Politics – Page 15

Oh My Akin Body

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said on KTVI-TV. “But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Todd Akin
Missouri Republican Candidate for US Senate

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…”

US Constitution
5th Amendment

A great deal of buzz has been created by the first quote above. Akin, the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Missouri has had calls from Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney to vacate his position as GOP standard bearer for the Missouri US Senate race.

A few observations from someone who votes neither Republican or Democrat

1.) Republicans have to meet a double standard. Joe Biden accuses Republicans of wanting to put blacks back and chains and the hub bub is a mere blip. Nancy Pelosi says that “we have to pass the Obama-care bill in order to see what is int it,” and there is a few guffaws but she doesn’t have to spend any political capital for such asinine statements. But let a George Allen make a “Macaca” comment and suddenly the press descends upon him like piranhas. Similarly with Todd Akin. At the very worst Akin was misinformed on his facts. At the very best he simply made a blunder in his communication.

However, having said that, the fact that the Democrats don’t get what they deserve when they make verbal gaffes (and Obango has made tons of verbal gaffes …e.g., — “You did not build that …”) does not mean that it is wrong for Republicans to get what they deserve when they make verbal gaffes. Yes, it is a double standard, but if gaffes are really stupid (and Akin’s was monumentally stupid) then they should be lampooned.

2.) Of course the reason that Republicans get slapped harder by the media is that their gaffes tend more to violate the narrative of political correctness and cultural Marxism. The major media outlets agree with Obango’s socialism and so try to cover for the man we call President by excusing his “you didn’t build that” comment. However, when Akin talks about “the female body having ways to shut down the whole (impregnation by rape) thing” then the media howls since abortion is one of the sacraments of a key constituent (feminism) supporting Cultural Marxism.

This is one way by which the major media outlets control conversation, and so thought, in our politically correct paradise.

3.) Akin, despite his in-artful way of phrasing matters, is on the right side of the life of the child issue. To be sure if a woman is impregnated as a result of a rape that is a burden of a consequence that has to be born by that woman. However, why should the baby the raped woman is carrying, be tortured and punished all because the baby’s mother was tortured by rape? Why should we kill the baby as opposed to bring capital charges against the rapist? Why shouldn’t the genuine criminal be visited with the death penalty as opposed to the judicially innocent baby?

4.) There was a time in history that families of criminals would be held liable for a individual family member who committed a crime. In recent history even, Communist countries would let people travel in other countries knowing that the communist traveler would know that if he sought asylum to escape Communism his family back in the old country would be murdered. The West has always thought that such blood ransoming of family as incentive for individuals to keep laws was pagan. And yet, that is exactly what is done when we abort babies conceived in rape scenarios. We murder them because of the criminal guilt of their rapist Father.

5.) Akin should have replied to the question that was asked of him,

“I believe that at conception we have a person. In believing that, the fifth amendment to the constitution forbids me from holding any person to answer for a capital crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. When a Grand Jury begins indicting the unborn persons for capital crimes then I will have to consider again my position but until then I must honor the US Constitution’s 5th amendment by not supporting ending the life of any person not indicted by a Grand Jury.”

Gary DeMar Once Again Reveals His Neo-con Stripes

Response to,

http://godfatherpolitics.com/6338/why-im-voting-for-mitt-romney-and-why-you-should-too/#ixzz21vQaHfzN

When it comes to voting, I am not a messianic. I do not believe that any one politician is going to come riding in on a white steed to make all wrongs right. When it comes to voting, neither am I a perfectionist. I wouldn’t be supporting Ron Paul’s candidacy were I a perfectionist. There are many matters about Dr. Paul I would like to correct but I am willing to hold my nose and vote for him. When it comes to voting I am a principled pragmatist, which is why I will never vote for Mormon Mitt Romney. Gary DeMar, apparently believing in Messianic candidates and in wrong headed notions concerning pragmatism is going to vote for Mitt and further Dr. DeMar desires to influence his readers to do the same.

I see a messianic streak in Gary’s reasoning. No, Gary does not think that Mitt is the Messiah who will right all wrongs but Gary does believe that Mitt is enough of a Messiah to thwart the work of the evil king Barack. That is a huge assumption on Gary’s part. For years conservative voters have been told that they need to vote for Republican X because he will stop the evil machinations of Democrat Y, and for years Republican X only serves to consolidate the gains made by evil Democrat Y. Remember, we were told that we had to support Bush lest the evil John Kerry be allowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices. The Bush turns around and gives us John Roberts, who voted to uphold the anti-Christ Death care legislation. Bush (and Mitt is nothing but the second coming of “W”) gave us socialist prescription medicine entitlement. Bush joined with Teddy Kennedy to give us “no child left behind” legislation. Bush gave us Empire mongering in the Middle East. We were told in 2000 and 2004 exactly what we are being told now by the Gary DeMars of the world, and that is, “We must support Romney because he is enough of a Messiah to thwart the work of the evil Democrat nominee. How many times before people learn that the reasoning, “The Republican is enough of a Messiah to give us time,” before they learn what a fatuous argument that is?

Gary admits that John McCain wasn’t much of an alternative to Obama in the last Presidential election cycle and yet in 2008 Gary supported McCain. Now in 2012 the Stupid party has a candidate that is only marginally different that McCain and Dr. DeMar is all breathless regarding the virtues of Mitt Romney?

In his article supporting Mitt, Dr. DeMar then goes on a tear defending himself from the charge of “Racism,” because he is not supporting Obama. In this tear DeMar even tells us that it is really the white part of Obama that he doesn’t like, saying, “In fact, it’s the white half of Obama that I don’t like.” This is where white Christians have descended in order to protect themselves from being called “racist.” We have bowed so deeply to the political correctness of this age that in order to oppose a mixed race man for President we have to inveigh against the white in him in order to be seen as credible in our opposition. Gary then spends a few paragraphs explaining why the black community is being dis-serviced by Obama but he spills no cyber ink explaining why the Christian white community is being dis-serviced by Obama. This is yet more evidence that Gary had drank deeply from the waters of political correctness as they issue forth from the stream of Cultural Marxism.

Dr. DeMar inveighs against the white half of Obama and his socialism and Marxism but he fails to understand that Romney is afflicted with the same disease. Romeny showed his Marxist stripe when he implemented Obama-care in Massachusetts before Obama-care was Obama-care. Romney would have us believe that Marxism is good for one of the individual states while it is not good for the nation, yet, his staff members urged Washington to consider Commonwealth Care as a model solution for the U.S. healthcare system. Romney attacked private wealth, just as any good Marxist, when in his four years in office, as Governor of Massachusetts, he raised taxes by $309 million, mostly on job-creating corporations, selling the wealth grab as “closing loopholes.” Romney is also a statist when it comes to education, and this is especially important to note given Dr. DeMar’s closing emphasis on education in his article.

Romney’s actual record on education is one of expanding bureaucracy a la NCLB. As Governor of Massachusetts, he created a new government department called the Early Education and Care Department. Its mission: provide government-managed preschool and childcare to youngsters.

So, who do you suppose he picked to help lead the new bureaucracy? None other than Linda Mason, co-founder of Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a preschool and childcare company that later was accused of child abuse (oh, and it was bankrolled by Bain Capital portfolio, too). But that’s not the important thing to remember about Bright Horizons.

Remember how Romney likes to talk about the importance of “traditional families” because, as he put it, “every child needs a Mom and Dad”? Well, not so much at Bright Horizons, which is proud of its 100-percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign (just like Bain Capital).

To earn a 100-percent rating from HRC, you must operate your business as a homosexual and transgender indoctrination center. That’s particularly terrifying when the business in question is supposed to be helping craft the minds of young children — so doing with storybooks like “Daddy’s Roommate,” “Heather Has Two Mommies,” and “My Princess Boy.”

Source

http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/common-sense-voting-lesser-of-two-evils-obama-appreciates-your-support/

Given Romney’s record on abortion, education, family values, and job creation while Governor of Massachusetts there is very little reason to think, along with the neo-con Dr. DeMar that there is any significant difference between Romney and Obama. There is a reason that the tag Obamney exists. Dr. DeMar writes concerning Marxism, “The facts are there for anyone to see.” Well, Dr. DeMar, that is also true regarding Romeny’s record. Dr. DeMar you are supporting a man of the left whose only virtue is that he hasn’t let his mask slip quite as badly as the other man of the left.

Dr. DeMar complains how neither major party takes the black vote seriously because the Democrats have no need to worry about losing it and the Republicans have not need to worry about gaining it. Yet, Dr. DeMar’s reasoning hold the same for conservative Christians like DeMar. Republicans don’t take these voters seriously because they can’t lose them and Democrats don’t take them seriously because they can’t win them. It seems then, a wise choice would be for genuinely conservative Christians to prove to the Republicans that they can lose their vote by voting third party or by staying home on the first Tuesday in November.

Then there is the whole issue of Romney’s lifelong flip flopping. Romney flops better than NBA star Dennis Rodman used to flop. Who is Mitt Romney? He has been all over the map on issues. Which Mitt Romney will show up once in the White House? Does not this constant flip flopping, etch-a-sketch character call into serious question important issues like integrity?

Dr. DeMar next waves the scare flag. In essence he says, “if we don’t support Romney the bad guys will gain power.” When will Dr. DeMar learn that the system is rigged and that it will never correct itself from within itself? Republicans, and Democrats are together responsible for the debt we are in. They are together responsible for the entitlement programs we have. They are together responsible for Supreme Court justices who enslave us. They are together responsible for the education mess that we have. Republicans will not save us. Only a guy afflicted with Messianic thinking would ever think they could. This is why we must become principled voters and refuse to vote either for the Girondists (Republicans) or for the Jacobins (Democrats).

Dr. DeMar seems to think that Romney could give us time to “right the ship of state.” My inclination is to think that Romney will drain the Tea Party of any zing it has left by putting them to sleep because he is “their guy.” I believe it might be better to have to play the strong opposition to a Marxist President than being lulled into sleep because our Marxist is President. A Romney Presidency is more likely to convince (wrongly) the frogs in the kettle that all is well once again.

Dr. DeMar’s counsel sounds a great deal like the counsel in the Old Testament to Kings to turn to Egypt or Babylon for support instead of trusting in God. We have no business leaguing ourselves with either the “in your face” left nor with the “smooth and subtle” left. Dr. DeMar’s “messianic and pragmatic” politics is largely what has gotten us to this place and if his counsel is followed we will perish slowly and incrementally as opposed to perishing while fighting with our boots on.

Finally, Dr. DeMar is correct when he says that as we did not lose this country in one election, neither will we gain it back in one election. This is absolutely accurate. The problem is, that a vote for Romney is another vote for losing the country. It is not a vote for gaining it back.

Dr. DeMar, after all your wise counsel in the past, why depart from those in the Christian community who need your wisdom now? Please, reverse yourself before you lose all credibility.

Comrade Obango & His Most Recent Marxist Speech

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Alleged President Comrade Barack Obama

1.) If there are a lot of wealthy successful Americans who agree with comrade Obango and who want to give something back, then who is stopping them? I’m sure the US Treasury would be glad to take any contributions they may desire to make. No, what is really being said here is that Obama wants to force others who don’t want to give something back to give something back.

2.) Why does “give something back” always mean “give something back in terms of more taxes to the Feds?” What has the FEDS ever given us that could not have been gained in a far more efficient, less costly way than the way they gave it? Keep in mind that if we are forced to “give something back” to the FEDS in terms of more taxes what that means it a lessened capability to give something back to our families, our charities, or our Churches. The FEDS already, in fees, taxes, inflation, regulatory costs, already take a incredibly high percentage of our income. Why should anyone want to give anything more back to these scofflaws?

Second, the whole notion of “giving,” is a laugh. I never ever “give” to the FEDS. The Feds take … steal … purloin … appropriate … loot … pilfer, etc. I never ever give to those people and when they start pillaging more, I won’t be giving to them then.

3.) Let me get this straight. Because I didn’t get to my success on my own therefore I should vote for a collectivist Marxist who is doing all he can to fundamentally transform this country so I can no longer be a success with other people’s voluntary help?

4.) It is true that none of us have gotten where we have gotten on our own but the difference between the reality of that help and the agenda of Obango is that the help I received unto my success was voluntary and came with few strings attached whereas Obanago wants to to force people to involuntarily help others and will place massive strings on those who are “helped,” as well as those who are being stolen from in order to force their “help.”

5.) There may be a lot of smart people out there but the fact that this snake oil salesman is successfully selling this elixir suggests that the dumb people outnumber the smart people by a considerably wide margin.

6.) All the people that comrade Obama cites as helps are either on the Government dole or are a government agency. Teachers are government employees. The “someone” who helped to create the American system you can bet, in Obango’s thinking, is the Federal Government. In comrade Obango’s Marxist world it is all for the State and nothing outside the State.

7.) Nobody “invested” in roads and bridges. Investment is what you do when you expect a reasonable return on your money. People paying taxes for roads and bridges have never thought that they would see a return on their money. They didn’t invest. They were stolen from.

8.) “Allowed you to thrive.” Note, given that all of those who helped in comrade Obango’s speech are either Government employees or Government agencies what Obango is telling us is that it is Mother State (FEDS) who have been so very kind as to allow American citizens to thrive. O how good of the Rodina to allow us to thrive and to take such good care of us comrade citizens.

9.) “You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

Well, as all the “somebody elses” that Comrade Obango mentioned were agents of the State we know Comrade Obango thinks that whatever the individual has accomplished was in reality accomplished by the collective as represented by the State.

Comrade Obango has given us his vision of a collectivism that holds that the individual has no rights to what he builds because he didn’t really build it. For Comrade Obango the life of the individual and their work belong to the group (to society, to the tribe, the State, the nation) and we are going to learn that Comrade Obango believes that the group may sacrifice the individual at its own whim to its own interests.

10.) The FEDS did not create the Internet so people could make money off of it. It was a Defense project originally having military application. A common Defense is actually one of those items that public monies are allowed for in the Constitution. Secondly, nobody foresaw where the internet has gone. Comrade Obango is an idiot.

Look, Comrade Obango should be nicknamed “Checkerboard,” because he is Black and Red at the same time.

Reading the Political Tea Leaves

“After the uprising of the 17th June the Secretary of the Writer’s Union had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee stating that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government and could win it back only by redoubled efforts.

Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?

Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another?”

Bertolt Brecht
The Solution

Obama’s actions in the last few days of,

1.) Granting Amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants

2.) Refusing to enforce Arizona immigration law as upheld by SCOTUS

Combined with earlier actions of refusing to enforce the “Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA),” and refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation proves, to those with eyes to see, that Obama’s 2012 campaign rests upon building a coalition of

A.) Public Unions
B.) Sexual Perverts
C.) Minorities
D.) Illegal Immigrants
E.) Feminists
F.) Academia
G.) Youths

In other words, we have finally come to crescendo wave that was began in the 1960’s with the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Immigration Act (1965). This tidal wave, as it crashes into the American electorate, is intended to wash out to sea the remains of the Christian White middle class America. Folks, we are seeing before our very eyes, with the actions intended to flood the polls with illegals, the attempt of the State to bring in a new constituency and create a new nation.

Wandering Thoughts On Obama & His Trayvon Martin Son

1.) We have to understand what Obama was doing with his statement, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”

B. Hussein Obama was playing racial politics. If there ever was a “dog whistle” for racial identification that statement was it. Obama can’t be explicit and say “I’m down with you on the race struggle,” for that would be too blatant and would cost votes, but he can shore up his base by saying “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” because by doing so he implies, by identifying directly with the most integral building block of race (the family) that he is down with them in the struggle against Whitey.

Obama, by that statement, is playing racial politics. Further, by that statement Obama is saying, “I hate whites,” “I hate the current social order,” and “I am working to overthrow all of whiteys privilege.” Remember all of the Martin case is driven by the cultural Marxist narrative that insists that Black people are oppressed by evil White people and unwarranted white privilege. Obama, with his seemingly strange statement about Trayvon and being a son, is supporting that narrative. This is the same narrative that Obama supported when he embraced Derrick Bell and required the reading of his works. This is the same narrative so eloquently and repeatedly preached by James Cone disciple, Jeremiah Wright, under which Obama sat for twenty years. This is the same narrative Obama learned and taught while he was a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky school of thought.

Obama has revealed himself on this score already as President. He supported this cultural Marxist narrative when he fired, way to early, both barrels in the Cambridge cop routine. He reveals it in his Presidency as his administration refuses to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their clear violation of civil rights laws when they intimidated white people at the voting booth.

Obama is a Cultural Marxists and he is down for the struggle. All of his actions reveal this at every step of the way. This is what animates this man.

2.) Remember the Obama Democratic establishment has given up on the Reagan Democrats (White working class) as part of the coalition they want to put together for victory.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2067223/President-Obamas-2012-campaign-abandons-white-working-class-voters-favor-minorities-educated.html

Obama’s statement “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon,” thus serves to galvanize the coalition that he is trying to build in opposition to those voters he has written off as being his opposition. (After all, they realize that if they are to write off those voters therefore those voters will vote for someone else, and so be his opposition.) Obama’s identifying with the black community with his statement thus is about 2012 election politics as it much as it is about anything else. Obama gains the black vote for obvious reasons with such a statement and he also curries the White educated vote because educated people are stupid, having been propagandized against their own self interest by the Cultural Marxist ruling elite in the Universities.

The only question in this gambit by Obama is whether or not he will offend another minority community that he needs in his coalition — the Hispanic vote. Remember, George Zimmerman, is not white but is Hispanic. There is a long antipathy between the black special interest constituents in the Democratic Party and the Hispanic special interest constituents. Obama risks losing the Hispanic vote if the Hispanic community ever begins to identify with George Zimmerman in this circus.

3.) Another angle that is possible in this Presidential attempt to whip up racial frenzy is the desire to foment such racial conflict that a declaration of Martial law would be required. Obama knows that this nation is sitting on a racial tinderbox. Obama, also knows, being a Marxist, that the creation of intense conflict of interest always serves the end of the State. If enough strife was whipped up by the policy of divide and conquer then Obama could be seen as legitimately declaring Martial law and so would be able to be even better situated to manipulate the results of the 2012 election (should an election occur) and quite possibly collect weaponry from the citizenry.