Posted on 10/10/2008 8:50:06 PM PDT by Reform Canada
In a truly liberal nation he could participate in gay polygamy and marry both Olbermann and Matthews. (now I'm going off to gouge out my mind's eye so I can't visualize that).
And in todays news. Stock in Reynolds wrap is up 1000%
It will be Americans versus The Black Racist and his hordes.
SOmebody certainly has a creative mind! I wonder though, who hasn’t considered, even for a few moments, the possibility of such a scenario coming to pass?
Americans have long deluded themselves that another “Great Depression” could never happen — yet we are upon the precipice, right now. Why would we conclude that some sort of “civil war” could not happen again?
It is apparent that the people of the United States are deeply divided, and many are very angry and frustrated. I can’t yet imagine the rage of Leftists if Obama is somehow not elected. I’m not sure I can guage the anger and frustration of generally Conservative Americans should Obama win the White House AND control both Houses of Congress with veto-proof majorities.
While I might change some of the details in this scenario, and a few are implausible at best, the general overview is becoming a less far-fetched and more plausible every day, especially with the events of the last couple of weeks. It’s certainly something to think about.
We wouldn’t be having discussion about the US after a Bambi election if we had picked Mitt this time.
That name brought up memories of the miniseries Amerika from the 1980s. I vaguely remember the Russians taking over America and breaking it up into smaller countries and one of them was called Heartland.
Keep dreaming. Of course we would. There’s no way Mitt would be even as close as McCain is now. He is reviled by so many different factions of Conservatives that he is unelectable. McCain sucks. We don’t like his ‘bi-partisan’ crap. But he’s not a slimy sleazebag like Mitt Romney. McCain is pro-life without any pre-conditions. McCain never instituted socialized medicine and tried to call it conservatism either, which is an unforgivable perversion.
Don’t even get me started on Slick Willard.
Has anyone ever called you a conservative Alec Baldwin on crack?
Hmmm. It seems another forum has this topic going also. Long read.
The Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama
The Media and elites are very excited about the upcoming presidency of Barak Hussein Obama, but I suspect that they will come to rue the day they supported him. Such is the nature of Revolutions.
All revolutions subsequent to the American Revolution, follow a certain pattern. The pattern was first expressed in the French Revolution. An unpopular regime, seen as predatory on its citizenry and out of touch with their needs or desires, is overthrown in a popular uprising. Many different dissatisfied groups find common cause in their distaste for the old regime, so they band together, gaining the numbers, power, and influence to overthrow the existing order. Very shortly after the euphoria of victory (within days if not hours), the victorious revolutionaries begin to recognize their vastly different views as to what type of regime should replace the one that was just removed. Upon seizing the instruments of government, the different factions begin a bloody struggle to become the dominant force in the new order. Quickly, the most organized, most ruthless group, starts to become dominant. They then set about using violence to consolidate power and liquidate (kill, banish, or imprison) their enemies from amongst their revolutionary brothers. This phase of a revolution is called “the terror”. It is frequently bloody to such a great degree that this period is forever remembered by all the world for its barbarity. The guillotine days of the French Revolution, The Killing Fields, the Purges of the Soviet Union, the Genocide in Rwanda, the Cultural Revolution in China, to name but a few.
All revolutions have echoes of these patterns. Another common pattern in revolutions or power shifts, noted in countries around the world, is that the incoming regime tends to adopt what they believe to be the patterns and methods of the regime they replace. When Mugabe took power in Zimbabwe, he reconstituted the Rhodesian instruments of state power, and began pursuing his political opponents in the same ways as he had felt pursued when he was the rebel. After the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks modeled their domestic intelligence methods and offices on the Czarist counter-revolutionary intelligence apparatus. This scenario has played itself out countless times around the globe thru ought history. From Asia, to Europe, to Africa, to Latin America, we see these patterns emerge time and again.
How is this relevant to the Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama? It is relevant because it is probably instructional as to what we can expect to see in the next four years. Barak sees himself, and has always seen himself as a “revolutionary”. His clarion call for “change” is nothing more than a sanitized version of the causes he has always championed since his youth, his mothers condemnation of the status quo, “the way things are”. Since he has surrounded himself with radical thinkers, ranging from Reverend Wright, to Bill Ayers, and even his wife Michelle, we know his world view is sympathetic to the idea that blacks and minorities, the “underprivileged” have been repressed in America. He likely believes that such organizations as the FBI, the NSA, the Justice Department, the IRS, the BATFE, and other instruments of state power have been used to attack and undermine left leaning political groups, movements, and individuals. What we do not know is how far he believes those and other government organs have gone in their efforts at “repression”. Some of his fellow travelers go so far as to believe in Oliver Stone-like fantasies of assassinations, disappearances, secret imprisonment, arson, bombings, etc. Others in his circles merely perceive the government as working in secret cabal with the existing elites to advance their own financial enrichment. Since he has been disciplined in his public pronouncements, keeping his positions limited to generalities, much of Barak’s personal beliefs are opaque. However, the degree to which he and his retinue believe in these conspiracies, will be the degree to which we can expect them to use the instruments of state power to practice these techniques, directed back on their real or perceived enemies. Due to the extreme degree of belief, by people he has associated himself with like Reverend Wright, those actions could be extreme indeed. We may see his administration work primarily towards legislation and rulings targeted for enriching themselves, or we may see the emergence of a truly sinister power apparatus, that will physically endanger his perceived enemies.
We can expect an Obama administration to turn the Bush anti-terrorism powers, back on US citizens whose political views oppose Barak’s “revolution”. Anyone who opposes him, or any of his programs will be considered as a counter-revolutionary, and a danger to the state. He will define himself, and his objectives, as “the State, and “the states interests”. To the degree his people felt that their views were unexpressed in national media, they will seek to muzzle any national media which attempts to undermine him, or his objectives. They will use the powers of the FCC, and the Justice Department to do so. To the extent he believes the NRA or conservative gun owners may be hostile to him or his objectives, he will treat them as “domestic terrorists” or “suspected domestic terrorists” and will imagine plots against himself, his administration, and employees. Under this theory there will be close monitoring of any perceived “right wing” groups, and probably attempts at infiltration, trumped up charges, and prosecution. To the degree he felt the entertainment industry elements that were friendly to him were maligned, intimidated, or undermined, he and his people will use state power to pursue his enemies in the that industry. The degree of this will not depend on the degree to which his side were actually harried, but rather to the degree they believe they were. If historical world context holds true, the degree of his abuses will far exceed any actual behavior prior to his “revolution”.
We can expect to see attempted nationalization of industries he deems important to his “change” agenda. We can expect Justice Department lawsuits, and attacks by regulatory agencies across the board to force compliance by private persons and business to comply with his agenda. We can expect his administration to push a “crush Rush” “fairness doctrine” type bill through his Democratic congress, mandating all FCC licensed stations or networks give free air time to anyone defending him, if some news or entertainment outlet dare criticize him. Those who blog, or post information critical of him or his policies, can expect to be attacked with litigation, as he wields full state power to destroy the “counter revolutionaries”. The legal theories to support such action will be creative, possibly based on “hate” legislation, or libel, slander, or “national security”. The IRS will become a regular instrument of state terror, used like the KGB or GRU and their counterparts in all countries that have been ruled by a “socialist revolution”. Regardless of the legal validity, the result will be ruinous litigation costs, designed to silence opponents though their inability to withstand costly, interminable, litigation.
A close analogy exists in recent American history, the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The public was very unhappy with the presidency of Richard Nixon, and associated President Ford with the Nixon era. They were unhappy with foreign policy, the domestic economy, and the national media were committed to defeating the administration. President Carter, a largely unknown figure, was elected with a vague mandate to “clean up Washington”. When his agenda became known, it did so by his actions, as he began trying to force American compliance with such policies as a national conversion to the Metric system, deep cuts in defense spending, and an international agenda based not on American interests, but rather on “human rights” (resulting in numerous regimes being taken over by forces hostile to the US, most notably Iran), his popularity plummeted. The backlash against Carter not only brought Ronald Reagan to the presidency, but also created a couple of generations of die-hard conservatives. The backlash against Carter and the democratic party was deep and long lasting. However, Carter at least had the benefits of seeming familiar to most Americans, being caucasion, and having been to the Naval Academy, as well as his background as a farmer. Obama enjoys none of these sympathetic personal factors.
The backlash against Barak Obama will be phenomenal, as many of his erstwhile supporters will be horrified at how his vision contrasts with theirs, combined with those who opposed him to begin with, and those who never really understood what his policies would be. Like in any revolution, he will turn his power on his former revolutionary “brothers”. Civil libertarians, opposed to Bush’s security “Patriot Act” agenda, will among the first to realize Obama is not their savior, but merely a replacement of the frying pan, with the fire. Jewish groups, suspicious of Bush’s association between Christianity and the government functions, will be next, as they find none of their personal interests served or protected by Barak’s new regime. Many of the “educated elites” will rapidly become disillusioned as they discover the wealth that Barak intends to take for redistribution, will be theirs. Doctors, lawyers, and college professors never fare well when a socialist revolution takes place, and Obama’s intentions are at least a quasi-socialist revolution, if not an outright one. The media may become justifiably frightened as they see comrades who are only slightly to the right of themselves, suddenly facing legal action, or persecution. The dilemma of Don Imus must have made some media members sleep less well at night, and what will come, will be more than merely un-nerving to them. Just as the communists found themselves hunted in Iran by the Khomeini islamist faction after they had together overthrown the Shah, so too will many of Barak’s supporters find themselves targets when they begin to question his methods. The more he does, the greater will be the resistance. In turn, the greater the resistance to his methods and agenda, the harsher and more heavy handed his methods will become. Typically, the socialist revolutionary becomes a dictator “to protect the revolution”, as in Zimbabwe, Cuba, Russia, China, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Uganda, Romania, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, etc.
An unknown element of this will be the race factor. Some black American may feel compelled to defend him and his actions, regardless of what those actions entail, simply because they realize that his poor performance and unpopularity will reflect badly on them, undermining their case in the American psyche. Also, we do not know the degree to which Barak will publicly or privately attribute racism as the motivation of his perceived enemies. Theoretically, this could make Barak’s revolution partially racial in nature, setting a stage similar to some truly horrific precedents. In those political struggles in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, where there was a racial or ethnic component to the struggle, competing tribes turned the contest into one of violent conflicts, where the political power struggle became one of life and death, sometimes resulting in attempted genocide. Neighbor turned on neighbor, denouncing one another to the most violent elements of the other side, sometimes placing husbands and wives, and children on opposite sides of an insurmountable divide. Depending upon how embattled the Obama administration becomes, he may begin to surround himself with security and “law enforcement” functionaries, only of his own race, or perceived sympathetic groups. One recalls how the Michael Jackson clan turned to the “Black Muslims” for security at the height of his persecution by law enforcement, though his family had long only been associated with a deeply Christian background. If so, the perceived conflict will grow deeper and more intractable. Since black Americans only comprise about 12% of the population as a whole, this could be very dangerous for them, and even if the four years pass with only relatively mild conflict, it will do irreparable harm to race relations in the country, as they are cumulatively lumped in with Barak’s defenders (whether they defended his actions or not).
Internationally, Barak Hussein Obama is perceived as a Muslim, or at least of Islamic heritage. While his supporters may hope that this will allow him to achieve favorable negotiations with our Islamic enemies, this will not be the case. Any student of the Middle East knows that the Islamic nations there, are bitter enemies of each other, and are quite aggressive with one another. The only point they can agree on is their hatred of the “Great Satan” (the United States), and the “Little Satan” (Israel). Their animosity against the Europeans is split, depending on which state was the colonial “sponsor” between WWI and WWII. Since they serve only the self interests of the individual families that control the states, we can expect them to remain hostile to US interests, regardless of whether or not they believe Barak Hussein Obama to be a muslim. Their poor relations with the US are wholly independent of our connection to Israel, as they see themselves as our competitors both economically and for the domination of world culture. They want to increase our dependence on their product (oil), they want to extract the highest price from us that they possibly can, and they want to weaken us militarily, so that we are in no position to resist their efforts to extract ever higher payments from us, or interfere in their machinations in their region or around the world. If the election of Hussein Obama has any impact at all on their behavior, it will merely be to embolden them in their actions against Israel, since they may perceive him to be a less than enthusiastic supporter of Israel’s right to exist.
If the United State sees fit to elect this young, radical, uninspected, freshman senator to the highest office in the nation, placing him at the helm of our military, economic, social, and diplomatic agendas, the great likelihood is that he will fail on nearly all counts. The repercussions of his failure will inflict a grievous wound on our body politic, economically, internationally, and on our internal cohesion. The price for our fit of pique, due to our dissatisfactions with the existing governments polices, will be high indeed. Those who seek to dispose of that which is merely good, thinking they will acquire that which is perfect, usually end up with neither.
This country is dying an excruciating economic death and being pushed towards socialism at a dizzying pace and we have a candidate that can't put a coherent sentence together on the issue. Some of us knew that this election was going to be about the economy and that we needed someone who understood it to fight the liberal/media attacks on the capitalist system and instead we picked a man who admits he knows nothing about the economy and it shows every time he opens his mouth. You think that President OBama will give a rat's ass about your views on abortion as he appoints two or three new USSC justices. I am as solidly pro-life as anyone on this site, but if you don't win it makes no difference does it. Mitt might have had trouble with a small minority of far right evangelicals, but he would have carried everyone else that McCain is getting plus many that Bambi is counting on. It is all or nothing people like you that have handed this country over to the most liberal/Marxist candidate that we have ever seen. Enjoy the next 4+ years.
All of this is highly unlikely to happen. If Obama overreaches, he loses congress in 2010.
Blah blah blah. Keep telling yourself that we didn’t end up with McCain because of a bunch of infatuated women and myopic Mormons making a mockery of the nomination process.
The only reason Romney got as far as he did was the millions he could throw at it. And it sucked the air out of the room for other, much more worthy, candidates.
Thankfully, Slick Willard’s reign of terror in the Republican party is finally over.
=)
Ignore the naysayers... They existed during the American revolution as well...
I happily look forward to the day we can divorce ourselves of the rotting flesh that is the liberal collectivist. If it needs to be through armed conflict, OK. If it can be done through an amicable separation where both parties go peacefully on their own way, OK... even better.
We simply cannot continue to coexist with these people. Its NEVER going to work out. Time to separate, and go our own way.
ping
Agreed - and most people have no idea
WOLVERINES!
Rommeny is as RINO socialist puke, he wouldn’t be doing any better than McCain. Yeah, I’m sure his “my socialized Health care scheme is better then yours” debates with Obama would have really drawn conservatives together
Hopefully he will never be heard from again.
But you are right, these all or nothing one issue people have handed this country over to the most liberal/Marxist candidate that we have ever seen.
The only candidate who was palatable to all conservative factions was Fred Thompson. But because his position on abortion was only 90% of that of the far right evangelicals, they instead backed the even bigger socialist puke Mike Hucknanny which is why we got stuck with McCain.
It’s Deju Vu all over again with different issues. A politician from Illinois becomes President and all hell breaks loose.
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.