Obama - What’s wrong with that?

[Victor]

What’s wrong with that?
Olavo de Carvalho

Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience - and with below-minimal political experience - to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”

Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols - the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed - Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system - which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.

(Laigle's Forum)

[RAM]

Originally Posted by Victor

What’s wrong with that?
Olavo de Carvalho

Barack Hussein Obama is, in so many aspects, so different from what one normally assumes to be a candidate to the presidency of the U.S. that only by an enormous stretch of the imagination could anyone think that the most significant detail about him is the color of his skin. The motto of his campaign is “change”, but to bring it about he needs not even get elected: he has already changed everything about the electoral ways and customs of the American people, and he has changed it so much for the worse that many decades will be necessary to repair the damage, if indeed that is possible.

For one thing, he is the first candidate without any administrative experience - and with below-minimal political experience - to be accepted by any party to run for such a high office. He also had no military or professional experience, except as an NGO operative. But if you tell that to an Obamaniac, they will invariably answer: “What’s wrong with that?” The natural sense of strangeness about what is truly odd has become anti-natural, offensive and intolerable.

With the possible exception of Brazilian president Lula, whose ignorance was actually praised as a superior form of wisdom, never has so little been demanded of one seeking maximum authority. Even in Third World countries, the bearer of such an insignificant resume would hardly be accepted as a candidate for the top public office. In the Democratic Party and U.S. big media, nobody seems to find anything strange about Obama. Even among supporters of John McCain there is some sort of tacit agreement not to hurt the opponent’s feelings with demands beyond his capacity. Everyone prefers to ask: “What’s wrong with that?”

Furthermore, the candidate lacks not only a resume but even a trustworthy biography. Suggestions that he is a Muslim in disguise pop up every day, but their quantity seems to be inversely proportional to the interest that his adversary and the big media have in clarifying the matter. All seem to want the electorate to accept as utterly normal and unproblematic the hypothesis of voting for an unknown candidate who conceals his origins, even if these somehow connect him to the enemy that is fighting his country in the battlefield, and even if his dedication to covering up his past prompts him to hide his own birth certificate. Evidence of the candidate’s proximity to communist and pro-terrorist organizations is piling up, but raises nary a shred of curiosity among bien-pensants. After all, what’s wrong with that?

Even in the most elementary issue of respect for national symbols - the minimum of etiquette that candidates from all parties have always observed - Obama seems to have acquired the right to mess everything up, without any hint from the establishment that they are offended by it. He listens to the Star-Spangled Banner with his hands on his genitals, and not on his heart, he tampers with the national coat of arms and turns it into a grotesque electoral ad, and, to top it all off, he says that the flag of the country he wishes to represent before the world is “to many people a symbol of violence.” But if you think about it, what’s wrong with that?

Still, it is in violating the law with an innocent face that the candidate displays the kind of absolute trust in his own invulnerability that is so typical of revolutionary sociopaths. Every week new abuses turn up that would normally be enough to destroy the career of any politician or, worse, send him to jail. But Obama seems to be immunized to the consequences of his actions. This week’s latest abuses were: (1) To collect funds for his campaign, he organized a lottery system - which is illegal in all 50 American states. (2) He flies everywhere in an airplane that does not meet the required security standards, and was recently forced to make an emergency landing. But again, the general reaction is the same: “What’s wrong with that?”

Obama is so utterly weird that apparently the only way to attenuate the embarrassment of his presence in the presidential contest is to pretend that he is normal. But the prohibition of finding anything odd is truly a prohibition of the act of understanding, a veto against the formal exercise of intelligence. The readiness to accept this imposition reveals an alarming weakness of character and the almost diabolical effectiveness of the “politically correct” blackmail that produced it.

(Laigle's Forum)

That article makes a really good point that needs to be broadcast. But I think we may have such low standards now because of what we have experienced with the master of inarticulate expression - George Bush. Obama comes across as a genius compared to him, so why worry about experience?

Richard

[Victor]

Originally Posted by RAM

That article makes a really good point that needs to be broadcast. But I think we may have such low standards now because of what we have experienced with the master of inarticulate expression - George Bush. Obama comes across as a genius compared to him, so why worry about experience?

Richard

Well, that's what some may think or say, but the low standards have little to do with George Bush. It has much more to do with the slow and gradual dumbing down of the American mind throughout the last decades.

While I love finding articulated people, this fact in itself doesn't assure us of anything good about that person. There are many cases of dictators who were excellent speakers. Of course Obama's speaking abilities come out nice (and it helps a lot). But there are various fundamental factors that have to be taken into consideration first. In these Obama is lacking.

By the way, if you google "BibleWheel", you'll find that one of the first results is your Obama page on BarackObama.com. I find it disturbing to read that the Bible Wheel is somehow associated to his name. What do you think bro?

Your friend in Christ,
Victor

[RAM]

Originally Posted by Victor

Well, that's what some may think or say, but the low standards have little to do with George Bush. It has much more to do with the slow and gradual dumbing down of the American mind throughout the last decades.

While I love finding articulated people, this fact in itself doesn't assure us of anything good about that person. There are many cases of dictators who were excellent speakers. Of course Obama's speaking abilities come out nice (and it helps a lot). But there are various fundamental factors that have to be taken into consideration first. In these Obama is lacking.

By the way, if you google "BibleWheel", you'll find that one of the first results is your Obama page on BarackObama.com. I find it disturbing to read that the Bible Wheel is somehow associated to his name. What do you think bro?

Your friend in Christ,
Victor

Hey there Victor,

I am ambivalent about Barack. On the one hand, I see a number of very positive things that could come from his presidency:

1. Having a black president will make a huge segnment of the population feel represented in our government for the first time. Given our racist history, this would be a great step forward. There could be a kind of "cultural renewal" in our black communities.
2. Having a black president with an Islamic name and heritage would put a new face on America that could really help with international relations.
3. Barack also would flat out denounce any use of "torture" in our battle against terrrorism. This would help restore America as the beacon hope for the rest of the world and our role as a moral voice in the world.
4. Barack would seek diplomacy first and war last.

But then there are the downsides:

1. We would be electing the democratic party, not just the president. And the democratic party has many outrageous anti-American and anti-Christ elements. Of course, the Republicans have some bad apples too ...
2. Barack would almost certainly be appointed one or two supreme court justices. This could affect how the court rules for the next 20 years.
3. Barack supported an extreme pro-abortion bill that denied medical help for infants born alive after a botched abortion. That is very disturbing.
4. Barack sat under Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. I don't believe that he agrees with him, but still it is disturbing to have that associtation.

And there are many other issues that are either pro or con. And so I find myself reflecting on the fact that we have survived two ridiculous presidents - Clinton and Bush - and the country roles on. So I begin to put a lot more weight on how I want our country to interact with the rest of the world, and an Obama presidency seems quite a "brighter" than McCain.

I think I should go and edit that page I made on the Obama site and present all my conflicted opinions.

Richard

[Greenbrier]

Originally Posted by RAM

[*]We would be electing the democratic party, not just the president. And the democratic party has many outrageous anti-American and anti-Christ elements. Of course, the Republicans have some bad apples too ...


Richard

That is right! I’m reading Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope. It is a surprising read as I am learning much about American history as well as the influences that have shaped the man. He probably isn’t right about everything, but he demonstrates an even-handed approach to resolving issues. He has a Reagan like quality of affability. I don’t expect my President to know everything, but I value highly one who approaches issues analytically – and he appears to do so.

George Bush spent a lot more than his own political capital in my opinion. The Republicans remind me of the Pharisees of old.

[Victor]

I finally found some time to post...

Originally Posted by RAM

Hey there Victor,

I am ambivalent about Barack. On the one hand, I see a number of very positive things that could come from his presidency:

1. Having a black president will make a huge segnment of the population feel represented in our government for the first time. Given our racist history, this would be a great step forward. There could be a kind of "cultural renewal" in our black communities.

Any advantage like that is simply nothing compared to Obama's life, actions, connections and beliefs. And the leftist mentality will always elect another group to claim that is being discriminated in American society and will use it as a trumpet card to say that "this is the time" to elect this or that person in their pet segment of society of the time.

Originally Posted by RAM

Having a black president with an Islamic name and heritage would put a new face on America that could really help with international relations.

Certainly not. As the author above said in another occasion:

It is more or less as if, in the midst of the Vietnam war, the USA had elected as its president a guy named John Paul Ho Chi Minh, educated in Hanoi, the son of a party member, who swore he had never been a Communist and became offended when anyone doubted it. Obama’s candidacy is a calculated provocation, serving as a gauge to assess the depth of the acquired habit of politically correct self-censorship now infused in the minds of Americans willing to be thrown into the oven to avoid offending the cook.

Islamic fanatics, for example, would find another excuse to say they hate America. We are thinking that they think the way we think. But that's not the way they think. The race/Islam-name thing is just an obvious guise to put the canditate with the most extreme political views ever in the presidency of the US.

The fact that Obama has got favorable comments from people like Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, socialists from all kinds, etc., etc. reveals A LOT. We often forget that, despite their geographical and minor ideological differences around the world, revolutionizers are united in their goal of dismantling American values and leadership little by little. And they see Obama as their tacit ally. And Obama knows that.

Obama's election would only cause some Holywood-like stir in some places around the world, but I can't see how his "heritage" would in any way affect international relations in a positive way.

Originally Posted by RAM

Barack also would flat out denounce any use of "torture" in our battle against terrrorism. This would help restore America as the beacon hope for the rest of the world and our role as a moral voice in the world.

Absolutely not; that's totally ingenuous. That's not how the terrorist mind works.

The world does not see America as a beacon hope and moral voice because the world is inundated with anti-American propaganda that Americans usually don't bother to take their time to be familiar with, let alone refute. "Everything is nice and fine; why should I raise my voice against this antiamericanism thing outside my country?"

The office of president does not involve "denouncing" torture; it involves preventing it. What is transparent is not Obama's denunciation of American "torture" but his silence throughout his entire career towards the ugly things performed by fanaticism and communism.

Originally Posted by RAM

Barack would seek diplomacy first and war last.

Just like Europe "seeked diplomacy first and war last" during Hitler's enpowerment in the thirties.

And Obama himself said something that even his adversaries don't say: he said he would bomb Pakhistan, an American ally. Go figure.

Originally Posted by RAM

But then there are the downsides:

1. We would be electing the democratic party, not just the president. And the democratic party has many outrageous anti-American and anti-Christ elements. Of course, the Republicans have some bad apples too ...

Republicans are gradually getting more "bad apples too". But of course we know that the democratic party is miles away in this regard. And we know that, if elected, Obama will pick those in the extreme left like him. And these are the ones that will run the governamental programs.

Originally Posted by RAM

Barack would almost certainly be appointed one or two supreme court justices. This could affect how the court rules for the next 20 years.

And he could be re-elected. Of course he would appoint people with extreme views like him to the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by RAM

Barack supported an extreme pro-abortion bill that denied medical help for infants born alive after a botched abortion. That is very disturbing.

"Disturbing" is an understatement. He says he will protect defenseless people but he consistently supports the killing of millions of the most defenseless kind of people: unborn babies.

Originally Posted by RAM

Barack sat under Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. I don't believe that he agrees with him, but still it is disturbing to have that associtation.

I do believe that he agrees with the bulk of the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright. He only cut off bonds with him for the sake of the presidential race. Of course if he attended his church for 20 years he'd be familiar with Wright's extreme views. And he just chose to be disturbed with these views in election time.

And of course his entire carreer, til today, was built within a network of people with extremist views like Wright.

Originally Posted by RAM

And there are many other issues that are either pro or con. And so I find myself reflecting on the fact that we have survived two ridiculous presidents - Clinton and Bush - and the country roles on.

The country "roles on" sort of. It is getting dumb and dumber. America survived Clinton and came out a little diminished. Bush went for the American enemies outside the country at the same time as he seeked allies with American enemies inside the country.

The revolutionary influence that soaks American thought in colleges, churches and NGOs seeks to undermine the Christian values in homeopathic tidbits. Obama is one more of these tidbits; actually, a little larger dose. And many Americans are eager to take it.

Originally Posted by RAM

So I begin to put a lot more weight on how I want our country to interact with the rest of the world, and an Obama presidency seems quite a "brighter" than McCain.

McCain is terrible but Obama is worse. His presidency will obviously be "brighter" in the sense of "sounding cool" to a world that is willing to leave aside traditional values. But it will only accelerate America's decline.

Originally Posted by RAM

I think I should go and edit that page I made on the Obama site and present all my conflicted opinions.

Richard

The thing that doesn't sound good to me is finding the name "Bible Wheel" associated in any way with such a fake as Barack Hussein Obama.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Greenbrier

That is right! I’m reading Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope. It is a surprising read as I am learning much about American history as well as the influences that have shaped the man. He probably isn’t right about everything, but he demonstrates an even-handed approach to resolving issues. He has a Reagan like quality of affability. I don’t expect my President to know everything, but I value highly one who approaches issues analytically – and he appears to do so.

George Bush spent a lot more than his own political capital in my opinion. The Republicans remind me of the Pharisees of old.

Hello Greenbrier, can you point me to instances of his "even-handed approach" in his book?

[Victor]

Obama runs away from a lawsuit
Olavo de Carvalho

September 24 was the deadline for Barack Obama to file a response to the lawsuit, initiated by Democrat lawyer Philip Berg, which charges Obama with not fulfilling the constitutional requirements to be elected president, since he is not a natural born citizen of the United States. Barack Obama did not actually respond: he introduced a motion for dismissal, a typical delaying maneuver that makes the defendant look even more suspect.

A motion for dismissal consists in alleging that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to justify the continuation of the suit. That Obama's lawyers should use this maneuver is a curious sample of the revolutionary inversion of judicial logic. Berg's central argument is that Obama has not presented a printed birth certificate. It is the duty of the candidate to prove that he is a natural born American citizen, not the duty of the plaintiff to prove that he is not. The hard fact that the document has never come to light is enough for the suit to go forward, as there is not a single piece of evidence attesting that Obama has legal citizenship. But to this undeniable assertion, Berg added some strong evidence that (1) the electronic copy of the birth certificate exhibited by Obama's campaign is false, and (2) Obama was born in Kenya. By challenging the insufficiency of these supplemental arguments, Obama's lawyers are trying to dodge the central point: Where is the paper version of the certificate? If Obama had one, it would be enough to present it, and he would be acquitted on the spot. What his lawyers did suggests that he has no American birth certificate whatsoever.

In return, they have gained time, but at the expense of sowing the seed of a constitutional crisis that will fatally blow up sooner or later. If the suit is resolved only after the election—and if Obama is elected—the United States, instead of simply nullifying a candidacy, will find itself in the contingency of having to topple a president, automatically raising the ire of his devotees. Or else the United States will have to sacrifice its Constitution and laws on the altar of a grotesque pseudo-religion, artificial to the utmost, in which millions of idiots kneel down before an improvised arriviste without even bothering to ask where he came from. Both hypotheses are frightening, and if the motion for dismissal is accepted by the court, there will be no third one any more.

More and more I convince myself that all this, from the beginning, figured in the calculations of the creators of the Obama myth. More than just electing a president, they wished to implode a nation.

PS—All the documents of the lawsuit are on Phillip Berg's site www.obamacrimes.com. If you have any difficulty in accessing it, do not be surprised: it has received over 15 million visitors in the last few days, and there has been a bit of a traffic jam.

(Laigle's forum)

[RAM]

Originally Posted by Victor

I finally found some time to post...

Hey there Victor,

I'm glad you found time to discuss this, since the election is just about three weeks away.

Originally Posted by Victor

Any advantage like that is simply nothing compared to Obama's life, actions, connections and beliefs. And the leftist mentality will always elect another group to claim that is being discriminated in American society and will use it as a trumpet card to say that "this is the time" to elect this or that person in their pet segment of society of the time.

I never meant to suggest that the positive points override the negatives. That's why I presented both in my post. I still think a great good would come from having a black president - but not just any old black. For example, I could never under any circumstances vote for Jesse Jackson since he has a long history of milking racism for personal gain.

Originally Posted by Victor

Certainly not. As the author above said in another occasion:

It is more or less as if, in the midst of the Vietnam war, the USA had elected as its president a guy named John Paul Ho Chi Minh, educated in Hanoi, the son of a party member, who swore he had never been a Communist and became offended when anyone doubted it. Obama’s candidacy is a calculated provocation, serving as a gauge to assess the depth of the acquired habit of politically correct self-censorship now infused in the minds of Americans willing to be thrown into the oven to avoid offending the cook.

Islamic fanatics, for example, would find another excuse to say they hate America. We are thinking that they think the way we think. But that's not the way they think. The race/Islam-name thing is just an obvious guise to put the canditate with the most extreme political views ever in the presidency of the US.

I agree that the "West" has totally caved in to the threat of the insanely murderous Islamic rage. It is utterly pathetic to observe how they justify their refuseal to publish cartoons that might offend the delicate Islamic sensabilities even as they blaspheme Christ on a daily basis. But I don't think that the "Ho Chi Min" example really fits the situation with Obama. While I agree that the Left has completely bought into "politically correct self-censorship" I can't say that I've seen anything to make me think Obama's candidacy is a "calculated provocation, serving as a gauge to assess the depth of the acquired habit of politically correct self-censorship."

And I still think that having someone with whom blacks and Muslims can identify would in and of itself be a very positive thing. But this "positive" thing does not obviate Oboma's negatives which also must be placed in the scale.

Originally Posted by Victor

The fact that Obama has got favorable comments from people like Fidel Castro, Ahmadinejad, socialists from all kinds, etc., etc. reveals A LOT. We often forget that, despite their geographical and minor ideological differences around the world, revolutionizers are united in their goal of dismantling American values and leadership little by little. And they see Obama as their tacit ally. And Obama knows that.

I agree that those people are enemies of America, and all that we stand for, including Christianity in the case of Amhadinejad. But it seems to me that those "favorable comments" could be understood completely by simply noting that they are siding with Obama vs. McCain. I don't see why it necessarily implies anything about Obama as an "ally" in their effort to destroy America. Or do you think that Obama is really sympathetic with their desire to see America destroyed? I grant that his associations with Ayers, Wright, and Farakhan (who just recently called Obama the "Messiah") certainly casts a pretty dark shadow across his patriotism. I think it would be fruitfull to discuss this point more.

Originally Posted by Victor

Obama's election would only cause some Holywood-like stir in some places around the world, but I can't see how his "heritage" would in any way affect international relations in a positive way.

I see it as an implicit denial of the "us vs. them" attitude that has completely polluted our internation relations. There is great potential for making "bridges" with countries that are currently hostile. Of course, we must not forget that much of the hostility is deliberately generated by the Islamic dictators as a ploy used to distract their people from the miserable life they have under the dictator's thumb.

These are not simple issues! I am very thankful that you are taking time to help me work through them.

Originally Posted by Victor

Absolutely not; that's totally ingenuous. That's not how the terrorist mind works.

The world does not see America as a beacon hope and moral voice because the world is inundated with anti-American propaganda that Americans usually don't bother to take their time to be familiar with, let alone refute. "Everything is nice and fine; why should I raise my voice against this antiamericanism thing outside my country?"

Well, I think there are other very important issues at play. The antiamerican socialist propoganda is certainly a primary cause of the problem, but so also is the bad habit our government has had at times interfering in the governments of other nations, installing and supporting dictators, etc..

Originally Posted by Victor

The office of president does not involve "denouncing" torture; it involves preventing it. What is transparent is not Obama's denunciation of American "torture" but his silence throughout his entire career towards the ugly things performed by fanaticism and communism.

The office of the president most certainly should involve "denouncing" torture if he finds that his administration has been involved in it. Torture at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are a terrible stain on the image of America. Sure, our enemies have amplified that stain beyond measure for their own purposes, but that does not justify Bush's failure to clearly denounce it (in the case of Gitmo anyway).

Originally Posted by Victor

Just like Europe "seeked diplomacy first and war last" during Hitler's enpowerment in the thirties.

And Obama himself said something that even his adversaries don't say: he said he would bomb Pakhistan, an American ally. Go figure.

I wasn't talking about "appeasement." I don't know if Obama would err in that way or not, but his comment about bombing Pakistan suggests he would be willing to use force when necessary. This is another important aspect to investigate. But the point that I was making was that Obama would not continue the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive war. Granted, "diplomacy" with Sadam would have been an exercise in vanity, but going to war with him was not necessarily the best choice either.

Originally Posted by Victor

Republicans are gradually getting more "bad apples too". But of course we know that the democratic party is miles away in this regard. And we know that, if elected, Obama will pick those in the extreme left like him. And these are the ones that will run the governamental programs.

Yes, that is the primary problem with electing a democrat, especially one that leans to the left of his own party. But the odd thing is that Republicans have often gone along with the ultra-leftists appointed by the Democrats, such as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg (former lead lawyer for the ACLU that I affectionately refer to as the Anti-Christian League of the Underworld).

Originally Posted by Victor

"Disturbing" is an understatement. He says he will protect defenseless people but he consistently supports the killing of millions of the most defenseless kind of people: unborn babies.

Yes indeed, that was an "understatement." There are no words for the moral depravity of anyone who approves of infanticide. I can understand how people can be confused about the morality of early abortions (though I don't share that confusion, of course) because there are lots of issues that cloud the discussion. But those issues all evaporate when we are talking about fully formed babies that are simply murdered for the convenience of the mother and the economic gain of the "doctor." I don't know all the details of the bill that Obama was supporting, but from everything I have read and heard from his own mouth, it seems that his mind has been corrupted in this regard. But we are not electing the "Abortion President" so this issue is not decisive in and of itself. If it were, it would me that all Christians would have to vote Republican regardless of the other qualifications the candidates may possess. The fact that this issue is so important to many Christians measn that the Republican party can use it to FORCE Christians to vote Republican by merely presenting themselves as pro-life. I will not allow myself to be manipulated that way.

Originally Posted by Victor

I do believe that he agrees with the bulk of the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright. He only cut off bonds with him for the sake of the presidential race. Of course if he attended his church for 20 years he'd be familiar with Wright's extreme views. And he just chose to be disturbed with these views in election time.

And of course his entire carreer, til today, was built within a network of people with extremist views like Wright.

I don't think that is correct. It seems that Obama was in his church for political gain and connections. Wright's twisted views seem to be very backwards looking, like he is stuck in the turbulent 1960s ... or it's all his "schtick" that he uses milk his audience like Jesse Jackson. Obama doesn't seem like either a Wright or a Jackson. I get the impression he really is looking towards the future rather than fixating on the past.

Originally Posted by Victor

The country "roles on" sort of. It is getting dumb and dumber. America survived Clinton and came out a little diminished. Bush went for the American enemies outside the country at the same time as he seeked allies with American enemies inside the country.

The revolutionary influence that soaks American thought in colleges, churches and NGOs seeks to undermine the Christian values in homeopathic tidbits. Obama is one more of these tidbits; actually, a little larger dose. And many Americans are eager to take it.

I'm a little confused by that comment. Are you saying that the "revolutionary" history of America was intrinsically anit-Christian, or that it's being perverted somehow? I know that the founders of this country had to develop some apologetics to explain away Romans 13 and like passages that tell Christians to obey government. Indeed, some folks here on this forum (wstruse I believe) pointed to the revolutionary history as a sign that America was "anti" God in some sense.

And it is an odd tension - on the one hand, America is the leading "revolutionary" force in the world, and on the other hand, America's primary enemies are the commie/Marxist style "revolutionaries." Fascinating dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Victor

McCain is terrible but Obama is worse. His presidency will obviously be "brighter" in the sense of "sounding cool" to a world that is willing to leave aside traditional values. But it will only accelerate America's decline.

Well, it's more than "sounding cool." We really don't know what he would do in office. And that's actually one of the biggest problems. All we really have to go on is his voting record in the Senate which was little more than party-line as you would expect for a newbie Senator. So there is a big "unknown" with Obama and that uncertainty becomes positively frightening if we follow the lines of implication that you have pointed out in such extreme detail. But those are still only implications ... I don't know the truth of the matter yet.

Originally Posted by Victor

The thing that doesn't sound good to me is finding the name "Bible Wheel" associated in any way with such a fake as Barack Hussein Obama.

You will be happy to know that I deleted my profile from his site. I couldn't find a "delete" button (big surprise) so I just removed all the info and changed my name to "Deleted12345678".

Great chatting my friend. Thank's again for working with me on these important issues. I hope others join in the conversation.

Richard

[Victor]

Hey Richard, thanks for going through this with me!

Originally Posted by RAM

Hey there Victor,

I'm glad you found time to discuss this, since the election is just about three weeks away.


I never meant to suggest that the positive points override the negatives. That's why I presented both in my post. I still think a great good would come from having a black president - but not just any old black. For example, I could never under any circumstances vote for Jesse Jackson since he has a long history of milking racism for personal gain.

I understand, but I was just making the point that "having a black president" wouldn't be a great positive in today's scenario. And that just happened to be the first positive you mentioned, so I feel compelled to show how little Obama has to offer - is it the first thing that we are reminded of when we list his positive qualities?

Originally Posted by RAM

I agree that the "West" has totally caved in to the threat of the insanely murderous Islamic rage. It is utterly pathetic to observe how they justify their refuseal to publish cartoons that might offend the delicate Islamic sensabilities even as they blaspheme Christ on a daily basis.

Yes! This is affecting America and it has already infected the rest of the Christian countries, specially Europe.

Originally Posted by RAM

But I don't think that the "Ho Chi Min" example really fits the situation with Obama. While I agree that the Left has completely bought into "politically correct self-censorship" I can't say that I've seen anything to make me think Obama's candidacy is a "calculated provocation, serving as a gauge to assess the depth of the acquired habit of politically correct self-censorship."

I totally disagree, but unfortunately I don't have the ability to expound it in just a couple of paragraphs. I even think that the portion you quoted is an understatement; it is much worse than that.

Originally Posted by RAM

And I still think that having someone with whom blacks and Muslims can identify would in and of itself be a very positive thing. But this "positive" thing does not obviate Oboma's negatives which also must be placed in the scale.

I agree that those people are enemies of America, and all that we stand for, including Christianity in the case of Amhadinejad. But it seems to me that those "favorable comments" could be understood completely by simply noting that they are siding with Obama vs. McCain.

Which just demonstrates my point.

Originally Posted by RAM

I don't see why it necessarily implies anything about Obama as an "ally" in their effort to destroy America.

Because in many ways Obama thinks just like them: state interventionism and messianism, America's "guilt" before the world (at the same time that ignores atrocities in China, Islamic countries and Russia). So they know that, for all practical purposes, Obama is their ally because he is one more step towards the gradual desmantling of American values and culture.

Originally Posted by RAM

Or do you think that Obama is really sympathetic with their desire to see America destroyed?

Yes and no. He doesn't wanna see America "destroyed" in the same sense as Ahmadinejad does. Ahmadinejad wants to literally destroy Israel and America. Obama, on the other hand, has shown over and over again that he believes that "something is wrong" with America and that he wants to change it. And of course he is not talking about the downgrading of traditional values! In fact, his actions, writings, speeches, Freudian slips, voting record, etc. all demonstrate that he is an adept of Gramscian thinking.

Originally Posted by RAM

I grant that his associations with Ayers, Wright, and Farakhan (who just recently called Obama the "Messiah") certainly casts a pretty dark shadow across his patriotism. I think it would be fruitfull to discuss this point more.

Since he has a short carreer, his links with these people are even more important, because they are among the few things we know for sure about his background and connections.

Originally Posted by RAM

I see it as an implicit denial of the "us vs. them" attitude that has completely polluted our internation relations. There is great potential for making "bridges" with countries that are currently hostile. Of course, we must not forget that much of the hostility is deliberately generated by the Islamic dictators as a ploy used to distract their people from the miserable life they have under the dictator's thumb.

These are not simple issues! I am very thankful that you are taking time to help me work through them.

No, they are not simple at all! But I am afraid that the "bridges" Obama hopes to make are not the kind that waters down traditional values for the sake of "peace".

I'll try to come back to this thread later. Time has been short. Thank you
for you clear discourse and thinking!