Monckton: Obama crew 'existential threat' to U.S.

wnd.com ^

[tsowellfan]

Monckton: Obama crew 'existential threat' to U.S. But warns GOP not in position to reverse socialism

John Griffing recently interviewed Lord Monckton, who is sounding the alarm that unless the current warnings are heeded, the West is on the precipice of financial and political collapse.

Lord Monckton: "The U.S. Constitution, perhaps to a unique degree, is a document that defines not the duties of the people to their government but the duties of the government to the people. In terms of present-day politics, all forms of Socialism are variants of Legalism, while the enlightened live-and-let-live approach that your founding fathers had in mind is the very essence of Confucianism.

The framers of your Constitution understood that the people know best what is best for the people: in that sentence is the definition of Confucianism. You now have a Socialist president, a Socialist administration, a Socialist Democrat party, Socialist governors and legislators in many states. These people – whatever they say – do not believe in the libertarian, democratic principles that your Constitution encapsulates. They hate it....

[Gene Eric]

>> These people – whatever they say – do not believe in the libertarian, democratic principles that your Constitution encapsulates. They hate it..

The contempt is mutual.

[Tublecane]

I don’t quite think the US will cease to exist should Obama win. But it’ll be a hellhole and its salvagability severely threatened.

I completely agree Republicans aren’t in a position to save us.

[fella]

Lord Monckton sounds very much like the Churchill of our day.

[rarestia]

We would have to have a monsoon of changes in our State Houses, our Governors’ mansions, our Representatives in the House, Senators, the Presidency, and a wholesale dismantling and re-piecing of critical infrastructure components in our Constitutional Republican system to effect any changes as discussed by Monckton in this article.

100 years of Socialist subversion and now outright Communism on display in DC have made it impossible to fix the system as it currently exists. We need to go back to the Federal government the way it existed prior to 1920 to even begin to fix any of the problems we’re having, and I think that would be a crapshoot anyway.

If we don’t get enough people standing up against Socialism and Communism, calling out those adherents, and demanding their persecution and expulsion from America, then they’re simply going to continue to degrade the fabric of our nation to the point of tatters.

Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama needs to be impeached, publicly tried for treason, sedition, dereliction of duty, and outright fraud, and thrown into Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his natural life along with the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, and a few other choice undesirables who are enemy combatants to the American way of life.

[nathanbedford]

Lord Moncton gets it and his remarks illustrate why Romney does not.

Lord Moncton has articulated the basic threat to the United States:

The present administration, therefore, represents an existential threat to the United States.

And the reason this administration is an existential threat to the Republic is that it is driving Americans to destruction with debt. Romney has declined to establish this as the predicate for all the rest of his criticisms against Obama. I note only that Paul Ryan has come closest to seeing this reality.

It does not matter if a tax cut to the highest bracket is unfair if the country will cease to exist. It does not matter whether people with pre-existing conditions cannot get health insurance without Obama care if the entire economy disintegrates and there is no functioning American health delivery system. It does not matter that college graduates are saddled with unconscionable tuition debt if they cannot find a job. None of Obama's cynical race or class war tactics will have traction if the listener already believes that the country is crashing.

That understanding should be the predicate for the entire Romney campaign.

Second, Lord Moncton's remarks illustrate a great mistake committed by the Republicans in campaigns against Obama which is to shrink from exposing the rank unorthodoxies which animate Obama to put the country on a course toward destruction. In other words, Romney like McCain shrinks from the task of morally destroying Barack Obama. This reluctance extends beyond the person of Barack Obama to his policies.

If the listener hearing an attack on Obama's energy policies does not have this predicate in mind, the listener is not energized to get rid of Obama. Obama has, for example, put energy policies in place not to keep the world green but to turn the world red. We end up arguing endlessly over the propriety and reasonableness of EPA rulings, invariably losing in the courts, when the real battle should be over an attempt to circumvent the Constitution by running around left end. The average voter is therefore ambivalent about whether fracking is problematical and Republicans are losing too many arguments to emotional appeals about extinction of cuddly polar bears or flames coming out of sink faucets.

John McCain and Mitt Romney, each in his turn, have failed to explain to the American people that Obama is ruining the country because he is a leftist. This business of saying that Obama is incompetent is all right as far as it goes and there is certainly no rule that says that leftists cannot be incompetent, but the public is not thereby given to understand that Obama is not a nice guy, rather he is an ideologue. As such, there is no hope that he will ever change course to keep the country from going over the fiscal "Gulch"as Lord Moncton calls it.

In other words, the assault on Obama's ideology rather than his competence makes all of the failed policies of the Obama administration clear and explains why they have happened and why they will never be cured as long as Obama is in office. There is no epiphany with these half measures.

Lord Moncton says it this way:

the Republicans – dead from the neck up and from the neck down – appear altogether inadequate to meet the challenge posed by the impending outright destruction of the United States. Gov. Scott Walker is alive to the danger and is doing something about it in his State: but Mitt Romney is wholly out of his depth on this pressing issue. So, after the coming election, you will either have more Socialism under Obama or a failure to reverse Socialism and its expensive consequences under Romney

If this predicate had been properly installed into the American public, there is no reasonable probability that Bill Clinton could have been able to demagogue the economy and exculpate Barack Obama from guilt for the current mess as he did in his convention speech. The public would know that the fault is not George Bush's trickle-down economics but Barak Obama's take-down Marxism.

One last thought. It is easy for me to blame Romney for failing to attack Obama the way I have described but we all should keep in mind that when Romney advanced a thoroughly justified criticism about the tweet coming out of the Cairo embassy he was gang raped by the mainstream press. It is easy for me to criticize Romney for failing to do what will obviously bring him a mountain of grief from the same news agencies. I have no doubt that his advisers, armed with polling data and focus group analyses have told him that there are certain no go zones concerning criticism of Obama.

Nevertheless, if Obama is not repudiated in this election and if his ideology is not therefore also repudiated, the virus in the American body politic will only erupt again and probably kill the patient.

[Gene Eric]

>> it is driving Americans to destruction with debt.

We can fix debt. It’s harder to fix the obscene entitlement mentality.

[Tublecane]

The Churchill who helped found Britain’s welfare state?

[Tublecane]

I suggest 1913. Maybe even 1860, but don’t let’s press our luck.

[nathanbedford]

It’s harder to fix the obscene entitlement mentality.

Lord Moncton and I say it is impossible unless falling into the fiscal Gulch of destruction is first accepted as the predicate, the fundamental understanding of our situation.

[nathanbedford]

the Churchill who fought the labor government of, Clement Atlee after the war tooth and nail.

The Churchill who put troops into Russia in 1919 and fought against removing them in hopes of defeating the Soviets.

The Churchill who made the "Iron Curtain" speech.

The Churchill of the liberal party after the turn of the 20th century forwarded laws most of us today would fully approve of such as child labor laws and Social Security schemes to regulate the excesses of the Victorian age which were really the excesses of the Industrial Revolution.

[papertyger]

...it is impossible unless falling into the fiscal Gulch of destruction is first accepted as the predicate, the fundamental understanding of our situation.

Not going to happen so long as you have one more morsel than those for whom "calculation" is an abstract concept.

[fella]

No, the Churchill that called to arms against the National Socialists and Communists. By the way it was Parliament that created that the welfare state there just as it was Congress over here.

[nathanbedford]

and your winning the argument is…?

[Bullish]

I completely agree Republicans aren’t in a position to save us.

Sad to say, but establishment Republicans don't want to save us, they just want to continue the gravy train with their party sitting at the head of the table.

[Gene Eric]

It’s one thing to understand the gravity of the fiscal liability and the accompanying complacency , but I don’t agree that hardcore, economic suffering necessitates recovery — assuming what you mean by accepting the inevitable gulch of destruction.

[Candor7]

“The increasing power and wealth of the federal government and its various agencies at the expense of the people is growing and ought to be sharply diminished.”

This quote is from Monkton later in the thread article. Here he visits the reason why Romney and the GOP will not reverse the trend, simply because Romney will NOT diminish the size and scope of the federal governments executive branch, which is clearly out of balanced control of both Congress and the Supreme Court.Our country is actually being “governed” ( I use the word loosely), through Obamas fiats of proclamation, i.e. executuive orders.

We must make all of those executive orders lapse unconditionally as a start, once Obama loses his re-election bid.Hopefully Congress will rid itself of Boehner, who himself is nothing more than a foil for these liberal fasists who plague us, as well we need rid of by impeachment,the current bootlicker Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a disappointingly weak man who has failed his country.

These are all necessary changes which Romney would not contemplate.Obama care is being funded legislatively by Congress as we speak.

Good Read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html

[papertyger]

Winning?

I don’t see any way.

We would have to engineer a purge on the level of a Stalin, and who among us would be willing to do that?

[nathanbedford]

No, I agree with what I presume to be your understanding, that growth is the answer and that can be achieved in conjunction with prudent spending restrictions which are something far different from "hard-core economic suffering."

[rawcatslyentist]

>"These people – whatever they say – do not believe in the libertarian, democratic principles that your Constitution encapsulates. They hate it...."

"All this for a damn flag."

LM nailed it!

IMPEACH NOW!