How shall America dissolve sources of greed and depredation coagulating against her heart, in time to say, "Enough!"
How shall America learn hard lessons of moderation in time to avoid gagging on greed, whether of gold, mammon, or whoredom?
How shall America exemplify its "extreme moderate," Benjamin Franklin?
How shall America foreshadow the pivotal moment, tipping point, sudden slide, cultural drift, genetic load, critical mass, or apocalyptic event?
From http://www.nysun.com/opinion/obama-at-a-war-symbol/82529/ :
Even now, many Germans view the Victory Column with ambivalence or embarrassment. When, earlier this week, it became clear the Obama campaign had selected it as the site for the speech, the German weekly Die Zeit asked "wieso bloss?" — "but why?" Noting the above-mentioned camera advantage, the newspaper concluded nonetheless, "as background for a peace message to the peoples of the world, it doesn't exactly recommend itself."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/07/berlins_sly_phallic_tribute_to.html
"When will they start laughing at him?" is still the biggest question about Obama in Europe. Berliners have a long tradition of laughing at pompous conquering heroes, including Hitler. Berliners immediately turned JFK's famous line, "Ich bin ein Berliner" into a joke, because a "Berliner" is a famous jelly doughnut. And today, we see the Victory Column, associated with Germany's big Gay magazine because it's, well, shaped like a different kind of victory column, surrounded by two perfectly symmetrical Obama balloon spheres. Just take a look at this picture, and tell me it ain't so.
Comment by Roy E:
I have thought that all the Euros need is a little bit of exposure to the greenbean messiah to see though his charade.
But sometimes I'm not so sure. It seems that a wave of collective stupidity has washed over the European people. How long they remain drunk on wishful utopian thinking is anybody's guess, but reality will come home one very rude and ugly day.
5 comments:
Congressman Doggett: As a retired member of the military & a constituent from your district I would like to know, What are you doing about this?
**************
July 24, 2008
Dems won't help reform military voting
Ed Lasky
Democrats: Party of the common man, right?
Democrats: The party who support extended voting rights to all people of America - even illegal immigrants (on the local level of voting).
Democrats: The party who promote the granting of voting rights to felons.
Democrats: The party who advocate making voting easier for people through the expanded use of absentee ballots.
Democrats: The party who want to help groups such as ACORN-a group that has a long history with Barack Obama-to expand the vote-despite numerous instances of voter fraud and assist with ACORN activities.
Democrats: The party who want to abolish voted identification laws which ensure the integrity of the voting process.
Democrats: The party who want universal voting and are busy registering voters across the land-including using Spanish-speaking media to enlarge the roster of Spanish-speaking, and presumably Democratic, voters.
Democrats: The party who are busy organizing overseas-to increase absentee voting among expatriates.
Well, what one group does the Democratic-controlled Congress seem to be actively working to deny the right to vote? Which group would they deny equal opportunity to?
Our soldiers-defenders of our democracy; a democracy whose foundation is the right of people to exercise the vote.
Columnist Robert Novak in his column today "They Fight but Can't Vote" notes that Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, introduced a resolution earlier this month demanding the Defense Department better enable our military personnel station overseas to vote in the November elections. Novak reports:
That act was followed by silence. Democrats normally leap at any opportunity to find fault with the Bush Pentagon. But not a single Democrat joined Blunt as a co-sponsor of the resolution, and an all-Republican proposal cannot pass in the Democratic-controlled House.
Novak notes the sorrowful history of overseas and absentee military voting: a history marked by low voting rates (5.5% in 2006). As the party's own standard bearer-Harry Truman said of the troops fighting in Korea:
"The least we at home can do is to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being asked to fight to preserve."
Republican Congressmen seem to be alert to the problem - including not just Blunt, but Senator John Cornyn who criticized the Pentagon for a "lack of will" to cure the problem. A lack of will that seems to afflict many Democrats (not all -Steny Hoyer, who works well with those across the aisle, has been trying to address the issue without help, apparently, from his fellow Democrats).
Democrats in Congress seem to busy trying to embarrass and humiliate the lame-duck Administration of George Bush rather than defending the right of our soldiers to particpate in our democracy.
Why the Democratic obstructionism? Perhaps, maybe, possibly it has something to do with the belief-backed up by studies-that military personnel tend to vote Republican by large percentages.
Democrats only advocate and promote the expansion of voting when it helps their party, not our soldiers and not America.
Someone needs to dig deep to triple check Obama's sources for campaign financing.
Where is his money really coming from?
Lots of big money (foreign, corporate, oil, syndicate, cartel) wants international business, cheap labor, no borders, and control over national influences.
Moguls heretofore presuming or pretending to be Republicans aspire less to be conservatives than to be rulers.
I suspect an unholy alliance has coagulated in the heart of America.
Not just Dems have surrendered loyalty to country.
I suspect a lot of money is laundering through from "blue blood" Republicans (i.e., Republicans who are not social conservatives).
Some who appear to be sheep are really fleecers.
Social Conservatives need to find a new home, maybe like Benjamin Franklin, as "extreme moderates."
********************************
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236609/posts
********************************
Shadow Party: See http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_bubble_of_obama_supremacy.html;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1236609/posts;
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ShadowParty.asp;
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Party-Hillary-Radicals-Democratic/dp/1595550445
From http://www.middleeast.org/launch/redirect.cgi?c=2&num=668&a=78:
“And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.”
Comment:
See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70308
“With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," Obama said. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.”
****
How is enriching and empowering cultures that incline to fascist religions, Marxist ideals, unrelenting population growth, and co-dependent sloth calculated in any sensible way to relieve, rather than exacerbate, global suffering?
According to “Obama-thought,” should we make ourselves servants of whims of mis-educated derelicts, street winos, and addicts? Well, what would such a prescription accomplish: would it uplift and civilize humanity, or would it degrade us all?
Among those with even the least of intelligence, can even Leftists believe the time is right for such a global war on poverty?
Surely, blue-bloods among supporters of Obama do not believe such nonsense. Given how LBJ’s war on poverty has mired millions in self-defeating philosophies of victimhood and entitlement, it becomes fatuous to think even Obama believes it. Rather, Obama has been mentored by morally deranged opportunists.
So, what forces are converging to run Obama's show now?
Consider: Among un-holy co-conspirators pulling levers of power for both main political parties, who benefits most from erasing national borders and putting labor over a barrel?
Hint: Not ordinary people.
Having come under thumbs of co-conspiring powers of persuasion, we are converging to a social tipping point far more dangerous than any AlGore environmental tipping point.
Should sensible people believe Soros and his laundered friends are altruists?
What would Thomas Paine say?
Regarding "History On Acid":
From http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/0727brooks_edit.html :
But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more.
When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. Kennedy didn't dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities: "There are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the communists. Let them come to Berlin."
Reagan didn't call for a kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements — the deployment of U.S. missiles in response to the Soviet SS-20s — but still worked.
In Berlin, Obama made exactly one point with which it was possible to disagree. In the best paragraph of the speech, Obama called on Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan.
The argument will probably fall on deaf ears. The vast majority of Germans oppose that policy. But at least Obama made an argument.
Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians won't develop nukes. Or as Obama put it: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn't matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.
Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obama's lofty peroration.
….
Obama has benefited from a week of good images. But substantively, optimism without reality isn't eloquence. It's just Disney.
Post a Comment