Category Archives: Nationalist

Has Obama Scorned Traditional Americanism?

House of Obama
House of Obama
WHEN BARACK OBAMA ACCEPTS the Democratic nomination later this week, he will portray himself as a shining example of the Great American Dream. With his impressive rhetorical skill, he will speak of embracing America’s common ideals and securing them for future generations and continuing on that glorious path established by our founding fathers, yada, yada. And he won’t mean a word of it.

To the contrary, Obama largely rejects the principles of individual liberty on which this nation was founded. His thinking is more closely aligned with Karl Marx’s than John Locke’s.

“In America,” Obama frequently scoffs, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

Or as Marx put it, “Don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.”

Personal liberty and responsibility are dangerous, according to Marx, because they allow an individual to be “regarded as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself,” rather than one whose responsibility is to the larger society.

Echoing that sentiment, Obama regularly sneers that the right wing “keeps appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. … And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

“Now we have to take this same language—these same values that are encouraged within our families—of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other—and apply them to a larger society. Let’s talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values.”

Indeed, Obama openly scorns the idea that individual families should take care of themselves. In his speeches he mocks conservatives who prefer “to give everyone one big refund on their government—divvy it up by individual portions—hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.”

“In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society,” he continues. “And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”

Obama is aware of this brother’s impoverished existence, but in the years since Obama became quite affluent, and now a multi-millionaire, it’s been cool with him. He just doesn’t mention him; he’s basically totally forgot about him, his own family. “For the price of a cup of coffee a day,” Obama could have lifted his brother, who had only the misfortune of being born in Kenya, up from poverty. But he didn’t. Now Obama wants to take care of your family
Got that? Only chumps dare to dream. (This from the candidate peddling hope.)

Although Marx would wince at the mention of God, he surely would approve of Obama’s implicit disdain for private ownership and individual achievement expressed in this line: “As long as there are those who try to privatize our government and decimate our social programs and peddle a philosophy of trickle-down and on-your-own, I ask you to keep marching for a vision of America where we rise or fall as one nation under God.”

Marx denounced the “bourgeois freedom” that permitted “an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice.”

That upsets Obama, too. In the canned speech he gives at college commencement ceremonies, he says to graduates, “You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, leave this city, and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can narrow your concerns to what’s going on in your own little circle and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”

Marx was more succinct. Explaining why the right to own private property is wrong-headed, he said because it allowed “the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will without regard for other men and independently of society.”

Young Obama
Young Obama
Obama doesn’t quote Marx word-for-word—but it’s close. Looks like Joe Biden isn’t going to be the only plagiarist on the Democratic ticket.

From the Washington Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough, an award-winning commentary writer whose work has appeared in more than two dozen newspapers, magazines, and books.

Strange that the Obama's opted for the large salary, big house, fancy suits, dance lessons for the children, that is to say, the good life, while laying a guilt trip on doe-eyed college graduates aimed to convince them to eschew such a path. Yep, change we can believe in. Always egging up someone else to do the changing, while coyly exempting themselves.

Read on to find Zoe's charitable comments hailing the senior Senator from Massachusetts:

Senator Kennedy brought tears to my eyes last night. He is still working for us—reminding us of our history and that the rest of us need to get off that couch and get to work and take up that baton he is handing us. I see several of you, by your comments, are doing just that. But for the rest of us...

Yes, it's time for some radical centrism to shake this rotten tree. It's time for accountability. It's time to strike at the failed policies of those who seek to enslave us, whether these forces come from the far left or the far right, or even worse, from agents of foreign agitation and aggression.
With that heroic vision in mind, we need to unite and control the corporate ruling class that has put us in this era of Poverty. Our fight is very American as exhibited by Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 where poor whites and poor blacks were united against the elite Tidewater Gentry.

The "gentry" owned all the good land/property and had political power beyond their numbers (they could afford lobbyists). Many of the poor (small farmers, indentured servants, etc.) were debtors. Sound familiar?

The fear of the unification of the black and whites led Virginia to pass laws that made slavery lifelong and a status that was passed on to one's children. This now created a racially based class system with blacks at the bottom. The poorest white indentured servants were now above them. This broke the commonality of interest that ensured cooperation between the poor English and poor Africans which had existed during Bacon's Rebellion.

Thus, legalized, hereditary racial slavery led to the division among the poor and working class today.

US Beauty
American Beauty
Time to finally do something about it which brings us to the historical significance of Mr. Obama's candidancy. Can we reach full circle? Can we be lead out of the desert by Mr. Obama?

Are we capable of really educating ourselves about what our nation needs instead of just reacting to the stimuli of soundbites, spin, fake news, propaganda, prejudice, paid political hacks calling themselves "pundits" or commercials designed to misinform?

Can we lift off the yoke placed on us since 1676 that controls us and has brainwashed us into the luxury of thinking we can look down on people when the majority of us are under Mr. McCain's $5M cutoff?

Can we, the majority, unite our country by class, color, gender, race, creed just this once to flex our power as a democratic people?

The rich just keep on getting richer doing whatever they want because there is no accountability. They can buy their $20m homes and take their golden parachutes after raping a company made up of people trying to earn an honest wage to support their families.

It is time for a reckoning. And it time to end the manipulation of our nation. Thank you Senator Kennedy for never giving up your hope in us.

Yes, it's time for some radical centrism to shake this rotten tree. It's time for accountability. It's time to strike at the failed policies of those who seek to enslave us, whether these forces come from the far left or the far right, or even worse, from agents of foreign agitation and aggression. Enough is enough.

Then there is the breaking news of the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama officially stipulating that as a foreign national, Obama is not constitutionally qualified to stand for election to the highest office in the nation.

But here is the sad news. Police are investigating whether they have foiled an assassination plot against Barack Obama after four people were arrested near the Democratic convention in Denver in the possession of high powered rifles. Fortunately, this asinine plot was foiled.

Oh yes, the photo at the top of this entry? That's poverty. That's also George Obama, Kenyan son of Harvard graduate Barack Obama, Sr., and brother to the Democratic Party's candidate for President of these United States of America, an America he would hand over to the United Nations as a down payment on the New World Order he expects to usher into existence, if he thumps John McCain in November. No doubt he will have a mandate. Not much different than Mister Bush's desperate mandate. A change of uniforms. That's all. Such as the ways and means of the Left. Strap yourself in, my friends. This ride will turn bloody, somewhere, somehow, no doubt. Maybe his brother will kick things off by offering a handout to George in Kenya, now that the press has broken the story, and helped puncture the Obama balloon. Charity begins at home they say.

Here are a few words from the ever insightful Max Publius:

"McCain is so rich (not usually a bad thing, unless you're a rich Democrat talking about Republicans) that he can't remember how many houses he has, as he admitted in a recent radio interview. Now, this is somewhat profligate, I must admit. It shows a lack of concern with finances that only people who stumbled upon their money would have (in this case, through his rich wife, who inherited it). But then there is Obama, who is exploiting McCain's domicile innumeracy.

"Obama owns one house. It is a small mansion (some of McCain's are small condos), but he would have us believe owning one house is a sign he is an ascetic. He doesn't mention how, when he wasn't so well known, it was financed through his crooked friend, the jailed Tony Rezko, a Syrian "Islamochristian"-type whose signature corruption style involves deals with the likes of the Nation of Islam and shady Iraqi financiers.

"Losing track of your money is somewhat irresponsible, but losing track of the number of brothers you have, as Obama has, is completely repulsive. The press has dug up yet another Obama half-brother, this one living in total abject poverty in a fly and disease shanty in Kenya on less than a dollar a day. Obama is aware of this brother's impoverished existence, but in the years since Obama became quite affluent, and now a multi-millionaire, it's been cool with him. He just doesn't mention him; he's basically totally forgot about him, his own family. "For the price of a cup of coffee a day," Obama could have lifted his brother, who had only the misfortune of being born in Kenya, up from poverty. But he didn't. Now Obama wants to take care of your family.

"Of course, this brother is a result of Obama the Senior's Islamically-inspired philandering—a lack of concern with off-spring among those who "emulate the prophet" in this regard. That brings up Islam, of course. Obama believes the sharia call to prayer is "the most beautiful sound on Earth." No mention what he thinks of the Islamic justification for killing ex-Muslims, polygamy, wife beating, child marriage (rape), or the Koranic exhortations for violent jihad against non-Muslims or the degrading treatment of "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) under sharia law. This would seem rather more compelling for the voters to know about, post 9/11, than Obama's opinion on the incessant warbling from Muslim minarets. After all, Obama is the son of a semi-lapsed Muslim. He might have some feelings on the topic.

Fat chance we'll hear about it.

[Has Obama Scorned Traditional Americanism?]

Destroying The Nation State

By Alan W. Dowd published by FrontPageMagazine.com

Buried deep in a recent Washington Post piece deriding former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s penchant for firing off memos, we find this morsel:

hands-rumsfeld
At least some opposition...

Are we in a period of time that is busy destroying the nation state? In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a ‘worldwide insurgency.’ The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to ‘end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world.’ Love him or hate him, Rumsfeld was right about this. He was also consistent, recognizing that the jihadists’ worldwide insurgency—or global guerilla war, if you prefer—is not the only challenge to the nation-state system. In fact, Rumsfeld also spoke at length about international institutions that undermine the nation-state system.

“We see respect for states’ sovereignty eroding,” he said during a 2003 conference in Germany. “We see it, in my view, in the International Criminal Court’s claim of authority to try the citizens of countries that have not consented to ICC jurisdiction…We see it in the new Belgian law purporting to give Belgian courts ‘universal jurisdiction’ over alleged war crimes anywhere in the world.”

Rumsfeld understood that the erosion of sovereignty “absolves states of their responsibilities to deal with problems within their borders.” Or within their neighborhood: As historian William Pfaff wrote of Europe’s Balkan debacle in the 1990s, international organizations such as the United Nations and European Community (forerunner to the European Union) “proved an obstacle to action, by inhibiting individual national action and rationalizing the refusal to act nationally.”

Of course, some governments prove by their actions that they are simply not capable of governing—or not worthy of governing. “We need to be able to hold states accountable for their performance,” Rumsfeld explained. In other words, states either have to police what happens inside their borders or open themselves to outside intervention.

States like Lebanon and Iraq and the Philippines that strive to control what happens inside their borders but are too weak to overcome our common enemies deserve our help. States like Pakistan that play games with sovereignty—claiming they are too weak to control their territories in one breath but then invoking their sovereign and inviolable borders the next—don’t. States like Syria and Iran that refuse to respect international borders or international norms—and terrorist groups like the PKK, al Qaeda and their kind that thrive on anarchy and partner with rogue regimes—must be treated as enemies, no matter how risky. And states like Somalia and too many of her neighbors in Africa are so broken that they need not just external intervention, but international administration.

In short, Rumsfeld understood that the nation-state system is under assault from two unrelated sources—international, supra-state organizations and transnational, terrorist organizations. Both seek a stateless world, although their visions for what such a world would look like are dramatically different. After all, one is utopian, the other dystopian.

Read it all.