Friday, May 23, 2008

Obama's Coalition of Change

A slightly edited list of Obama's coalition from L.R. regular JMK.

Obama has the exciting ability to bring together a new coalition to bring about change in our country. check out:

Obama's Coalition of Change

Domestic terrorists

Middle east money launderers

Nation of Islam

The new Black Panther Party

Anyone who finally became proud of America a few weeks ago.

Movie stars

Star Fu*k#rs - (see Huffington below)

College Students

HAMAS

HEZBOLLAH

Corporate Media

Major Newspapers and their columnists - owned by corporate media

Wall Street.

The Chicago Mob.

Foreign lenders.

Black separatist theology ministers

Lobbyists.

Arugula Shoppers of America.

A. Huffington, but only when not getting a pedicure on David Geffen's yacht, and only as long as Obama remains "cool".

Daily Kos, (known as the Cheetos Blog around here) and other assorted hate groups and closet Stalinists.

TV drugged suburbanites.

Bribed Superdelegates.

Anyone looking for something for nothing

Anyone wanting to take control of others

Anyone unwilling to be responsible for their life

Anyone unable to think for themselves at all

Entitled overindulged eighteen year olds who like big "rallies" in which the crowds are inflated with free concerts by popular bands. (including bands who open shows with the Soviet National Anthem.)

Hate mongers in all varieties

Maoists and other communists.

Union bosses who ignore their members.

Kool Aid drinkers.

Anyone who resents having to pay back student loans.

Anyone who views them self as a victim of "the man"

Women haters.

Dead Voters in North Carolina

Deranged anchor men across America.

Voters in 7 new states.

The Oregon Great Lakes Boating society.


Finally a NEW politcs is sweeping the land!

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Friday, May 23, 2008 PERMALINK  

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Lenin Would Be Proud

The more I think about this the angrier I get.

We have commenters come here and tell us we're not Democrats because we don't support Senator Obama. How bigoted is that? Who are Jim Bob or Norb, et al to decide what a Democrat is or isn't? I thought Liberal meant "in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties or favoring or permitting freedom of action with respect to matters of personal belief or expression." Yet when they come here (and other Clinton friendly blogs) they don't want freedom of action of personal belief. The Obama supporter who made the 1984 ad about Senator Clinton should look in the mirror.

As to our Liberal street cred, perhaps read back to some of our early work when we were delightfully bashing Bush (ah the halcyon days when we were all united) . Or when we had great hopes that a Democratic congress would do something. Nancy Pelosi told us that impeachment was off the table and we began to lose hope. We were promised "change" in 2006 and you can see how well that has gone.

Here's a comment by Jason from a previous post that sums it up:

Where does it say, anywhere, you can't be a true Democrat (or for that matter a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green, or a member of any other party) if you express a desire to vote for someone outside your party. Automatically voting straight party ticket is not the sign of a healthy democracy but more akin to those "free and fair" elections that were occurred in the former Soviet Union and now occur in those Utopian paradises where voters are "gently persuaded" whom to vote for.

A sign of a mature democracy is that you make an informed decision and cast your vote for the person you believe is the most qualified for the position, even if it is a vote against your own party. It is a maturity that allows you to realize your party couldn't find the best there is for the position or even has made a mistake in the choice of its candidate.

Party membership in our society does not mean we have to ascribe 100% to all positions and all of the party. After all, the members of a party have to debate and fight among themselves as to what the party platform will be. We identify with the party that on balance tends to support more of with what we agree than disagree.

This is what I now find lacking in the Democratic Party. The party elites have decided to cram Obama down our throats and tell us their little fringe group is now the whole of the Democratic Party and we are all traitors to the Party if we dare express our opinions to the contrary.

This new vision of the Democratic party is not the party of its former giants, FDR, John and Bobby Kennedy (sorry Ted), who fought for the betterment of American society, but one of powerful elites (that's you Ted, and Pelosi and Reid) who will do anything to perpetuate their grip on power to the expense of the greater good of American society.

The New Democratic party shouldn't even be called Democratic anymore, not with it's calls to stop the electoral process and anoint Obama; calls that started with his first few hundred delegates and "polls" taken by the elites to advance their own end. No, the New Democratic Party is not the party with the ideals of FDR, JFK and Bobby, but of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Lynne in Lakeland at Sunday, May 11, 2008 PERMALINK  

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Real leaders inspire FAITH, not hope.

At the core of Obama's current problems is a fundamental lack of true faith. We are witnessing the downside of leadership based on "hope." Odd as it may sound "hope" can never lead to real change. If one hopes for change, and does nothing to affect change one has, by definition, a false hope.

Change takes faith and action. By having faith and taking action the result will be a sense of hope. But hope can never be in the lead and is never at the core of true leadership.

False Hope is Not Change. I repeat what I have said here before: Real leaders inspire FAITH, not hope. FDR inspired faith in people which gave them hope. He did not hope the Depression would go away. He poetically told the country to be fearless. JFK put it squarely in our laps, Ask not what your country can do for you - hope - Ask what you can do for your country - faith. In one transcendent line in one speech he put forth the difference between faith and hope. Even Reagan, who I did not support, lead with an unwavering faith. Reagan did not present himself to the nation as a man who hoped the West would prevail over the Soviets. He presented himself as a man who knew we would. Carter is the counter point. A man who ran on change and hope, was elected, and as President was never able to inspire faith.

I know I am a skipping record but, especially this year, it bears repeating: Hope is a result of faith, not the other way around. Leaders who ditch their past when it is convenient or claim an ignorance so broad it defies rational sensibilities can never inspire faith. In fact, they are not leaders. The center of our culture is not a tribe, or a specific geography, but is our collective idea about of how people should govern themselves. This country, more than most, needs leaders that inspire faith.

Hope is an idol worshipped by the foolish. It is the refuge of the thoughtless and the lost.

Labels: , ,

posted by John: south of Melrose at Tuesday, April 29, 2008 PERMALINK