Elect Obama, Destroy America

[audtatious]

Political hyperbole? Right-wing alarmist propaganda?

Consider this.

The Ruinous Bequests of the Sixties

Most protest movements begin as an organized expression of a legitimate grievance -- some perceived societal injustice, perhaps in response to actual governmental or judicial tyranny. If the timing is right and the issues resonate, successful protest movements can flourish and quickly grow into full-fledged revolutions, and revolutions can often degenerate into bloody civil wars.

Is America presently in the midst of such a potentially explosive scenario? Unfortunately, the signs appear to be more and more ominous. Since those traumatic events of September 11, 2001, this nation has been resolutely dividing itself into two increasingly hostile and irreconcilable camps. That reasonable 'middle ground', traditionally amenable to compromise, has been steadily shrinking until it has become all but hypothetical. It has been argued, not unconvincingly, that not since those anxious years in the mid-Nineteenth Century, prior to our perhaps inevitable, but monstrously destructive Civil War, has this great country been so split asunder.

Once again, the split is to be between Republican and Democrat, Right and Left, but this November's election will not be between the traditional Republican Right and the traditional Democratic Left; but rather between an ascendant but conflicted New Left, and a beleaguered and conflicted New Right. This New Age Democratic Party is torn between the Hillary Clinton Political New Left of old-style Democratic politics -- i.e., pro-labor, pro-big government, "One World", Socialistic agenda -- whose ultimate goal however appears to many to be primarily a personal return to political power, and the charismatic Barack Obama's Cultural New Left, an idealistic social movement, which views political power as simply a means to an end, the end being the implementation of sweeping cultural changes in our American society. Each in their own way are ideological products of the Sixties. But, as destructive as the victory of either candidate would ultimately be to our cherished American Dream, of the two, the prospects of an Obama presidency are by far the most alarming.

Despite his oft-repeated promises to "bring America together", by his own words and actions and revealing personal associations -- and that of his prospective First Lady -- for all of his undeniable charismatic appeal, Barack Hussein Obama is simply a racist. His vision of America is racist, and his solutions to our problems are racist. His appeal is to those backward-looking, self-destructive forces of negativity and defeatism inherent in all cultures at all times. His song is not a new one, it's that same same old seductive siren song of victimization which has lured countless gullible societies to their doom -- 'You deserve more than what you have, and you would have more than you presently have, had you not been victimized by Them, the Enemy, the Other -- the colonialist, the Jews, or the Whites.'

Thus, in Barack Obama's skewered vision, America is to be seen as a battleground: it is to be Us versus Them again. The historically suppressed colored peoples of this world versus the ruthless and domineering post-colonialist Whiteys. His appeal is to the politically naive or the purposefully ignorant, those who willfully, for their own selfish motivations, deny all political and cultural progress and achievement, no matter how obvious. Far from the high-minded rhetoric of their humanistic speeches, they are simply the latest genus of that same old species of self-serving politicians -- devious, amoral and cynical. They are intellectually, emotionally, and often financially invested in defeat. They are the dangerous products of protest movements gone awry.

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. This new political entity no longer has one single clear cut societal agenda (i.e. the Cause); their efforts now become divided. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usually does, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.

How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?

But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.

But with their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy?

The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.

The American -- and eventually, world-wide -- protest movements of the 1960s provide us with a perfect example of this ultimately self-destructive paradigm, which -- due in large part to America finding itself in the midst of yet another contentious and unpopular war -- is drawing us once again into its deadly vortex. The protest movements of the Sixties produced some truly remarkable changes for the better in our American society. But there was also a dark side. Part of the message of the Sixties was the message of helplessness. It is "attempting to cure the alcoholic by convincing him that he has good reason to drink". Its well-intentioned but deadly condescension has brought us the bleak realities of inner city despair. The self-perpetuating crime-ridden, drug-infested, inter-generational poverty and hopelessness of the Seventies. And now, they are bringing us this devastating message once again.

The Seventies: The Bleak Landscape of Victimization:

Does it matter that Barack Hussein Obama is at least partially black? Yes, tremendously. Not to us, but to Barack Hussein Obama. It is the very essence of his being, the banner of his Crusade. Without the 'race issue', Barack Obama would be just another politician. It is his focus and his justification. And, if we are not careful it will become ours: there are many among us who have unwittingly bought into the false premise that all of the existential threats we face in this turbulent world are of our own making. They are not evidence of our real enemies evil intentions, but rather the results of our own inherent racism and prejudice. And they will proudly cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama merely to prove to themselves and to the world that they are not racists.

However, it is certainly fair to ask, if race or color are still truly overriding factors with the American public, then how is it that we exhibited no such national hang-ups when coping with Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? And if race and gender are still the salient issues they were in the Furious Sixties, then how does one explain the current makeup of our Democratic Presidential Candidates? One a woman, one a black? It's a pretty difficult argument to sustain.

To all but the most blind and biased liberals, the surprising victories of the Feminist and Civil Rights movements of the Sixties have been nothing short of astonishing. How anyone in today's America can watch television, go to a movie, listen to popular music, or read a national newspaper and come away feeling that either blacks or women are underrepresented is incomprehensible. Today there are women and blacks -- and, yes, lesbians and homosexuals and transgenders -- in every conceivable facet of American life -- in the military, the media, the business world, sports, entertainment, politics. Only those deeply invested in a contrarian agenda would be cynical enough to deny it.

We, the United States of America, have come closer in this Twenty-First Century to achieving a pure meritocracy than any other civilization in history. But will this undeniable fact impress those self-doomed generational victims and their professional enablers? Hardly. For these aging warriors of the Sixties and their current ideological offspring the very concept of victory is an unpleasant, perhaps even a deadly admission. For without a battle, what use are warriors? If gender-based and racial parity have actually been achieved, then what possible use do we have for a Gloria Steinem or an Al Sharpton ? What, then, can these poor dispossessed Bands of Brothers -- or, more often, Sororities of Sisters -- do with their disbanded warriors ? What roles can there be in today's meritocracy for a NOW or an NAACP? Those roles which would actually benefit man -- or womankind, they have, to their everlasting dishonor, steadfastly refused to even consider. These disenfranchised organizations could help to change the world, but they cannot get past their own deflated and bruised egos. The feminists could be rising as one powerful voice in support of their oppressed sisters in Islam; and the black activists could be wooing their brothers and sisters away from the devastating consequences of a life lived as a victim. But they don't. They won't. To keep themselves in power, to preserve their personal tyrannies, they choose rather to perpetuate the myth, and seal the plight of the true victims of this world.

To vote for Barrack Hussein Obama and his dark vision of America is to vote for defeatism and negativity. It is willfully turning your back on the hope and promise of this wondrous meritocracy we call America. It is buying into the outrageous lie that America itself is the problem, and that only by changing the whole concept of Americanism can we hope to cure the evils of this world.

Would electing Barack Obama mean the destruction of America?

Only you can decide.

- Roger W. Gardner

[themadscientist]

I believe that 100% but I was against him based solely on his resume already. It's as formidable as a leaflet one might find stuck under the wiper on their car after shopping at the mall. people will vote for him because they feel guilty, buy into his paper thin BS or are just stupid. They deserve what they get if he is elected. I am past ready for a good old civil war in the streets, bring it. Enough talk and veiled insults let's burn this mutha down. America needs an enema.

[stopcamping]

Is there a link to the source of this tl;dr article?

[mcheddadi]

I want to see Barrack win mostly because he is black

[audtatious]

Is there a link to the source of this tl;dr article?

I found it via a blogger on the Chicago Sun Times....Here's one location it is posted:

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/....html

[stopcamping]

I want to see Barrack win mostly because he is black

I seriously am voting for BO simply bc he is black. No, I'm not black, a libbie, and I don't have white guilt. I'd just like to be able to tell my kids & grand kids that I helped vote in the First Black President.

[themadscientist]

That's ****in stupid; people like you are scary.

You can be part of the first of many things, being part of the first group of people to run off a cliff en masse for example but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Wait, you are voting for someone based solely on them being black, you are part of that group.

So you have in one fell motion pointed out three things i would like to itemize

1. You are racistBy voting for him based solely on the fact that he is black you have made a decision based on race.

2. You are sexistBy voting for him based solely on the fact that he is black MAN you have made a decision based on sex. Hillary would have broken a barrier, she could have been a first too.

3. You are scaryYou do not demonstrate good decision making skills but you get to cast a vote that could affect all of us.

[stopcamping]

I found it via a blogger on the Chicago Sun Times....Here's one location it is posted:

http://radarsite.blogspot.com/....html

This same website has an article titled "AMERICA'S ISLAMIZATION" which makes the assertion that Islam has a hidden agenda to hijack this country and turn it into a theocracy, lmao.

[stopcamping]

That's ****in stupid; people like you are scary.

At least I had the balls to say it.

[audtatious]

This same website has an article titled "AMERICA'S ISLAMIZATION" which makes the assertion that Islam has a hidden agenda to hijack this country and turn it into a theocracy, lmao.

Ah. Article is worthless because it's on a website with others you don't believe in?

Here ya go:http://www.suntimes.com/news/b...suABI

Now it's on the Chicago Sun Times site. That make it better?

[themadscientist]

At least I had the balls to say it.

Freely admitting to the folly of your decision, you want a cookie because you are cognizant of your bizarre rationale?

[stopcamping]

Yes, I prefer Chips Ahoy.

[AZhitman]

This same website has an article titled "AMERICA'S ISLAMIZATION" which makes the assertion that Islam has a hidden agenda to hijack this country and turn it into a theocracy, lmao.

When the most devoted followers view anyone who doesn't believe as they do as "infidels" and worthy of death, I have no doubts that this is at least partially true.

[stopcamping]

Ah. Article is worthless because it's on a website with others you don't believe in?

Here ya go:http://www.suntimes.com/news/b...suABI

Now it's on the Chicago Sun Times site. That make it better?

lol, I didn't say your article was worthless, I just observed that other article happened to be in the same blog and was funny. It's on the front page, check it out for a laugh.

[themadscientist]

well the good news is at least I can render your vote null with mine. Tell your kids you almost got an inexperienced smoothtalker into office based solely on his race but some expat halfway around the world stopped you. Would you accept fruitcake?

[audtatious]

lol, I didn't say your article was worthless, I just observed that other article happened to be in the same blog and was funny. It's on the front page, check it out for a laugh.

No issues on my part. I just linked you to a more "official" link

[stopcamping]

well the good news is at least I can render your vote null with mine.

And my vote cancels yours out too

Tell your kids you got an inexperienced smoothtalker into office based solely on his race

Fixed. And I don't see anything wrong for voting for him bc he is black.

[themadscientist]

So would you have a problem with someone else voting against him because he is? I would. I would vote for someone based on how strong of a candidate they were not their race or which door they walk through to go to the bathroom.

The race and gender barrier are long past due to be broken but they need to be broken by candidates who stand out as people first not demographics, it cheapens it. Hillary and Obama ain't it.

I guess i expect to much from the American Idol generation.

[stopcamping]

So would you have a problem with someone else voting against him because he is? I would.

Yes, I would have a problem with a person like that. However, I don't see the connection between me and the racist and here's why: if you're voting for something, you're typically voting against something as well. So, being a white guy voting for a black guy, according to the previously mentioned logic, I'm voting against the white guy? I'm definitely not a self-hating white guy. So, the racist and I are fundamentally different.

[themadscientist]

your decision is based upon race, that's racist.

[stopcamping]

your decision is based upon race, that's racist.

If it is racism, do you think it's the same kind of racism that the KKK subscribes to? I don't believe it's the same.

[themadscientist]

Only Liberals deal in "degrees" of truth. Racist is racist. Ambiguity is what is eroding this country, I won't subscribe to that boundless self serving philosophy. Right is right wrong is wrong. If you are for something based on race, sex, etc it is just as wrong as being against something for the same reason. Equality means equal

[stopcamping]

Only Liberals deal in "degrees" of truth. Racist is racist. Ambiguity is what is eroding this country, I won't subscribe to that boundless self serving philosophy. Right is right wrong is wrong. If you are for something based on race, sex, etc it is just as wrong as being against something for the same reason. Equality means equal

OK, so who am I being racist towards then?

[themadscientist]

whites

It's like the term "reverse racism" lets look at that. Grammatically it doesn't even make sense. When is it used? Only when a white person is descriminated against. Why is that? It suggests in a passive agressive way that only whites are racist. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the insertion of "reverse" in the aforementioned situation.

Racist is racist, wrong is wrong. It would be nice to see a black president, it is a significant barrier as is a female president but please vote for a person who is the best candidate and anecdotally happens to shatter a barrier.

Unfortunately nobody this go around is the "best" rather the least offensive.

[stopcamping]

whites

Yeah, see, this is where your argument has a flaw, I don't have anything against whites though, since I'm white. I don't see how whites are being cheated out of anything if I vote for a black man simply bc he is black. Whites aren't being cheated out of the Presidency, since we've had nothing but whites since the beginning.

Edit: Don't worry though if you disagree, I have a hunch us whites will have a fair shake in the next election

[themadscientist]

You voted for someone because he is black, the opposing candidate is white thusly you have discriminated against whites. That's racist my freind. My argument is flawless, you are in check, move back and forth as much as you want.

Want to break a barrier? We have not had a hispanic president but the Democrats had a candidate at the beginning who was and most importantly brought a wealth of experience to the table. Proven performance not catchy slogans with no substance. He wasn't wacky and fringe enough though so he was cast aside. I invite you to read up on one of the better choices we never got.http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/index.html

[audtatious]

Guess in a nutshell you need to put down what you mean by racism. In your definition, racism is a form of descrimination as it pertains to this subject. Selecting the white man due to skin color over the black man is a form of descrimination just as selecting the black man over the white man simply due to skin color. In each case, the other opponent is being penalized based on his race or ethnicity.

[Cold_Zero]

Back on topic.The only problem with this Nostalgia of the 1960's and the 'great' social movements during this time is that most of them were fueled by the Russians and Global Marxists. We did the same thing to the Russians, the Eastern Europeans and the third world to advance our causes or give the Marxists troubles. I also believe that they had a hand in the epidemic of rampant drug use in the 60-80's. They even delved into trying to bankrupt the American Economy by buying front companies (something similar to Enron).

[stopcamping]

You voted for someone because he is black, the opposing candidate is white thusly you have discriminated against whites. That's racist my freind. My argument is flawless, you are in check, move back and forth as much as you want.

You're right, I'm a white dude who is racist towards whites.

[stopcamping]

I think the word "racist" should be reserved solely for people who hate/dislike racial groups, am I crazy?