As A Matter of Fact, I Think He Does…
Tags: liberal road to hell, Socialism/Communism.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Some of my liberal counterparts had near apoplectic responses to John Hinderacker’s article entitled, “Why does he hate us?” In it, Hinderacker highlights his compatriot Paul Mirengoff’s article in The Examiner, an excerpt of which follows:
In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.
To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter’s America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.
But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer t[he] world. Obama will not grant America even that.
Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer’s election could hardly have been more lukewarm.
It seems that, in Obama’s view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies.
This led one of my liberal acquaintances to retort:
Sorry, but the “facts” in the article simply do not lead to the conclusion that constitutes the assertion in the title.
So, Does Barack Hussein Obama really hate America? Consider the following:
In his formative years, young Barry Soetoro hung out with the likes of Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers, who loved America so much they decided to bomb the living crap out of it.
The guy sat in a church for 20 years listening to a guy screaming “G-d Dmn America!”
Barack Hussein Obama, himself, in his own words, said the Constitution was a flawed document because it did nothing to ’spread the wealth.’
Obama never misses an opportunity to apologize for what he feels to be American ‘arrogance.’ (yet he himself, is the paragon of arrogance).
Rather than speaking of American greatness, Obama speaks only of its perceived flaws. Rather than build on the principles that made America great, he seems to feel that it is his job to single-handedly correct what he believes to be over two centuries of wrong-minded policies, and to turn America and its founding principles on its head as a means to weaken and humble our nation in the process.
Barack Hussein Obama never speaks of a strong America; he never speaks of America being a leader for freedom; but instead he speaks of America as a nation in need of neutering, one to be relegated to be on equal footing (or lower) with even the most rogue of nations. Rather than the Monroe, Truman, JFK, Reagan, and Bush doctrines, which each recognized the greatness of America and sought to protect and champion the cause of freedom and liberty around the globe, Obama’s is the new doctrine of “American moral relativism;” rather than being clothed in Old Glory, we are now bathed in sackcloths and ashes, being beaten down and forced to atone for what in Obama’s mind are past and unforgivable wrongs. Rather than stand up to tyrants, dictators, and monarchs, he bows before them in supplication. Rather than representing America in strength, he cowers in his own fecklessness.
In an effort to hasten his remaking of America, Obama has even cheapened the very structure, fidelity and integrity of governance, appointing a wide variety of tax scofflaws, avowed communists, and innumerable unelected, unaccountable ‘czars‘ to carry out his policies.
I would therefore submit that, taking into account how he chose to spend his developing years and as is certainly evident in the intent of and in the way he conducts policy, it most veritably can be inferred that Barack Obama isn’t necessarily a fan of that for which America has traditionally stood.
In fact, to make the inference that Barack Hussein Obama loves America and all for which it has traditionally stood is certainly more of a stretch of inference than is its corollary.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Leo Pusateri is an educator and military dad from St. Cloud, Minnesota. Leo also blogs at Psycmeisters' Ice Palace, Murtha Must Go! and True North. Follow Leo on Twitter.
9 Responses to “As A Matter of Fact, I Think He Does…”
Caucus of Corruption
The only thing that ever made his wife proud of her country was its decision to nominate him as a presidential candidate.
If you read his autobiographies you will not find one single word indicating any pride in or respect for America. He had a choice of over a hundred churches in South Chicago and the only one that appealed to him was virulently anti-American as well as anti-white, preaching a racist distortion of Christianity.
He has told us over and over again what he thinks, how he feels, and what he wants to do, yet the RRL persists in parsing his language and telling us that he never really means what he says, he really means something else, and that a literal interpretation of his actual words is always “taken out of context”.
were did the lemmings go?
“Hate’s America” should be added as a condition to Godwin’s law.
js02
ya had to ask……LOL
“Hate is America” impresses weeniehead?
Oh, yeah—it’s weeniehead
Ah, Amazona, smarty. I wrinked my nose at your “Yours (plural ‘you’)” “creativity”, but I see you don’t have much restraint with the come backs.
markdoes:
the obamster
is playing by the rule….
be nice to people on the way up
because you never know who you’ll be reporting to on the way down
Obama first met Ayers when he was in his mid thirties, at a social event at Ayer’s home that Senator Alice Palmer had invited him to in order to endorse him as her successor. The only other times they interacted were at board meetings and when they happened to bump into each other. Additionally, Ayers strongly disputes the characterization of himself as an “unrepentant terrorist.”
The problem with this is that Wright didn’t spend most of his time saying, “God damn America.” While societal issues and current events often formed the background or subtext of his sermons, the sermons themselves were about (of all things) Christianity. The vast majority of people who think that all of Wright’s sermons were just America-bashing have never actually bothered to listen to one.
Hoo boy, where to begin. For starters, I would like to think that you are smart enough to be able to listen to something without it being paused every few seconds so that the video maker can tell you what Obama really just said. Evidently, the video maker disagrees. Second, the clips in the video, as the video itself points out, is not a discussion of whether or not redistributive change is good or bad. What it is is Obama saying that the courts should not be in the business of redistributing wealth, which I’m fairly certain is something you agree with. The “tragedy” he refers to, as is evident if you listen to the recording rather than just reading the dictates of the thought policeman who uploaded it, is that the Civil Rights movement looked to the courts for that change rather than seeking it out in ways that might actually work. Now, what are Obama’s thoughts on redistributive change? Well, he supports welfare, which is the specific type of redistributive change being talked about in the video (at least at first). No surprises there. On other occasions he has said that the best way to help the black community is to help everyone. A poor black person is still fundamentally a poor person. With regards to the problems faced by the black community that are peculiar to it, he has planted himself firmly in the Cosby camp that the way for those problems to be dealt with is cultural — fathers need to raise their children, students need to exert themselves in school, etc. I don’t think you disagree with any of that stuff either. Third, you apparently linked to the wrong video. If you guys were to stop stifling fact-based discussion by limiting the number of links a post can contain I would link to it, but as it is you’re just going to need to find it yourself. Fourth, you have a very creative interpretation of “in his own words”, which is not a phrase that’s supposed to be interpreted creatively. What Obama actually said was that racial inequality is a flaw that continues to this day, and that the Constitution reflected that, which is undeniable, as the Constitution was amended in order to address that very flaw.
Everyone knows that when he says “arrogant”, he means “George W. Bush.”
Nice try.
I am unfortunately out of time (I need to pick up my mom at the airport), but I will get to the second half of the post later today.
Sergei, the sermons collected by the Rev. Wright and published by his church were heavily if not exclusively racist and anti-American in nature. These were clearly the messages he chose to represent himself.
The church members themselves have been very vocal about the fact that the church represents “Black Liberation Theology” as put forth by James Cone. I suggest you look into this version of Christianity before you lecture us on the “Christianity” preached and taught in the Reverend Wright’s church.
Obama was also impressed by and close to Father Pfleger, a blatant racist and anti-American radical.
As one who has served on boards, I can assure you that for one thing, you vote in accordance with those with whom you agree, and the boards on which Obama served with Ayers voted consistently to give money to radical Leftist groups, including ACORN.
Your parroting of the mantra that Obama and Ayers just “ran into each other” every now and then is a contrast to earlier claims that they were friends. It is unsubstantiated as well as contradicted by fact and common sense, and as reasonable as the claim that the Obama and Ayers children ?played together” as an explanation for their associations.
Ayers was an established mover and player in radical Leftist Chicago politics, an arena in which Obama aspired to belong and succeed. Yet we are repeatedly told that they had no real contact, no significant interaction, in spite of their prominence in the same tight circle of political ambition and influence, coupled with their joint efforts to funnel money to the same organizations via their shared board of director positions, and their cooperation in orchestrating Obama’s run for office.
So Ayers “strongly disputes” being described as an “unrepentant terrorist” in spite of bragging about his terrorist deeds and wishing he had done more. Yeah, very compelling………..
I hear OJ Simpson “strongly disputes” being describes as a murderer, and Joaquin Phoenix “strongly disputes” claims he gets high.
The radical Left will manage to excuse, explain, or redefine every action taken by Obama, so deeply invested are they in the image they cherish. And reality will have a hard time getting a toehold in that obdurate wall of defensiveness and delusion. But running everything through an ideological filter is not as bad as sheer hypocrisy, which is a staple of radical Leftist revisionism.
For example, a photograph of President Bush at a large White House gathering in which Jack Abramoff could be seen far in the background speaking with a group of people was used by the RRL to try to link the two men in some nefarious collusion, yet the same RRL stridently refuses to admit the documented ongoing relationship between Barack Obama and a known anti-American terrorist.
“Guilt by association” was great with you RRL types when it was about two men who happened to be in different forms of the energy business in a huge state—-George W Bush and Ken Lay—but it is despicable, according to you, when applied to a relationship described as “like family” and “close friend” and “advisor” and so on, over two decades, between two men who have repeated many of the same attitudes and opinion, as have Obama and Wright.
Barack Obama is, and always has been, a radical who has sought out and accepted the tenets of the far far Left, who has sought out the company and advice of active anti-Americans all through his life, who has surrounded himself with these people, who has gravitated to Marxists and Maoists and America-haters and free-market objectors and placed them in high government positions, who has named a union leader who uses phrases such as “workers of the world, unite” and who sends union thugs to beat up political opposition as his most trusted advisor and who has visited the President in the White House more times than have the Secretary of State and the general appointed to run the Afghanistan war, combined, who has repeatedly stated a belief in “economic justice” and “redistribution of wealth”, who has openly stated that “when you spread the wealth around everyone benefits” and so on. His is an unbroken pattern of action, interrupted only sporadically by fleeting lip service to expedient moderation in his radical agendas.
Try as you will to redefine him as a centrist, as a lover of his nation, as a president whose goal is to establish economic vitality, and so on. It’s just that you are trying to swim upstream against a torrent of conflicting information, and while you might make it, you can’t drag us along with you.