Enemies Into Villains

After reading this, you may want to consign me to the ranks of the paranoid far right. But, after considering all the material I could find on Obama's educational history, his choice of associates, his self admitted mentors, his use of key phraseology, his links to radical socialists as a community developer, attorney, and politician, his lack of outward patriotism, and his economic policies, I am firmly convinced that he does want to destroy America's economy and transform it into a Marxist socialist form of dictatorship or oligarchy. He is working toward the elimination of the middle class which would result in only an elite, wealthy group ruling the nation, and all the rest. He firmly believes in Alinsky's concept of "haves" and "have nots". He is obsessed with being among the "haves" and taking from the "have nots".

Am I a crazy zealot and not aware of it?

Nahhhh.. couldn't be.

Glenn

Well, two different arguments there.

Feathering your own nest, or charging others that they want to enrich themselves, is not to be paranoid. There are clearly those who are in it for themselves. So, that portion, not so much paranoid.

On the other hand, I don't think Obama really wants to destroy America. He may very well want to bring socialist changes, perhaps even aspires for full fledged socialism, I don't know how far his ambitions go in that direction. But I doubt he really wants to destroy for the sake of destruction. He seems, like most socialists, to really believe that socialism is the ideal, that others would be better off if they would just do what he says. (Which is the essence of all socialist/communist schemes... "You need to listen to me, stupid people!")

My disagreement is in wanting to destroy. Sometimes the left argues the right wants to make everyone poor to enslave them (which is silly, as what would you gain by enslaving someone unable to support themselves, with no surplus, what would you take from them?), that is absurd. Equally absurd is to argue that socialists want to destroy. They want to bring about socialism, but do not want to do damage for no reason. If they aim to knock down something, it is to achieve their goals.

Looks like I am running out of space, and it is rather late. So I'll try to clarify yet again tomorrow.

andrews (and gunflowers), come on by, it's been a long time since you (andrews) stopped by my blog. but what i have up now could well be termed right-wing conspiracy theory.

i disagree that it's all that nuts. i think you're allotted so many questionable alliances. i've reached my limit with senator obama. if he wins, i'll welcome senator obama, and he'll be my president, just as he is anyway as a citizen of chicago. but i hope he doesn't win.

You are right about not wanting to destroy. After all to destroy the USA would leave nothing to exploit. But to become a socialist state would destroy all that is good and exceptional about America. And I also believe, as you stated, that Obama has a very sincere idealistic vision of a perfectly administered socialistic nation being utopia. It just convinces me he's even more dangerous than most believe.

By the way, if you get to my site to see the bridges I've built, take a look at my choice as the best looking car ever. It is a one-of-kind from BMW. It's in Favorite Things.

Glenn

Since Townhall let me sign in again, here is a reply... finally.

I suppose it is a matter of degree. And perhaps I would call some criticism of Obama a bit conspiracy theory like. For example, I am still unconvinced by all the detailed analysis of his birth certificate. (Doesn't help that I read the very first criticisms which attacked the form itself, until a true birth certificate was shown to be identical.) Nor do I think he is a secret Moslem hiding ties to Pakistan, or any of the other theories which float about.

To accuse him of being a socialist is more of a matter of terminology than conspiratorial thought. He is clearly very far left, and whether or not that is deemed socialism is more semantics than anything else.

And yes, he works with a number of left wing groups, many Soros backed. That isn't conspiracy, just as saying the NRA funds many conservative groups is not conspiracy.

But perhaps you are right, maybe the right is starting to believe conspiracies, and perhaps I need to rethink my thesis here.

I still have to check that out. I'll make some time today after I wrap up some work this morning.

Actually, the paper instruments impressed me more than anything, well perhaps the windmill, that was quite impressive.

Maybe I should put up some pictures of my origami when I have a moment. Back in the past, when I was unemployed and rather short of money, I started making origami for my wife as a gift. Made turtles and shrimp and angelfish and goldfish, and eventually settled on the origami goldfish as our standard gift. When she graduated nursing school I made one big enough to wear a a hat, a sort of parody of a nurse's hat.

I haven't really picked up a lot of new patterns lately, as work and health problems keep me busy, but I did learn to make a star for my son, as he was upset about leaving a paper star at a store one day. Perhaps I should start learning new patterns again. Always kept me amused, trying to figure out new objects to make.

Getting back to your models, I am impressed. Your Pittsburgh bridge was interesting too, as I have seen the original, thanks to relatives in Pittsburgh and Indiana PA.

Thanks for the encouraging words. I am also in a quandry as what to build next. I have toyed with the idea of doing a set amusement park rides. A wooden frame coaster, an old style carousel, tilt-a-whirl, etc. to keep my ferris wheel company.

Thanks for the visit to my site.

Glenn

That would be impressive. Though I think doing a good carousel would take an eternity all on its own. But if you do it, don't forget the little rides like the tilt-a-whirl or teacups, forgetting those is one of the big reasons so many models, eg. model railroad layouts, look wrong. Everyone recalls the big rides, and forgets all the small rides that fill in the gaps down below. (And those that remember to include them almost always look great even if they get some of the bigger rides a little off.)

Good luck with the models.

sorry, is that like "glenn flowers" or "gunflowers"? i like gunflowers! cool name...

anyway, you guys, is that thing about the columbia transcript "conspiracy," do you think? i feel a little uncomfortable posting that... there's nothing but coincidence there, but there's so much of it. why doesn't he have to release the documents like everyone else, though? that's more what i'm curious about.

It is Glenn, but I like gunflowers too. Though it could sound a bit hippy-ish if you said it wrong...

I agree that it is peculiar that there is not much being made of Obama's refusal to reveal his transcripts. The press is trying to make a scandal out of the fact that the Palins failed to properly estimate taxes when asking for an extension (a scandal I have taken part in more than once myself), yet they could not care less about Obama's transcript.

I am curious why he is keeping them so tightly concealed.

And, no, I don't think it is conspiratorial thought. Well, I suppose it depends on what you say about them, but simply asking why they are hidden and why the press doesn't care, that is not conspiratorial.

It is more like asking why Kerry STILL won't release his full military records. The act itself creates justified suspicions.

Liberals are pacifists who believe that humans are improvable, even perfectible by Liberal institutions; that disarmament is achievable and that war can be eliminated . . . through dialog. They believe in the welfare state. They are utopian. They eschew nationalism and national sovereignty, preferring internationalism and social justice (See above definition.) among nations. Conservatives are patriotic and nationalistic; and believe individuals should have great freedom to work in their own way -- succeed, fail, and try again -- all without government intervention either to limit or assist. They believe that individuals can improve themselves, though only God can perfect them. Conservatives believe that America is exceptional and to be preserved . . . as designed and envisioned by The Founders.

They also seem to believe repeatedly that, if they are “bipartisan”, democrats will respond in kind with cooperation. But, a liberal is a liberal is a liberal. They confidently look through liberal lenses, knowing that they are right (correct) and that republicans in general, and conservatives in particular, are dead wrong and just don’t get it.

Conservatives can understand how one can be a liberal, but they have trouble understanding why reality doesn’t set in. I mean, humans are human, not utopian. Liberals, having always been liberals, however, are absolutely incapable of understanding what could possibly have gone wrong such that a human being actually became a conservative.

I like it. Very close to some of the things I have said, though worded quite differently.

As I don't recognize the name, I should also add, welcome to the blog and thank you for the post.

It doesn't quite tell me why Palin in particular elicits so much hatred (which is what started this whole series of posts), but it does agree with my thoughts on why Liberals are so harmed by criticism of their politics.

The only thing I would add is that liberals also derive a lot of their worth from politics, and so criticism is also harmful as it threatens their self-image.

Other than that, pretty much on target.

is actually pretty creepy, and i really do wish the media would lean on this guy regarding his refusal to release his documents like you KNOW they would if he were a republican. the stuff that goes on with the media in this country is enough to make you sick. saying barack obama is a media darling doesn't embrace the full scope of the press's abhorrently unfair behavior in this election. ironic how america will once again reject her faithful soldier in vietnam, and embrace her violent wrongdoers. ayers will have the last laugh.

as usual.

I have to say I am with Beltway with the Ayers thing. That is freaky. There was a guy on about a month or two ago with Greta. His father was a judge and Ayers and the gang tried to bomb their house. It was a sad story. It does irk me that the FBI botched the wire tap issue.

I am not into huge conspiracies and I don't think that Obama wants to destroy America, but his friends or whatever you want to call them, are a little over the top for me. I for one was very offended by Rev. Wright. And I am sorry, but you don't sit there for 20 years and not really have any of the same views.

It just seems that the double standard keeps kicking in. If any of these people were with McCain or Clinton, they would have been gone before they got out of the starting gate.

I also find it extremely weird is the MSM and their fascination with Obama. I don't get it. If you say anything against him, they go on the attack and they go hard.

Actions speak louder than words
Whom has Obama associated with in the past?
Does he still use drugs?
Does he ever say anything flattering about the United states?
What are his plans for our american troops in Pakistan?
Is he a communist?
Is he really a christian or and actor?
Does he pose a potentially dangerous, lethal, clear and present danger to the United States?
What indications do we have to suggest otherwise?
What indications do we have to suggest he has no malevolent intentions?
I can not find any reasurring answers to any of these questions about Obama and I am far less than optomistic as to how his actions indicate what are likely indications.
As for John Mc Cain. I know how all the answers to these questions pertain to him. I know he loves our "Great Nation".

I have read Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope. In both books Obama frequently writes about how his hatred of whites served as a centering post from which he saw the world and his place in it. He said that this country was full of treaty breakers and filthy missionaries who spread diease and death among the native tribes. He also proclaimed he hated America because it demanded that blacks attend white schools that taught white history, white culture and demanded that blacks assimilate. He said he was forced to play their games on a white court with white rules. He also stated that when still in school in Hawaii he learned to hate his grandparents through his fear and suspicion that at any moment they would reveal their true white nature and turn against him. He said they were the cause of nightmares he had about blacks being powerless.

Not once, anywhere in the two books did he ever have a good word to say regarding the USA. In fact, the exact opposite is true. He regularly placed the blame for his fear and anxiety on the people, government, history, and culture of America.

All of his hate, anxiety, lack of self esteem, perceived victimization, and eventually radical, anti-American beliefs were directly traceable back to his decision as a ten year old to reject and destroy any sense of his being half black and half white and embrace "a 100% African-American persona". He explained that the intrigue and promise of an active life as a black radical and activist was a siren drawing him further into his father's legacy.

He does not sincerely believe, in my opinion, that his beliefs and goals are what is best for this country, but he believes they are exactly what he and the black community need.

He sincerely believes in Marxism and, if elected, would do everything possible to convert this nation into a socialist oligarchy. He says as much in debates, speaches, and his policies.

I am only relating what he wrote in his books.

Glenn

Obama has never been baptized as a Christian. In fact he has made statements to the effect that, if Islamic influence became a major factor in the society of America, and the people were driven to conflict with Muslims, he would have to side with the Muslims.

He said in his book that he never had leanings to any religion, but he was told by an elderly black lady that he needed to join a black church to gain credibility with the black community if he was going to be successful doing his community organizing in Chicago.

He hates whites with every inch of his being.

Glenn

Andrews,

I think that liberals don't HATE John McCain because they see him as reasonable, because much of the time he admits that they're correct, joins hands with them, co-sponsors with them, just strays into evil-conservatism misbehavior occasionally.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, IS A CONSERVATIVE, and when she came on the scene, conservatives were energized. For liberals, the incomprehensible evil enemy had reared its ugly head. Hence, they HATE Palin.

It is always disturbing to see young people caught up in the absurd nostalgia for the 60's. And worse to see them grow into adults like Obama and remain caught up in hero worship for degenerates like Ayers. Then again, he bought into the worship of Rev.W right, so maybe Ayers is actually the lesser of two evils...

And you are right about the fuss that would be raised were a Republican to hide his records that way.

That is actually the strangest thing about Obama, he is supposed to be a brilliant campaigner, but he failed to distance himself from these idiots before running. Had the press not gone to bat for him, his associates would have made him rank below Biden in Iowa.

In truth, were the press not caught up in their love affair with Obama, he would have been out fo the running early on. Worse still, McCain is not bringing it up either. And that makes no sense.

It is a good thing Palin isn't obsessed with the media liking her, so we finally have someone to bring all this up.

I am not sure I would answer all of those in the negative.

For example, I agree his is likely only nominally a Christian, but I say that about most really committed liberals, as their politics usually take first place above any religion, whatever their nominal faith. (Same for many political creeds, but liberalism is most common.)

As far as communist, I am sure he would say no. Then again, I see communist beliefs in many of our supposed conservatives, so that label may be useless, as many espouse Marxist views yet deny they are a communist. The term may no longer be useful, since few will admit to being a communist, even if they agree 100% with Marx.

Well, this could get long, so let me summarize.

I don't think Obama is intending to harm the US. What he plans probably will harm the US, but he probably does not see it that way. Lenin thought he was doing good, so did Hitler. Good intentions and outright evil are not incompatible, in fact they go together much of the time. So I don't ascribe evil motives to Obama, just evil results.

However, as far as McCain is concerned, I am with you. He has the best interests of the US at heart, and his view of what is best is closer to mine (though still a good way off) than Obama's. And so he has my support.

Also, as I don't recall you posting here before, welcome to the blog, and thanks for the comment.

If you visited before and I forget, please forgive me. After 1200+ posts, my memory fails me sometimes.

I think Obama is a standard liberal internationalist type. It is not so much a hatred for the US, but a feeling that he is a "citizen of the world". He may have resentment toward the US for historical grievances and feel that patriotism leads to chauvanism and other evils, as mos ton the left do, so he tends to denigrate any sort of nationalist feelings.

However, I don't think he intends harm to the citizens of the US. In his mind, submersing the US in some internationalist super government is beneficial for the people of the US.

Then again, I doubt he really expects to be able to do that. Most likely, even if he wants to , he knows he will be unable to surrender sovereignty to any significant degree, and will content himself with socializing steps taken here.

One other thing to recall, his books were written as part of his PR campaign, so he could be selling himself there too. Actually, I may post on that topic, as it is interesting. So I won't write on his racial feelings here, but will respond in a future post.

Good comments though, and since you gave me something to write in the future, thanks.

You are probably right. McCain's unwillingness to attack Obama directly, since it would upset the press is one sign of his "reasonable" nature in Democrat eyes, while Palin has not hesitated to go for the throat.

Sadly, she is running the campaign McCain should have from the start.

That may be a good post as well. So I think I will respond to this in new post as well.