Posted on 04/17/2010 9:56:35 AM PDT by K-oneTexas
We have a president loath to acknowledge American exceptionalism. Indeed, the weight of the evidence suggests that our chief executive, through both word and deed and with malice aforethought, seeks to undermine – if not dismantle – that exceptionalism. At one time we properly called such activity anti-American, seditious, or even – under certain circumstances – treasonous. Today we call it “progressive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Yeah, and we've got an electoate that's OK with that on some level. Obama is a symptom of a greater ill.
bump
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague”.”
~~Marcus Tullius Cicero
Boy, have you got that right!
We will never begin to take our country back until we get focused on the 67 million instead of the One.
Most Obama voters shouldn't be allowed to vote. There. I said it.
As long as these people are allowed to vote, bankruptcy, cultural suicide, and ruination are a certainty.
I'm no longer interested in the process of choosing other politicians who are a little less bad, or finding the "next Reagan" (as if...)
We need to limit the franchise to people who contribute something. Tax eaters contribute nothing to the collective, and should not be allowed to vote,
“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic giant to step the ocean and crush us at one blow Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. “At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” Abraham Lincoln, 1837
One wonders (perhaps wishfully) at what point at least SOME from among the dominant media and at least SOME from among the Democratic Party will decline to be accomplices to this (or just tire of cowering in response to threats) and simply bolt?
.
That's one reason the oath of office and the military oath each mention defense against "all enemies - foreign and domestic".
True. But what you'll likely see is only Obama-voters being allowed to vote.
I don't know how you'd implement this. The original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxation without representation. Now we've got folks voting for representation without taxation. Non-smoker's(some) will vote to raise cigarette taxes, and soon the number of people paying federal income taxes will be a minority. All of which tends to focus one's attention on the taxation side of the equation. The truth is, we're being spent to death.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.