“The Reformers” sounds like a powerful group that a principled conservative could possibly support, right? Not so fast, as John McCain would say, “my friends.” “The Reformers” that are prescribed by Dr. Brooks as the cure for an ailing Republican Party are indeed nothing more than the RINOs that have played such a large role in the fall of the party. (Disclaimer: I am just a working man that graduated from Southern Illinois University so naturally I wouldn’t understand the complex thinking of those that , for example, graduated from the schools that gave us the Obamas.)

To overcome the odds and drag the once-great party back to the pinnacle of American politics, “the Reformers” must vanquish the enemy of progress. You may be thinking, “I thought liberal Democrats referred to themselves as progressive.” You would be correct, but there is not a lot of difference between liberal Democrats and the valiant “Reformers.” Just who the enemy is, David Brooks describes in today’s NY Times column, “Darkness at Dusk.”

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

The enemy has been identified, “the Traditionalists” with their antiquated principles and rustic attachment to conservatism. This menace must be eradicated if the Republican Party is to ascend to the heights envisioned by Brooks and RINO snobs everywhere! The party can only hope to survive if it makes itself completely indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Make sense? Not to me, but then again I put more stock in common sense and values than I do an ability to identify wine.

Who knows why Brooks writes the things he does? Perhaps he is a Republican because his parents were Republican (much like the Democrats whose parents told them, Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the little guy.) Perhaps the New York Times needed a Republican columnist and he is pretending for the sake of a paycheck. It could be that the bully who beat him up as a child grew up to become a principled conservative. Maybe it is as simple as elitist snobbery and the refreshing rise of Governor Sarah Palin pushed Mr. Brooks and fellow snobs over the edge.

Brooks describes the philosophy and attributes of the brave “Reformer”:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

While I can agree with the benefit of appealing to younger voters, I disagree that the party should sell its collective soul in order to accomplish this! If liberal policies are what a voter of any age, or demographic seeks, why wouldn’t he, she, or it (transgendered?) simply align with the real Democrat Party? Why would said voter choose the cheap substitute that once was the Republican Party? Doesn’t the Democrat Party already cover the bases with the global warming scam and the manufacturing killing plans to combat the false crisis? I believe open borders advocates as well as those seeking to capitalize on perceived “inequalities” can meet there needs with the real Democrat Party.

Here is a suggestion for David Brooks and the rest of “the Reformers.” Please take your educated sensibilities to the party that already fits the description of your ideal and leave the Republican Party to be rescued by principled conservatives. Also, don’t let the door hit you on your way back to the more educated and sensibility enjoying coast!

The first abdominal rumble occurred when I turned on Fox News Sunday and long time McCain pusher Bill Kristol was yapping. As a matter of principle I tune out when I see anyone I view as being integral in sticking us with McAmnesty as the sacrificial lamb to the left. This is also why I wouldn’t watch Huckabee’s show if you paid me. I don’t know if there was nauseating spin on Fox News Sunday, but Kristol’s appearance was sickening enough for me.

I must admit that I am something of a glutton for punishment so when I came back into the room after doing some of my domestic duties, I turned on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “Big Brother” Barack Obama’s new Chief Enforcer Rahm “The Fish” Emanuel was the featured guest. I didn’t stop to listen to what he had to say. Instead I tuned in again later when the panel was gleefully celebrating the election results. Cynthia Tucker from Atlanta’s rag made sure to inject identity politics into the discussion. The subject of “Big Brother” Barack’s cabinet brought about the inevitable focus on the divisive liberal tactic of race and ethnicity based politics. Tucker proposed that Bill Richardson should be given some prominent post because so many hispanics voted for Obama! These people demand that qualifications should play second fiddle behind skin pigmentation! Thank you, Ms. Tucker for reaffirming exactly which party engages in race baiting!

I look at the panelists that populate these Sunday morning shows and the guests they feature and it hits. This is where a lot of the voters who somewhat pay attention to the political landscape get their information! Traditional news outlets are still informing the opinions of many people that pay SOME attention to politics. I say “some” for two reasons. First, those that get their information from these sources tend to get information that has been filtered through tight mesh Obama-strainer, which is what I am calling the filter the Obama media uses to decide what to publish and more importantly, what to suppress. Second, many people don’t seem to care enough to even want information. Apparently what they catch on a commercial or perhaps over hear at work is good enough for them. I am usually amazed when I talk to people and find that there is so much about The Grand Chancellor Elect that they had never even heard.

Then of course there are those that are informed and they either are hardcore socialists that will let nothing stand in the way of their agenda or they have succumbed to the Obama Kool Aid and believe wealth must be redistributed in order to harmonize the planet.

Back to the spin cycle. Breitbart has a funny article, “Internet revolution that elected Obama could save Earth: Gore!” The bulbous former internet creator is apparently squealing for relevance. No, he is not saying, “Ah created the internet and by proxy, single handedly made St. Barack Grand Chancellor of the Americas!” That may be what he is thinking, but apparently the man with a huge carbon butt-print thinks the internet elected Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama and now he wants it used to put himself back in the spotlight.

“The young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign and the movement that powered Barack Obama’s campaign want a purpose,” Gore said.

“One of the reasons we were all thrilled Tuesday night is it was pretty obvious this was a collectively intelligent decision.”

The Internet’s critical role in Democrat Obama’s victory in the presidential race against Republican John McCain was a “great blow for victory” in addressing a “democracy crisis” stifling action against climate change, Gore said.

I think The Goreacle is saying that he would love to serve as puppet master to the foolish and properly indoctrinated “young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign.” Its a perfect fit, young people use the internet, he created the internet, young people are apt to buy the global warming manure, he profits from peddling said manure. Ah yes, a match made in American manufacturing destroying heaven!

Gore screams for attention as time is running out for him to close the sale. Once the next cooling cycle is in full swing it will be hard to convince even most Obamorons as to the faux threat of anthropogenic global warming! Not to mention he only has one yacht.

The Web has the potential to “revolutionize almost every aspect” of running for US president, according to Gore. He believes that social activism made possible by people connecting and sharing information online is in its infancy.

“What happened in the election opens a full new range of possibilities and now is the time to really move swiftly to exploit these new possibilities,” Gore said of turning the power of the Internet to cooling global warming.

Gore said Obama should announce a national goal of getting all US electric power from renewable and non-carbon energy within the next decade and spend the billions necessary to build an “electrinet” smart power grid.

“Web 2.0 has to have a purpose” Gore said.

“The purpose I would urge is to bring about a higher level of consciousness about our relationship to this planet and the imminent danger we face. We have everything we need to save it.”

Memo to the bloated Goreacle, come to Southern Illinois, step outside, and try to sell your global warming snake-oil with a straight face. Bring a coat, though, because it is chilly here.

The AP via Yahoo News gives cause for alarm with their spin in the article, “Obama reviews Bush orders on stem cells, drilling.”

“I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country,” Podesta said in a broadcast interview.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said.

President Bush has limited federal spending on stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

Also, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.

“They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah,” Podesta said. “I think that’s a mistake.”

John Podesta, Clinton hack and president of The Center For American Progress is yet another example of  Obama’s “change” or to the casual observer, bringing back all surviving Clintonians. He spins sweetly about St. Barack’s desire to see that Alzheimer’s gets cured through stem cell research and apparently President Bush has always had it in for Alzheimer’s patients. What the vile bastard fails to mention is the key to the issue of funding, embryonic stem cell research. President Bush had the moral courage to oppose the destruction of human embryos for the sake of “science.” Given that there have been promising breakthroughs from adult and umbilical cord stem cell research and none from embryonic stem cell research, one can surmise that the push for federal funding is mainly an effort to further the pro-abortion agenda. Imagine the horror if the babies that would be destroyed as the subject of theses science experiments were recognized as such. That might harm the image of abortion. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW can’t have that!

Let’s not forget the second part where Podesta ominously warns that “Big Brother” Barry intends to placate his bark humping supporters at the expense of the citizens of this nation. Of course, if Barry gets enough former Clinton blow-hards to come back, maybe there will be a short term gain in wind power.

If we want to know what Barack Obama will do to our country if even half of his rhetoric was serious we only need to look to his campaign appearances for a recurring subtle clue:

]]> http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/2008/11/09/a-weekend-of-so-much-spin-who-needs-ipecac/feed/ 2 http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/2008/11/02/grown-ups-against-obama/ http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/2008/11/02/grown-ups-against-obama/#comments Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:09:00 +0000 Sam Pierce http://malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com/?p=60 The tidal wave of support for the absolute worst presidential candidate in my lifetime is thought provoking as well as alarming. What motivates a person to honestly believe in the promise of Barack Obama? What is the promise of Barack Obama? Will the Obama media machine’s slick sales pitch to the irresponsible provide a return on the (largely undisclosed) investments?

I believe a large portion of the mindless support for the Marxist who must not be identified accurately (at least according to his apologists) stems from a childish narcissism. It makes sense that Obama’s global unity rhetoric would appeal to people who believe they are the axis about which the globe revolves. Obama and his surrogates have been adept at striking the right chords with those that feel they are owed something. The sense of victim-hood has been magnified, manipulated, and targeted by the Obammunists. Who is responsible to meet the needs (real or perceived) of these people? Who owes these narcissists what they believe they are due?

While I never would have supported the brutal killing of innocent babies, as Obama supporters do (although I’m sure many of them block this nasty tidbit from their minds), I spent approximately 2/3 of my life developing a narcissistic mentality similar to that displayed by the Obamabots. The first 2/3 of my life was unpleasant and I felt entitled to something better. I was raised in environment where I learned to put my own wants above all else. No, I wasn’t taught this directly, but indirectly through the actions and attitudes in my environment. It should surprise no one that this environment was filled with the type of Democratic voters who thought Republicans meant “big business.” It should also surprise no one that these Democratic voters enjoyed their many self-indulgences (even the ones they couldn’t afford) due to the fact that they were indirectly employed because of the hated “big business.”

In my misery, I felt like there should be more for me. I believed that people with good jobs already had enough and should share. If somebody had something that I would like to have, I was jealous. I couldn’t find an easy way to get what I wanted out of life. I was miserable and felt victimized by those that had success. My focus on myself led to near self-destruction.

I was lucky. I met the woman that would be my wife and began to grow-up. I began to see the value of self-reliance and individual responsibility. When my wife became pregnant with our first child I became fully aware of exactly who was responsible to meet my needs (and wants) as well as the needs of the family we had created!

My wife had a college education and a job. I had a low-paying job that I hated. So I decided to do something that an Obamabot would likely never dream of doing. I took responsibility for the future of myself and my family. I went back to school and eventually got a better job. I sought increasing responsibility at work and this coupled with my achievement of a B.S. degree, allowed me to attain an engineering position. During this time I also converted to Catholicism which filled a gap in my life.

In short, I grew up. I didn’t ask taxpayers to provide for my future. It might shock the libiot Obamorons that the misery abated as I accepted responsibility. Another benefit of growing into self-reliance was a new generosity of spirit. I found that once I stopped expecting to receive, I actually felt inspired to give.

I hope the grown-up voters can overcome the narcissistic child voters Tuesday. Obama proposes to make it nearly impossible to follow the path I took. It will certainly be harder for people to grow up and be responsible for themselves when Obama’s job killing dreams are realized.

There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. God hasn’t personally voted in an American election, but he keeps voting by proxy. In an ideal world that would never happen. Supernatural beings aren’t citizens. Omniscient deities don’t make choices (since they already know every outcome in advance). To anyone who holds a serious regard for the Constitution, voting your faith should be a private matter, not a public one. It wouldn’t make me happy to know that a Catholic friend voted for someone solely because he was a Catholic, or that a Jewish friend voted for someone solely because he took a hawkish stand pro Israel, but that’s their right. No public discussion is required.

Yet we have to be realistic. God is going to vote by proxy this year. The real question is where his massive voting bloc is heading, now that the Republican Party has been so thoroughly discredited. Can we hope that religious voting will return to being a private matter?

Please click the link to Chopra’s commentary if you want to read the rest of the piece and perhaps be insulted for even considering your faith as an influencing factor on your vote.

I am confused about the implication that the Constitution would discourage a person from casting his or her vote based on the things that are important to him or her. This notion is foreign to me, perhaps there is something in the Bhagavadgita that informs Chopra’s perspective. I took a course on Eastern Philosophy approximately 8 years ago which covered Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confuscianism. True I did not take this course out of any desire to learn about these religions, as I was motivated strictly by the idiotic degree requirements imposed upon college students. I do remember being unimpressed by the course material and coming away with a sense that a common theme in at least some of these philosophies was the avoidance of individual responsibility.

Perhaps there is confusion regarding which candidate Chopra is supporting despite the fact that The Washington Obamost published his drivel. A visit to his own web-site and blog should clear any doubts as to his hope for change. His recent blog post, “The Man Who Changed the World?” makes it clear why he would be afraid of American voters considering faith when casting this year’s votes.

Wanting to change the world is different from having to. The latter is what’s expected of Barack Obama if he’s elected. The huge crowds he keeps attracting aren’t looking simply for a new leader, or even a reformer to undo the bad things wrought by the Republicans. They are looking for transformation. This isn’t pure fantasy. Sometimes history forces change right before your eyes, and when that happens the road forks. You can tinker with the world as it is or you can remake the world as it should be.

While it is too bad Chopra didn’t stay in India and spare this nation from his interference, the fact is, he didn’t. Of course his idea of change involves one global “collective” and therefore he likely recognizes no borders.

Is Chopra advocating global communism with “Big Brother” Barack Obama as the head of the commune known as Earth? Does he seek a global unity based on his faith and does he see Barack Obama as promising in that regard? Perhaps he hopes to attain the goals of his faith via the Saul Alinsky “Rules For Radicals” notion that the ends justify the means. How appropriate that a spiritual Obammunist would seek to further the goals of his faith by issuing a devious plea to people of faith to cast it aside before they vote?

It should be obvious that any Obamoron would want voters to ignore faith and their sense of right and wrong on Tuesday, for a reasonable consideration of right and wrong would preclude casting a vote for the man who spoke out against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It would be obvious that Barack Obama’s campaign based on deceptive practices (Saul would indeed be proud) would not mesh well with a sense of right and wrong. Indeed the dangerous purveyors of Obammunism desperately need you to ignore common sense, your faith, right and wrong, and simply be dazzled by the theatrics. Vote with your brain switched off, that is their hope.

On a somewhat related note, “The One” mentioned selfishness the other day. Isn’t it amazing that these libiot Obammunists believe in charitable giving… as long as it is with other people’s money?!? What has Barry given to his brother in Nairobi? What has The Messiah given to his illegal aunt in Boston? How do the charitable contributions of the Demoncrat candidates compare to those of the Republicans? The selfishness charge is completely misplaced. Selfish describes the narcissist, Barack Obama. Selfish describes the “Gimme! Gimme!” voters that see the promise of increased handouts on the backs of this nation’s productive! Selfish describes the wealthy Obammunists that stand to gain when their smaller competition is wiped out by the tax increases and regulation nightmares that would strangle small business in an Obamanation! Selfish describes Deepak Chopra, who would see our nation suffer to fit his warped philosophy.

If one listens to, or reads the words of “The One” with an intellectually honest state of mind, there can be no doubt that if his magnificent plans were to be realized, the common man would be enslaved into a hopeless existence. Our limitations will be artificially set by an all-powerful oppressor in Washington D.C… or will Barack Obama follow the example of fellow Chicago Political Machine alum, Illinois Governor Rod “Hair Helmet” Blagojevich and basically “work” out of Chicago? Perhaps this would be best since Obama’s advisors already have roots in the libiot cesspool of northern Illinois. Domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers can set Department of Education policy from the comfort of his indoctrination post at University of Illinois, Chicago.

Slavery would seem like an outrageous description of the potential condition of the American citizen but then again, Obama’s oppressive proposals are nothing if not outrageous! Is it not slavery to work for a master, who will decide who benefits from one’s labor? If the federal government is to meet Barack Obama’s stated goal of “spreading the wealth around” or his ideal of “redistributive change” (as stated in the 2001 interview the Obama media isn’t sharing), it will have to take the role of master to the citizen slaves. Will it be left to ”Big Brother” Barry or one of his ministries to decide what amount of a working man’s labor should be seized to redistribute in the name of prole control? We, the proletariat will indeed require controlling, lest we rise on our own and determine our own livelihoods and futures. Through “redistributive change” those who work will be controlled as their labor is seized, thus preventing any upward mobility and those who don’t work will be controlled as their dependence is fed and fostered. A thoughtful Obama supporter would indeed have to have a sadistic streak to advocate on his behalf.

The young would be compelled to “50 hours of community service per year” according to the “service” page of the official campaign web-site. This can be described as slavery or a sentence. Neither option is pleasant! These “opportunities” for service may be presented in such a way that the gullible and the self-loathing among us find them acceptable or even wonderful. What is ignored by the foolish supporters of “Big Brother,” is that compelled service is much less meaningful than voluntary service. The Obamorons can’t seem to grasp the subtle differences between slavery and generosity or between seizure and donation.

An American was once allowed to have a dream and be free to pursue it. Barack Obama proposes to steal those dreams, unless of course they are dreams of Obammunistic service. “Joe The plumber” might dream of owning his own business. Barack Obama would dictate such a dream is not worthy of his collectivist vision. If Joe intends to pursue his dream, there will be a penalty! Personal success shall not be enjoyed without punitive taxation, or as Barack The Marxist put it “spread the wealth around.” Opportunity is a word that Barack uses to describe his Marxist goals. I am not sure who is worse, the dishonest candidate or the fools that believe him.

Opportunity will have no place in an Obamanation, for opportunity is not an accurate description of taking from the productive to equalize their wealth with that of the unproductive! No reasonable person could describe government imposed limitations on individual success as “opportunity!” As a means of prole control, those that don’t produce will be given the opportunity to eat the groceries bought with the labor of the productive. The people that support such a system do not subscribe to any American Dream. Instead the Obamorons and would-be ruling class would intentionally or otherwise subject the common American citizen to a collective nightmare. Our opportunity will be to achieve an equalized misery independent of our contribution.

Fret not, after some period of time we will grow accustomed to the oppression. Eventually our children and grandchildren might not realize to what you Obama supporters have sentenced them.

a rattling or gurgling sound produced by air passing through mucus in the lungs and air passages of a dying person

Years ago I worked as a CNA in a hospital (also as a nursing student, before I decided a healthcare career wasn’t for me.) The death rattle meant that the patient was going to be gone soon. One could hope it meant he or she would suffer no more and his or her soul would move on to a better place. The death rattle of liberty offers no such hope.

I was perusing news articles this morning and found three of them that provided food for thought on this subject. One from The Washington Obamost because it had such a telling title:

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. “Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. “Please, God, let him win,” he added.

“It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative,” said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. “It’s been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it.”

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. “The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don’t worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else,” said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration.”

John Bolton summed it up nicely. Of course this worthless waste of New York space prefers our nation to fall into Obammunism. Imagine the money Mr. Global Poverty Act will funnel to various U.N. programs! The U.N. Secretary General is probably going to call domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and get his advice on the best way to maximize the funds received under Obama’s direction. Global “social justice” at the expense of Americans, won’t it be grand?

Not that the U.N. man-crush on “Big Brother” Barack Obama is just about money. They can also look forward to a position of power over the “ugly Americans.” Unless they are blind, they can see Obama’s disdain for liberty and salivate at the thought of a fallen United States. If there is one positive in a Barack Obama presidency (not a positive for Americans), it is the fact that lesser nations will look better by comparison than they currently do.

Reuters has an article that, on its surface bears good news but when viewed through the lens of Obammunism, one realizes that pharmaceutical breakthroughs will be curtailed.

New Merck HIV drug works in untreated patients

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new class of HIV drugs can help control the virus in untreated patients, researchers reported on Sunday.

Merck and Co. hopes the findings will open a new market for its drug Isentress, the first drug on the market in a new class called integrase inhibitors.

Isentress worked slightly better than an older HIV drug called efavirenz in suppressing levels of the AIDS virus, the researchers told a meeting of the American Society of Microbiology and the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Last October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared Isentress for use in HIV patients whose infection has begun to resist the effects of other drugs.

This problem, called resistance, is common in AIDS virus infections and is one reason why companies continue to develop new drugs to fight HIV.

Anyone that isn’t a drooling Obamoron should be able to spot the problem here. How do innovations in medicine occur? Is it a simple matter of St. Barack waving his hand over an empty bottle, which subsequently fills with whatever wonder drug a person may need? Some might argue that money (gasp… the evil profit) must be invested in research and development. Evil pharmaceutical companies are a target of Obama’s socialist plans, will they be allowed to profit? If they are not allowed to profit, how will research and development be financed? Is it a simple matter of re-educating drug company owners and researchers to give their intellectual property in the absence of any incentive? If so, I hope the number of people estimated to be eliminated in the re-education camps is smaller than the 25 million The Weather Underground estimated would have to be eliminated once they took over.

The third article is an omen from Reuters:

Venezuela’s Chavez wants to jail rival

CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez threatened on Saturday to imprison his main political rival, intensifying a campaign against a man he calls a crime boss just a month before he faces tough regional elections.

Opposition leader Manuel Rosales, who lost to Chavez in the 2006 presidential vote, is governor of the oil producing state of Zulia and is running for mayor of its capital Maracaibo.

“I am determined to put Manuel Rosales behind bars. A swine like that has to be in prison,” Chavez said.

The future is less than bright. Do the political enemies of “Big Brother” Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama have this to worry about? Obama is only a candidate and we’ve already seen the writing on the wall. Remember “Thought Criminals Punished in Denver“? How about “Missouri’s Obama Truth Squads“?

Our grasp on liberty is slipping and it has been for years. My pessimistic side believes that we are doomed to hit the rock bottom of a tyranny at the hands of the Obammunists before enough people will wake the hell up! My optimistic side believes that McCain can win the election and we can win a four year liberty extension. We can use this extension to find conservative leadership, attempt to educate Obamorons on individual responsibility and common sense, and to purge The Republican Party of the nearly Democrat RINOs that have taken over.

Are there enough thinking Americans left that have not been fooled or lulled into some outrageous support for the liberty eliminating Obamanation?

Mark Levin and Mike Church both did shows this week that were partially focused on Barack Obama’s use of techniques described in Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” You can download Levin’s terrific show from Oct. 14 here. These shows shine a revealing light on the motivation and tactics being so dangerously deployed by Obama in his quest for power. It is about power and control… and it would appear that enough people are willing to forfeit liberty for the sake of “The One.” Barack Obama, in keeping with his Alinsky training, believes the ends justify the means. Therefore, it should not surprise any Illinois citizen that we are seen as nothing more than a set of tools to be used to secure the ultimate end.

I, like the reasonable voters in Illinois (who are of course in the minority), can at least take some solace that I never cast a vote for Barack Obama. If I had voted for the man who would be king during his Senate race, I might be even more disappointed in his using the office as nothing more than preparation for his next election. Then again, of I had been foolish enough to vote for Barack Obama at any point, I would likely believe as his followers apparently do, that he can do no wrong and however he abuses his position is acceptable.

The Washington Post has a piece in today’s Obama campaign release, excuse me… edition, titled, “A Rising Political Star Adopts A Low-key Strategy.” Eli Saslow’s piece is amazing in the way it is likely to be received. Obamorons will read it and marvel at the focus of the man. He had a plan and worked hard to cultivate the necessary image to get to a position to save us all from our liberty. A reasonable person (you’ll notice that I contend that any support of “Big Brother” Barry Obama automatically disqualifies one as a reasonable person) will see how Barack Obama blatantly used his election to the U.S. Senate for nothing more than furthering his own political climb. Again, a reasonable person will see that Barack Obama did not do the work of a senator since taking office, but they will take solace in the fact that at least for most of the last few years we didn’t have two Dick Durbins actively harming our nation while “representing” Illinois.

From Saslow’s piece:

Early in 2005, Barack Obama met with half a dozen advisers in Washington to plot strategy. Some of those who participated remember that the group focused less on the details of Obama’s new job as the junior senator from Illinois than on managing his overall political image. He wanted to run for governor, maybe even president, someday, and preparing required a risky choice between two approaches to Washington.

Obama arrived as a celebrity, a best-selling author whose keynote speech was the only moment Democrats wanted to remember from their 2004 convention. He could capitalize on that reputation by speaking out against the Iraq war, scheduling prime-time television interviews and seizing control of high-profile bills. He could, as one Chicago friend suggested, “go in, do your thing and take the place by storm.”

Or, others advised, Obama could assume the typical role of a freshman senator, maneuvering with deference and humility. By endearing himself to Washington’s elite, he could build the foundation for his future.

“I think it’s important to take it slow,” Obama told his advisers. “I want to be liked.”

Hmm… I guess he didn’t take it slow enough because I don’t like him, but my adoration probably isn’t all that important to the chump of “change.” Thank you Eli Saslow, for slipping such honesty in a rag that is normally reserved for Obama campaign pieces.

With an eye on his next goal, Obama treated the Senate as a bridge to be crossed — a place to learn the conventions of Washington, win powerful friends and shape what advisers referred to as his “political brand.” Despite meager legislative accomplishments, Obama built a reputation among many Democrats as a hard worker, a reformer, an eager learner, a smart politician.

And he did it while maintaining a cool air of detachment, colleagues said. He focused on his professional goals and showed little interest in personal connections not outlined in the plan. In a senatorial culture famous for its chumminess, Obama generally preferred to eat alone and go back to his apartment away from Capitol Hill.

The understated approach was a considerable gamble for Obama at a key juncture in his career, and some old friends from the Illinois legislature worried that he would waste his cachet and chart a path toward obscurity. When they brought their concerns to Obama, he responded simply, “Have faith.” He had his plan, and he intended to stick by it. He would thrive in the Senate by fitting in and not by standing out, by winning over Washington without giving too much of himself.

Saul Alinsky’s best disciple has coldly calculated the shortest distance to the nation’s top office and he seems to have stupefied enough of the electorate to allow his success. My question is, what will be next? Will the presidency be enough for this sinister socialist? Will two terms be enough or will he attempt a Hugo Chavez/Michael Bloomberg type play for abolishing term limits? Will a North American Union become a reality with St. Barack the Divider as some grand emperor?

Is the goal to spread equal misery beyond North America? I think global poverty should be addressed (hey that is one piece of legislation in which “The One” actually took part!) Global poverty can be equalized if Barack Obama can be elevated to some sort of world domination level, somewhere between emperor and God. If Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama can ascend to this as of yet unnamed and despite Hitler’s attempts, unattained position, global “social justice” can be realized. If a man has too much, he can have the excess seized for distribution among his global neighbors. We will all work according to our ability toward the greater good of global outcome equity. Of course equal opportunity need not exist in a Utopia where opportunity, itself has been eradicated.

The possibilities for Barack Obama seem terrifyingly limitless. Any chance the majority of voters will vote with their brains on November 4? Of course, even if a majority of real and living voters exercise reason, will it be enough to overcome the votes of the Disney characters and dead people that community organizers like ACORN will be sending to the polls? There is a reason libiots fight voter ID laws after all!

Radiation sickness is illness and symptoms resulting from excessive exposure to radiation. Exposure may be accidental or intentional (as in radiation therapy).

Causes Return to top

The causes include:

• Accidental exposure to high doses of radiation, such as in certain occupations
• Exposure to excessive radiation for medical treatments (may include excessively high doses, excessive time of exposure, or excessive body areas exposed)

Symptoms Return to top

• Nausea and vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Skin burns (redness, blistering)
• Weakness, fatigue, exhaustion, fainting
• Dehydration
• Inflammation of exposed areas (redness, tenderness, swelling, bleeding)
• Hair loss
• Ulceration of the oral mucosa
• Ulceration of the esophagus, stomach or intestines
• Vomiting blood
• Bloody stool
• Bleeding from the nose, mouth, gums, and rectum
• Bruising
• Sloughing of skin
• Open sores on the skin

Sounds terrible, doesn’t it? No one should have to suffer so. The afflictions of individuals are bad enough, but how about an affliction on an entire nation? True, there have been afflicted nations around the world, but how many of them actively chose their affliction?

On the first Tuesday of November, the American voters (alive and ACORN registered dead) are poised to choose a long term illness to befall their country. If one trusts the reporting of Barack Obama’s campaign arm that is the press, Obamantaion sickness will be spread throughout the nation.

Malignant Liberal Idiocy defines Obamanation sickness as illness and symptoms resulting from excessive exposure to radical socialist ideals. Exposure may be accidental or intentional.

The coming national epidemic can be classified as both accidental and intentional exposure. Many voters, indoctrinated college students (that don’t have to try to earn a living yet), and people that believe what they hear from the Obama media is actual news reporting as opposed to campaign advertising will accidentally expose the nation (including themselves) to the radical socialist disease. The wealthy supporters and advisers of the candidate/catalyst are guilty of intentionally exposing the nation to this devastating ideology. I suppose they realize that there will be a small portion of the populace (themselves) that will benefit by holding power over a dependent electorate.

Symptoms of Obamanation sickness include, but are not limited to:

• Joblessness due to increased cost of conducting business.
• Joblessness due to factories closed by oppressive environmental restrictions.
• Joblessness due to the inability for a domestic manufacturer to compete with foreign companies that don’t face the same oppressive regulations and taxes.
• Hunger due to food shortages caused by increased costs to process and distribute food.
• Hunger due to joblessness and the subsequent inability to afford to purchase… anything.
• Increased risk of infection and other illnesses due to the removal of drug research capital in the name of hurting “big pharmaceutical.”
• Increased crime rates due to jobless people stealing to eat.
• Increased crime due to the further extraction of morality from public education.
• Homelessness due to joblessness.
• Decreased energy supplies due to the seizure of profits (removal of incentive and capital for exploration and development.)
• Financial depression due to governmental assault on business (in the name of fairness.)
• Lack of innovation due to innovators being punished for success with Marxist progressive taxes.
• Overdose of bad “entertainment” as the entertainment industry is the only industry (unlike the other industries that are actually needed) that isn’t targeted for “windfall profits” seizure.
• Information deficiency due the implementation of the grotesquely mis-named Fairness Doctrine.
• Many of the symptoms of radiation sickness may apply as more people cannot afford nutrition, shelter, and a generally healthy lifestyle.

Prevention would be possible if there was an opposition candidate that was willing to stray from the ever infuriating promises of bipartisanship and articulate the dangers of Obammunism. Prevention might still be possible if elitist Republican commentators (e.g. George Will, Peggy Noonan, David Brooks) cared more about the issues and potential epidemic of Obamanation sickness than their own disdain for common people with common sense leading the party into the future.

Barring an awakening between now and November 4, the best we can do is to constantly badger our representatives and senators and try to persuade them to oppose the exposure… until that is outlawed. Once this occurs we can hope to simply survive to teach our children of this nation’s beginnings and its previous greatness. Someday a future generation might take this country back and freedom will reign once again.

Michelle Malkin’s column at Townhall.com, “Obama Releases His “In-Your_Face” Hounds“, provides some insight into the Obamorons’ “face-to-face” strategy:

When Republicans get aggressive, it’s “dirty.” When Obama gets aggressive, it’s “feisty.” Exorteth the One: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Team Obama is so committed to this “face-to-face” shock troop campaign that it is now busing activists from state to state (”Drive for Change!”) to target undecided voters — and offering subsidies to volunteers. In advance of Obama’s rally in Nevada, California field director Mary Jane Stevenson organized a pilgrimage to boost the crowd numbers with housing incentives:

“Face-to-face contact with undecided voters is the single most effective way to grow this movement. No experience is required, and we’ll help you make the trip as easily as possible with either housing in Nevada or discounted group rates at an area hotel.”

Yep, a bunch of angry Obama cultists and left-wing ACORN drifters are coming to your neighborhoods to accuse you of racism, call you unpatriotic for not bowing down and forking over more taxes to keep the Mother Ship afloat, and check your tire pressure and thermostats while they’re at it. Feel the power of positive change.

I contend that there are several very good reasons to avoid an “in-your-face” moment with an Obamoron. Most of these reasons depend on the type of Obama supporter with which you are dealing, but there is the basic ignorance that all Obamorons share. Who wants to listen to the ignorant spewings of a raving lunatic, especially at close range? I bet they spit when they espouse the virtues of total government control.

The supporter type-dependent reasons you likely want to avoid these “in-your-face” confrontations areas follows:

Race-based supporters might:

• accuse you of being a white supremacist because you believe in individual responsibility and liberty.
• tell you that any argument you provide as to why you don’t support Obama is laced with “code words” that mean “black.”
• compare your reluctance to support Barack Obama to being a member of the KKK (like Sen. Robert Byrd.)

Environmentalist supporters might:

• smell really bad since bathing wastes valuable water, and who is man to steal water from Mother Earth?
• have their talking points scribbled on the one square of toilet paper they intend to use during their next restroom visit.
• profess the benefits of using only wind and solar power to generate electricity, while your sense of smell is violated by the wind carrying the odor from the activist that has spent too much time in the sun without bathing into your nostrils.
• stand there in leather shoes and yell at you about the affects of oil drilling on animals.
• knock you over, having noticed in mid-diatribe, an extremely attractive tree some distance behind you.

Change-inspired supporters might:

• tell you that Barack is for “change” and if you aren’t, you are a racist.
• opine that “change” is a good thing but get confused when you point out that if he stops breathing, that would be “change.”
• tell you that this is cosmic fate because if you put your hand over part of the big “O” in Obama, you can make a big “C” like in “Change!”

Abortion-inspired supporters (NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List) might:

• scream at you for wanting to kill scared young girls with rusty coat-hangers in dark alleys.
• try to convince you that you would make all women victims of an antiquated patriarchal society if you think killing children is in some way wrong.
• try to convince you that it is a violation of privacy… to have child molesters reported to authorities.
• drool about “reproductive justice” (which apparently involves a death sentence for the one party involved that played no part in the “choice” to have sex.)
• assert that you “can’t legislate morality” … unless of course the immoral act is murder, rape, or robbery committed by anyone other than the IRS.
• tell you that “it” isn’t a child… even if “it” has been born and is breathing following a botched abortion.
• insist that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but not to keep and bear arms.

Economy-inspired supporters might:

• Decry the wealth of “big business” (of course ignoring who it is that employs them if they indeed have jobs.)
• Screech that oil companies are making profits while we are paying too much at the gas pump (but of course Hollywood types deserve their “windfall profits” from their oh-so-important movies and television shows.)
• try to explain the value of further government controls and ignore your questions about the naturally subsequent job losses.

The thought of “Big Brother” Barack Obama becoming President Of The United States is so frightening and depressing that some conservatives (like myself) are supporting John McCain! This alone should be enough to make one wonder just what exactly is wrong with Obama supporters, particularly those that believe enough to try and convert normal people?