Bush and McCain, Obama and et al: in a shadow
There used to be no love lost between Bush and McCain. But paradoxically, the war in Iraq, which divided Bush from much of the nation, caused McCain to come closer and to even defend him.
Now McCain is in an odd position re Bush. He knows about Bush’s high unfavorability ratings, but he also knows that Bush is the nominal head of the Republican Party and still able to raise money from the base, which McCain sorely needs. He also knows that Obama is hot to taint him with the brush of “McCain is just another Bush,” because if successful that approach would be the best way to defeat McCain in the fall.
And so when McCain joined with Bush for a fundraiser and yet barred the press, Obama lost no time making the connection:
No cameras. No reporters. And we all know why. Senator McCain doesn’t want to be seen, hat-in-hand, with the president whose failed policies he promises to continue for another four years.
Obama knows what it’s like to have supporters and colleagues who he’d like to hide. They’re of a different stripe than the President of the United States—Ayers, Rezko, and Wright (and the lesser-known Acorn) come to mind.
But for all these clandestine alliances on the part of both candidates, I offer the following Rodgers and Hammerstein song from “The King and I”:
We kiss in a shadow,
We hide from the moon,
Our meetings are few,
And over too soon.
We speak in a whisper,
Afraid to be heard;
When people are near,
We speak not a word.
Alone in our secret,
Together we sigh,
For one smiling day to be free
To kiss in the sunlight
And say to the sky:
“Behold and believe what you see!
Behold how my lover loves me!”
The big difference is that the McCain-Bush areas of agreement and disagreement are known. The influence of Obama’s friends remains very shadowy, if not invisible, for most people.
See Stanley Kurtz at NRO today on Obama and ACORN.
There is so much wrong and you can tell it wont matter. just ask a supporter to give you a condition that would make them not vote for him.
Start with the fact that he is a red diaper baby whose mother had a knack for a certain kind of man to be with.
then list out friends, mentors, associates, and their associates. you get a long list of the hardest core communists, subversives, radicals, terrorists, marxist theologians, and so on.
you have a man who is abysmal on real facts about his country, but yet is sure of the right political direction for it. how is this so, when he must be carrying a false image of the country he wishes to help.
he shows a profound shortcoming in understanding economics, or a very knowlegable ability in economics which allows him to choose the worst possible choices for outcomes. whats even worse is that he has an army of marxist economists willing to just tramp over proof and invert it.
no one in media has really taken a serious look at his church. like a card house all the points as to looking into things and showing what is there have been couched in a way in which anyone attempting to do so looks like they are “helping the opressors”.
obama goes to a very racist church.
here is a guest sermon by Father Michael Pfleger at Trinity United Church
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y
look at the church page itself
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm
The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.
the same cone that said:
“Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not.” – Black Theology and Black Power, Dr. James Cone, 1969
as average people we dont know whats going on supporting the direction we are walking in.
what we dont realize is that the non philosophy of marxism has been cast into other areas. so what started as an abysmal theory of economics that still isnt panning out, has been casted into gender relations, racism, religion, entertainment, etc.
A theologian who has learned his theology in the classical tradition and has accepted its spiritual challenge will find it hard to realize that an attempt is being made, in all seriousness, to recast the whole Christian reality in the categories of politico-social liberation praxis. This is all the more difficult because many liberation theologians continue to use a great deal of the Church’s classical ascetical and dogmatic language while changing its signification. As a result, the reader or listener who is operating from a different background can gain the impression that everything is the same as before, apart from the addition of a few somewhat unpalatable statements, which, given so much spirituality, can scarcely be all that dangerous.
those are the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, a guy who recently got a promotion to pope, talking about liberation theology.
those interested in reading it all can go here:
Liberation Theology by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ratzinger/liberationtheol.htm
the care by the state will imply and create ownership by the state.
these are wind up autonomous termites that are still proceeding forward regardless of what it will ultimately bring. the elimination of the entire lumpen proletariat, with the world left to the elite few that remain. heck they are even getting organizations hiting the kids with self sacrifice propaganda to save the planet, or be super guilty.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23761189-29277,00.html
something else on the abc page too.
The calculator lets users compare their own carbon output to the “average Aussie greenhouse pig” and estimates at what age a person should die so they don’t use more than their fair share of the Earth’s resources.
do the page and answer average questions and it suggests a death at 9.3 years old.
i guess they have signed on to the leftist way to that end as stated above, like these have
http://www.vhemt.org – The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
all these movements are connected through their affiliation with the hard left.
and obama is the hardest left of all the current politicians.
what will he grant his constituencies if these are the kinds of thoughts they have?
I would like to add 2 additional points in relation to human extinction and CO2.
Point 1:
I think that it is easy to see humans can do great damage via pollution, even if you don’t think global warming is happening (and I feel odds are that it is these days) there is still the toxic pollution that has been added to rivers, lakes, and some pieces of land that has a detrimental effect of plant and animal life in that area. So we do cause pollution and it does cause harm.
Does that last point mean that life/from Earth would be better without us? I argue no. Not only are we part of life on/from Earth but if we are able to limit the damage we do to various ecosystems around the world so they do not collapse then we provide means by which life on Earth will become life from Earth and those have the potential to survive past the point (in about 5 billion years from now-so keep paying your mortgage) when the sun expands and most things remaining on Earth get cooked. While humanity should learn how not to damage other forms of life on Earth and should actively work to avoid harm now, we are the only species likely to currently enable space travel and thus create the ability to evacuate the planet when such an evacuation becomes necessary to sustaining most of the life on/from Earth (not just us).
Thus calling for human extinction actually removes a potential boon to the survival of Earth’s various life-forms.
Point 2:
I would argue the harm via pollution that humans cause is mainly not due to the number of humans but to the manner we go about economic development. Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. This are released by the burning of fossil fuels. If not for the latter the former would not be a problem. Also look at China, it has a great deal of problems relating to both air and water quality because of the many emissions (some of which are quite toxic) put into each. China’s emissions problem (touching on fossil fuels again) has grown worse after it started its population control program. This can happen because of the fact that there is no stable ratio between the amount of humans and amount of emissions, factories, cars, coal powers plants, and so on. China jumped ahead of the USA in CO2 emissions not by a population boost but through rapid and reckless economic development in which consideration of the environment was not an issue. Thus focusing on economic systems systems to be the logical way to prevent pollution and environmental damage.
Note: Population control does not involve counting and limiting the amount of emissions-only the number of humans. This is why it actually fails to serve as effective protection for the environment.
Why aren’t more people questioning ideas of population control as China is a powerful example of how it can happen alongside massive ecological damage.