario A. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. O, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he’s doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. O is alarmed and asks Mr. Nari, “What do you want?” “Just to talk, that’s all,” responds Mr. Nari. Mr. O is relieved. All he wanted was to talk! So Mr. O obliges him and begins delivering a powerful argument against shooting people. Meanwhile, Mr. Nari nods his head in agreement as he keeps on working at putting together his gun. Soon he springs the last part into place, raises his weapon, and shoots the little girl dead. “What did you do that for!?” demands Mr. O. To which Mr. Nari replies, “You idiot, I told you that was what I was going to do and you sat here chatting away, giving me the time I needed to pull it off.”
Scenario B. A man walks into a field with a briefcase where a little girl is picking flowers. His name is Mr. Nari. He then opens up his briefcase and pulls out the components for a gun. As he is reconstructing his weapon, another man, Mr. M, walks up and asks Mr. Nari what he’s doing. Mr. Nari responds by informing him of his intention to shoot the little girl. Mr. M is alarmed and pulls out a gun of his own and points it at Mr. Nari. “Don’t even think about it,” warns Mr. M. “Whoa, relax, I just want to talk,” says Mr. Nari. “Throw that away, and then we’ll talk,” replied Mr. M. Mr. Nari pauses, stares at the gun pointed at him, then reluctantly obliges. And so they talk.
Scenario A is appeasement, scenario B is diplomacy with preconditions. Most tyrants with diabolical ambition have complex schemes that require a lot of time to acheive. To acquire the time needed, they often use diplomacy as a stalling mechanism. So long as they are giving up nothing in the talks, they are getting something for nothing. That is why the word “appeasement” is used to describe these sorts of situations: the well-intentioned head of state gives up something the tyrant needs (time) for nothing in hopes he’ll change his mind. History has shown this to be ineffective. That is the purpose of preconditions. A precondition is something the leader must give up before formal diplomacy is engaged. In the case of Iran, it would be their nuclear weapons program.
Of the three most major candidates this election season has seen, only one of them wants to engage in the sort of diplomacy described in scenario A, Barack Obama. Ahmadinejad wants the time necessary to complete his genocidal ambitions, and according to Obama, he intends to give it to him. Obama must understand that his methods consist of appeasement at some level, because when Bush gave a speech about appeasers without naming a name, political party, or even national origin, Obama decided he must’ve been talking about Obama.
There are approximately six million jews in Israel today. If Obama’s policy of appeasement becomes U.S. policy, then Ahmadinejad will get his wish. Never again, is the slogan of Holocaust survivors. If Obama gets a chance to enact this policy, we will have let them down. Perhaps then, when an entire nation is wiped off the map with millions dead, people will finally learn that appeasement does not work. Then again, you’d think we would’ve learned that lesson from Hitler and the first Holocaust.
Holocaust deniers often pick up on one fact to stake their claim: Hitler never issued an order for the Final Solution. This is true. It was actually the brainchild of one his subordinates. Hitler merely allowed it to happen, and in doing so, was responsible for it. If Obama follows his stated position regarding Iran, he will find himself in a similar position – staring at the annihilation of six million innocent lives and doing nothing to stop it.
History repeats:
Pop Quiz 2. Name this leader:
The nation was in shambles. A previous ruler had led the country into an unnecessary war, the economy was failing, and a sense of depression filled the air. Then, a new leader emerged. He was a powerful speaker, offering hope, change, and a fix to the economy. He wrote two books about his experiences and used his literary work to propel him to success. He was an open christian with some muslim friends. He called for unity and considered himself an advocate of peace. Some of his political opponents cast him as naive and inexperienced. He also had alot of radical ties, but the media, and ultimately the voters, were willing to overlook that.
Who is he?
The answer is Hitler. It’s something of a trick question, because nothing in the characteristics of the above described character bear any distinction between Obama and Hitler. The only difference is that the final sentence implies that the leader has already been elected, while Obama has not been elected. Yet.
Different strokes:
This article has put a great deal of focus on the similarities between Hitler and Obama, and they are indeed numerous. Indeed, I never even got around to most of it, such as the Hitler/Obama muslim connection, or gestures they share in their oratory, or even much depth into their shared views of socialism. (I will discuss Obama’s socialist/marxist views at length in a later post.) An encyclopedia could be written documenting the parallels.
However, I’d like to take a moment to discuss the differences. For one thing, Hitler was competent. Hitler was also quite bold, while I doubt anyone would ever accuse Obama of personal courage. He also invaded much of Europe, while Obama seems content with merely socializing the U.S. and watching a new holocaust unfold.
In other areas, Obama shares greater similarities to other past leaders. For example, his economic policies are very similar to that of President Hoover, the man credited with essentially causing (or at least worsening) the Great Depression. They are both economic isolationists and protectionistic to the core. He also draws a parallel to Neville Chamberlin, who famously attempted to appease Hitler, in terms of foreign policy. In fact, for any student of history, it would appear that Obama sifted through a history book, collected all of the worst traits and policies of leaders past, then compiled them to make the bedrock of his campaign.
The irony of all this is that it looks as though Obama was honest about one thing – he will bring change. If history is any guide, we can expect his sort of change to contain the mores of Marx, the political ambition of Hitler, the foreign policy of Neville Chamberlin, and the economics of Hoover. It’s a change that looks remarkably the same. It’s a change that, if implemented, could alter this country into something so destitute, so diminished, so destroyed, so devoid of any signs of its origin, that none of us may even recognize it.
If you want change in 2008, and lots of it, vote for Obama. It may be the last vote you ever cast.
How to identify an Obama supporter: As you are navigating your daily business, you may come across Obama supporters. They have been known to attack (mostly verbal threats and ad hominem) unprovoked. Preferring thought over emotion and facts over slogans is something of a blasphemous crime to an Obama supporter. In addition, if you should form an opinion about Obama without his express permission, you may be accused of being a racist. The purpose of this guide is to help you identify Obama supporters before they get the chance to dampen your day.
It should be noted that there are several species of Obama supporters.
O’Zombies: With glazed eyes and vacant stares, these subdued types can generally be found online. Their speech consists of incoherent rehashes of Obama phrases and, “like” and “y’know”. After having surrendered most cognitive ability to be used as seen fit by the Obama campaign, they generally possess just barely enough to be able to upload a video to Youtube. However, some aren’t so lucky and eventually starve to death having forgotten how to eat. They are not particularly dangerous, often not even aware of your presence when you are standing next to one. Some have suggested that merely being near one or watching their videos can be detrimental to one’s IQ. Avoidance recommended.
Obamatons: Also known as obamabots. Ever since Lenin nurtured the first breeds of useful idiots, communists have continually strived to create better useful idiots – ones that were stronger, faster, more useful than the previous generation. The obamaton is one which has been upgraded to the predictability of a machine. The obamaton seeks out communications relevant to Obama on the internet then responds. There are only two known responses. If the obamaton detects a statement which is positive regarding Obama, the obamaton will respond with requests for money. If the obamaton detects a statement which is negative or even neutral regarding Obama, the obamaton will respond by shrieking “RACIST!” repeatedly. Obamatons are only found online. They are sometimes known as “trolls”. The fact that they have yet to have a spine installed prevents offline activity.
O’lattes: To understand an O’latte, you must put yourself in his shoes. An O’latte believes he’s better than everyone else. And while he enjoys sneering at poor people and chastizing those who dare to question his supreme intellect, he is somewhat depressed. “Why can’t the world be more like me?” he wonders. Then, like a ray of sunlight, Obama appears. “Hey, he thinks he’s better than everyone else just like me!” exclaims the O’latte. Finally, the O’latte finds hope, knowing he is no longer alone in his narcissism. O’lattes are not dangerous, but nevertheless extremely annoying.
Obombers: These are Obama’s enforcers. Brutish and mute, these not-so-gentle giants have been known to become physically aggressive. While their actions range from roughing up old women at rules commitees to blocking camera shots for Fox News, they invariably use force. Little is known what motivates them to serve Obama unquestioningly. Some speculate that Obama supplies them with a daily ration of gruel and they reward him with unfaltering loyalty. They are moderately dangerous.
Yeswecans: Hailing from the make-believe land of Yesweca, these Obama supporters live in a fantasy world. In that world, Obama can heal the sick, stop wars by waving his hand, fly, summon unicorns, and coat the landscape with Obama-rectal derived pixie dust. When they are suddenly torn from their parallel dimension and thrown into our world, (known as reality), they tend to exhibit wild mood swings and the negative behaviors which often accompany them. For the most part, they have a surreally optimistic view of Obama and bubble with enthusiasm. However, when confronted with Obama’s mortal enemies, facts and logic, they will lash out in defense of their deity. There have been many speculations as to the true nature of Yeswecans. Some opine that Yeswecans are best understood as cultists, (see: The Church of Obamism), while still others suggest the root to be a mental disorder, (see: Obamitis). Regardless of the cause, Yeswecans can be extremely dangerous and should be avoided whenever possible.
Obamelites: They’ve turned politics into a business and Obama is their cash cow. A number of super-delegates fit this mold. They generally cluster around Obama in a protective swarm and rarely consort with the “little” people. They are almost never seen in public but often on TV. Because of their rarity in public, they are not much of a threat in terms of individual controntation. But regarding the power they intend to wield as a bludgeon, they have great potential to damage America as a whole. In addition, they are known to betray former supporters/supportees on the turn of a dime, or, perhaps more accurately, in exchange for a dime. They should never be trusted.
Under normal circumstances, I would not assume that anyone reaches an opinion through a character flaw or extreme ignorance. But Obama supporters are an exception. Obama supporters continually slander and verbally bully those who dare to think differently than they. That is a clear indication of a character flaw. Obama supporters often know much less about their own candidate (not to mention history and geography) than the average person on the street that doesn’t even follow politics. Then there are the Obamelites. Pure greed. I suggest that Obama supporters support their Marxist candidate for personal flaws because none have yet given me another reason. If there is an Obama supporter out there with another reason, I’d love to meet that person.
And with that said, I do sympathize with Obama supporters. Some of them are Americans too (I don’t count the communists), even when they’ve lost their way. Indeed, I can only imagine their horror when they find out they’ve willfully supported a madman. As the buyer’s remorse spreads, undoubtedly many more will. Let’s be sure to catch them when they fall, not for the Democratic party, not for the Republican party, but for America.
