↓
 
Home » Tyranny and Obama: success or failure

Tyranny and Obama: success or failure

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a lively conversation going on in the comments section here about what has become one of our favorite topics: how dangerous is Obama? Meaning: how can you tell if tyranny is approaching, and especially whether it’s likely to be successful?

I would submit that the signs are there, especially the all-important attempts to control the media and therefore the message that gets out to the population. This is of course more difficult in the twenty-first century than it was in the twentieth, but hardly impossible.

For example, the MSM has already been firmly in the hands of liberals and the Left for quite some time now, with conservative media the exception rather than the rule. However, even though the number of media outlets on the Right are small, they still manage to capture a large audience, and this causes a special ire on the Left. This administration is trying hard to stifle those alternative voices and make sure others are afraid to join them in reporting news unfavorable to Obama. The Left is already largely in control of education as well, which is a huge piece of the puzzle that must be in place, and it paved the way for Obama’s election.

Another warning sign is duplicity. All politicians lie at times, of course. But as I’ve said before, Obama is the first US politician I can think of in my lifetime in this country who has lied about his basic political orientation, presenting himself as something he is not: moderate, bipartisan, and post-racial instead of radical, intensely partisan, and race-focused. This is duplicity of a fundamental type.

Next we have an attempt to take control of the electoral process. This has been a long march, just as in education. The successful drive to drop requirements for proper IDs in many states is part of it. The Obama administration also made taking over the census an early priority, with a plan to involve the wretched ACORN in the process. It’s hard to avoid the idea that the goal had to do with cooking the voter books in favor of the Democratic Party. Once this is done, all bets are off.

Moving right along, we have the government takeover and/or control of many businesses and industries, and now the attempt to take over the health care industry, one of the biggest and most important of all. Why else the pile-driver push to do this now, immediately if not sooner, even in the midst of so many more pressing crises? Why else the insistence on the public option, when other less radical fixes would probably work much better? And why not try to cut Medicare costs first and show that it’s possible?

Haste in general is a mark of this administration. Haste makes waste, and it also makes confusion. The idea is to accomplish extreme and fundamental changes before the American people have time to learn and object, or to reject the Democrats in Congress in 2010.

Then we have the expansion of the czars, and their radicalism. This is hardly an accident; it’s a way to get around the usual checks and balances.

Most tyrannies feed on the perception of the opposition as a demonic enemy. Despite his sometimes mild demeanor, Obama has used this approach more than any other president in memory—and I am including Richard Nixon here, who was the previous front-runner in that dubious competition.

I could go on, but there’s no need to. I think it’s clear that Obama would grab as much power as he could. The question that remains is: will he be successful?

Some have cited his lack of success so far as a reason to assume he will fail in the end. I think such a position is dangerous, because it fosters laziness and lack of attention to what’s happening. We should do whatever we can now to be very aware, to spread the word in a way that doesn’t sound nutty (difficult, I know), and to work for the opposition in 2010.

But the “it won’t happen here” position is not only dangerous, it’s incorrect. I submit that it depends on what the “it” is. Tyrannies don’t always look exactly alike. In fact, they only resemble each other in very broad principles, such as the reduction of liberty and the spread of state power.

Yes, Chavez rewrote the constitution of Venezuela, and Obama may not be able to do that here. But he (or any other president bent on similar goals) can do quite a bit to further the same end: through government regulation, through the cooperation of a supermajority in Congress, through threats (the Chicago way is alive and well and living in DC), through lies, through voting fraud granting the Left bigger and bigger majorities.

Take a good look at the history of Hugo Chavez. You will note there were some false starts, as well as some speed bumps along the way—most especially a 2002 coup against him that seemed to work for a very short while but that ultimately was unsuccessful. Chavez also began his own bid for the top with a failed attempt at a military coup back in 1992, and then he was imprisoned. An onlooker might have written him off back then, perhaps. But if an onlooker had done so, that onlooker would have been sadly mistaken.

Another good example that comes to mind for me, albeit in another arena, is the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. What a bunch of stooges, right? They were the Keystone Cops of terrorism—until a few years later, when they weren’t quite so inept after all.

Incompetence is sometimes the prelude to competence if people learn from their mistakes and try different approaches. Do you not think that those who would revolutionize a country (hope, change) are patient?

Hugo Chavez certainly was. After the 1992 coup:

Ché¡vez, alarmed, soon gave himself up to the government. He was then allowed to appear on national television to call for all remaining rebel detachments in Venezuela to cease hostilities. When he did so, Ché¡vez quipped on national television that he had only failed “por ahora” (for now).

Obama is fond of getting inspiration from Hispanic sayings. For example, “Yes, we can” was cribbed from “Si, se puede,” the motto of another very patient Chavez, Cesar.

So if Obama seems to be failing at the moment, my guess is that he is only telling himself some version of “por ahora.” We cannot afford to relax our vigilance and imagine that the Left’s temporary failures are permanent ones.

Comments

Tyranny and Obama: success or failure — 106 Comments

  1. Speaking of Dishonesty: It extends to the entire Democrat party as this is on page 24 of their platform document:

    Restoring Fairness to Our Tax Code
    We must reform our tax code. It’s thousands of pages long, a monstrosity that high-priced lobbyists have rigged with page after page of special interest loopholes and tax shelters. We will shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens and use the money so that we can provide an immediate middle-class tax cut that will offer relief to workers and their families. We’ll eliminate federal income taxes for millions of retirees, because all seniors deserve to live out their lives with dignity and respect. We will not increase taxes on any family earning under $250,000 and we will offer additional tax cuts for middle class families.    ”

    http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html

  2. And on page 29 concerning Afghanistan:

    We will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions—with fewer restrictions—from our NATO allies. We will focus on building up our special forces and intelligence capacity, training, equipping and advising Afghan security forces, building Afghan governmental capacity, and promoting the rule of law

    The Democrats are in power…. what is stopping them from fulfilling their promises?

  3. On the CZAR front:

    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/23/czar-war-escalates-between-congress-white-house/#

    excerpt:
    Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don’t have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was “murky” on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

    Miss Collins said that doesn’t make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama.

    “I think Congress should be able to call the president’s climate czar, Carol Browner, the energy and environment czar, to ask her about the negotiations she conducted with the automobile industry that led to very significant policy changes with regard to emissions standards,” Miss Collins said at a hearing Thursday that examined the proliferation of czars

  4. “But the “it won’t happen here” position is not only dangerous, it’s incorrect… Tyrannies … resemble each other in very broad principles, such as the reduction of liberty and the spread of state power.
    … Obama may not be able to {rewrite the Constitution} here. But he … can … further the same end … ”
    =============================

    Well, The “I-Won” has already taken over GM & Chrysler, bypassing the established practice of allowing the bankruptcy courts to oversee the division of assets; he’s forced the GM chairman to resign; he’s fired the Inspector General who was looking into AmeriCorps and BHO’s buddy Kevin Johnson (oddly, BHO had earlier voted for the law to strengthen the independence of IG’s); he’s looking to curtail cheap energy (cap-n-trade); he wants to control the Internet (net neutrality); he wants to control all healthcare; he’s spent 8 months cozying up to dictators and disrespecting our allies; he’s bailed out Fannie and Freddie and is still encouraging them to make loans without regard to likelihood of repayment; he’s demonizing news groups who disagree with him (and subtly threatening those who parrot his talking points: they risk losing favor and facetime if they follow up on any of Fox News’ articles criticizing his administration or his czars).

    How much more of this can he get away with before SOMEBODY calls him on it? We’re not supposed to tolerate that kind of crap from our government, here in America, —- are we?

  5. It used to be said that government rules on the sufferance of the governed. In other words, the ruler of the people must always remember that the people greatly outnumber him… and that, in the long run, he ignores what they say at his peril.

    My personal feeling is that President Obama isn’t listening to us Little People these days. (He doesn’t have to. His job is not in jeopardy.) Nor are his multitudinous Czars in a listening mood; as long as the President is happy with them, they need not answer to us.

    But Congresscritters are always vulnerable… and the executive Branch can’t get by without them. If enough people are sufficiently dissatisfied with the President’s policies, he may find that party-line discipline isn’t what it used to be… because for Congress, there’s always an election coming up.

    Keep your eye on the Tea Parties. It’s not just in Washington that unprecedented changes are happening.

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

  7. There is no need to re-write the Constitution if you can get away with defining a “living, breathing document” to mean what you want it to mean.

    He has pretty much a two year free run. Will that be long enough to institutionalize what he wants? Will the electorate wake up enough to take away his congressional majority in ’10? Will the press truthfully tell the public what is happening? Even if the Republicans took the Congress would they have the guts to slap him down? What would the courts do, if called upon to rule against him? Would he ignore the courts, if they did rule against him?

    Too many questions. No answers at this moment.

  8. While reading your concerns neo, the thought kept popping into my head of what happens when a dog that insists on chasing cars finally catches one.

    Here’s hoping Obama doesn’t actually catch this particular car, as the results would be quite….unpleasant, for him and anyone standing close to him if he did overtly try to impose a dictatorship.

    As long as he tries to keep things subtle, then resistence is political and there are plenty of folks more than willing to go toe to toe with this dumba$$ – which is far better than alternatives.

  9. A_Nonny_Mouse, I wouldn’t say that Obama is trying to take control of the Internet through Net Neutrality. While I disagree in principle to the idea of a government taking control of the Internet – which is in and of itself a subversion of Net Neutrality – I view this sort of policy as necessary to preserve the freedom of customers.

    As for the rest, I agree completely. The first step towards establishing a totalitarian government is to discredit and/or outlaw opposition. As much as Glenn Beck is an entertainer and not an especially reliable news source, he has a right to broadcast his opinions and call it whatever he likes. And it really isn’t up to the Obama Administration to decide who gets to speak.

    -G

  10. Neoneocon,

    I agree that this is all reason for great concern, but there is also some hope.

    Obama can not do this exclusively from the executive branch; he must first and foremost have a congress on his same page. Right now, the most important opposition comes from the “blue dog” Democrats That they recenly stood firm against the liberal senate leadership is a good sign; that Pelosi admits that the votes aren’t there (in the house) for an expansive public heath care option is also a sign of hope.

    Then, we have the upcoming elections in 2010. This is really the first chance that the voting public will have to support or repudiate what the Obama administration has concocted thus far. While I am hopeful at this point, anything can happen in the next 12 months.

    Personally, I see the Obama administration in a death spiral. There are things that they could do to counteract the direction things are headed, but I’m willing to bet that they won’t do them. Obama will not suddenly become the reasonable moderate because he is not a reasonable moderate. He will continue to spout platitudes, but unlike the campaign, where there was no proof to the contrary, we now know exactly what Obama intends.

    Obama is an excellent example of the Peter Principle at work. He will default to his final level of competence (giving eloquent speeches) because that is all he knows how to do successfully, but this will no longer suffice.

    He is already being unmasked as an incompetent (note his support for Zelaya, the defunding of Iranian human rights protestors and the Eastern Europe missle defense decision and reversal) whose vision seems to be inspired by the childish leftist politics of the 1970s (a nuclear free globe).

    As he is continually revealed as a thuggish Chicago politician with an extremely thin skin, we can only hope that he will drive more members of his own party away, marginalizing him for the remainder of his tenure.

  13. A fundemental flaw in the constitution and how we handle unconstitional things is that we do so AFTER implimentation, not prior.

    that means, that anything can be tried, and the court will bring it back.

    that is, unless whats tried, succeeds and there is nothing to bring it back to.

    of all the times i have heard talk of constitutional flaws and so forth, i have not agreed, other than this one point.

    the colb is a perfect example. one should not be able to hide a factor in qualification (and this may end up being our saving grace too. for an invalid president cant sign and make valid treaties, agreements, and laws. i means a do over).

    the president or whoever has to first implement something for it to be tested.

    AND

    that something has to have harmed someone, or else the court wont look at it as the uharmed have no right to such.

    so the whole issue was whether harm was done.

    it created a situation that those who are still here after the revolution can petition the court that no longer exists for recompense and fixing after they have been harmed.

    this is akin to shooting first and asking questions later, and finding every good shot that kills, tends to make the issue moot

  15. Good points, A_Nonny_Mouse. What I worry about more than the Constitution being changed at this point is that the government is growing dramatically. You almost never see retrenchment from a bloated civil service, and these workers generally vote liberal. The other thing I see is that the electorate now accepts projection and dishonesty as givens from their politicians. The examples of Obama’s projection are huge, almost daily. In fact it has gotten to the point where if Obama says he intends something you can almost count on the opposite being true. Does this not influence the manner in which people interact with their government, and their expectations for elected officials? And as Chavez has demonstrated, if you promise enough to a large enough population it doesn’t matter if you do not deliver — the promises eventually become the currency they expect. F

  16. Art, A socialist wants to spend your money. A communist wants to spend your money and tell you what you earn.

  17. You will note there were some false starts, as well as some speed bumps along the way–most especially a 2002 coup against him that seemed to work for a very short while but that ultimately was unsuccessful.

    hitler was put in jail for his first attempt…

    Gramsci served years in prison where he wrote his volumes.

    castro was imprisoned in the moncada trial

    lenin was imprisoned in Cell 193 of the St Petersburg Remand Prison.

    In December, 1905, the St. Petersburg Soviet was crushed and Trotsky was arrested and imprisoned.

    In 1908, 1910, 1911 Stalin was imprisoned again for revolutionary activities. Between 1913, 1917 he was imprisoned again but the success of Bolshevik revolution ended Stalin’s career as a transient prisoner of the Czar and gave him a permanent apartment in the Czar’s Moscow Kremlin

    so now you know why there is creds in going to jail for communists…

    Felix Dzerzhinsky
    Communist Morality
    From a Prison Diary

    … I have matured in prison in torments of solitude, in torments of longing for the world and for life.

    DzierżyÅ„ski was expelled from the gymnasium for “revolutionary activity”. He had joined a Marxist group–the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party (SDKPiL) in 1895, and was himself one of the founders of Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania in 1900. He spent the major part of his early life in various prisons. In 1897, as leader of a shoemaker’s strike, DzierżyÅ„ski was arrested for “criminal agitation among the Kovno workers” and the police files from this time stated that: “Feliks DzierżyÅ„ski, considering his views, convictions and personal character, will be very dangerous in the future, capable of any crime.”

    He was arrested for his revolutionary activities in 1897 and 1900, sent to Siberia, and escaped both times. He then went to Berlin and met with the other main leaders of the Polish Social Democratic movement: Rosa Luxemburg and Leo Jogiches. Together with them, he gained control of the party organization through the creation of a Foreign Committee (Komitet Zagraniczny – KZ) which he empowered with wide executive authority. As secretary of the KZ, DzierżyÅ„ski dominated the SDKPiL.

    ah, latvians and lituanians again..

    Dzierżyński would spend the next four and one-half year in tsarist prison, first at the notorious Tenth Pavilion of the Warsaw Citadel. When World War I broke out in 1914, all political prisoners were moved from Poland to Russia proper. Dzierżyński was taken initially to Oryol. He was deeply concerned about the fate of his wife and son, with whom he had no communication. Moreover, Dzierżyński was frequently beaten by the Russian prison guards, which among other things led to the permanent disfigurement of his jaw and mouth. In 1916 Dzierżyński was moved to the Moscow Butyrki prison, where he was soon hospitalized because the chains that he was forced to wear had caused severe cramps in his legs. Despite the prospects of amputation, Dzierżyński recovered and was put to labor sewing military uniforms

    Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin regarded DzierżyÅ„ski as a revolutionary hero, and appointed him to organize a force to combat internal political threats. On December 20, 1917, the Council of People’s Commissars officially established the All-Russia Extraordinary Commission to Combat Counter-revolution and Sabotage – usually called the Cheka (based on the Russian acronym ВЧК). DzierżyÅ„ski became its head.

    and thus the KGB was born…
    and who did he look to to do the work?

    Dzerzhinsky’s principle two colleagues at the VCheka were two famous Latvians, members of the collegium of the VCheka Yakov Peters and Martin Latsis.

    “Any revolutionary knows that a revolution is not carried out in silk gloves.” Yakov Peters

    “Any attempt of the counter-revolution to lift up its head shall encounter such violence, that everything referred to as ‘red terror’ shall pale in comparison.” Yakov Peters

    When joining the VCheka in 1917 Latsis, simultaneously becoming ‘a comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs’, thus summed up his state tasks:

    “To turn everything upside down!”

    [ie inversions…]

    He formulated the philosophy of his terror quite simply:

    “The VCheka is the dirty work of the revolution. It’s a game of heads… If the work goes as planned, the heads of the counter-revolutionaries shall roll, but I make few mistakes, we might lose our own heads… All the customary norms of war, put down in various conventions, according to which prisoners are not executed, etc. are hilarious: the law of civil war demands that you slaughter all those wounded in action against you.”

    Following this law, Martin Latsis bathed Russia and Ukraine in blood.

    “VCheka isn’t a court, a tribunal or investigative commission,” he said. “It is a military body, acting along the inner front. It does not serve to judge the enemy, but strikes it down…Does not display charity, but decimates each one… Do not seek to find proof during the investigation that the accused acted in word and deed against the Soviet power. The first question you should pose is: what class does he belong to, what is his education, upbringing, origins and profession. It is these questions that should determine the fate of the accused. There lies the essence of red terror.”

    Later, in Moscow, during debates on the issue of the prerogatives of the VCheka, he phrased it even more simply:

    “Why bother with these questions regarding origins and education. I shall just walk into their kitchen and look into the pot: if there is meat there — he is an enemy of the people! To be stood before a firing squad!”


    they want to make it that there are “rich no more”

    they do not want to make it so that there are “poor no more”

    they want everyone poor…

  18. Neo,
    Great post. Along the same lines, I found a similar article.

    With the FCC now attempting, or planning to attempt to impose ‘net neutrality’ on a system that is not broken, the left begins their frontal assult on the one last bastion of uncontrolled free speech.

    Your observation that“But as I’ve said before, Obama is the first US politician I can think of in my lifetime in this country who has lied about his basic political orientation, presenting himself as something he is not:..” is accurate for the most part. One distinction I would add is that other politicians have also lied about their basic core identities also, but only to get elected. They did not want want to change anything beyond that, they just wanted to cash in.

    Obama is not just cashing in, he has a more advanced agenda. In my opinion he is a hard core leftist (i.e. communist).

    I sincerely hope he is thwarted in 2010 and then voted out in 2012. If not, the damage may be unrepairable. What is scary to me is that I look at the republican party and I do notthink that they are up to the task. Unless the republicans are totally rebuilt from the ground up or a new party is formed that is more representative of the center/right in this country, the opposition to the left will remain fragmented and be defeated.

    Also, there will need to be a long march to undue the damage in education, the arts, the media and to reduce the government inrusion into areas where it has no business. There is much work to do.

  19. “I think it’s clear that Obama would grab as much power as he could. ”

    I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think that Obama is the one that’s grabbing power. He’s the public face of whomever truly is . Frankly, I don’t think President Obama has the long term vision or patience to do this on his own.

  20. This administration is VERY VERY dangerous. One of the problems with a democracy is that it can vote itself out of existence.

    The quality of government in a democracy depends of the quality of its electorate…and I despair of that these days.

  22. March Hare: it doesn’t really matter at this point. I understand what you’re saying, but whether Obama is the prime mover or the puppet, blocking him if he makes a power grab still blocks the attempt.

  23. Au Contrare, Sir:

    THAT was the shortest and most succinct post I recall you EVER making.

    ABSOLUTELY to be encouraged. 🙂

    –

  24. Rats!

    The post above was a reference to artfldgr’s response to Daniel.

    I REALLY wish this site had Preview.
    –

  25. Great post. Your thesis is clearly supported by Obama’s apparently insane behavior towards Honduras and his refusal to fire Lloyd Wilson, the FCC Chavezista. Obama and fascist friends are not going to stop, especially when they see victory looming so close.
    And they still have the approval of 50% of the sheeple.

  28. Neo, I have to offer a different perspective here: Obama is a hasty virus in response to our nation’s hasty response for decades for quick fixes.

    I now think you are promoting national victim consciousness in ways that don’t encourage us to take a look at ourselves—our hastiness and insane predilection for quick fixes for the past several decades.

    There is successful virus (Obama) without a willing host (our nation).

  29. About the attempt to control the media – Neo is right that this is a first sign.

    Let me present to you a quote from Lenin’s letter “Advice of an Onlooker”, written a shortly before October Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd:

    “occupy without fail and to hold at any cost: (a) the telephone exchange; (b) the telegraph office; (c) the railway stations; (d) and above all, the bridges. ”

    See – the principles are formulated, they proved to be successful then and they were followed by communists/Left ever since:
    1. control of communications (media, be it mail pigeons or internet)
    2. control of transportation

    He omitted most important point: control of money (banks), but his troops fixed that mistake on the day of actual uprising.

    It’s a remarkable document, worth reading in full.

    Generally, I think American Right would have benefited from studying Lenin’s and other marxists’ articles and correspondence; by [rightfully] dismissing it as a pile of ideological garbage they put themselves at disadvantage vs. the American Left, who studied it not as “historic papers”, but as concrete and detailed guide to power.

  30. neo,
    yeah.. wouldnt want to leave barry out of the real experience that others he admires have gone through…

    and the communist socialist quote is not mine… i cant remember where i have heard it. i heard it before… i read too much sometimes…

    but it made the point i wanted.

    they are going to keep going with big things till they are stonewalled, then move on to the next big thing. but their behavior suggests that they are working a time table.

    if he signs the climate agreement in december, and there isnt a huge thing to somehow recind it (i dont know how that would work), they know they will be able to get everything they want through external treaty.

    that treaty subordinates the US to a higher statist level. making the US the oppressive child to be whipped and putting it into the position of a state under washington.

    not only that, but it asks the impossible and heavily punishes us for not making it happen.

  31. Tatyana

    sounds like what your saying is what i have said, which is that, it is a process with a methodology which is constantly improved.

  32. Webutante: Victim consciousness? Of course the election of a stealth Leftist like Obama wouldn’t have happened if the way hadn’t been paved for it by a host of things, including simplistic thinking and the need for quick fixes. In this post, I am neither assigning responsibility nor saying the country should evade responsibility. Those are not the issues here at all. This is instead a very practical and forward-looking post, and it has nothing to do with victimization and everything to do with how do we evaluate the news that is breaking right now, the actions Obama might take in the future, what they mean, and what to do about them?

  33. Sorry, I meant to say, there is NO successful virus—Swine flu or otherwise—without a willing and weak host for it to prey on. Our country has become that over decades of quick fixes.

    At some point, I think it wise that we start talking about how we can begin to become stronger in our national immune system against this hasty virus. Cause if we don’t, all our talk and insights will still accompany us to the grave of tyranny.

  34. I don’t think controlling the media is the FIRST sign – he has had the media in his pocket since his DNC speech. I’m paraphrasing Krauthammer here, but I think the FIRST sign that he will do anything – ANYTHING – to seize power and keep it is his discrediting the moral authority of the nation he ostensibly leads. Why would he do this? Krauthammer contends it is because he has chosen decline for America – we will take our place as one among equals. I don’t disagree, but I think his greater motivation is to accrue all the “moral” authority for himself. He really intends to be the Dear Leader. And when he makes his move, he will have the support of much of the world, because he was willing to castrate this once great country to achieve the high and mighty end of “equality.” Who knows, he may even be invited to be leader of the One World Government – because, after all, who you gonna call to the position if not the man with all the “moral” authority and neutrality of The One?

    Whew! I realize I’m sounding more and more like a conspiracy nutter. Let me just say, I believe Elvis is dead; JFK was killed by Oswald alone; God planted the seeds of life and human existence – not aliens; and Vince Foster committed suicide. But, obviously, I think our president is very VERY dangerous.

  35. I’d like to throw in my 2 cents here.

    Obama doesn’t work in a vacuum and has the support and encouragement of his ‘colleagues’ who don’t seem the least bit dismayed about his over reach of power.

    In fact, we can see [them] as guide dogs leading (using) him as their front man. This began in ’04 using him as the keynote speaker at the DNC. As of today, he has an exit date, hopefully in 2012 and maximum 2016.

    The catch is, who remains in DC. We all ready know, who is there and what they are capable of. It is the adage be careful what you wish for…If they wanted us to get involved and pushed that slogan Yes, we can. They got it.

    Yes, we can…begin watching every campaign, every politician running for every office in on years and off years. We can begin to pay attention to details big and small. We can no longer assume that an R or an L represents what we thought it did or what it did, once upon a time.

    This is your mission folks…local judges, township comptrollers, school boards and let’s not forget those community activists (how could we forget) the big and the small – they all need to have a focused eye on them.

    I think I went over my 2 cents limit.

  36. I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t think that Obama is the one that’s grabbing power. He’s the public face of whomever truly is. Frankly, I don’t think President Obama has the long term vision or patience to do this on his own.

    I agree. Obama doesn’t have the intelligence or the toughness, either. He’s a spokesmodel, a talking head who was put in place. Once again, the question is, by whom? I think it’s important to figure that out to determine what they’re trying to do and how best to fight them. Soros is my frontrunner.

    they know they will be able to get everything they want through external treaty.

    This is my largest concern. Constitutional amendments? Ain’t gonna happen. But sign a treaty, get it ratified by the Senate, and it becomes the law of the land. Who the hell pays attention to treaties?

    Still and all, we’re one Enabling Act away from a nightmare. Thanks for pinging my darkest concerns, neo — the ones I try to fight down. Now I’m really bummed.

  37. Your Presidents of memory are pikers. Saint Franklin is the exact model for the Obots, and many of his pool of brainpower are literally related to New Deal 1 blood.

    Garet Garrett wrote of them in 1937–
    ‘So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them.
    To the revolutionary mind the American vista must have been almost as incredible as Genghis Khan’s first view of China—so rich, so unaware. Why should anyone fear government?
    Its cruel and cynical suspicion of any motive but its own was a reflection of something it knew about itself. Its voice was the voice of righteousness; its methods therefore were more dishonest than the simple ways of corruption.
    You do not defend a world that is already lost. When was it lost? That you cannot say precisely. We know only that it was surrendered peacefully, without a struggle, almost unawares. There it is, and there it will remain until, if ever, it shall be re-conquered. Certainly government will never surrender it without a struggle.’

    This is not about recaputuring Congress and the White House for Rinos. The Revolution is well rooted in permanent government. All that we do is on their terms, if less insanely. It is absolutely essential to their interests to have an opposition that is not so weak as it is right now. They are fighting battles they cannot afford to win, when winning unnoticed is what they have done for eighty years. This is a great mistake.

  38. Occam’s Beard: Senate Ratification? Sure, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution says . . . but it is naive to think that Obama feels himself bound by the U.S. Constitution. Jake Tapper (who sometimes gets it) of ABC News gave a report last July 5 regarding the renegotiation of a strategic arms limitation treaty that will run out on December 5. The White House said then that getting the Senate to ratify it would be very difficult, but that extension of the treaty was very important, so that it might be necessary for Obama to implement some aspects of the treaty by executive action, “temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role,” until such time as the Senate got around to ratifying it.
    Maybe we could “temporarily impeach” Obama for that?

  39. We should do whatever we can now to be very aware, to spread the word in a way that doesn’t sound nutty (difficult, I know), and to work for the opposition in 2010.

    Indulge me in a little whining:

    Living in a very blue state, in a bluer county, I’m at odds to know what I should be doing. I’ve shown up at tea parties to do my part to beef up the numbers, but I don’t really see what else I can be doing that will be of any value.

    Anyone have any ideas?

  40. The state and local governments are going to run out of government workers’ pension funds soon.

    The State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, for example, are going down the tubes. Eventually the public will notice this. Even though these governments seem very powerful, they can’t work without money.

    I’m convinced that the Obama regime plans to inflate its way out of debt, but this will lead to massive dissatisfaction, especially in an era dominanted by aging Baby Boomers. Old people never like inflation.

    Price controls never work, as we all know. A government that is based on bad economics won’t last. A government that tries to rule via thugs will be met with force by its own citizens.

    On one hand, I can be very pessimistic about Obama’s attempt to destroy republican government and free enterprise in this country. On the other, I can see that his regime is rather weak. Right now I’m writing from a West Coast neighborhood that is littered with large vehicles, including SUVs, boats, and jet skis. Somehow, I don’t think that the denizens of this neighborhood will tolerate Obama’s attempts to make them switch to tiny cars and “light rail.” I’m writing from a superblue state in a superblue city. Many people here love “organic” things, but they never deprive themselves of any pleasure. They won’t like it when they can’t afford stuff, especially the old ones.

  41. M at 1:14 am . . .

    Keep trying to convince people, in a low key way as necessary, that they should be ready to vote out all incumbents who have contributed to the massive debt we are incurring.

    I find it hard to talk to liberals, but I continue to drop in ideas like the simple idea that “socialized medicine won’t work.” I try to give specific examples that relate to the person I’m talking to.

  42. Excellent post and comments. A theme of the original article is “patience”, and it reminds me of a favorite Chinese maxim:

    Wait long, then move quickly.

    I think the right is formulating long term plans currently, even though we are badly disorganized and splintered at present. The neocons have run their game (no offense) and the liberals are just gaining more speed as they go downhill. Something needs to come together that is traditional(ist) and sane.

    Promethea– very good strategy (last para.). It is difficult to talk to liberals about politics. But ultimately that’s where it is at, dialogue between ordinary citizens. Nothing else should matter more than that.

  44. “Next we have an attempt to take control of the electoral process.”
    Are you aware of the Secretary of State Project? It is totally Stalinist in that the Democrats realize that it is not the vote that counts but, who counts the vote. They are pouring money into Secretary of State campaigns in order to influence the outcome of close elections.
    http://www.secstateproject.org/

  45. I’ve been the single dad of three kids for many years – born in the U.S. of the wrong sex and wrong color to get any government assistance. So, I haven’t had the time to be as well read as many, but I try.

    I know this much – and so do all of you – there is no way out of this without a fight. In City Halls, State Capitols, in D.C., perhaps (God help us) in the streets. That’s what it will take. Where the line becomes drawn for each individual to stand firm and declare “no mas” is what remains to be seen.

  46. Neo makes the case accurately and vigorously. But a fair number of the responses are dithering. Our circumstances call for action, beg for it. Where is our Patrick Henry?
    Nothing’s gonna happen as long as we stand on the sidelines, speculating about the future, the Soroses, the eventual impatience of the blues. The historical lessons are so clear and obvious; to falter in resistance is to surrender. To depend on legal, constitutional remedies as counter to the illegal, extraconstitutional seizure of power is to accept, nay welcome, defeat.

  47. On the ground in my Washington, D.C. suburb what I see is a general pulling back–fewer customers than formerly–sometimes many fewer customers–at Costco and Home Depot, and those there buying fewer items, restaurant parking lots no longer full–some almost empty–most nights, supermarkets not quite so crowded as before.

    People may be cutting their budgets and “pulling back “ in some areas of their spending but I suspect that many “have a bad feeling in their guts,” and gun and ammo sales are “skyrocketing”–there were a reported million background checks on potential gun purchasers by authorities nationally in August, up 12% from the previous month–and this tally doesn’t even keep track of multiple or private “unpapered” purchases at all, ammo is in short supply and expensive and from my observation, some local gun stores are more and more crowded with prospective customers, and have dramatically increased their stocks of weapons especially useful for “home defense.” Meanwhile, I have noticed more and more blank/ boarded up spaces in strip shopping centers and commercial districts, and still many foreclosure signs on lawns–and this in the Washington, D.C. metro area which, because of its high number of well paid government employees and their job security, is much more immune to real economic hardship than the rest of the country.

    Add it all up and despite all of the “glass half full” and “light at the end of the tunnel” crap served up by many in the MSM, I have the feeling that the “bad times” are really only just getting started.

    Maybe this feeling is because of things like new claims for unemployment being “unexpectedly high” this month, and an unemployment percentage that is not the “official” 9.8%, but actually almost 17%, if you add back in those who have quit looking for work or who have taken part time work when they needed full, not to mention the estimated 1.5 million people will have their unemployment run out in December, just in time for Christmas. Then, there is the fact that the Federal government now owns 80% of Freddie Mac and Fannie May, which means, in effect, it owns about 80% of all the mortgages in the U.S; what could possibly go wrong? Then, there are the proliferating FHA mortgages, still requiring only 3-5% money down and still giving great terms to many un-creditworthy borrowers, which now have what the New York Times calls a “cataclysmic” default rate of 25%, the news that almost half of those “troubled loans” that the government “fixed’ several months ago are now several months in arrears in payments and again sliding towards default, and news items saying that there are indications that a new wave of defaults is on the horizon as many “prime” mortgages reset and, as well, mention of the $1 trillion dollars in commercial mortgages that are also reported to be in severe financial jeopardy. I note, too, that last month GM and Chrysler’s sales dropped almost 50%.

    We have yet to experience the full impact on the U.S. dollar of Obama & Co.’s massive deficits and borrowing, the vast increase in our monetary base, or of the monetarization of our debt, that may well lead to the replacement of the shrinking, shaky dollar as the world Reserve Currency, and hyperinflation. Moreover, just recently the bond rating agency Moodys said that, if things keep going in the direction they have been, it estimates that within 3 years it will have to lower the AAA rating our government debt instruments–Treasury bills and bonds–have always had up until now. In addition, there are the coming bankruptcies of the existing major entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid–“mandatory” entitlement spending that now devours almost 60% of our entire Federal Budget that, if unchecked, will eventually consume the entire Budget in a few years. Compounding our economic problems, there is Obama & Co.’s additional $12 or 14 trillion dollar debt on the horizon; a mountain of debt pressing down on all of us and the economy that will limit all our economic and other activities, stifle any recovery and weigh each of us and our children down like a heavy, crushing weight shackled to our shoulders, like a “cangue,” the very heavy circle of thick wood and metal that used to be fastened around the necks of criminals in traditional China, to punish and humiliate them and to limit their ability to escape. Add to the mountain the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, $400 or $500 billion extracted from the already failing Medicare program, as well as a myriad of new taxes and penalties of all sorts to pay for “health care reform. Pile on top of this the massive economic distortions and costs that will result from the government’s “cap and trade” takeover of the entire Energy sector, and their planned destruction of the Coal industry, with the “skyrocketing electricity costs” that Obama admitted are “inevitable.”

    On the individual Freedom front factor in Obama & Co. and the Left’s attacks on any who question or protest; individuals–remember the treatment accorded to “Joe the Plumber,” and to Sarah Palin, the Media–see Fox News, organizations–their most recent target, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or Groups–how about the sexually nasty term “Teabaggers”–who disagree with or oppose them. Then, there is White House’s new “Cybersecurity” capability to dis-integrate the Internet in an “Emergency,” the FCCs attempted clamp downs on free speech on the Internet under the guise of “net neutrality,” and on broadcast radio, and recently passed “hate speech” laws; all of which will further limit free speech and criticism.

    Summing it all up; perhaps soon we will all be forced to fight our own private struggles to survive in our own very own American version of Venezuela or even Zimbabwe.

    I think that Glenn Beck is right when he says that the key players of Obama & Co.–comprised, from the evidence of their own writings and speeches, of far/hard left radicals, Communists and lovers of totalitarians like Mao, Che and Hugo Chavez, people who hate the Capitalist system–are not just clueless bumblers–flailing about, but they are very deliberately–step by step–taking actions that they hope and intend will “crush the Capitalist system,” they hate and despise so much, and create a gigantic economic and/or foreign policy “Crisis” (a variety of the Left’s Cloward-Piven Strategy). A “Crisis,” an “Emergency” so severe–or hyped to seem so severe– that it will justify and allow them to ask the Democrat controlled Congress–on a “rush,” “don’t read the bill or debate it” basis, of course–to give them, in effect, dictatorial power to combat their great, fabricated “Emergency” (an Emergency which–among many other things, could be the effective collapse of the dollar and our economic system, massive sustained unemployment, another terrorist attack, Iranian retaliation against the U.S. and its interests when Israel takes out its nuclear capability, a massive epidemic of some sort, or perhaps the first serious stirrings of revolt by many of our American citizenry–those “rednecks,” “Teabaggers,” “haters,” gun-toting, Bible-thumping “evil mongers,” and DHS certified “Rightwing extremists” and “domestic terrorists”–when they finally figure out what Obama & Co. are up to, and try to wrest their country and their freedoms from the hands of Obama & Co.); an “Emergency” tailored to give Obama & Co. control over virtually every aspect of our lives, to limit our Freedoms, crush dissent and to frog march us all into some American form of Socialism or, more likely, Fascism or Marxism.

  48. Tom: your – “To depend on legal, constitutional remedies as counter to the illegal, extraconstitutional seizure of power is to accept, nay welcome, defeat.”

    This is my view precisely, but I’m dithering in the sense that I’m not sure I want to take it to the streets, literally violence in the streets although it might come to that eventually. It seems to me that we can do our battles via alternative media, tea parties, and manifest our vigilance in the voting booth.

    As Sadie said above –

    “This is your mission folks…local judges, township comptrollers, school boards and let’s not forget those community activists (how could we forget) the big and the small – they all need to have a focused eye on them.”

  49. That’s a good synopsis of the situation, neo.

    I’m pessimistic of our chances of solving this peacefully. I said on another blog about two weeks before the election, “If Obama loses, the cities will burn. If he wins, America will burn.” I haven’t seen anything since that changes my mind. Ever since election night, I’ve believed that we are on the path to civil war. There are an awful lot of Americans who simply won’t tolerate Communism being rammed down their throats. And with good reason, given the bloody history of the 20th Century.

    I have no idea what the flashpoint will be. Some possibilities are national healthcare, cap and trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants (skewing future elections leftward), and the biggie, the Copenhagen climate change treaty. The worst-case scenario would be if all four were to pass. That would be incontrovertible proof that the entire Federal government has “gone rogue” and no longer represents the people.

    At present I think that a military coup is our least worst option. I’m thinking of Pinochet vs. Allende. Someone who could purge the leftists and eventually restore Constitutional government. But there are no guarantees there, either. Once that ball starts rolling, we could end up with a Caesar or Napoleon, which would probably be even worse than what we have now.

  52. The problem with local elections in my area–and I’ve noticed this for years now–is that I don’t know anything about these people and what they stand for, and I don’t know how to find out. Yard signs never mention the party affiliation. They only have the candidate’s name and maybe a meaningless slogan like “Responsible Government”. School board candidates are always listed on both parties’ ballots. Like I said, it has been like this for years and is nothing new.

  53. Oboy. Fox and Drudge (at least–probably others too) are reporting that Obama has signed a declaration of National Emergency over the swine flu.

    This flu thing has been looking dodgy for a long time, as though it’s being set up as a pretext for some kind of move.

    I don’t wanna fight. I don’t. I just wanna be an old lady and knit and stuff. I don’t wanna be right about all this.

  54. It apparently remains to be seen what exactly is involved in a declaration of national emergency.

  55. First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin.
    — Leonard Cohen

    neo: I remain unpersuaded. This is still handwaving. You have essentially presented a slippery slope argument with the crucial gaps largely unmentioned and unexplained.

    Attacking Fox News is a long way from taking supreme power, and so far, attacking Fox News looks to be a loser like almost everything else Obama has done in the past nine months.

    Sure it’s possible that incompetence might lead to competence but that’s not a strong argument. And what degree of competence would be required to become an American tyrant? That’s something no one else managed to do in our history.

    Plus all you have is your certainty that you know that Obama not only wants such power but he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to get it. That’s mindreading on your part.

    I imagine Obama would accept such power were it to fall into his hands, but taking such power is quite messy and risky. I don’t know, and frankly I doubt, Obama is prepared for such an undertaking.

    Becoming an American tyrant would ultimately require support of the American military. To have that Obama would have to act within the Constitution or he would, somehow, have to acquire the military’s loyalty to act outside the Constitution. How, specifically, would Obama do either? The onus is on you and your supporters in this argument to answer that question.

    Sure, you and I will both continue to monitor Obama, and fight against his initiatives — that’s important whatever one believes about Obama’s tyrannical ambitions. So I don’t take the point either that arguing against those ambitions is a careless weakness.

  56. Slippery Slope

    In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin end of the wedge, sometimes misstated as thin edge of the wedge, or the camel’s nose) is a classical informal fallacy.

    A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step inevitably leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant impact, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.

    The fallacious sense of “slippery slope” is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

  57. betsybounds: From Drudge’s link:

    Because of vaccine production delays, the government has backed off initial, optimistic estimates that as many as 120 million doses would be available by mid-October. As of Wednesday, only 11 million doses had been shipped to health departments, doctor’s offices and other providers, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials said.

    Another victory for centralized planning!

  58. huxley:
    Re: Slippery slope

    “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”
    — Confucius

    Hugo Chavez didn’t shut down or nationalize media outlets right off the bat. He began by publicly criticizing them, and went on from there. Think of the legendary frog being brought to a slow boil.

  59. Huxley,

    I hope you’re right, with all my heart I do. I will say that whatever eventuates, I’m pleased to count you as a ally, and I’m glad we’re on the same side. You have a point about the military. I’ve mentioned before that my husband, an aging Jar-head, wondered as long as a year ago whether American soldiers would obey orders to fire on American citizens. It’s a pretty basic question, as you suggest. I don’t know who bears the onus of answering it–at this point, I think the answer is quite simply unknowable.

    Awaiting, meanwhile, some explanation of the scope of this swine flu emergency declaration. They”ve been crying wolf over this thing for a long time, in my opinion, and I just heard some official say on Fox that we’re facing vaccine shortages because nobody had any idea of how big an emergency this thing was going to turn into, or how widespread it would be. I started shouting at the TV, these people have been screaming for months about how bad it was, WHO and the UN and CDC have been issuing color-coded alerts and pandemic declarations since last March! WTF is up with this?

  60. Huxley. Interesting that you addressed Neo only when there are so many comments from informed and serious-minded people here. I don’t believe it matters much whether you are convinced of anything. As I said before, we can agree to disagree. But just in case you haven’t noticed, many of the concerns expressed here are not just about Obama and his disgusting behavior and narcissism. They’re most often about something larger than Obama. They’re about cold-bloodied machinations and manipulations from political party hacks that have all sorts of serious consequences including, obviously, an end to our country and political culture as we know it. As I’ve said before but in different terms, I could give a hoot whether you think Obama has the smarts and ‘balls’ (as you’ve said it) to pull off a tyranny, but it’s clear he has set things in motion toward that and we can be assured there is more to come.

  61. Huxley,

    I hope you’re right, with all my heart I do. I will say that whatever eventuates, I’m pleased to count you as a ally, and I’m glad we’re on the same side.

    Yeah, what she said. 🙂

  62. 1000 Americans have died from swine flu this year? I’d think you’re more likely to die from falling off your roof or a ladder. Yet no ladder emergency in sight.

  63. Regarding the excellent article regarding Obama’s ‘socialist mop’ rhetoric. (Excellent article Baklava).

    Quoting Obama:

    “we don’t want somebody sitting back saying, ‘you’re not holding the mop the right way.’ Why don’t you grab a mop, why don’t you help clean up. ‘You’re not mopping fast enough. That’s a socialist mop.’ Grab a mop – let’s get to work.

    This remind me of something a certain leftist said to me back when I was in college. When he found out that my parents had left Cuba to escape Castro’s Communist dictatorship, he asked me why my parents didn’t instead stay in Cuba and help with what needed to be done there (in other words, stay there and help build castro’s wonderful socialist worker’s paradise). The comment was stated with such total naivete ( or willful ignorance ) for what Castro’s government, and his Communist “revolution” had actually done to that country. (This particular leftist was an excellent example of what some have termed the “sandalistas,” sandal-clad college leftists who are fond of supporting leftist totalitarianism abroad, but who would be appalled if someone censored their ability to speak or told them which records they could have in their record collection.) I explained to him that Castro’s government had imprisoned and killed people for just for expressing their opinions and for not conforming to Castro’s new order, and that if he had been there (given his ostensible sandal-clad pseudo-“noncomformity”) he would would have left too.

    But, in any case, Neo’s post is right on the mark. Obama has shown enough willingness to impose his leftist vision on the United States, and there is enough evidence of this, that I don’t need any further proof. What I have seen is enough to raise my defenses, and to be motivated to do whatever I can to cut short Obama’s power trip. Obama’s statement regarding the mop is particularly telling: he’s telling us not to comment on his policies. This is not unlike the exhortations in Communist countries telling the masses to fulfull their “obligations” to the revolution (dont think, just submit).

    I will say that I still have faith that the U. S. Constitution has provided the remedy for this. Commenting on Obama’s “mop” is called free debate, and it’s protected under the First Amendment. And when someone tells me that I cannot exercise my free speech, but should instead “grab a mop,” my reaction is to not grab a mop, but instead reach for that pitchfork.

  64. I’ll repost a comment I made on an earlier thread. It was at the tail end of the “Paranoid Conservatives” thread, which has since dropped off the front page.

    I’d just like to point out, since I didn’t make it clear earlier, that I think Obama is really a symptom of the disease rather than the disease itself.

    The real problem is the degree that Marxist/Communist ideology has embedded itself in American society, to a degree that was unimaginable a few decades ago. Many people today routinely express opinions and ideas that are thoroughly Communist without even realizing it. The Gramscian long march through the institutions has been a resounding success. The proof is in the millions of idealistic young people who believed in Hope and Change, and the millions of white people who voted for a black candidate—any black candidate—simply because it was the PC thing to do.

    Which makes me look at the 1950s John Birch Society in a new light. They constantly railed against Communist subversion and One World Government, and were relentlessly mocked as paranoid crazies on the lunatic fringe. Well, here we are.

    Obama probably is the front man for something else. George Soros is definitely involved, and he has made various statements in the past that he wants to see America weakened and that he wants to end the dollar as a reserve currency. Personally, I suspect Saudi involvement as well.

    Soros was in attendance when Obama announced his candidacy. I’ve seen pictures of the event, but I don’t know where to find them at the moment.

  65. rickl: doesn’t your local paper at least have descriptions of each candidate? and doesn’t each candidate have a website? Granted, this can consist of just a lot of empty, generic slogans, but it’s something. And you could ask around to see whether you know anyone who knows them personally. Look at their bios, too. Was this person in business or just academia, for example?

  66. betsybounds: if you just want to be an old lady and knit and stuff, you can be Madame Defarge 🙂

  68. huxley: It is an absurdity to ask me to fill in every gap and detail the precise steps that will be taken. I believe I have made my point about the general direction and how it could happen.

    That said, of course I don’t know whether the power grab will be entirely successful. I don’t know. But I believe it has a good chance of success.

    I don’t see Obama as incompetent at all. I see him as very competent; it just depends what you think his goals are. He has been extraordinarily competent at rising to the highest post in the world with hardly any preparation for it. He has been extremely competent at using dirty tricks against all opposition (look at his history with Alice Palmer, and Ryan and the rest). He has been stunningly competent in enlisting the help of the media, including their help to hide and marginalize all his shady associations, and all the warning signs during the campaign about what he intended once in office (the attack on Fox is designed to continue to keep the others in line—it is a warning to them). He has been extraordinary in directing his minions to use successful smear tactics against all enemies.

    I and several other people here have described how Obama could act within the Constitution and still grab enormous power, including power for the state itself. He is already doing so. And there is no tradition whatsoever of military coups in this country, and Obama doesn’t require the support of the military, he just requires them not acting against him. That is a different thing.

    Of course I am mindreading when I evaluate Obama. So are you, so is everyone. But I am also looking at the evidence: his record, and his statements. And what I see points towards the fact that Obama is extremely desirous of power. He is also an extremely ruthless man in his pursuit of it. He has shown that in his entire political history, which I have studied carefully. He is just very good at maintaining a facade that indicates otherwise, while behind the scenes the backstabbings continue unabated.

    I am not required to prove that he would be successful in order to believe he is trying. This is not a court of law, and he is not a defendant who’s innocent till proven guilty. As I’ve said before, I don’t know whether he will be successful. But the more people who are aware of the danger, the better.

  70. @rickl

    “Yard signs never mention the party affiliation.”

    You are correct and they don’t. It makes the ‘job’ of choosing challenging and casts us in the position of doing the ground work.
    I suggest calling your local reps (both sides) and ask them who they are voting for and whether or not they are incumbents running or is it a fresh slate.

    All politics are local, as the adage goes.

    No point in vacuuming the floor, if you haven’t first dusted the furniture – you only end up moving the dirt to another place.

  71. Hmmm. He just requires that the military not act against him. He could start by seeing that a goodly number of them are not in the country.

    We don’t know yet what kind of action this national emergency declaration is, of course. But it could be at least a rehearsal. War games, if you will.

    Sheesh. I’m guessing that one thing it won’t do is calm the fears of roughly half the country that it’s not a genuine health emergency. It could for sure create a lot of confusion. Which these guys might find useful.

  72. Judy Miller quote just now:

    I think it’s backfired.

    Even Judy was referencing the Czar removals (Van Jones) and Acorn stories that the legacy drive by press failed to report on.

  73. On balance, I’m on Huxley’s side of this debate. The trouble is, I have trouble staying on balance. My native skepticism tells me to scoff at the fears that Neo and others express. We’ll muddle through, I tell myself. The American idea is too stable and resilient to be undermined by one semi-roguish president. Everything in me recoils when I hear talk that smacks of conspiracy and alarmism.
    But then I get this feeling that something unprecedented is happening. It’s the oddest sensation – like vertigo. I wait for it to pass.

  74. Geez, I’ve never heard a session where Judy Miller sounded like she had so much common sense AND conservative beliefs and understanding.

    The Fox News panel with Cal Thomas and Jim Pinkerton and Ellen Ratner and Judy Miller was NOT something ∅bama should watch.

    If he did he’d want to ban Judy Miller from any future interviews.

  75. It hasn’t backfired. They’ve had to regroup a bit, is all. They tossed Van Jones, changed a couple of other things, pretended they’ve never heard of ACORN, and now they’re trying to shut Beck and Fox up, delegitimize them, distract from them. Anyone who thinks Beck is just a low-life hater should be asked why these guys thought they had to toss Jones in response, and why they’ve moved to distance themselves–at least for now–from ACORN.

  76. I think that’s where 80% of us are mizpants.

    I see things that give me confidence. I see things that are quite alarming.

    I wonder if I wasn’t hyper-aware (consumer of news everyday) how I’d think.

    I’d probably be like my coworker who doesn’t pay attention and just thinks Obama is trying to do good things and the Repubicans are stopping him.

    Maybe there should be a list of 10 questions you’d have to answer before you can vote ! Then people like my coworker would be denied the right to vote for incurious inexperienced non-economics knowing people like ∅bama (then again – Nyom would be denied also – basic facts are as they are people disagree on them)

    I’m kidding with that last paragraph people !!! 🙂

  77. Beck is on to something, is the thing. If he weren’t, it would be enough to ignore him, and he would go away. They have to stop him.

  78. Sorry Betsy,

    I should’ve qualified what Judy was talking about. She was talking about the ∅bama’s attempt to exclude Fox News anchor from the 5 network press pool.

    It backfired.

    I’ll do better next time!

  79. The progressives will go as far as they can. I’m sort of with huxley in believing that they can’t go very far, or at least not nearly as far as they would like to go. The correlation of political and social forces is moving against them.

    Having said that, the most frightening area of vulnerability remains a politicized Department of Justice and the potential for packing the Federal judiciary with followers of Critical Legal Studies and progressive activists. There is also a fair amount of danger from executive orders related to EPA and environmental regulation, especially if they have the support of some tame judges. We might expect mischief from Labor and the EEOC, as well.

    I expect the 2010 campaign will be vicious, since the progressives will be trying to hold on by their fingernails. The New Jersey gubernatorial election is a taste of things to come.

  80. Tom, you said, “Neo makes the case accurately and vigorously. But a fair number of the responses are dithering.”

    Then you go on to say,
    ” Our circumstances call for action, beg for it. Where is our Patrick Henry? Nothing’s gonna happen as long as we stand on the sidelines, speculating about the future, the Soroses, the eventual impatience of the blues.”
    Care to explain just exactly what all of us ditherers here are supposed to do, or what’s ‘gonna happen’ if we do this unspecified something you allude to? Or are you just trolling for inflammatory quotes?

    In other comments, many here including myself have already stated some of the obvious things that need to be done. Short term things such as winning back the local, state and national legislatures as well as the more long term needs like wresting education from out of the control of the left. The list goes on and has been mentioned here many times. But how do we do that when the republican alternative is democrat-lite?
    Please, explain just what else it is we need to do.

    You said, “The historical lessons are so clear and obvious; to falter in resistance is to surrender. To depend on legal, constitutional remedies as counter to the illegal, extraconstitutional seizure of power is to accept, nay welcome, defeat”
    So just what exactly are you proposing? Are you inciting violence against the government and its elected officials? What?

    To come here and converse, offer your perspective and ideas and possible courses of action is one thing. To come and call the responses here dithering, to proclaim that there is an extraordinary crisis and then infer a call to some unspecified action, well that’s simply lame. Unless as I said above, perhaps you are inciting in the hopes of harvesting some outrageous quotes to use to portray the opposition to Obama and the leftist democrats as typical.

    So what specifically are you proposing us ditherers do?

  81. betsybounds–I too was looking forward to a quiet retirement, sort of like those old Romans–perhaps I flatter myself–who retired to the country when their time of public service to the Roman Republic was done.

    Now, I find myself just as busy as I was when I worked full time on Capitol Hill–trying, as before, to use the knowledge and skills I have to watch the country’s back and to keep that Roman Republic–such as it is these days–from falling.

  83. I’m a little of both. I think, as noted in my above comment, that the Costitution and political checks and balances of this society are strong enough to withstand Obama. But, as I also implied in my previous comment, I am aware of the possible need for action (i.e. the “pitchfork” comment). I don’t think that action needs to be a military coup, but it does require a sense of urgency by people, and a desire to take action.

    One of the positive things that I’m seeing is the arousal, as Neo herself noted in a prior post, of the Center Right to protest, in the form of the tea party protests and the town hall meetings. I think it’s a very positive thing to see conservatives and those with conservative and libertarian views begin to realize what has already been deeply ingrained within the left: that protest is a legitimate use of the first amendement. Protest is every bit as legitimate today to protect individual liberty, and to thwart power grabs by government, as it was when Patrick Henry gave his “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, and as when the original Boston Tea Party occurred.

    The most alarming thing is even having someone as power hungry as Obama is in the first place, and to see him do his machinations to push through an agenda which would greatly expand government power notwithstanding the clear opposition of a large segment of the public. Even if he fails, its like a “near miss” accident: youre left startled that it got that close to begin with.

  84. Arrgg… my above post was supposed to have, as a blockquote, the entire previous comment by mizpants. It was my first effort to use the “blockquote” tag… guess I didnt do it right.

  85. Wolla,

    W’ll that’s two of us, man, that’s me ‘n’ you!

    I keep hearing that this national flu emergency declaration includes the suspension of “certain” federal rules. Which rules are those? They appear not to be saying yet. This is unsettling.

    Mizpants said, “But then I get this feeling that something unprecedented is happening. It’s the oddest sensation – like vertigo. I wait for it to pass.”

    That’s kind of how I started on all this–waiting for it to pass. It started to grow on me back when someone at National Review, I forget who it was, went with a Democrat friend to hear Obama address a large audience during the campaign. The friend looked at him and said, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” It began to seem like vertigo, like the world was twisting out of shape. I waited for it to pass. I’m still waiting.

  86. Betsy, let’s form Madame Defarge society! I don’t guarantee the speed of knitting, though…my last sweeter has been in production for 10 months now, and the second sleeve’s not finished yet.

    Wolla Dalbo: read your original comment in the morning, then the rain started, then I became depressed. But you’re right, and I don’t dare to be optimistic anymore.

  87. Regarding the success or failure to establish a tyrannical government….

    It’s just an observation, but I definitely recall the leftists being borderline wide eyed, mouth foaming, ear bleeding crazy after the 2000 election.

    In spite of their misguided belief that the election had been “stolen”, they didn’t physically assault federal officials – but they now hold both the executive and legislative branches.

    All without firing a shot – and we can learn from that lesson.

    After all, we’re smarter than they are (at least that’s my belief) – so we should be able to accomplish a similar feat from our side of the political spectrum.

    Someone mentioned Patrick Henry earlier.

    Patrick Henrys are needed when the political tide can no longer be reversed, and the government is actively and violently suppressing dissent and blatantly ignoring the limits of the Constitution.

    Isolated instances of abuse can be referred to, but they are still isolated instances, and they are isolated instances for a very important logistical reason.

    The Founders themselves were quite reluctant to take any more of an extreme measure than was absolutely necessary.

    They spelled out those issues in the Declaration of Independence, and the fact they even took THAT step says a lot about how serious they took their own words and what they were trying to accomplish, and knew it was a one way decision that once made they would not be able to back up from.

    They went to great pains to show how far they went to avoid that very decision.

    Had the British king acquiesed and sought to re-established ties with the colonies that his government’s actions had estranged, the Founders may very well have remained British subjects.

    Should people develop a widespread taste for ignoring authority the federal government would not be able to impose it’s will as a blanket over the entire breadth of the nation, and would be limited to attempts to cow the wider populace by making very public examples of select individuals.

    The message at that point would be simple: “Do what we say or something similar to what we did to (fill in the blank) will happen to you!”

    That’s the logistical limitation the federal government has to operate under.

    They can’t punish everyone – so they have to make public examples of those they can get their hands on.

    Obama IS trying to suppress dissent, of course, but he is still limited – as hard as that is to believe.

    He can’t order the military to simply take over a radio station (yet), for instance. Even if he did, I have a suspicion there would be some push back from the military to such orders.

    Yes, he’s managed to take over some very large companies, but they were also very weak at the time and the bailouts were seen as the final option – and the leadership of those companies walked Bambi-like into the waiting arms of the federal government.

    I have a feeling their days are still numbered anyway no matter what Obama does to keep them propped up.

    Kind of a weeding out process of the very weakest – only the very weakest in this case were gobbled up by the government instead of competitors.

    Anyway, generally speaking, Obama is still required to operate under our rules – and it’s high time we used those rules to our advantage and stop wringing our hands over how bad we perceive things to be.

    When we need the Patrick Henrys among us, I am more than certain we will find them if the times require them.

    Patrick Henry had to face an opponent that was more than willing to take everything from him – including his property, his wealth, his life and the lives of those closest to him.

    This enemy was willing to do so in the middle of the public square with everyone watching and without regard to what the public thought of their actions if they managed to hang him – except in the fact that he was a public example they could use to cow his neighbors with.

    All we have to do at a minimum is re-attain political parity, and then move forward to attain political superiority.

    Until then, we should stop being defeatist, recognize the ruthlessness of the (political) enemy we face, and suck it up and get on with the job of getting the nation back on the right track again.

    We have over a year to accomplish this – more than enough time if this nation truly deserves to be saved, and good people of good conscience are willing to do what is necessary to turn this particular tide.

    What we have to deal with (at least at this point in our history) is far less extreme than what Patrick Henry had to face – so enough with the pessimism….it only feeds the confidence of our political enemies.

    Let’s get on with the job of turning this around.

  88. Scottie,

    Thanks, I take a measure of courage from your post. I’m sure we all do, here. Your mention of the Declaration reminded me of something I encountered in a piece by Melvin Bradford earlier in the summer. He pointed out that the Declaration of Independence contains this passage (emphasis mine): “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” And yet it went on to enumerate reasons for the colonies’ dissolving the bonds with England in what resembles, as much as anything at all, a bill of particulars in a divorce case. It is logical, reasoned, and above all, determined.

    Neo’s site has become invaluable to me. I have a good friend at work, a young man of similar persuasion, who will now and again say to me, “Why aren’t you out on the street fighting? Why aren’t I?” And he will answer his own question: “It’s because you and I have good jobs that are pretty secure, and we’re not too affected by any of this yet. We should be doing something.” I answer him by saying that we are doing something. We attended a tea party in our town a few months back, hand-printed and carried our own signs and all the rest. We call our representatives repeatedly. We talk to our friends. He doesn’t attend to blogs the way I do, but he’s younger and has a busier out-of-worklife, too. But by participating in this blog, and in a few others, I am doing something as well. We all are. One of the things that has worried me is that the opposition is unorganized (notice I do not say disorganized) and perhaps we’re not even much aware of each-other in different parts of the country. But that’s changing; we are keeping in touch, and we are in the process of exercising that wonderful capacity dynamic systems have to self-organize.

    That’s the optimistic bit. The pessimistic bit is that I think the threat is real and growing. I’m not sure of how many people are awakening to what I believe to be the magnitude of the threat. I do not quite predict it, but still I think there is a danger that internet communications will be severely constrained by regulation. I do not want to think that we will be driven underground. If we are, a fight will have begun in earnest, and we will not have been the cause of it.

    Meanwhile: Tatyana and I will have our knitting needles at the ready, and woe to him who challenges us! The Defarges will not be dissuaded, and sharp will be our patterns, and our ribbing rows deep. 🙂

  89. You know, when you re-read it, you notice that the Declaration of Independence is actually a pretty conservative document. The passage I cited is a fine example. We don’t long to change things, to revolt or overthrow or the like. We will if we must, but we won’t prefer it and we won’t like doing it.

  90. Gates of Vienna has a good post up about the H1N1 emergency declaration:

    We’re All Paranoids Now

    It’s long, but worth reading. After citing sources showing that the swine flu isn’t as dangerous as it’s been cracked up to be, it ends thusly:

    This is such a crock. Obama has to look like he’s doing something other than his usual “jack” and “squat” so he signs weekend emergency orders that aren’t really emergencies. They’re simply getting Americans used to “emergency-oh-my-gosh-orders” that will severely curb our freedoms. This one is a test, it is only a test…

    The Times and WaPo ought to be ashamed for not giving some context on this piece of “news” emanating from the White House. For example, they could have compared those one hundred children’s deaths from the H1N1 virus with the two thousand kids who die in car accidents each year.

    This “emergency” order, signed under the radar on a weekend is a good example of a probe, pure and simple. We’re being set up, folks.

  91. Re: Patrick Henry

    I was one of three commenters who mentioned Patrick Henry in his post prior to Scottie’s comment, above.

    It occurs to me that I may have argued at cross- purposes by citing both Henry and the Boston Tea Party in my post, since Henry’s “Give me Liberty and Give Me Death” speech, and the Boston Tea Party were both precursors to armed revolt (the American Revolution).

    In my prior post, I cited both as examples of protest, but my intent was to actually support the view that opposition to Obama’s policies could be done within Constitutional parameters, such as through use of one’s First Amendment rights. I realize that I may have unintentionally seemed to support the exact opposite view. (I note that citations of Henry in other comments are in support of that opposite view that extra-Constititional action is necessary.)

    To reiterate: I think there is need for urgency and for action, but I think the mechnisms for change are built into the Constitution, and into America’s system of government. The actions that are needed are precisely the types of protests which are occuring in town hall meetings and in Tea Party protests; the type of dissemination of ideas that are occuriing through talk radio, conservative media outlets like Fox News, and websites such as this; and the use of the electoral process in the 2010 elections.

    Please don’t think that my support of action within the Constitution means that my sense of urgency isnt strong enough. . . believe me, I have a strong sense of urgency and concern over what Obama and company are doing. . . but I think the remedies I cited are much more powerful than some people think. The town hall protests may well have helped stall Obama’s government health care plans, hopefully ultimately leading to their ultimate defeat (or slow, lingering death without enactment).

  94. Baklava,

    Your linked article makes precisely a point I’ve made before, about the Democrats’ use of regulation rendering their Congressional difficulties irrelevant. That may be part of the reason they’re not letting probable 2010 congressional election setbacks stop them. They don’ need no steenkeeng Congress! I fear it won’t do to just vote the bums out.

  95. Previously… citizens and the press would blame Bush for these leftist ramifications.

    leftists in government will do what they will do regardless of who is president.

    That is why we can’t make it about ∅bama

  96. Huxley. Interesting that you addressed Neo only when there are so many comments from informed and serious-minded people here.

    JohnC: I’ve had houseguests for the past week and limited time for posting.

    Plus there have been so many comments that it wouldn’t have been practical to respond to all. So I addressed neo’s post, the root.

  97. I hope you’re right, with all my heart I do. I will say that whatever eventuates, I’m pleased to count you as a ally, and I’m glad we’re on the same side.

    betsybounds: Yes, we are on the same side. I don’t understand the vehemence of some commenters that skepticism of Obama’s tyrannical intentions is a terrible negligence that will help put him in power.

    Given that Obama’s ultimate intentions remain unclear, barring mindreading, I could just as well argue that proclaiming Obama’s malevolence prematurely only serves to marginalize those who make that claim and anesthetize others to the growing menace.

    As to the swine flu vaccination — I think that’s just more snafu from the Obama administration with a bit of the old short-term exploitation.

    Best to stay alert and keep your powder dry IMO.

  98. huxley,

    You have a good head on your shoulders.. But, I would be arrogant to be judgmental about you anyways…

    Baklava

  99. huxley: It is an absurdity to ask me to fill in every gap and detail the precise steps that will be taken. I believe I have made my point about the general direction and how it could happen.

    Neo: I didn’t ask for that. I wanted something beyond hand-waving that the current warning signs are to be read as a persuasive indications that Obama’s ultimate goal is to seize dictatorial power in the United States and that he is capable of doing so.

    I and several other people here have described how Obama could act within the Constitution and still grab enormous power, including power for the state itself.

    We discarded the possibility that Obama could change the Constitution, and, as I recall, none of the scenarios was persuasive for Obama obtaining tyrant status. Yes, Obama can obtain greater power for the state, but that’s not the same as tyranny.

    As to the military — if Obama colors within the lines of the Constitution, I assume he will have the military’s support. My point was that if Obama were to declare himself President for Life out of the blue, the military would not support him and he would fail.

    No, I was not expecting you to prove that point or any other. I would have settled for a plausible scenario, which you have not provided.

    I don’t see Obama as incompetent at all. I see him as very competent;

    Obama was competent within the limited sphere of Chicago machine-race politics and Democratic primary campaigning. He won the presidency under flukeishly favorable conditions, including a global financial meltdown and outspending his opponent almost 3:1.

    Since Obama has become president he has displayed little competence. He has squandered his sky-high poll numbers into the worst honeymoon decline since Truman, betrayed his post-partisanship, post-racial campaign promises, and so far none of his initiatives have succeeded.

    How is this competence? Is his current position what he was aiming for? Is this a guy who could really parlay the presidency into tyranny?

    Obama may have meant to keep the other media in line by attacking Fox but (A) they were already in line and (B) his efforts inspired some of them, such as Helen Thomas, to step out of line. Again, more incompetence.

    Of course I am mindreading when I evaluate Obama. So are you, so is everyone.

    However, I am the only person here who readily admits he doesn’t know what Obama really wants, and that my opinions are only that.

    You and others may occasionally qualify your statements, but most of the time you post as though those opinions were the truth, and proceed to even more speculative claims.

    If your position is that you are speculating that Obama wants to be tyrant and you are speculating that he is working towards being a tyrant and you are speculating that he could succeed at becoming tyrant … well, that’s fine.

    Me, I’m sticking with Occam’s Razor. There are other, simpler explanations for Obama’s behavior.

  100. Shannon Love provides a good analysis about how liberal nations become tyrannies:

    The history of the 20th Century paints a very clear picture of how liberal orders collapse into authoritarian ones. Contrary to popular belief, liberal orders do not gradually evolve into authoritarian ones by the accumulation of state power. Instead, liberal orders fail suddenly when they cease to provide basic physical and economic security. The functional power of the state decays until conditions reach a degree of disorder that triggers a sudden collapse into an authoritarian order. Ineffectiveness kills the liberal state, not excessive powers.

    The major cases of Russia, Italy, Germany and Japan all follow this pattern. In each case, the liberal order lost the ability to provide the basic order and stability required for the economy to function, and simultaneously lost the ability to suppress the violent action of political extremists. A feedback loop arose in which the erosion of state effectiveness created disorder which empowered extremists who further sabotaged the state’s ability to function. The feedback loop rather rapidly increased the power of extremists and destroyed the liberal order.

    I agree. The US is not going to become a tyranny by boiling the frog as some argue. And if Obama were to destroy the economy and the stability of the US such that the middle class sought an authoritarian solution, the country would no sooner turn to Obama than the Germans turned to the Weimar Republic after the hyperinflation. Obama would be a direct victim of that instability and some outsider like Hitler would be the beneficiary.

  101. Huxley–in an earlier post and just now, you rightfully point out that it would make his attempt to acquire dictatorial power over the U.S. and its citizens much surer and easier if Obama could command sufficient loyalty and obedience by the U.S. military to be able to achieve his ends, which may or–more likely–may not be possible.

    What Obama may be able to achieve in a future, highly dangerous, first-ever situation–rife as the Civil War was with agonizing over and confusion as to “loyalties”–(is it the military’s duty to be loyal to only and just the Constitution, and how does it understand and demonstrate this loyalty, or does this loyalty also extend to the Presidency and to this particular President, as well, especially when the two loyalties conflict?)–is their paralysis, i.e. effective neutrality, or reluctant, sporadic, partial cooperation.

    Fortunately, we have not had–so far–to be Turkey, Greece, or other countries where the military has periodically stepped in to protect these country’s types of democracy when, in their judgment, civilian governments threatened it. What, for instance, has been and is now taught at our military academies and in our military generally about the nature and extent of our military’s duty towards and fidelity to the Constitution? How would our military leaders evaluate–or would they even see a duty to evaluate as being part of their “job description”–Obama & Co’s actions, and render a judgment on whether they violated the Constitution in a way serious enough to require them to take actions to “protect and defend the Constitution,” or would their reaction be to say, “it’s above my pay grade,” just keep their mouths shut, say “yes sir” and “soldier on?”

    That is why Obama’s pre-election call, in his speech in Colorado on “Service,” for the creation of an alternative, civilian power base, a massive, well funded “Civilian National Security Force,” was so extraordinary and ominous; a magnesium flare in the night (http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=b7k&resnum=0&q=civilian+national+security+force&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=1TzjSpLvDtPS8QaOnej0AQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=8&ved=0CCQQqwQwBw#).

    From where I stand, I view his attempts to strengthen his corrupt, very close allies, ACORN/SEIU, to give them a role in the activities of the government, and grow them with many billions of dollars in funding (it has been asserted that all of these various showy Democratic voted “cutoffs” of federal funds to ACORN apply only to this fiscal year, which expires at the end of this month, and, then, the spigot will be wide open again, unless legislation is passed all over again, cutting off funds for this new fiscal year, or language making these various cutoffs permanent becomes law), his emphasis on “volunteerism,”–you might note the 60 different shows on television this week that will feature a “public service” “volunteerism” theme–and legislation that has become law setting up a commission to explore ways to initiate “mandatory public service,” the recent federal takeover of all college loans, new government programs to forgive those loans in exchange for 10 years of “service” by the mostly young to the government, new public laws quadrupling the size of AMERICORPS and creating several new, massive, well-funded “public service organizations,” coupled with his plans to vastly expend the welfare class via delivery of the disguised federal welfare checks of “tax credits,” as multi-pronged, interlocking attempts to create a civilian voting and power base, particularly beholden to and loyal to Obama–seemingly innocuous now, but with the right indoctrination (you might take a look at Obama’s involvement with the community organizers who favor Alinsky type tactics at the shadowy “Gamaliel Foundation,” and at hints about its indoctrination programs)–potentially very dangerous down the road; the types of “mass” or “popular organizations” that have been so useful in the past to Hitler, Mao, the Communists in the Soviet Union and Vietnam, to Castro, and are so useful today to would be dictators like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as an aid to gaining and keeping power and as a weapon to intimidate enemies; all this to bypass the need for cooperation by a conflicted or reluctant U.S. military to achieve Obama & Co.’s ends.

  102. It turns out that the assertion that funding cutoffs for ACORN expire in a couple of days is correct. The cutoffs were made part of the continuing resolution that funds the government on an interim basis pending the passage of the government’s regular funding bills for each department which have not yet been passed.

    So, when the continuing resolution expires in a couple of days, the ACORN funding cutoffs expire with it.

    Gee, it sure would have been nice if at least one all those posturing Democrats who joined to pass the continuing resolution funding cutoff, had pointed out the minor technicality that their high profile cutoff was only going to last for a mater of days and then self-destruct,. But I guess such smoke and mirrors, such little games of lying by omission to fool citizens are all that you can expect these days from our “representatives” on Capital Hill.

  103. Wolla Dalbo: Thanks for the thoughtful responses.

    Obama has said, proclaimed actually, so many things. Start a “Civilian National Security Force,” abolish nuclear weapons, end racism, begin socialized medicine, stop the seas from rising, and so forth.

    It’s hard to know where to take Obama seriously.

    Untrammeled, he would no doubt be a menace in who knows how many ways.

    However, there is notable lack of follow-through on almost everything. Whatever Obama’s dreams may be, he and his administration siimply do not execute well.

    ACORN may escape the final, thorough cut-off they deserve. But they are being watched and they will never get away with what they did before. Likewise SEIU.

  104. Pingback:hackingas

  106. The inaugural Student Achievement Award went to Paula for exceptional student filmmaking.

    The king forbade spinning on distaff or spindle, or the possession of one, upon pain of death, throughout the kingdom,
    but all in vain. zenas and links two limestone plateaus: the
    Causse du Larzac and the Causse Rouge.

    Feel free to surf to my homepage :: https://www.facebook.com/pages/DragonVale-Hack-and-Cheat-for-IphoneAndroidIpad-and-Ipod/1490006347926659

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑