Some Recent Emails That Are Good

Those are rumors or loose associations.
Palin was quoted as saying "Our troops are on a mission from God."
This was by AP, used by Charlie Gibson. This was a lie.
She said, "Let us pray for our leaders that they send our troops on a mission from God."
Or some such thing, in other words, let's pray that our leaders will do what God wants and not something else. To misrepresent that is outrageously dishonest, yet never did the AP or ABC ever apologize or correct the misrepresentation.

Obama did attend Wright's church for 20 years. No one is commenting on the spiritual practices of the church in any way shape or form (tongues is just a form of worship, and to ridicule it - though I disagree with it - is to mock people for believing something and is crass and contemptuous). Wright had very heavily political messages, which Obama must have understood over the course of that time.

Ayers, as an educational advocate, is radical. That was my point, it doesn't matter if he bombed people or not. He had radical views about what to teach children and why. It was more than "Let's teach them how to read better". It was "Let's teach them about the injustices of society so they will grow up and support our political ideology". So, it's not a personal attack, just stating the fact that he is left-wing, and Obama's association with him does not implicate Obama as a terrorist, it only implicates Obama as someone who supports a radical ideology. That doesn't make him a bad person, it just means that all the voters who like Obama and think he is centrist should realize that he probably isn't, at least not in his personal convictions.

As a community organizer, Obama was radical. I kept thinking organizing meant, "hey, let me help you figure out how to get together and help each other out so you can grow out of poverty" kind of like a charity thing. However, organizing is political. It is creating groups of people to vote for an ideology and extract from others their way out of poverty. Yes, organizing in a political sense is good if those doing it seek civil rights and redresses from the government, but otherwise - especially if they seek assistance or wealth redistribution - it is pure socialism.

That's what Obama seems to be. It doesn't make him a bad person, it's just that lots of people feel socialism would be bad for America, and they don't think Obama is one. That's all.

Moreover, in this economic climate Obama can get away with murder!

Consder Biden's "there will be a crisis and people won't like how we respond to it"
I'm giving him a break on that one, I only mean to say that it seems probable that Obama plans to implement his 'change' even if the annoying 60% bitter gun-religion-clinging Americans don't like it.

Why?

Because he already has a 100 day plan starting Nov.5 with legislative measures already on the table. If the dems win big majorities in congress, and Obama wins you better bet that they will implement very dramatic policy changes in this country.

No, it won't be Soviet Russia, gosh, but it will be dramatic and very socialistic. Bad economic times are used as a mantra for pushing this sort of thing. FDR had a lot of people who opposed the New Deal, but the poorer folks believed in him, and the newspapers helped out. The news is helping Obama out big time. Yes, there's Fox and Rush. The point is though, if 60% of the country doesn't realize what Obama's doing it doesn't matter if 40% listen to Fox because they are racist Republicans.

The Obama campaign has at sundry times said the use of terrorist, socialist, welfare etc. with Obama is covert racism.

I know I've written a lot, and you may disagree with me.

Palin is probably dumb, and Obama seems to be smart. Yes.

Obama is not a bad guy. Yes.

However, Obama does seem to be very radical, and the implementation of left-wing extreme policies does seem to be in the works. If you are sympathetic to the idea that government intervention in our lives to redistribute resources to help the poor and equalize things, and involvement in education to teach children what to believe politically, and fairness doctrines where the ruling party can decide what balance in media looks like, and in the notion that a little voter fraud is okay because the Republicans just can't have another 4 years is okay, than Obama is a perfect candidate for you.

It would be wrong to think that he is not those things though. That's my point, maybe you have that vision for America, it's not 'evil' (well, not insidious), but if you don't have that vision you need to know that that is what Obama represents - and the majority of the news is intentionally avoiding that discussion.

That's all. I hope I haven't sounded to harsh, I'm just trying to present the information as it seems accurate (you can drop the voting fraud thing, but the rest is really legitimate stuff, all substantiated).

see you tomorrow


AND



When socialism comes to America, it won't be called socialism, because Americans don't like the word.

The idea can come being called something else. "Spreading the Wealth" has surprised me. Many Americans who are adverse to the word 'socialism' don't seem to mind 'spreading the wealth'. That surprises me, because it isn't thinly veiled.

Socialism is essentially a moral/political framework that runs counter to our founding liberties. The constitution actually gets in the way of socialism, which is why FDR had such a hard time with even some New Deal programs. This is why leftists don't like the courts or strict interpretation.

The liberties embodied in the constitution, as OBAMA himself said in that youtube are those which restrict the government from intervening in private lives. That is the American definition of liberty.

There are other definitions of liberty. The ancient greeks saw liberty as the ability to vote and influence public affairs, but after that point, all were slaves to the law. In other words, no individual liberty, but a social liberty. That's what socialism is, it is the idea that our liberties come from the government. That we are free because the government gives us things. We are free from fear because the government gives us protection, we are free from want because the government gives us food.

American liberty is the opposite, we are free from fear because we are free to protect ourselves (2nd ammendment) we are free from want because the government doesn't restrict our right to engage in commerce and production. Our rights come from God or nature, and limiting government protects those rights.

This was what the American revolution was fought over. Those who supported the king felt that a few tax breaks and conveniences were not worth the fighting, and that the king provided support and 'liberty' to the colonies by protecting them. The taxes were only a social burden paid to sustain the 'liberty' the king gave, because any rights came from him.

Some crazy guys called jefferson and adams and payne and henry thought that rights come from nature, not the king, and that the liberty afforded by the king wasn't worth the price of loss of personal liberty. So the war was fought.

In this climate, 'unAmerican' is considered an insult. I will use it now not as an insult. If you are unAmerican, you aren't a bad person, it is only describing that you disagree with American principles of liberty. Socialism is unAmerican, unequivocally.

Unfortunately, extreme wealth has allowed some rich to exploit de facto individuals, if not de jure. Hence, socialism is seen as restoring this balance. That is wrong, socialism is permanent. Socialism is the restoration of the King.

The thing is, lots of people like living under a king. Security for the price of a few liberties.

Obama is a socialist, his past makes that clear, so does the youtube. He believes in rights that come from government. He doesn't want to oppress or exploit people. But his views are unAmerican.

There are probably many good Americans that are 'unAmerican'. However, we must be honest about it and realize that if we really still believe in America's founding principles for which we fought the revolution, which revolution was the first and uniting cause that makes America a nation, than Obama is not the guy to pick.

However, modern liberals don't believe in that America. They believe in making a new American founded on other principles. American and an constitution that changes. The revolution would be a distasteful, if not quaint, relic. Again, they aren't bad people. Lots of people want a different America.

You probably believe in a different America. That doesn't make you a bad person.

I believe in the same America the revolutionaries fought for. I would fight for those principles again. That is why I can't support Obama ever.

I believe he is smart, capable, a good person, and eloquent. His views are radically different from mine.

What I'm saying is that Obama would probably not look down on or curse or do anything but honor our founding fathers, but if the revolution was fought today, he probably wouldn't fight in it. Not out of cowardice, but that he doesn't support those values of liberty that are uniquely American. The same values that I think have made America the wealthiest and most progressive (yes, despite Sweden's success, racial/ethnic integration and women's rights exist in America on a scale yet unmatched in the world). in the world

That's all, see ya


AND


You have to forgive me, I finished reading Atlas Shrugged last night.

People who like being loved are those who do it especially to avoid working for that love. In other words, people you like being loved have contempt for people who actually deserve love.

In Bill Clinton's case, this contempt was seen on a more personal level. He could mistreat his wife and his lovers and so forth and his advisors, and feel good. Thus maintaining a happy public image was enough to help him satisfy his needs personally.

Other require more public love, and the contempt is more public. Even republicans do this, in fact notoriously. John McCain I think has been guilty oft. I think George H.W. Bush was probably guilty of this as well. George W. Bush, to his credit, seems immune. But in fact he isn't. Think No child left behind, think the spending and so forth.

Greatness in Presidents is found when they don't need to be loved, because the principles by which they govern are more dear to them than adoration. W seems to have this quality in some sense, Lincoln died for it. My opinion is that what is wrong with the Iraq war is 1)stubborness 2)incompetence 3)poor judgement. However, as far as W has been committed to it despite public opinion, he really shines as a phenomenal leader. Other than a superfluous connection between that and stubbornness, the principle of having conviction over desire to be loved is good.

The contempt comes in when the desire to be loved is severe. This contempt is the spiritual fuel of socialism. No man who loves himself is a rational socialist. (some support socialism in a misguided way, not understanding what it really is).

I object respectfully, yet completely to your analysis. The more a President wants to be liked, the less he does of principle. The less he does of principle, the more quickly our rights and security crumble away. If he extremely desires love, he will have contempt for the successful. Then he is most dangerous.

Obama's Historic Run

We have heard time and again about how 'historic' Barack Obama's run for presidency is.  

What makes it historic?

Well, first lets just throw out a little evidence, or an anecdote to set the mood:

Historic Times

So, it's historic.

Why?

I know!  Obama will change the country in historic ways.  Which ways?

These Ways

Oh.

.

.

So do journalists really want that?  Probably, but so long as I'm not being that cynical, what is really historic about Obama?

Oh, he's half black.

My only point is that I find all of these reasons to be completely inappropriate in electing a president.  In other words, socialists shouldn't be president!  And we shouldn't elect people, who are probably socialist, but ignore what they really want to do, but still get super excited that they are running, just because of race.

It's really sad.

Were discrimination and hatred sad, and pathetic?  Oh yeah, really really pathetic.  But this is pathetic too.

Hopefully they're just socialists, but I hope not...

What an election!