Obama’s hypocrisy: even worse than you think
Remember that recent speech in which Obama told the opposition to shut up? In my post on the subject I wrote:
But what I see in this video that is new is the naked, unashamed need to silence the opposition, especially ironic in a man who posed in his campaign as the great listener, the great uniter, the great champion of dialogue. And I use that word “posed” advisedly: it was a pose, and now there’s no need for him to pretend any more.
It turns out that I was wrong—about the need to pretend, that is. In fact, Obama still feels the need to pretend, and did so in that very same speech!
The word “two-faced” doesn’t even begin to express it. Dr. Obama and Mr. Soetoro, anyone?
I can handle the fact we lost the election, but I can’t handle the duplicity of this putz. Yeah, there’s some uniter.
If your politics are to the right you’ll be marginalized.
If your politics are in the middle you’ll be deceived.
If your politics are to the left you’ll be exploited.
This is the method of operation we can expect for the next 3 1/2 years.
Was that the press cheering in the amen corner? I know they consider it their territory but perhaps they let others in as well. Of course, even with just the press, you’d need more than a corner, right?
Obama is vile. His speaking style is vile. As I said in the other post, he doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of the word ‘presidential’. Look at his mannerisms. He’s the definition of juvenile when he speaks like that.
Lot of church-house preacher-like double talk and a congregation that’ll say “amen” and “yabba dabba doo” to anything the preacher says.
You know I was going to point out that the demonstrators at the town hall meetings are NOT acting democratically, because disrupting free speech (the right of the designated speaker to be heard and the people that came to hear them actually hear them — defines free speech).
But when the Commander in Chief is doing it, well, you have to get your priorities straight and realize who’s great need of our contempt and condemnation!
I thought I heard Chris Mathews shout out a, “HAA!”
This will not end well.
The practice of double-talk continues. Obama always pairs an anodyne statement with a radical gesture. If accused of being radical, he points to the non-controversial part. His enablers help out. Don’t forget the power of the Memory Hole.
This is not hard to figure out: he has been doing it non-stop since the beginning, and there is no reason to think he will ever drop the mask. This kind of posing is all he ever really does.
In mythic terms President Obama is a shapeshifter (a being that adopts the visual shape of the entity most likely to advance the goal of the particular communication). There is nothing inherently “wrong” with this characteristic; for exsample, as a parent we adopt various “shapes” (master chef, rulemaker, sympathetic ear, etc.) to best accomplish parenting goals.
However, in parenting we always intend to be a good parent and our goal is to raise good children who are happy (however poorly we impliment this goal) which are, IMHO good goals.
The difficulty with President Obama is that we don’t know who he really is and what end he is really serving. One thing that we DO know is that he is not who he said he was during the campaign and that the goals he is serving are not those he claimed he represented during the campaign.
I have been looking to read those who might be claiming that what he said during the campaign and what he is doing are consistent. Yes, I read the idiots who make the bald statement that he is doing what he said he would do, but no one is offering any logical reasoning to back that bald statement up. Therefore, I have no choice but to think “KoolAid” and dismiss their statements.
On the other hand, the arguments of those who present arguments that reason that he is a mega-collectivist flying under false colors resonate.
So… all other ideological issues notwithstanding, is it time as a voter to go to base principles and stand up for individualism or collectivism?
I (reluctantly) believe that it is.
But when the Commander in Chief is doing it, well, you have to get your priorities straight and realize who’s great need of our contempt and condemnation!
Wow. Nymythus is in…. I’d hug him.
We are in uncharted waters, as a nation. Nobody knows what comes next; we’ve never screwed up this bad.
You know I was going to point out that the demonstrators at the town hall meetings are NOT acting democratically, because disrupting free speech (the right of the designated speaker to be heard and the people that came to hear them actually hear them – defines free speech).
The Town Hall-ees are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. They designated the speaker with votes, but we are always free to withold consent.
The Constitution holds that my right to free speech cannot be abridged by act of government. More, even loud, citizen speech cannot abridge the free speech of a government representative.
It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a “listen to your constituents, you bastard!” issue.
Gray says:
August 9th, 2009 at 12:42 am
we’ve never screwed up this bad
If you mean by electing Obama to be President, I agree.
If you mean by electing Obama to be President, I agree.
Yes, that’s what I mean.
I find your blog very informative. You harvest things from the internet that other people have not found. Additionally (and more importantly, really) your commentary is fresh. I really enjoy reading your blog and it is at the top of my list. Thank you.
Obama always pairs an anodyne statement with a radical gesture. If accused of being radical, he points to the non-controversial part.
Oblio: Nicely put!
Reminds me of the advertising technique: first wound, then heal.
You haven’t called your mother recently? Ooog. But wait, you can call her long-distance. There, that’s better.
Haha, I do not know if this is simply co-incidence or not but I saw for the third time tonight the Twix commercial wherein the guy is trying to get some girl to go home with him. The commercial used to list her as a “protestor” and made a comment about loving to protest and lets go back to his house and blog about it.
It cut simply that one word out, it was even amusing because there was no good way to cut it, both the audio and video jumped.
It wasn’t but just a week or two ago I saw it and had an amusing thought about how it was produced back when “protesting was the highest form of patriotism”. So not only was the skip strange looking but it was glaring simply because it was so recent that I noticed the phrasing.
To be fair it was one of those 15 second adds where they cut the whole thing in half so a great deal of other parts were were cut (and due to a tie in with thier “followup” commercial where they get back to his apartment the blogging was key, protest not). So I can’t say it was a direct response to how “protest” is now a nasty word in Hollywood and liberal circles, however I find it amusing they made a cut where *only* that one word was cut in that part of the scene and it was a *really* bad looking cut.
I thought I heard Chris Mathews shout out a, “HAA!”
Hilarious. I swear Matthews is paid by Obama. Maybe all of MSNBC is.
Remember this “Oh God” moment?
Huff Post called it unfortunate.
Unfortunate? As in, “Oops, Chris let his guard down” unfortunate?
In connection with kcom’s comment about Obama’s juvenile mannerisms and lack of presidential-ness, to coin an awfully awkward word: I’ve been thinking lately about that time — actually there were two times — during the campaign when he may or may not have given the finger to Hillary. It was extremely hard to believe at that time that anybody in his position could be so utterly dumb and classless as to do such a thing, although to my mind, at least one of the videos certainly looked intentional, complete with smirk. I no longer have any doubt at all. That was an early time when the mask slipped — or the shape shifted, just for a moment, to show what he really is.
Gray and Vieux Charles, yes. We have never been here before and there’s no map. It’s scary country and I don’t like it here.
# Gray Says:
August 9th, 2009 at 12:51 am
…
It’s not a free speech issue. It’s a “listen to your constituents, you bastard!” issue.
Bullseye!
–
huxley, I think Neo first pointed that Obama’s rhetoric pairs the radical with the moderate (sounding). I would never have noticed on my own. I just thought the moderate atmospherics were filler (“noise”) and that the Leftist grace notes were the real message (“signal”).
None of this is surprising. The Democrats’ Presidential candidates since McGovern have normally run false-flag campaigns of one sort or another. They know two things with great confidence: 1) if they say what they really think, they can never be elected, and 2) they can count on a compliant MSM to shove any incriminating evidence down the Memory Hole.
On second thought, Mondale (’84) was more or less open about his views. Democrats saw how well that worked.
What I think we’re seeing (and many of us have seen all along) is the fear that his agenda is fading fast. His agenda relied on the blitzkrieg approach – overwhelm the opposition with a rapid onslaught while the media performed a flanking maneuver to cut behind the lines and marginalize what they thought would be a demoralized enemy.
Obama is showing that he is the worst combination of Nixonian paranoia and Carter’s incompetence. Welcome President Nixter. There’s a good assignment for someone good with photoshop – much better than the Joker poster. Nixon+Carter= Barack Nixter.
We are in uncharted waters, as a nation. Nobody knows what comes next; we’ve never screwed up this bad.
Very true. Obama is a completely unique phenomenon.
Haha, I do not know if this is simply co-incidence or not but I saw for the third time tonight the Twix commercial wherein the guy is trying to get some girl to go home with him. The commercial used to list her as a “protestor” and made a comment about loving to protest and lets go back to his house and blog about it.
I saw the same commercial and liked it for it’s cleverness but did not notice the change. Give the commentor a box of Twix for being so observant. By ye Twix commercials shall ye be known.
None of this is surprising. The Democrats’ Presidential candidates since McGovern have normally run false-flag campaigns of one sort or another. They know two things with great confidence: 1) if they say what they really think, they can never be elected, and 2) they can count on a compliant MSM to shove any incriminating evidence down the Memory Hole.
Thanks to the internet it’s a very difficult to keep things down the old Memory Hole. But the MSM is still compliant and that’s where most folks get their news. Most people have no clue that they are being gulled when they view CNN or read the NYT.
It was great fun when Iraq was still controversial to direct the anti-war folks to videos of Hillary, John Edwards and various other Progressives making speeches in times before they decided to be against the war vilifying Saddam, making statements about Saddam obviously nefarious intentions and ranting about how Saddam should be deposed. I did it several times on this blog. The Democrats had 13 years between wars to pontificate while the US tried various methods other than war to deal with Saddam and most politicians cannot resist sounding off for that length of time.
Politicians have to be much more careful now what they say in public. Even in closed venues among small groups someone there may have a cell phone that takes videos, whereas the politicians used to have confidence that there would be no record other than what some onlookers might claim they heard — which is very deniable.
But a video with sound with your own words audible to all — forever after? It must be very frustrating, even nightmarish to politicians, who used to be able to “tailor” their speeches on issues to whatever group to which they were speaking.
Here’s a thought experiment. As a Oblio says, for the most part Democrats have run false flag presidential campaigns for the last 40 years (Clinton might be an exception after 1994, having been smacked hard in that election). When Obama got elected I know there were probably many Democrats/liberals/leftists (not all the same thing) who said to themselves, “Finally, we’re going to get everything we ever wanted (since 1972).” Whether they will or won’t remains to be seen, but there are encouraging signs that it won’t be as easy as they thought. That’s the inherent downside of running on one platform and trying to implement another.
Anyway, here’s the thought experiment. Tell me what would have happened if McGovern had been elected in 1972. Would we have been in uncharted territory then? Would he have tried or succeeded in lurching to the left, where his heart obviously was? Would people have risen up to stop him? Would tea parties have been invented 40 years ago?
I was around in 1972 but a little young to understand everything since I’d barely hit double digits. Could people who know more give their thoughts. Although the policies that many on the Left are in love with today are the same as they were back then, conditions were certainly different. There wasn’t a housing crisis, for one thing (I don’t think). There wasn’t a banking crisis. There was no way in hell that the government was going to be taking over General Motors or Chrysler at that time. In myriad other ways, the federal government had less power and influence over people’s lives than they do today.
I guess my real question is what makes this current period uncharted territory (which I agree it is) and would the same thing have been true with a hypothetical McGovern administration. And what type of leader, on a personal level, would McGovern have been? Would he have been more presidential? More genuinely bipartisan? Or would it have been similar?
kcom:
And what type of leader, on a personal level, would McGovern have been? Would he have been more presidential? More genuinely bipartisan? Or would it have been similar?
Not similar. I voted against him and strongly opposed him since he was far to the left, especially in foreign affairs and basically wanted to cut and run from Vietnam. But he was ultimately a patriot. He had been a B24 bomber pilot in World War 2 over occupied Europe. Under the leftism, he seemed to have a traditional view of the Constitution and a fundamentally positive view of America. Also much more bipartisan tolerance. Not like this.
McGovern probably would have been more presidential and more bipartisan. Who can really know what might have been.
Obama, however, is clearly of the same mold as the black power dashiki wearing thugs who tried to intimidate all Americans, white and black, who didn’t go along with their talk of “The Man” and “Revolution.” I remember those days very clearly.
Obama is a milder version of these thug types, but the video above demonstrates the style in which they ranted.
One big difference between today and previous times is that the Republican party seems to be much much weaker. It’s an object of scorn, but who can say what it’s actually for? When I defend Republicans, I have to make things up about what they believe.
Oblio Says:
August 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Obama always pairs an anodyne statement with a radical gesture.
Excellent point
Promethea: When I defend Republicans, I have to make things up about what they believe.
Me too. I suspect the same for many of us. In one sense, this is actually a good thing. It is the beginning of some new definition of what it means to be a conservative, and of discussing the animating principles of what in effect will become a new party.
Tell me what would have happened if McGovern had been elected in 1972. Would we have been in uncharted territory then?
Maybe so. There was a Democratic majority in both houses in the 92nd Congress. If Nixon had not won(in a landslide victory) McGovern would have been a Democratic President with a Democratic majority in both houses — similar to the present. However, I do not think McGovern is as unprincipled as Obama. For instance McGovern actually came out against card check recently. I see Obama as a personality with no redeeming qualities, a total opportunist willing to say or do anything if he thinks he can get away with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_United_States_Congress
Try watching this video with the sound muted. It’s interesting just to watch his body language.
If you pause it at 1.13, then again at 1.21 / 1.23, check out the look in his eyes…
kcom: McGovern was/is quite different. For example, he mounted this campaign against card check. Of course, back when he was running for president, he might not have held the same view as the one he expresses in the video. But it’s at least evidence of a big difference between him and Obama. And of the courage to go against the prevailing view on the Left.
Here’s a clue as to what made him oppose card check. Do you think for a moment that Obama, faced with a similar life experience, would ever have changed his mind? Actually, can you imagine Obama faced with that life experience at all?
Although I was not quite old enough to vote when McGovern ran for president, the policies that he espoused seemed way out there to me, particularly on the defense-foreign policy front. Even though I had just gotten my driver’s license in 1972, I still understood enough about history that weakening one’s military in the face of a threat, as he proposed, was a seriously bad idea. And yes, I also understood that the threat came from the Soviet Union, not North Vietnam. What brought it home even more for me was when my unionized, lifelong Democrat parents announced that they couldn’t vote for him. They held their noses and voted for Tricky Dick, who was actually far more centrist than he is sometimes portrayed (or caricatured). My peacenik older sister thought they’d gone nuts, but they couldn’t be swayed (Sis saw the error of her ways many years ago and votes GOP these days, btw).
Having said all that, I regard George McGovern as an honorable man who served his country to the best of his abilities, and did what he thought was right. And while I disagree with with what he wanted to do, I believe that as an old-school politician, he would have had no difficulty compromising and reaching “75% solutions” with his rivals, both within the party and across the aisle.
You know I was going to point out that the demonstrators at the town hall meetings are NOT acting democratically, because disrupting free speech (the right of the designated speaker to be heard and the people that came to hear them actually hear them – defines free speech).
and who has been pulling such political terrorism as a lone group for more than 40 years? ho ho ha ha, oh, thats too funny…
the fact that the left denied the system its processes to win, now doesnt like that when they have control of the system they are being denied its normal process?
well too bad given that they are not following the constitution, the first point in any argument as to which side is in the right. even if the document is horribly flawed, wrong, and short sighted, its ours, and if ya dont like it, go to some other perfect land, and make it better. maybe start with some place in africa and show them how its done.
It was my first vote for president and I voted for McGovern. My next two votes were for Carter, and the second time mostly because he was running in the primaries against Teddy the Pretender, I actually did a little work for him.
These three votes mean that no matter how otherwise unblameworthy my life, I always have something for which to atone on Yom Kippur.
MikeLL, MSNBC is bought and paid for, GE owns them and has received massive bailout cash, their CEO, Immelt, sits next to Obama on the economic panel. Related but off topic, GE also had input on the cap and trade bill and will make billions if it passes.
Alex Bensky, we all probably have things for which we need to atone. Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.
Something is happening here that all the commenters have missed.
The Democratic Party long ago adopted this maxim: “Blacks cannot be criticized.” That is, unless they have the temerity to be conservatives or Republicans.
Blacks are above criticism. Obama is above criticism by the standards of the Democratic Party. To criticize him is evidence of racism, because he is authentically black.
Therefore, Republicans who criticize Obama are racists, and should not be heard or allowed to speak. Racism cannot be allowed. It only follows that criticism of Obama by Republicans cannot be allowed because it is racist.
neo-neocon Says:
“kcom: McGovern was/is quite different.”
I hear McGovern actually had conservative friends. Not like conservatives that he invited to ‘social functions’ but friend friends he do stuff with / hang out. I think that says a lot. You take a real wacko leftist and I can’t see them having a conservative friend.
No. Even worse than you think.
With Obamacare, thank God, losing traction, what then is to be done?
Go after Bush and the CIA:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cia-interrogate9-2009aug09,0,34626.story?page=1
A lot of talk about George McGovern here. A nice article from the WSJ about McGovern’s ‘better late than never’ conversion:
Wall Street Journal
My perspective on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is informed by life experience. After leaving the Senate in 1981, I spent some time running a hotel. It was an eye-opening introduction to something most business operators are all-too familiar with – the difficulty of controlling costs and setting prices in a weak economy. Despite my trust in government, I would have been alarmed by an outsider taking control of basic management decisions that determine success or failure in a business where I had invested my life savings.
The upside of having had George McG. elected in 1972 is that there would have been no James Earl Carter elected in 1976…
McGovern was a decent, honorable man who happened to be a moron.
He is trainable, though at some cost.
“He is trainable, though at some cost.”
Fortunately, the American people didn’t decide to give him the opportunity for on the job training. Unlike someone else….
I’ve been waiting for Neo to put up a non-political thread so I could hijack it. But I’m impatient and I’m tired of waiting.
This is what I did on Saturday.
kcom,
My first vote was against McGovern in ’72, when I was 18.
McGovern has mad admirable progress in later life regarding his experiences in the private sector. I think that he would have been more moderate than Obama for the following reasons,
a) this was the height of the Cold War and like it or not, the threat of he Soviet Union was real
b) China was still in ’72, a Maoist hell hole and a sworn enemy of the US
c) Organized labor, while having a larger share of the labor force was, under Meany more concerned with ‘bread and butter’ unionism and had not yet become the politicized leftist monstrosity it is today.
d) the identity group/grievance mongering politics of today was in its infancy, being a creature of the 60’s
e) the political classes were not nearly as ideologically divided as they are today.
Still, do not think for a minute that McGovern wouldn’t have thrown his mother down a well to get elected. He was a politician.
Let me direct your attention to the 1972 presidential campaign, when it became public information that McGovern’s choice for vice-president, Thomas Eagleton had had electro-shock therapy and McGovern’s reaction to it.
When it became publicly disclosed that Eagleton had undergone shock treatment as part of a therapy for depression. (Something which Eagleton had lied about when McGovern’s people were vetting his background.) McGovern made the public statement that he backed Eagleton 1000%! Later that week Eagleton was dropped from the ticket. McGovern’s credibility suffered and later other damaging credibility issues arose for him. This allowed the republicans to portray his campaign as one of “amnesty, abortion & acid.”
If you want a great history of that campaign, read Hunter S Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972.” It was one of, if not the greatest book Thompson wrote and still is one of the best looks at the state of politics at that time.
I think the audience was a set up, too, a mob bussed in and given little flags to wave and cheer for the obamination as he spoke from both sides of his mouth.
“To criticize him is evidence of racism, because he is authentically black.”
I respectfully disagree… he is on authentically black by America’s standards… his mother was white and his heritage does not include slavery. He is as far and away from Afro-Americans as he is white and Latino.
‘BB,
No doubt this was a rally for the base. To get them fired up. Total trash talk like a pep rally before a football game.
It is interesting that he feels the need to do this. I guess he is feeling the pressure.
Oblio said
“Welcome back to the fight. This time I know our side will win.”
Nice Casablanca reference – Oblio as Victor Laszlo!
The “Uniter” — Somebody needs to inform NBC as they are launching a news web site from the black perspective. One commentor in the article I link to below asked that if there are separate news sites does this mean separate water fountains can be far behind? lol
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/08/09/nbc-launches-liberal-site-african-american-perspective-news
Obama has no shame. Usually lying politicians wait a few weeks or months before they contradict themselves. Obama does it in the same speech.
Before long Obama will get to the point where he contradicts himself by the end a sentence with the complete opposite of what he said at the beginning.
I noticed his eyes during his campaign, and they chilled me to the core. There is a malevolence there which reveals anger/hatred in his very soul. His words are meant to obvuscate and confuse, not to clarify. He usually delivers them with a calm professorial demeanor, even when they make no sense. Yet I don’t think he reveals even a fraction of his true self. He goes to extraordinary lengths to hide behind his facade of an average American. He is a master of deception. That’s why we watch for every time the mask slips and try to analyze – we’re all looking for clues to the real Buttcracka. I don’t know why he bothers. He is a marxist. He won already. Why not just say it? I wonder if he is going to try to keep up this charade for the next 3 years?
Psychologically speaking, would that not set him up for a crack-up or mental breakdown?
“Psychologically speaking, would that not set him up for a crack-up or mental breakdown?”
The dems are testing the system as they ratchet up the pressure, becoming more aggressive and intimidating until they reach a threshold which become the status quo, for a while, then starting the patttern again. The blase’ and oblivious masses become trained and easier to manipulate. Obungler isn’t going to crack up, he’s going to continue to get more arrogant until his first term is finished. If he’s elected to a second term, what will unfold will make the Vietnam war era protests pale by comparison, and our streets may start looking like Iran’s are today. There are too many smug and shallow people on the dems bandwagon now to avoid a serious conflict of intra-American cultures. The global warming issue illustrates how irrational and dishonest leftist culture has become. The more powerful they become, the harder they are going to fall… As Mao said, “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.
I’m glad to see McGovern defended in this forum.
Though Obama’s campaign was often compared to McGovern’s, not without reason, the two politicians are entirely different. McGovern is an honorable, honest man who loves America and ran as a qualified candidate. I can’t say the same at all about Obama.
Interesting comments!
Rickl: thanks for linking. This quote, alone, made it worthwhile for me:
Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.
~ John Locke
Shouting Thomas:
The Democratic Party long ago adopted this maxim: “Blacks cannot be criticized.” That is, unless they have the temerity to be conservatives or Republicans.
This may be about to change.
Brett:
Before long Obama will get to the point where he contradicts himself by the end a sentence with the complete opposite of what he said at the beginning.
He has already done this, and no doubt we’ll see more and more of it.
As others have commented: the man has never had to do anything; he’s made his reputation, and his career, by talking about what others were doing. As such, he got very, very good at meaning all things to all people. (During the campaign, he said this himself, and was proud of it; he called himself a mirror. Everyone looks at him and sees what they want to see.)
Unfortunately for him, you can do that with words. You can’t do that with actions. You may be able to fool all of the people some of the time, as Lincoln said… but you can’t please all of the people. President Obama is finding that out… and the way he responds to the pressure is showing us, more and more, just who he is.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“I’m glad to see McGovern defended in this forum…”
Why not? I think most of the commenters on this site probably would disagree with McGovern the politician, but would respect McGovern the man. Unlike Obama, there was no deception about him. He laid out his views for the world to see, take ’em or leave ’em. That most American voters in 1972 found his views unpalatable and proceeded to hand his opponent a huge landslide victory proves to me that he didn’t pander just to get elected. So yeah, I’m glad he didn’t win the Presidency, but he was honest about what he stood for and fought fairly. Obama, not so much.
Black conservative attacked in put in the emergency room by union thugs
http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/2009/08/union-mob-attacks-black-conservative-at.html
Yes, I blame the union until they issue a statement calling on all of their thugs to never use violence or they will be removed from the union and removed from their current job and prosecuted.
Speaking of hypocrisy:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views – but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
Another thing about McGovern. He was a decorated bomber pilot during WW2. That earns him a good measure of respect from me.
But he was also one of the first wave, along with Eugene McCarthy, of otherwise typical academics to succumb to the ideas of the Left and to buy into the Lefty blame America game. I believe that it was the example of such respectable folks as McGovern and McCarthy that later influenced notables such as Cronkite to defect to the anti-war side.
It seems that it was the withdrawal of the intelligentsia from what was then the mainstream of American life and culture, beginning primarily with the New England Transcendentalists in the mid-1800s, that set the stage for the later anti-war, anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment tenor of the 1960s. The ideas of Emerson, Thoreau and A. B. Alcott have proven to be very detrimental over time. They took about a hundred and fifty years to incubate but they eventually hatched into a Lefty, propagandist MSM, a Lefty academia and a decadently Leftist political class that we see at war with our institutions today. Ostensibly harmless ideas can evolve into intellectual poison over time.
One final thought: The thing that most bothers me is WHAT IS HIS END-GAME? During his campaign, Buttcracka said he wanted to remake America. No one has ever asked exactly what he meant. A European-style socialism? Stalinism? Flintstonism? He also expressed his disdain for the Constitution. Redistribution of wealth (globally). Equal poverty for all, except the corporations and individuals who are the new nomenclatura. We can see it taking shape already.
We the middle-class bourgoise are being plundered. If this man cannot be stopped politically, I fear there will be another revolution.