Posted by
Marked in Pgh on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:58:57 PM
Obama is so full of hypocrisy, I gave him a new nickname, Opocrisy; and when it comes to democracy, Obocracy. It's in his nature as a liberal, a sophist, to act and talk in an artificial way in order to deceive others for his own advantage. He can't help himself. A case in point is his rejection of Federal campaign financing so he can open himself to the special interest funding through 527 groups he preaches against. Now he'll have to charactirize them as grass roots support. He also contradicted himself about the gun ban in Washingotn, D.C. with his insistence on community standards, until the decision. Now he's singing a different tune, until the wind changes. He's sounding more and more like Kerry when Kerry said he voted for the war, before voting against it in the 2004 election.
All I can say to his Opocrisy is "Bravo!" I can't say "Author, author!" That's because Obama doesn't write his own speeches and seems lost without prompting and guidance. So how can we be sure he is the author of this particular piece of theatrics or any other moment of contradictory behavior? Remember, he is the Shill of the Day. As the Demagogic Shill Du Jour, he presented himself as the candidate who transcends race; before he was shown to be the candidate of racism, as in Black Theology, Rev. Wright et al in the perpetuation of a fraudulent shell game. Still, he carries it off so well, while beguiling the clueless to place their bets with his lead. Makes you wonder who is directing him and pulling his stings. Every time his carefully crafted image and the ramshackle quality of his own behavior diverge, his little bits, or fits, of acting and even his smooth delivery says much about his future. That future will be in playing roles in Hollywood movies or TV series and may guarantee box office gold (see Gore). It says nothing about his reliability as an effective President. The statement about campaign financing, at least, has caught McCain off guard and may have made the old Senator and campaign wonder kid even more dependent on Republican Party funds provided by small, individually contributed donations from rank and file Republicans who are distrustful of his own liberal aberrations. How ironic.
When it comes to his form of democracy, or Obocracy, he is more consistent; while clothed in self-imposed ignorance and Marxism, which are the same thing. You don't need a mind, after all, in order to be a good communist. America is not a democracy; it is a representative republic, as set forth in the Constitution and explained in the Federalist Papaers for anyone who care to read those documents. As a lawyer, he should be more learned about the foundations of our country.
That supposition assumes an open mind, but as a Marxist Liberal, he shows all the narrow mindedness of someone like Hugo Chavez forcing Venezuela into a communist dictatorship. He keeps going on about using the 'firm hand" of the government and scolds us by saying we shouldn't eat so much, drive so much or keep our homes to warm. Who does he think he is, the top nanny in a nanny state? A ninny or a Nazi is more like it, but a demented Nazi with the potential full force of the Federal government behind him. All he needs is a Hitler moustache and jack boots. Sporting a Stalin moustache and temperiment would be too obvious.
This last week Obama said America is no longer a Christian nation, but a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation because there are people of those faiths or non faith, in the case of atheists, in our country. A point of history is needed to be cited here. The first Jewish congregation already existed in Rhode Island before the Revolutionary War and there were atheists in the eighteenth century, but neither group was excluded from the Constitution. The First Amendment's twin protections of freedom of religion were specifically included to prevent the government's imposition of one form of Christianity, like the Anglican faith, upon the other Protestant faiths and Catholicism as existed in
England and later Great Britain with the king as the head of that faith, or religion as the Founders viewed every denominations. This protection including the full exercise of one's specific Christian religion. Obama's Obocracy is now set upon the assumption of the unanimous acceptance. That is, if there are any individuals who are not Christians in America, then the country is not Christian. The twin facts that America is the largest Christian/Protestant country in the world, and at the same time the freest, is no coincidence. The right to individually chose your denomination is a basic right of Liberty. Is Obama's view of of the law based on the same unanimous acceptance? In other words, since there are law breakers among the law abiding, does that mean all our laws are invalid and we live in a lawless country? Well, he is a liberal politician and a liberally ignorant individual.
There are few things we unanimously agree on for there are always differences of opinions and levels and types of belief; but the Constitution provides minority protections already and most specifically for the individual. The reason we have a republic is to defend the individual and the indiividual's ownership of property because, as Madison observed in Federalist Paper 10 "a pure democracy....can admit to no cure for the mischiefs of faction." He further states "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
It's interesting to realize the Founding Fathers even anticipated Liberlism, Socialism and the perfection of man through government force. Actually, the same debates and erroneous assumptions of factions existed then, as they do now. The Founding Fathers, being members of the Enlightenment and free thinking individuals, were more aware of these natural tendencies of human nature and were better prepared to handle them than most Americans today.
These politicians, then as now, are, as Madison further warns in Federalist Paper 10: "Men of fractious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may by intrigue, by corruption or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people." This is the change to shared values Obama and his handlers are promising in Obocracy. It is also a definition of demogoguery, the methods of Liberals, Nazis and Communists of every stripe.
The Founding Fathers show, again, there is nothing new in politics. The enemies of Liberty are always with us, playing their same old shell game and promising change, only to betray the people. Obama and his Obocracy are no different and are full of the new catch phrases of Opocrisy.