Billy Beck: "Being There" In The White House
Read "Atlas Shrugged". I'm telling you.
Obama is Mr. Thompson.
I disagree more and more with my old net.mate Martin McPhillips. Obama has a revolutionary's aspirations, but they're pretenses in him.
This country isn't really all the way there, yet.
(my comment at Western Rifle Shooters)
More --
Obama is Mr. Thompson.
I disagree more and more with my old net.mate Martin McPhillips. Obama has a revolutionary's aspirations, but they're pretenses in him.
This country isn't really all the way there, yet.
(my comment at Western Rifle Shooters)
More --
"But he pursues his revolutionary ideals like a true believer."No. Rodham does that.
Obama has stumbled into this whole deal. Did you ever see Peter Sellers in "Being There"? Obama is almost like Chauncey Gardner, in a lot of ways. He just floated into the scene on irrational tides -- and right up in Rodham's face, I might add. He crashed her whole program in 2008, but she was able to parlay her presence into exactly the right spot in the regime: State is high-profile enough to keep her in power-play for four years, but detached enough from domestic policy that Obama is deniable to her, afterward.
I think Obama is worse than The Lying Bastard, who never had an original political thought in his life. This is something endemic to collectivists: intellectual leadership (we should graciously call it that) is genuinely rare among them, even at what appears to the public eye to be top-level. Rote recitation of dogma has been a collectivist way of life for over a century and, in Obama, this whole effect is observably manifest in his inability to speak improvisationally.
Obama is a symptom. This makes him very different from Rodham, whose misfortune has been to exist in the form that she does, in a political culture leaving little or no room for authentic revolutionaries.
"So he is a symptom of the endarkenment, rather than an avatar of it - we are collectivising this rapidly on our own?"Yes.
(Facebook discussion)
posted by Concerned American | 3:42 AM
4 Comments:
Obama is a revolutionary only in the cosmetic sense. He promises nonspecific dramatic changes to galvanize a part of the electorate: the part that's been inculcated with a sense of grievance and disenfranchisement. But in practice, the man simply loves power. He'll do anything to get more of it, and to keep it...for which reason November 2012 could well be more of an adventure than we like to think.
The U.S. has never been in greater danger. I'm unsure whether it would be better to "rally the troops" or "hunker down," and I don't think we can do both at once.
Mr. Porretto, it's my opinion that the handlers of the last four or five presidents will behave in unpredictable ways now.
A substantial, more than the Three Percent, are on to their schemes and are beginning to organize to slow and ultimately stop their game.
Hunker down or "rally", that's an interesting question. Probably, the answer depends on ability and preparedness.
Secession is an answer for us.
I've been saying for some time now that BHO will not relinquish the reins willingly, whether the election is stolen via voting irregularities or by simply ignoring the results the way he has ignored the results of court decisions (re: Obamacare) and legislation (properly written, signed and enacted, like DOMA), or through the imposition of "emergency measures" that do not permit an election to be held. I hope this is simply paranoia on my part, but his actions seem to be setting the stage for something along those lines.
Of course, the Republican Party might just hand the election to him, the way it did in 2008. Based on the current list of contenders, I'd say it is on course for a repeat of that, even if nothing worse happens.
Reg T writes: "whether the election is stolen via voting irregularities[1] or by simply ignoring the results the way he has ignored the results of court decisions[2] (re: Obamacare) and legislation (properly written, signed and enacted, like DOMA)[3], or through the imposition of "emergency measures" that do not permit an election to be held[4]."
1) Cheating at counting votes is only to determine whether the Democrat or Republican party elite will get first pick of the loot for the next four years. The government policies don't change, no matter which party wins. 2) If ignoring legal precedent floats your boat, elites will go to Philadelphia and invent a new constitution. Later, Lincoln will ignore the supreme court's opinion of it. 3) If "passing laws" does it for you, Hitler will be happy to write a book listing who he wants to genocide, and later the legislature will completely approve his plan in plain words on official paper. 4) If having an "election" makes you bless the politicians' rule as legitimate, they will be happy to have them, on schedule and in good order. The USSR had plenty of elections, and voting was mandatory.
In their naivety, humans believe there are lots of good reasons why another human deserves to place a leash on their neck -- having a dominant personality, being a successful war leader, pulling a sword from a stone. No matter what your 'divine right to rule' belief is, a politician-parasite will accept your mandate to enslave you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home