What would a traitor president look like?
What would he be doing, and what would he be refraining from? In what ways might it differ from what Obama has been doing regarding Iran, our enemy since 1979?
We are now overtly supporting our enemy, conceding to our enemy, abandoning a country that is that enemy’s enemy and has been our ally for over sixty years (Israel). We are doing this not because our hand is being forced by a military or economic defeat—au contraire—but because our president wants to do it. And although Obama has always said during campaigns that he favors talks with Iran, he has always said that he will not concede the very things he is getting ready to concede, and always pledged his support for Israel.
But now it is as though the two countries have traded places.
Those who have been paying attention are not surprised, because reading between the lines and looking at Obama’s pre-presidential history made it clear he was anti-Israeli (except when campaigns demanded otherwise). But who saw it and when is not really the issue now because now everyone ought to be able to see it, and practically everyone in the US ought to be highly alarmed.
That they are not speaks volumes.
But there do seem to be quite a few Democrats who are becoming alarmed. However, in order to stop Obama, 2/3 of Congress would have to be on board, either for some sort of legislative veto override, or for conviction in the Senate (2/3) after an impeachment in the House (majority). That 2/3 figure can only be reached by having a significant number of Democrats turn on Obama.
So if this deal goes through, we may have a moment of truth for the Democratic senators. I am pessimistic about the results, even though what Obama is doing is what monarchs do, or dictators. They say “L’état, c’est moi” (the state, it is I).
“Unprecedented” is the right word for Obama’s actions re Iran, but it’s not an intense enough word. The best precedent I can think of is the Hitler-Stalin pact, although it’s not really a good analogy—and even that was only a temporary strategic alliance on Stalin’s part. And both parties got quite a bit out of the deal:
For Hitler, the pact provided a guarantee that he could invade first Poland, then France and most of the rest of western Europe, without having to worry about any threat from the east. For Stalin, it allowed a breathing space in which to build up armed forces that had been severely damaged by the purges of the previous years, as his botched invasion of Finland showed. It also gave him the chance to expand the Soviet Union to include parts of the old Russian empire of pre-revolutionary times…The pact eventually extended to the economic sphere, with Germany providing military equipment in exchange for raw materials such as oil, grain, iron and phosphates… Stalin also handed back a substantial number of German communists who had taken refuge in the Soviet Union after the Nazi seizure of power; some of them, arrested during the purges, were taken directly from the Soviet Gulag to a German concentration camp.
That was Hitler and Stalin, two brutal dictators who could basically decide whatever they wanted by that time without any meaningful advise and consent from their governments or their people. Offhand I can’t think of any comparison in the realm of supposed non-dictatorships, where countries that have been enemies for forty-five years, in which the enemy (in this case Iran) has changed neither its rhetoric nor its behavior, and yet the other country (in this case the US) is reaching out the hand of alliance and friendship [I already dealt with the topic of Nixon in China already, here] and abandoning its ally (in this case Israel) in the process, in order to gain nothing whatsoever for itself. It seems that this would require a head of state who’s a mole or an agent. And for that head of state to remain in power and not be deposed afterward, it would require subjects or citizens who are anesthetized and/or unaware and/or overpowered, and a party or police forces or military afraid to challenge the monarch/tyrant.
I get frustrated when I read articles that indicate that Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu is just from personal enmity, or of some supposed change about the 2-nation goal. It’s none of the above, although Obama does hate Netanyahu and is angry. But that’s also a smokescreen, a way for Obama to justify to the public and to his party what he has long wanted to do anyway: sell Israel and the US out (as well as quite a few of our traditional Sunni Arab allies), to Iran.
Obama is not just angry at Netanyahu—he’s strategically angry at him. Obama’s anger serves a purpose, which is to break the bonds between the United States and Israel, and tie new bonds between the United States and Iran. It serves another purpose as well: to serve notice to the world that America’s alliances, previously extremely stable, are actually mutable. They are as insubstantial as air, and cannot be relied on, even after Obama is out of office. That will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies, and it’s a beaut.
Obama could also go with apré¨s moi le deluge.
He’ll be anorexic looking and have big ears.
Neo, I read a story once by Orson Scott Card, in a book called Capitol. The story was called Breaking the Game. It was about an on-line MMORPG where players bought the opportunity to rule a country and ultimately succeed or fail. Think Risk with overtones of Sim City. Abner Doon purchased the right to rule the most powerful country in the game. [Italy] and from there proceeded to destroy it utterly so that it could never be played again. Abner destroyed the most powerful country in the game in only a few days.
It’s so much faster and easier to destroy than create. And the most ironic thing of all is that the destroyer often considers himself equal to the creator merely by succeeding in the act of his destruction. Few destroyers consider the fact that any halfwit can destroy, only a select few can create something worthwhile, something admirable.
KLSmith – I think you mean “Avec moi le deluge.”
Well, neoneo, when Israel realizes that Obama has given Iran the green light to make an a-bomb and Bibi nukes Iran in one or more locations to take out their facilities for producing a-bombs, Obama will have something to be really, really mad at him about. Our lunatic isn’t going to do anything different than we are expecting and when Israel sees Iran getting close … “boom”.
What would a traitor president look like?
This.
or
This.
or
This.
or
This.
TGarnier Apres means after, avec means with – so “after me the deluge” is probably more apropos (another french word), than with me the deluge…
There was a recent eye opening article in The Weekly Standard that may well explain Obama’s thinking on foreign policy, which is based on a book by Charles Kupchan called “How Enemies Become Friends: The Sources of Stable Peace”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/blueprint-failure_884844.html (may need a subscription).
“Kupchan outlines a four-step transformation sequence to turn enemies into friends, one the White House has followed to a tee: unilateral accommodation, reciprocal restraint, societal integration, and the generation of new narratives and identities. States remove a threat by “exercising strategic restraint and making concessions to an adversary” as a way to signal benign intent. To indicate the seriousness of the gesture, the concession needs to be “unusual and costly,” such as “backing down on a border dispute or unilaterally withdrawing forces from a contested area.””
“in order to stop Obama, 2/3 of Congress would have to be on board, either for some sort of legislative veto override, or for conviction in the Senate (2/3) after an impeachment in the House (majority). That 2/3 figure can only be reached by having a significant number of Democrats turn on Obama.”
Over at PJMedia, Bridget Johnson reports;
Of course, there’s a huge difference between a “non-binding amendment” to a budget bill and actually legislatively overriding Obama.
I take this to be a message to Obama, that democrats need more political cover if he wants their support. IMO they are doomed to disappointment, for there is nothing that the Iranians would concede to Obama that would give democrats the cover they need.
It’s not just Obama and Kerry who will someday justly face public charges of treason, it’s the entire democrat party.
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot. “ George Orwell
Seems to appearances that the sole possible unifying principle of the ClownDisaster’s foreign policy ministrations is the delivery of “justice” to all and sundry, foremost the United States, but secondarily its former allies, and in the bargain, gains and rewards to its former adversaries.
Of course, this suggestion is only operative from his high and godlike point of view, but evenso, is necessary to conceive if we intend to understand his intentions.
here is the problem..
the last traitor leaders happened in Rome…
after that, there have been no such traitor leaders because of the idea that a leader cant be a traitor by virtue of being leader.
one has to realize that the word traitor at best is an opinion, not a sentence… and been made meaningless by its prior (planned?) overuse by the left
however, treason is another story…
a leader CAN commit treason as that is something you can do to a nation state, not just to opposition of ones ideas being betrayed or reversed…
so obama can be a traitor without committing treason
(even wiki makes the distinction between the legal term treason, and the other term traitor)
problem is that treason is nearly as complicated..
Treason is specifically defined in the United States Constitution, and is the only crime so defined!!!!
for the point your making neo, only the adhering to enemies, or giving aid and comfort would apply
if you read carfully, you will find what they have been reading and doing to avoid that over time… it explains things you may have wondered about and had no reason to understand other than making up something to fit and saying, that must be it.
under liberalism, the US has no enemies…
[what makes an enemy, your declaration or theirs? after all you can be friends with someone who thinks of you as an enemy and works against you. no?]
and if the US under liberalism has no enemies, then you cant give comfort or such to such if they dont exist.
NOW you learn why the doctrines are what they are!!!
been trying to show you piece by piece, but not discussing the things i brought up in detail afforded no ability to discuss beyond a few posts.
everyone is a friend undoes treason, and negates that congressional power
multiculturalism allows one to implement nazi type race policies against jews, through attacking the larger set to give deniability
feminism allows the maintenance of ideas of eugenics, soviet political mind, and on and on
and if you think about it, its like a chess game
neo is asking what move can one use against the king on the board, but since treason has been neutralized there is no such move.
the weakest parts of obamas position are actually his birth cert, the false social security number, and all that… but that is not going to fly as there is a difference between what is fact and what people will allow whether factual or not.
there is a LOT of this… but we never talk about it till its WAY TOO LATE… which is the point for the opposition, after all, on the chess board you dont see your mistake before you move and your stuck, but after you move and cant take it back!!!!!!!!!!!
one would have to study russian methods and games to “get it” and thats not been possible… has it? we have avoided the points in favor of musings and entertaining ideas, not facts and analysis… though we may think that musings and entertaining things are a form of analysis
United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 – states “whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
last time that was used that i can remember is the husband and wife team of spies that were put to death for nuclear secrets. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg
in the GREAT GAME one has to see ahead, not be reactionary… one must anticipate, and then counter. but with the anti conspiracy tin hat game, social aprobation, and so on… how could one do that? i could not even get a discussion in the main going
in a thread for a few boxes yes, but the whole thread, no… and if i went too long too complicated it got cut down (Regardless of reason it got cut, and the reason wont bring the cut parts back for people to read and so that is what it is), so only short answers got read.
but how could one explain the chess game?
this is the GREAT GAME!!! it even has a name, a history, and you can read its methods and other things., anyone remember the term?
“The Great Game” was the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia // A less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In the post-Second World War post-colonial period, the term has continued in use to describe the geopolitical machinations of the Great Powers and regional powers as they vie for geopolitical power and influence in the area… ever read kim by kipling?
you can read about the game being played by defectors, but if spies are out, the machinations of their agencies are out, and we dont talk about them and dont consider their influence in anything, then you can be sure we wont discuss the defectors telling us what is going on, and so on with incredible accuracy
ever read these?
Yuri Bezmenov
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Vladimir Bukovsky
Konstantin Preobrazhensky
Petr Cibulka
Viktor Suvorov
Yuri Felshtinsky
Jan Å ejna
Anatoliy Golitsyn
Pavel Stroilov
Alexander Litvinenko
Sergei Tretyakov
Stanislav Lunev
Boris Volodarsky
they ALL have been detailing the game…
to an audience that would rather ignore them, and the whole area in favor of made up dialogue that erases all of that…
now, we are hip deep in that… think russia didnt help the weatermen? dont think that the people in place before didnt help all those things? that bella dodd who was head of teachers union and CPUSA did nothing to education? what about dewey?
you see.. americans cant plan for next week and sothey cant concieve of a concerted effort that spans 100 years…
two more years and its the aniversary of the russian revolution.. obama is to leave office on the anniversary of that
none of our discussions were about the new weapons, the shelters, the coordination, the BRICs, the asean organizations, the spies, the games and so on…
so in essence everyone missed out on the chance that information could kibbitz outcome…
anyway… dont matter now. the fact your seeing it means its too late… like starting to dig a bomb shelter when you see the mushroom cloud… the idea being not to believe until its incontrovertable…
there were tons of clues as to what was being arranged, but did we want to listen about the EMP test? the cut cables? the spy software embedded in hard drives? the spies turned celebrities? the removal of all anti commnunist laws? the negation of our education? the movement of our manufacturing? the killing of fathers abilities to train sons into having skills? the feminists pushing commuinist ideology didnt matter, did it?
if it wasnt so serious, it would be funny…
Ike,
Israel pre-emptively nuking Iran is a political non-starter. It would hand Obama the perfect excuse and rationale to declare Israel to be a rogue nation. He would end all American military and economic aid to Israel and Obama would vote in the UN to approve an international economic and military embargo of Israel. (which Obama wants to do anyway)
Israel is already a pariah state but Israel nuking Iran would precipitate severe sanctions against Israel.
The only way Israel could launch a nuclear first strike is if it is willing to embrace rogue status and engage in nuclear blackmail by telling the world to go pound sand and, by telling the EU that the day Israel ceases to exist, will be the day that London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels cease to exist.
ritchieemmons,
““Kupchan outlines a four-step transformation sequence to turn enemies into friends, one the White House has followed to a tee:”
1) unilateral
accommodationcapitulation; check.2) reciprocal restraint; epic fail, Iran has no intention of restraint and Obama is doing all the capitulation.
3) societal integration; epic fail, fanatical Islamic regimes do NOT ‘integrate’ with their enemies.
4) the generation of new narratives and identities; even the MSM can’t make the Mullahs appear willing to negotiate. As for new identities, leopards don’t change their spots.
“States remove a threat by “exercising strategic restraint and making concessions to an adversary” as a way to signal benign intent. To indicate the seriousness of the gesture, the concession needs to be “unusual and costly,” such as “backing down on a border dispute or unilaterally withdrawing forces from a contested area.”””
Chamberlain demonstrated the utter bankruptcy of that strategy, making Kupchan either appallingly historically ignorant or another traitor. Nor is the label of traitor hyperbole, when appeasement becomes surrender to a malevolent enemy, no other label applies.
George Pal Says:
March 27th, 2015 at 4:07 pm
What would a traitor president look like?
or
this…
“under liberalism, the US has no enemies…” Artfldgr
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley
Nor do they cease to exist by dishonestly philosophizing them away, as if facts were mere words.
That the left under Obama pretends that the reality of Iran’s fanatical hostility is amenable to negotiation and verbal subterfuge will not prevent reality from arriving one day. And the Mullah’s, as one of Islam’s agents, will ensure that reality visits America.
Nor is our inability to hold Obama accountable due to the left having ‘eliminated’ the possibility of the charge of treason and made ‘meaningless’ the term, traitor. Words have meaning separate from wishes.
Our inability to hold Obama accountable is due to the West having accepted Communism’s concept of mankind’s ‘godless’ nature with the resultant consequence that Western civilization is destroying itself by betraying its heritage; i.e. judeo/christian virtues and enlightenment principles.
What a disgustingly sick, hateful weasel Mark Levin truly is.
Anyone who hates Obama do so because they are racists and bigots.
The greatest threat the Jews have faced since the 1930’s, at least in the U.S., just like everyone else living here, is the take over of our government by Christian fascists.
Precisely why Isreal needs to be turned out to fend for itself.
I dont wish them any harm but I think the sympathy card has been played out.
Obama is neither a traitor nor treasonous; I’ve said it over and over again…Mark Levin and his listeners are Neo-Nazi racists.
Who do you expect? There is a Black Man as President, and It makes them sick in the stomach, it also makes them sick in the head!
Obama does not hate Israel – but you would sure never know it from his actions.
Why is Barack Obama a Muslim? He’s not.
Why is Barack Obama an Anti-American? He’s not.
Why is Barack Obama destroying America? He’s not.
Why Does Barack Obama hate America?
He’s doesn’t.
It seems as though this Levin guy is just voicing his and his coreligionists animosity at Barry because he hasn’t sent droves of good young American men and women to the ME to fight a war with Iran for the benefit of Israel.
As usual, The Racist right is racist, bigoted and ignorant. Why? Because a certain Black Man is Still President of the United States and is constantly showing respect to many Non-white, Non-Chrisitan factions in the world.
What a disgustingly sick, hateful weasel Mark Levin truly is..
Either this guy is ranting on the wrong website, or I am missing some citation involving Levin.
@Questionman
Your post is a certification of your insanity.
Jack,
The short story is now found in ‘The Worthing Saga’, which is a collection of short stories with recurring characters and themes.
And, of course, the way that story concludes is also rather disturbing…
Neo I agree with everything you say about Obama and his intent, however I am not convinced that after he’s gone the damage will be permanent. It remains to be seen if subsequent administrations will continue to throw off allies, and embrace terrorist nations and third world governments.
I would also offer that Obama has intended to do damage to Europe as well. They may think he’s better than Bush, but their seduction has been more complete than anywhere else. His personal vendetta for European colonial governments is hidden in plain sight.
He knows full well that a nuclear Iran will be an overt threat to Europe, forcing them to increase defense budgets or make cause the EU nations to consider deals for protection. While I’m not sympathyzing with Europe for having to increase defense spending and take care of themselves, I’m thinking another arms race and realignment of allies in Europe will be inevitable, which would impact global economics and security significantly.
The extent of the global havoc that Obama’s support for Iran could unleash is amazing, and above all, typical of Obama in everthing he does. Campaigning as the prince of peace and fairness, his plans backfire spectacularly and do the opposite of what he claims they were intended to do. Everything he’s meddled in has brought about chaos and instability, and so it will be in Europe if Iran has nuclear capability — Israel is only a small piece of the puzzle, and I think something of a distraction for Iran’s ambitions. I would not at all be surprised to see the EU fall apart, depending on how Iran plays their nuclear hand.
Blackmailing Europe will be a very lucrative business for a nuclear Iran. It’s probably a lot of paranoia, but it’s not out of character for the man of hope and change to want to see all the big western influences in the world diminished or in disarray.
So Neo: have you liberal friends changed their tunes to any degree?
By the way, and just for laughs: I recall that some years ago, probably during the Y2K run-up and as end of the world scenarios were playing on cable as an major entertainment genera all their own, some show or another was citing a prediction that “blue turbaned” middle easterners would launch nuclear missiles at NY, and that Israel would be attached by Russia or Magog or something.
I got a good laugh out of it thinking: Even as sensationalism for idiots, this is crap. Where the hell in this witless prognostication is the US ? What do these clowns think America would be doing in the meantime to allow such an absurd state of affairs to even develop?
I didn’t realize that my sister’s politically unhinged mother in law would be, before too long, driving around in a van and rounding up virtual retards in order to deliver them to vote for Obama, and that free contraception for fat dull eyed girls, and hot chocolate for simpering neutered males in skinny jeans, would become the nation’s number top priorities.
Pfft … let it effen happen.
Errr …”top priorities”
That’s what happens when you almost get worked up LOL
Nice to see Jimmy Carter getting a call-back as a Christian fascist, if only for the humor of it all. Though, y’know, Jimmy might take offense at being pinned like a bug that way.
one of neo’s brilliant posts … Jack equally brilliant … And question guy made me pee my pants ….
Ahh … Qusetionguy was being facetious. Thanks. Usually I’m not so slow on the uptake.
Trouble is it is sometimes hard to tell. Especially if you have heard people talk just like that … a lot.
What would a traitor President look like?
I’m afraid we all know, now.
What would a traitor Congress look like? or a traitor Supreme Court?
I’m afraid we all know THAT, too.
Neo,
In addition to Obama’s ideology and hatred of Israel, I wonder if there aren’t two other groups actively greasing the skids: Arabists and Declinists. There has always been a strong pro-Arab tradition within the foreign policy establishment, going back at least to the Truman administration. They are enabling Obama. Second, I recall such dim bulbs as Madeleine Albright speaking about the “necessity” of accepting America’s declining role in the world.
I see this negotiation with Iran as this administrations move number one thousand four hundred fourteen. It started out with move number one on day one, sending Churchill’s bust back to the UK.
So what have all these radical moves actually accomplished? I think its pretty simple. It’s brought somewhere around half the population to the point of supporting and defending ideas so terrible for our country that they were unimaginable just a few years ago.
And it’s all been accomplished not by reasoned debate of these ideas or appealing to anyones intellect. No, it’s been done by media’s constant drumming into the population that the other alternative of common sense conservatism is where the ignorant and uncool people hang out.
What we’re all witnessing is how mobs are created and how they are capable of expanding to the size of nation states in a very short time span.
The ultimate traitor is the boobocracy that installed the blackhearted blackguard. He is ginning up the U.S. blacks to serve as his “brownshirts.” Places like Ferguson are minor test cases. The boobs will get what they deserve.
I disagree. US policy will turn 180 degrees the day after Obama is out.
I think the rest of the world understands that. They’re adults.
Geoffrey Britain: It may very well be a political non-starter, but if Iran get the bomb and Israel doesn’t nuke them, Israel will cease to exist. That’s what the mullahs in Iran have been promising and Israel’s government would be utter fools not to take them at their word. Allowing Iran to use nuclear weapons against Israel is, in my opinion, a non-starter in Israel. Maybe not in the U.S., but we’re not under the gun and they are. Bibi isn’t a community organizer and his resume includes time in the IDF in combat. One learns different lessons in that school than in the school most if not all American politicos attended. The government of Israel will not allow Iran to build an atomic bomb. To do so would be to court the immediate destruction of Israel, which every Israeli government has actively and militarily opposed for the last 60+ years. Just my opinion, but those are my reason, in very summary fashion, for it.
The ultimate traitor
The PRIMARY mode of Tehran’s attack will be ECONOMIC.
Start thinking of OPEC games.
This logic lies behind Putin’s ‘support.’
What the OPEC players don’t comprehend is that any such cartel extortions must bring counter force: a food cartel.
&&&&&&&
Lost in the weeds, it’s a pretty good bet that the primary motivator for Putin’s ambush of Ukraine is Kiev’s use of American wildcatters to plunge holes into forbidden strata.
As soon as the American crews arrived, they started finding suitable targets.
Ramping oil and gas production — internal to Ukraine — is a TOTAL GAME CHANGER for Putin.
Crude projections had the Americans getting Ukraine off the Russian natural gas grid in under six-years. From that point forward, Ukraine would be perfectly sited to export methane to Poland and points west.
It’s been for this reason that all prior (Russian) drillers were never quite able to bring in any big discoveries.
Yes, even when drilling in the same strata that the later Americans targeted.
Oh, my!
&&&
This all ties back into Ayatollah Soetoro’s war against American energy independence — with Keystone at the apex of his arch.
Starlord:
Neo I agree with everything you say about Obama and his intent, however I am not convinced that after he’s gone the damage will be permanent. It remains to be seen if subsequent administrations will continue to throw off allies, and embrace terrorist nations and third world governments.
The precedent’s already been set, though. Who would trust America in future, knowing that the next election might bring another Obama to power?
I believe that I read somewhere that the Obama administration has already told Israel that it will not provide military support for an attack on Iran (can’t recall the details but I think this was significant).
My personal conviction now is that the Obama administration has told Israel that if Israel attacks Iran, the US will retaliate against Israel. Especially if Israel uses nuclear weapons. Nuke Teheran, and Jerusalem disappears….
RE Neo’s post, Steve H’s comment and some of the other comments on this thread: I agree that that “Obama’s War on America” has been going on since day 1. The next big move will be against the Second Amendment–things have been oddly quiet on that front for a while now.
Retaliate? Well, yes and no. If you read Caroline Glick’s latest column in the JPost zeke, you’ll see an indication of the probable sort of passive-aggressive response to expect from the ClownDisaster administration in the wake of an Israeli assault on IRI nuclear installations. Glick supposes that Israel will suffer some loss of aircraft in such an attack, and that the US may simply deny a resupply of planes and munitions needful to defend Israeli territory in the aftermath, or simply slow-walk any such resupply. But we can’t expect a direct attack on Israel by US forces. It’s one thing to purpose the USAF to act on behalf of Iraqi Shiite militias under IRGC control in Tikrit — very bad, but the command goes along anyhow. It’s quite another to expect US forces to come to blows with Israel with Chuck Schumer as leader of the Democrat minority in the Senate.
I believe that it is entirely possible that an alliance of Arab states with Israel (covert of course) is in the offing. Sunni Arabia cannot and will not allow Shia Iran to attain nuclear weapons or to dominate the vital sea lanes needed to transport oil. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see “Saudi” jets piloted by Israeli pilots attacking Iranian military and nuclear sites inside Iran. The deal will involve notification of those powers dependent upon Arab oil that any retaliation against Israel (or anyone else involved) will bring about a stoppage of oil shipments.
“”So Neo: have you liberal friends changed their tunes to any degree?””
DNW
Step 1. Set up a leader from a victim class in society and attack any political differences with him as purely bigoted animosity.
Step 2. Make sure his supporters have no alternative course to switch to by portraying any opposition as hate filled hayseeds out of step with the times.
Step 3. Make only bold radical moves in frenzied fashion that will force captive supporters to accept unheard of absurd positions or be revealed as part of the hate filled hayseed class.
Step 4. Rinse with new assigned victim based leader and repeat.
Starlord:
My point is the same as that of “the original Mr. X”: Obama has set a precedent. If it has happened once, it can happen again.
As for whether my friends have changed their tunes: I don’t know, because they’re not singing, whistling, or even humming for the most part, and I’m not asking. Their silence indicates uneasiness, however.
I’ve spoken to three of them, but these three are among the most moderate, although they identify as liberal Democrats. They all are very uneasy and troubled by Obama’s actions, particularly regarding Iran and Israel (only one of them is Jewish, and she is not religious). When I asked one of them (not the Jewish one) if there were any regrets at this point about having voted for Obama—twice—the answer was: well, I couldn’t vote for the opponents, because they are right-wing crazies/bigots. I pointed out that the alternatives were McCain and Romney, hardly especially right-wing or bigoted. In response to that they indicated that (a) it was impossible to vote for a Republican, partly for emotional reasons; and (b) and yet this person would have voted for McCain in 2008 except for the nomination of Palin, who was a right-wing crazy. I got the impression that this person still would not be able to vote for a Republican in 2016. And this is a moderate who really has mostly conservative ideas, is ordinarily extremely rational, can be upset at how standards have fallen in education, how PC thought has taken over, etc. etc., but cannot seem to vote for anyone but Democrats in the end (so far, anyway) because “Republicans are bigots.”
No regrets were expressed.
” . . . this is a moderate who really has mostly conservative ideas . . . but cannot seem to vote for anyone but Democrats in the end . . . .”
It’s that pesky belief-system thing. All the “reasons” are simply rationalizations for what s/he does.
But perhaps a glimmer of hope:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/we_still_have_paris.html
I like to think Miniter is correct; it’s part of my belief system.
But WHY is he so determined to elevate Iran? Does he think it will lead to a more stable world, or is it something more horrible—that he actually wants to have Iran setting off nukes?
He wants iran crazy fanatics setting off nukes. Anything that kills jews is a good thing. Dreams of his islamic father’s hatred of the West trumps all. A twisted narcissist wants revenge for the imaginary repression of Churchill and other designated western fascists.
President Hissy Fit thrives on chaos. An Iranian nuke exploding over Israel would be chaos he could live with, even if the rest of us can’t. Owebama’s guilty of many things, but he’s especially guilty of agenda-cide.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
I think one of the keys to understanding Obama is to look at arsonists — people who actually “get off” on watching things burn. I think Obama has the same sick mental and moral makeup as an arsonist; in some level of his brain, he looks forward to watching it all go up in flames.
Kathy, I think you have a point; the term mentally and morally sick are definitely descriptive of Obama. Tragically his election was symptomatic of a malady effecting the US, immaturity. Hopefully his behavior will get to the point that even his acolytes have misgivings.
Another curiosity; Obama seems indifferent to be seen as petty and petulant. He is amazing in his badness.