http://spectator.org/archives/2009/0...-the-destroyer
If somebody were deliberately trying to undermine the very fabric of these United States, he would first vow not just to change its policies but to completely "change America," and then would do just about everything Barack Obama already has begun to do as president.
To undermine this nation, he would attack the essential sanc y of contracts -- exactly as Obama has done. Never mind the "contracts" clause of the Cons ution -- who needs to get hung up on the Cons ution's actual language when empathy is more important?
For that matter, he would denigrate the whole notion of equal justice under the law by criticizing the whole notion of a judge as a neutral umpire. And he would employ, as a senator, outrageous and unprecedented means -- the filibusters of judicial nominees -- to block judges who don't agree with his own choices of who deserves more "justice" than whom.
To undermine this nation, he would selectively release only those portions of intelligence memos that make his nation look bad, but not those that provide context and reasonable motivations for the subject of the memos. And he would selectively edit memos from his own intelligence director to eliminate his statements in support of the effectiveness of the policies discussed in those other memos -- and his statements supporting the motives of those who adopted those policies in protection of their fellow citizens. And he would leave open the possibility of prosecuting earlier administration's lawyers merely for giving legal advice he disagrees with.
To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild that annual deficits and national debt would reach frightening
proportions before most Americans could even absorb the arithmetic of it all.
He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.
He would stop paying for missile defenses. He would stop planning for forces strong enough to handle two regional wars at once, and would concentrate only on counterinsurgency needs while hollowing out our conventional forces.
He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.
He would submit budgets that would eliminate funding for an already authorized border fence, and nominate as top lawyer of the State Department a man who openly mocks the legal underpinnings of American sovereignty.
He would propose raising taxes on corporations, on soft drinks, on investors, on savers, on the grieving families of dead people, on small businesses, and on every family that uses public energy sources.
And worst of all, he would propose unprecedented and underhanded use of a parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" to ease the way to an irrevocable government takeover of an entire major sector of the economy -- health care -- without adequate debate and with firm knowledge that the takeover could lead to serious health care rationing and even government-determined decisions on life and death.
To undermine this nation, he would throw out more than two centuries of economic freedom in favor of a modern-day version of Mussolini's economic fascism.
He would refuse to prosecute vote fraud or even guard against it, while repeatedly awarding financial grants to organizations such as ACORN that have been accused of vote fraud on multiple occasions in multiple states. He would stack his Justice Department with highly politicized left-wingers. He would fail, until put directly on the spot, to offer the slightest rebuke to his hand-picked, ethically compromised Attorney General when said AG calls his fellow citizens "a nation of cowards."
In short, to undermine the United States, the president would, as fast as possible, create a massively debt-ridden, tax-ridden, regulation-ridden government whose prosecutors play political favorites but whose stances on the world stage are marked by weakness, self-criticism, and solicitousness towards one's enemies.
Surely this president has other motives. But even if his intentions are good, we all know the substance of the pavement on the road to perdition.
Would he not also posit the notion of an unchecked unitary executive power lurking somewhere in the dark recesses of our Cons ution and seek to extend the notion of a national emergency throughout much of his term?
And ROFL:
"Defense"? We can adequately defend this nation without military outposts in 80 countries across the globe. At least Obama is exposing the fake conservatives.He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.
LMAO. Because the last one didn't?To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild
Maybe Bush was the true Manchurian Candidate.
It is defense. Defense of the American Empire, on which the sun never sets.
If you think the Dems have the corner on this, you're not paying attention.For that matter, he would denigrate the whole notion of equal justice under the law by criticizing the whole notion of a judge as a neutral umpire. And he would employ, as a senator, outrageous and unprecedented means -- the filibusters of judicial nominees -- to block judges who don't agree with his own choices of who deserves more "justice" than whom.
Cherrypicking is exclusive to one party? Dream on.To undermine this nation, he would selectively release only those portions of intelligence memos that make his nation look bad, but not those that provide context and reasonable motivations for the subject of the memos. And he would selectively edit memos from his own intelligence director to eliminate his statements in support of the effectiveness of the policies discussed in those other memos -- and his statements supporting the motives of those who adopted those policies in protection of their fellow citizens. And he would leave open the possibility of prosecuting earlier administration's lawyers merely for giving legal advice he disagrees with.
2000-2008. It fits there, too.To undermine this nation, a president would go on a spending binge so incredibly wild that annual deficits and national debt would reach frightening
proportions before most Americans could even absorb the arithmetic of it all.
Obama increased defense 4% overall in the current budget. It's one big happy war party.He would be utterly reckless with our grandchildren's tax money, but would turn around and achieve savings -- minor savings at that -- only by cutting or even gutting defense forces.
Obama cut needless new systems in order to increase the number of troops. The Spectator hates that Obama wants to spend for more troops. I do too, but for different reasons.He would stop paying for missile defenses. He would stop planning for forces strong enough to handle two regional wars at once, and would concentrate only on counterinsurgency needs while hollowing out our conventional forces.
Britain is a 19th century power. We don't need their help. We'll see if Obama really kowtows to commies. It seems he prefers not to dignify them with a response.He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.
Explain this, Darrin. I bet you can't.He would submit budgets that would eliminate funding for an already authorized border fence, and nominate as top lawyer of the State Department a man who openly mocks the legal underpinnings of American sovereignty.
Taxes are going up., no matter who's in the White House. Structural deficits, debt, empire, finance sector bailout and en lements require it. If we don't start raising taxes and cutting benefits with a quickness, we'll never get out of the hole.He would propose raising taxes on corporations, on soft drinks, on investors, on savers, on the grieving families of dead people, on small businesses, and on every family that uses public energy sources.
How were the Bush tax cuts passed? It's not unprecedented. Darrin and the Spectator have ADD.And worst of all, he would propose unprecedented and underhanded use of a parliamentary maneuver called "reconciliation" to ease the way to an irrevocable government takeover of an entire major sector of the economy -- health care -- without adequate debate and with firm knowledge that the takeover could lead to serious health care rationing and even government-determined decisions on life and death.
Who started it? Paulson and Bush.To undermine this nation, he would throw out more than two centuries of economic freedom in favor of a modern-day version of Mussolini's economic fascism.
Politicization of justice isn't a novelty. Bush was notorious for it, as was his predecessor. The GOP strives to restrict voting, because of non-existent voter fraud. Registration fraud does not equal voter fraud. if you disagree, show me the statistically significant fraud at the polls. And I mean prosecution, not paranoia.He would refuse to prosecute vote fraud or even guard against it, while repeatedly awarding financial grants to organizations such as ACORN that have been accused of vote fraud on multiple occasions in multiple states. He would stack his Justice Department with highly politicized left-wingers. He would fail, until put directly on the spot, to offer the slightest rebuke to his hand-picked, ethically compromised Attorney General when said AG calls his fellow citizens "a nation of cowards."
Again. this is nothing new. Where was this criticism when GWB was doing the same?In short, to undermine the United States, the president would, as fast as possible, create a massively debt-ridden, tax-ridden, regulation-ridden government.
We do, because we were already well along this path before Obama ever took office.Surely this president has other motives. But even if his intentions are good, we all know the substance of the pavement on the road to perdition.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-16-2009 at 04:10 AM.
It seems the american people still consider Obama as an immigrant rather than a native, it's undeniable truth that Barack wasn't born to be an american. He was born in Hawaii before that tourist palace joined the US fed, to make it precise, Obama immigrated to the US along with his hometown-Hawaii.
However, the background should never act as a stuff that may be used by some nosy guys in descrimination. There is no doubt Barack Obama has a crystal pure love for the US, in fact, the immigrants generally have more love than native americans do. It can't be any more common for a native american to be a american, native americans just take it granted to be born in america and to get a US citizenship natuarally.
But the way for immigrants to earn a place in US is quite rocky. With a strong insistancy and tons of efforts, Barack finally got a place he deserves in US, or even in the White House preceedingly. I suspect many americans don't like their country, but Barack Obama is definitely the last one I can throw any suspection on.
Barack has an elephant big love for the US, which doesn't need any stuff to prove, but he just lacks some feasible measures. That guy has been emphasizing the importance of education, of the efficiency of energy use, or the importance of new kinds of energy. He promised tons of dollars to make those projects happen, as if there were still numorous green pieces of paper in the central bank. The left-handed president has a huge and very dangerous tendency to becoming a left-wing politician, that's what I concern most.
--- MR
Well, the latest go 'round. It's amazing/interesting/disturbing how much the fascist characteristics of the federal government pre-Bush43 are somehow non-fascist. Perhaps it's a matter of degree, no?
At least I didn't see mentioned anything about the current president's lack of evangelism.
dubya and head indebted and committed the US to $3T+ with their bogus war-for-oil, doubling the national debt interest IN THEIR TERM, but the wrongies are just fine with that.
Hawaii statehood: August 21, 1959
Barack's birthday: August 4, 1961
FAIL
Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, said we should draw back our influence abroad, and never get involved as nation building, and wanted to become more fiscally responsible.
He got voted in to do these things, and he did the complete opposite of all of these things, to the extreme, yet right wingers said we were supposed to blindly support him doing the opposite of what he got elected to do.
Obama said he'd spend, got voted to do it, and is doing it. Idiocracy.
Elephant big love?
September 11 changed a whole lot of things.
He didn't say he'd be making marketing decisions for Chrysler or nationalizing the banks and that's got some of his most ardent (read wealthy) supporters pretty pissed at him.
He also said he would reverse most of the Bush-era anti-terrorism policies and has completely changed that -- almost 100%. This has the rest of his lunatic base just livid.
He would repeatedly insult our closest ally (Great Britain) while kowtowing to enemies such as Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaraguan communists. He would travel the world repeatedly apologizing for supposed American sins while failing to defend the USA from verbal assaults from tinpot dictators.
When the United States imports millions of barrels of Venezuelan oil, then they aren't our enemies. Venezuela is in the top 5 countries of the world that the United States gets its oil from. The others being Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Nigeria.
And what the is that last sentence about? This person is acting like a ing kid. Waaa tinpot dictators are making fun of the United States and our President doesn't tell them anything back. Like a bunch of children.
"Don't you talk bad about the US, or we'll buy more of your oil!"
Bush's Venezuela policy, in a nuts .
Yes it did. Should it have?
They're just pissed he's going to raise their tax rates. And I guess we're supposed to pretend that the GOP doesn't seem inclined to accept some kind of temporary nationalization. Of course, when the GOP engages in socialism, it's a temporary fix to a national emergency. When the Dems do it it's turning the American Eagle into a Soviet Duck.He didn't say he'd be making marketing decisions for Chrysler or nationalizing the banks and that's got some of his most ardent (read wealthy) supporters pretty pissed at him.
Well, it should have you "livid." If you were a conservative.He also said he would reverse most of the Bush-era anti-terrorism policies and has completely changed that -- almost 100%. This has the rest of his lunatic base just livid.
That's a matter on which reasonable people can disagree. Apparently, it did change things for the president.
Nationalizing healthcare isn't temporary. It's yet to be seen if Obama plans to ever let go of the car industry or financial ins utions.
Well, I'm a libertarian and why should it make me "livid" that the president is doing his cons utional duty to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Well, nationalization of the banks was the issue.
Bull .Well, I'm a libertarian
Perhaps because it's not even in the spirit of the Cons ution and in general, has greatly expanded the powers of the state. Not to mention the whole perpetual war for perpetual peace gambit.and why should it make me "livid" that the president is doing his cons utional duty to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
A virtually unlimited view of the executive branch's powers during a time of "war" goes against everything libertarians believe.
And, the jury's still out on what Obama's intentions are. But, current news is not reassuring.
Nope.
That's a whole bunch of leftist rhetoric.
On the matter of the foreign policy and national security policies, adopted in the Bush Administration and, now being reaffirmed by President Obama -- I don't think we're even approaching any "virtual unlimited view" of presidential powers.
Now, if you want to talk about Obama usurping the rule of law in the car manufacturer's bankruptcies, that's a kind of bold departure from cons utional principle.
Further, when will the state of emergency ever end? As long as the threat is from 19 guys with box cutters, perhaps never. Not to mention that there can always be nasty sounding hypothetical threats to dream up that would be used as justification of this permanent emergency.
Libertarians disdain war. Not only for the genuine human desire for peace, but also because it is far often used to expand state powers (which never seem to disappear) through appeals to nationalistic sentiment. Libertarianism is not some kind of nationalistic offshoot. It is ultimately individiualism.
Yes.
The fact that you find it "leftist" shows that you are yet another neo-progressive attempting to cloak yourself as something else.That's a whole bunch of leftist rhetoric.
I've yet to see you repudiate the Bush's administration's extreme unitary executive views.On the matter of the foreign policy and national security policies, adopted in the Bush Administration and, now being reaffirmed by President Obama -- I don't think we're even approaching any "virtual unlimited view" of presidential powers.
Now, if you want to talk about Obama usurping the rule of law in the car manufacturer's bankruptcies, that's a kind of bold departure from cons utional principle.
I'm sorry, I disagree with your whole premise so, I'm not sure we can have a discussion on the matter of how my libertarianism meshes with your world view.
I just don't see it that way.
Sure you don't. Because you are not a libertarian.
Nope.
Okay, whatever.
Because I agree with them in the context of the Article II powers granted the president.
No, it's not "whatever" and it's not "leftist." You don't agree with a fundamental tenet of libertarianism. Everything you post in here is nothing more than the bull neoprogressive view of the federal government which is directly traced back to Theodore Roosevelt through Woodrow Wilson and FDR. You are perfectly fine with the permanent military establishment which still sees American bases in Europe protecting the Old World from the Soviets and bases in Asia which are still fighting the Korean War. Your political views are most certainly not libertarian or even paleoconservative. It's amusing seeing yourself paint Obama as a fascist since you are the same. Just because he wants to expand the state in other areas does not make him a fascist and you a libertarian.
ROFL. Precisely.Because I agree with them in the context of the Article II powers granted the president.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
