More on Obama and his church

[RickWilmes 0]

McCain would make a lot of bad appointments and is known for supporting all kinds of viro causes and statism. Why the focus on McFarlane in particular, who will by 71, as if he were more important than Obama or McCain or anyone else they may appoint?

Because McFarlane is one of McCain's foreign policy advisors. A politician is only as good as his advisors. McFarlane has been involved in National Security and foreign policy issues dating all the way back to the Ford administration. McFarlane's ideas on national security and energy indepence should be a concern if you are concerned about the threat of "environmentalism" and the American way of life.

As Zbigniew Brezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Carter, pointed out in the following note to McFarlane in 2/11/87.

Dear Bud-

Old National Security Advisors just keep plugging on... You have much to contribute to our national security--so don't let the current difficulties divert you from thinking about the future because you will be very much part of it.

Cordially,

Zbig (Special Trust by Robert C. McFarlane and Zofia Smardz, p. 386)

Indeed, he has and is apart of America's future.

[RickWilmes 0]

[

Obama is a non-issue as far as I am concerned and he will not get my vote. What concerns me is who is McCain going to appoint into the government and how much influence will McFarlane(also a Naval Academy graduate and a key player in Iran-Contra) have once McCain becomes President? McFarlane's ideas on foreign policy and energy independence through organizations like Set America Free are a concern and should probably be discussed in a thread of its own.

Given that the only candidates with a realistic possibility of getting elected in November are McCain and Obama, and you've already ruled out voting for Obama, then it basically is irrelevant for purpose of the election who McCain will appoint to government.

If McCain wants my vote than he will need to pick and choose the right people as his advisors otherwise I will not vote in this election. If there are other people like me than McCain will lose by default.

I will add the following since I am just now learning about this issue. If McCain makes an issue out of James Webb's bill to provide educational funding for our military members and stands by President Bush's plan to veto the bill, than McCain will lose this November.

Finally, my final comment on Obama and my exit from this thread. Hillary is right, he does not have a chance against McCain in November. This is why I see Obama as a non-issue and is not worth my time or energy.

[KPO'M 0]

If McCain wants my vote than he will need to pick and choose the right people as his advisors otherwise I will not vote in this election. If there are other people like me than McCain will lose by default.

I will add the following since I am just now learning about this issue. If McCain makes an issue out of James Webb's bill to provide educational funding for our military members and stands by President Bush's plan to veto the bill, than McCain will lose this November.

Finally, my final comment on Obama and my exit from this thread. Hillary is right, he does not have a chance against McCain in November. This is why I see Obama as a non-issue and is not worth my time or energy.

How can both be true that "McCain will lose this November" if [X or Y happen] and "Obama does not have a chance against McCain"? If McCain loses, then Obama wins, unless you think Hillary will steal the nomination from him in Denver. Are you suggesting you think Hillary will be the nominee? If so, do you think she would be any better than Obama or McCain, and if so, why and how? In terms of public policy positions, she seems very close to Obama. In terms of foreign policy, both Obama and Clinton have called for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and engaging Iran and Syria in diplomatic discussions. Therefore, it seems that, unless Hillary has any other redeeming qualities, if you have ruled out Obama, you should also rule out Hillary, which gets us back to McCain or a non-vote. A non-vote generally indicates indifference, or a view that both candidates are equally bad. Is this the possibility you are suggesting?

[Free Capitalist 0]

I will add the following since I am just now learning about this issue. If McCain makes an issue out of James Webb's bill to provide educational funding for our military members and stands by President Bush's plan to veto the bill, than McCain will lose this November.

Webb's bill says that GIs will receive full funding and financial assistance, after 3 years of service, while McCain is in favor of a gradual increase in benefits in proportion to the years of service. It's been a pretty striking misrepresentation on MSNBC and CNN that Webb has been in favor of helping GIs, and McCain's attitude was against this.

The reason for McCain's stance, so far as I can gather it, is that he fears Webb's bill will encourage short-term enlistment and en masse discharge as soon as the minimum enrollment is up. By the same token, only those unserious about serving in the military will sign up, hope to get the substantial GI Bill benefits, and run off as soon as possible. We want motivated men, not mercenaries, in our military. McCain's proposal is that we make financial benefits proportional, and thus an enticement only to people who are serious about serving in the military.

[Bill Bucko 0]

... There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks...

It would be ad hominem to say "Obama is a possible drug user, therefore we should not listen to him."

It is not ad hominem to say, "We know that there are not 59 states. Therefore, there's something wrong with Obama."

[KPO'M 0]

... There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks...

It would be ad hominem to say "Obama is a possible drug user, therefore we should not listen to him."

It is not ad hominem to say, "We know that there are not 59 states. Therefore, there's something wrong with Obama."

Except that the "quote" was "57 states," and it was clearly in jest, and unlike other attempts at humor (e.g. Huckabee), didn't involve physical harm.

[PhilO 0]

Except that the "quote" was "57 states," and it was clearly in jest, and unlike other attempts at humor (e.g. Huckabee), didn't involve physical harm.

What made it "clearly in jest", especially in the context of "1 more state", Hawaii and Alaska, and in another context of stating that 10 *thousand* people had died in a tornado in Kansas which was manifestly *not* a joke?

The point is not that Obama doesn't normally realize that there are 50 states or didn't eventually realize that 10 *thousand* casualties of a single tornado was utterly and ignorantly ridiculous (see http://www.disastercenter.com/tornado/tornad2.htm, the *total deaths* for *all* U.S. tornadoes between 1950-1997 were 4,225); it's that he could make those kind of mistakes in any frame of mind. For the tornado figure he stated a few minutes later:

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

Not that being President of the United States of America, in charge of 6,000 nuclear warheads, will ever involve the necessity of keeping a clear head when tired and under pressure in an emergency. If I knew nothing else about him than that those 3 sentences offered as an excuse, I would never vote for him.

So, why are you so sure that it was "clearly in jest"? I mean *objectively* sure, not "you feel" sure.

[piz 0]

What made it "clearly in jest", especially in the context of "1 more state", Hawaii and Alaska, and in another context of stating that 10 *thousand* people had died in a tornado in Kansas which was manifestly *not* a joke?

...

So, why are you so sure that it was "clearly in jest"? I mean *objectively* sure, not "you feel" sure.

The question wasn't directed to me, but I'll offer an answer. The video accompanying the article clearly showed, to me, a wry half-smile and a dryly humorous tone. (Frankly, it's exactly how I would have delivered that line if I were joking - I toss off cracks like that all the time in conversation.) That's why I think that one comment was made in jest. I have nothing but the quoted text for the rest of Obama's comments listed in the article, so I can't make the same sort of evaluation of them.

Apart from that, I got the impression from the article that it was no different than the many, many instances of "Bush is stupid" comments: taking things out of context in an attempt to justify a predetermined conclusion - the author wanted to say "Obama is stupid" and went looking for ways to make him seem so.

Is Obama stupid? Maybe, but I seriously doubt it; a stupid perosn cannot attain what he has attained. Does he use his intelligence in immoral ways? Absolutely. The same can be said of Bush.

This is not to say that I'm in any way in favor of Obama. I think he'll be an utter disaster if elected.

[PhilO 0]

That's why I think that one comment was made in jest.

That was my first thought as well, but in the context of other statements, I have doubts. If it were a joke, what does it really mean anyway? That there are *sooo* many states that it "felt" like 57 rather than 48? Huh? And how is "1 more state" = Alaska+Hawaii?

I agree that Obama is not stupid. Mere stupidity couldn't explain an error that wouldn't be made by any American of normal intelligence over the age of 10. His admission of cocaine usage as a teenager is why I think the speculation about current drug usage isn't arbitrary.

[Bill Bucko 0]

The Obamessiah has picked up another important endorsement:

this one from the Left's adored mass-murdering poster boy, Fidel Castro:

see http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/ob...-americas-foes/

[Free Capitalist 0]

The Obamessiah has picked up another important endorsement:

this one from the Left's adored mass-murdering poster boy, Fidel Castro:

see http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/ob...-americas-foes/

If McCain lets get away this sheer litany of vulnerabilities, then he's had it coming to him.

I recently had a thought experiment of 'what's worse' in my head. On the one hand is McCain, whose only major flaw in this election seems to be his respect for environmental issues. On the other hand we (most likely) have Obama, who acts like a clean all-American guy, but has a host of skeletons in his closet, most important of which is socialized medicine.

I think socialization of medicine will be in all ways such a huge blow to this country, to its doctors whose ground is currently worshipped by the whole entire world, that free medicine will have to move to a new country, and it will be totally tragic. I am dating a medical resident, and am up close and personal with the magnificent, larger-than-life, Medical Science of the West, centered in its last abode, America.

In that perspective, McCain's environmentalism is really not a big deal. He may financially penalize a random company here and there, but that's not a big deal, they can be given tax-breaks after he leaves office. So he'll impose a few restrictions, they can be overturned. Nothing of his view can't be simply undone after he leaves office. What I'm looking for is that here aren't any permanently fundamental fetters on the essence of America and American future well-being. A socialization of medicine, once it happens, can't be undone. Once it happens, it'll be a giant nail heading for the coffin.

[Thales 0]

Just when you thought it was safe to go out again, here comes Obama's other spiritual advisor, Catholic priest Michael Pfleger:

"Obama's Church: Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Obama has some quality friends, doesn't he?

Are the American people really going to sink so low as to vote for him?

[ewv 0]

I recently had a thought experiment of 'what's worse' in my head. On the one hand is McCain, whose only major flaw in this election seems to be his respect for environmental issues.

"Only" major flaw? What about his generally statist philosophy and attacks on free speech in McCain-Feingold? Where have you ever seen him advocating the principle of limited government and individual rights? Leaving aside for the moment a comparison between McCain and Obama, don't those count as "major flaws" for McCain?

In that perspective, McCain's environmentalism is really not a big deal. He may financially penalize a random company here and there, but that's not a big deal, they can be given tax-breaks after he leaves office.

It's "big deal" to the "random" victims targeted. How many people "here and there" have to be squashed before you stop flippantly dismissing it as "no big deal"? Who is going to find them, if they still exist, and "give" them tax breaks in compensation later? What evidence do you have that that has ever happened or would happen? Why do you think his climate change hysteria energy rationing controls or any of his other viro initiatives would only affect "a random company here and there"?

So he'll impose a few restrictions, they can be overturned. Nothing of his view can't be simply undone after he leaves office.

"So", as in "so what"? What makes you think he will only impose a "few" restrictions or that they don't matter? It matters to those who the government imposes them on and persecutes -- or didn't that occur to you? What makes you think they will be "simply undone" after he leaves office? How? By whom? How about telling us about all the previous restrictions that have been "simply undone" in a subsequent administration? Who got their property back from government takings? Who was compensated for jail time? How do you propose that any of this be "simply done" and how are the victims supposed to survive in the meantime?

What I'm looking for is that here aren't any permanently fundamental fetters on the essence of America and American future well-being. A socialization of medicine, once it happens, can't be undone. Once it happens, it'll be a giant nail heading for the coffin.

What administration has not caused a whole slew of nails in the coffin as new precedents are constantly set and accumulate? What makes you think that environmentalism enforced in law -- like land use prohibitions in the name of "wetlands" or the Endangered Species Act -- does not constitute "permanent fundamental fetters on the essence of America and American future well-being"? When was or will that be "undone"? In the realm of medicine alone, wasn't Bush's enormous expansion in Medicaid another "nail in the coffin"? How is that going to be "undone"? Why do you think only more controls over medicine under Obama would not be undone or that any other precedents would be?

[ewv 0]

McCain would make a lot of bad appointments and is known for supporting all kinds of viro causes and statism. Why the focus on McFarlane in particular, who will by 71, as if he were more important than Obama or McCain or anyone else they may appoint?

Because McFarlane is one of McCain's foreign policy advisors. A politician is only as good as his advisors. McFarlane has been involved in National Security and foreign policy issues dating all the way back to the Ford administration. McFarlane's ideas on national security and energy indepence should be a concern if you are concerned about the threat of "environmentalism" and the American way of life.

As Zbigniew Brezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Carter, pointed out in the following note to McFarlane in 2/11/87.

Dear Bud-

Old National Security Advisors just keep plugging on... You have much to contribute to our national security--so don't let the current difficulties divert you from thinking about the future because you will be very much part of it.

Cordially,

Zbig (Special Trust by Robert C. McFarlane and Zofia Smardz, p. 386)

Indeed, he has and is apart of America's future.

A lot of people have been and will be part of America's future. What does a 21 year old letter from someone else citing one person's being "part of the future" have to do with it? What evidence do you have that he will be appointed to anything again at the age of 71 or that he would want to be or that others wouldn't be as bad or worse in thousands of positions under either Obama or McCain? As a McCain "advisor" he may be appointed to something, but how does one speculative potential bad appointment take precedence over everything else, including the candidates themselves? Are we really supposed to believe that either McCain or -- especially -- Obama would not have a whole list of potential candidates for appointments as bad or even worse than McFarlane?

[ewv 0]

Aside from his overt policies in the White House, imagine what kind of appointments he would make to his cabinet and other top government jobs where policy is made and enforced in ways that most people, aside from the direct victims, never hear about.

Do we need to recap all of of the skeletons in Hillary's closet (real and figurative)? As for McCain, what about his membership in the Keating Five, McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, his carbon credit proposal, and the fact that he graduated 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy? There's enough to discuss on the issues without resorting to all the ad hominem attacks.

What "ad hominem attacks"? What difference does McCain's class rank matter now (especially since he became a "war hero" by spending the duration of the war in capitivity being tortured)? What does the "Keating Five" bank scandal have to do with appointments that the next president will make to key positions in government?

Here is some information that might help put McCain's class rank in proper perspective. The following excerpt decribes McCain's Senate win in 1986.

On Election Day, November 4, as the fifth man from the bottom in the Naval Academy Class of 1958 was being swept into the United States Senate, the number one man in that same class, White House National Security Adviser John Poindexter, was on the verge of ruin. A bizarre tale drifting out of the Middle East said that the Reagan administration had been trading arms to Iran in return for Americans held hostage there. Poindexter was about to be engulfed in the Iran-Contra scandal, the Watergate of the 1980s. (John McCain: An American Odyssey by Robert Timberg, p. 166)

(Bold is mine.)

How does this make McCain's "class rank" relevent?

Class rank determines the order in which Naval Academy graduates pick their billets. Class rank is determined by a combination of academics, military performance, sports, room appearance, etc. Since John Poindexter was number one, we can assume that his GPA was somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0. John McCain's GPA would have had to at least been 2.0. Being 5th from the bottom, most likely the only thing keeping him from being last were the number of demerits he recieved. Examples, might have been a smudge on his shoes during Plebe year, an unmade Rack(a rack is a Midshipman's bed), an unclean sink, breaking curfew among other things.

Each class goes through what is called service selection night. On that night, the number of billets are posted. For simplicity, let's say in 1958 there were 15% Naval Air billets, 10% Marine Corps, 25% submarine, and 50% surface warfare billets available. John Poindexter being number one picks first. As each person in the next rank picks, certain billets start to disappear and the choices available for those at the bottom are not good. With that said, I would like to know starting with the Class of 1958, how many graduates 5th from the bottom still had Naval Aviation as a choice. In other words, we have 50 years of graduates to look at, what percentage of the bottom 10% of each class were able to choose Naval Aviation? This is just one reason why "class rank" is relevent.

Another reason class rank is relevent is to look at the careers of John McCain and John Poindexter. They graduated from the same class, one at the top, one at the bottom. Both were involved in a scandal at the same time involving ethics. How did they react and how did they deal with this adversity? If anything, it shows that McCain is a fighter and has overcome great adversity in his life. I disagree with alot of his ideas but I can admire him for the fact that he has fought for his values.

We know that a higher class rank is better than a lower one, but why the big emphasis on something so long ago, especially when it includes a "combination of academics, military performance, sports, room appearance, etc."? A lot of bright and talented people with low class ranks measured academically turn out to out-perform the rest in their later career. Whether or not they do is demonstrated by what they accomplish as adults, especially over the course of a long career for someone who is older. Who cares how often he was caught with a smudge on his shoe or an unclean sink over 50 years ago? How do you know that he "most likely" would have been last in his class but for speculated shiny shoes? What difference does it make in the choice of a president that he couldn't choose "naval aviation"? Do you think someone should favor Obama because he did so well at Princeton and Harvard Law?

Bright people with the wrong values are more of a threat, and so are people who "overcome adversity" in pursuit of the wrong values. Political philosophy -- not class rank, shiny shoes, or "overcoming adversity" -- is the fundamental criterion for choosing a president.

[KPO'M 0]

Just when you thought it was safe to go out again, here comes Obama's other spiritual advisor, Catholic priest Michael Pfleger:

"Obama's Church: Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Obama has some quality friends, doesn't he?

Pfleger is mostly a rabble-rouser, though as far as Catholic priests go, there have been worse. Obama was quick to distance himself from him. That said, I agree with elements of the message he was making (i.e. Hillary trying to play the victim card is a bit over the top).

Anyway, someone I know suggested an interesting hypothesis as to why Pfleger and Wright decided to dredge up these matters just when it seemed like "their candidate" was close to clinching the nomination (both in April and today). Perhaps they really don't want Obama to get elected since it would be bad for their business. It will be difficult to argue that African Americans are held back by society when one is in the White House.

With McCain and Obama, we're likely looking more for ancillary benefits than anything substantive (except, perhaps McCain in the hope that he'll be strong on foreign policy matters). One potential ancillary benefit of an Obama presidency (stated only as an observation, not an endorsement) is that people like Wright and Pfleger may, ironically, see their influence wane rather than increase.

If I were McCain, I'd tread lightly before making an issue of this. Too much emphasis and Obama will get some sympathy support. If McCain stays relatively silent, this matter simmers a bit more, perhaps re-emerging at a more opportune time for the GOP nominee (just as the Wright matter emerged a few months after the fact, at an opportune moment for Clinton).

[Carlos 0]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but why is the 57 states bit such a big deal? If you have been under a lot of stress for a long period of time and are very tired it could be a very believable mistake. He said he had one more state to go to, and that he wouldn't be visiting Alaska or Hawaii, so that would mean he had visited 47 states when he was speaking, making 57 not not a completely ridiculous stumbling of words.

[Carlos 0]

Just when you thought it was safe to go out again, here comes Obama's other spiritual advisor, Catholic priest Michael Pfleger:

"Obama's Church: Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Obama has some quality friends, doesn't he?

Wow, absolute insanity... can you spell pander? Nothing will make you more popular than to tell people their problems are someone else's fault!

[Stussy88 0]

Just when you thought it was safe to go out again, here comes Obama's other spiritual advisor, Catholic priest Michael Pfleger:

"Obama's Church: Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y

Obama has some quality friends, doesn't he?

Wow, absolute insanity... can you spell pander? Nothing will make you more popular than to tell people their problems are someone else's fault!

What bothered me was the way the audience unquestioningly lapped it all up. Can you imagine the scene at Hilary's place of worship, (just after black mass when they's all taken communion on the blood of virgins I imagine) if her 'spiritual adviser' said "Obama has a sense of entitlement just because he is black"

No.

[Free Capitalist 0]

"Only" major flaw? What about his generally statist philosophy and attacks on free speech in McCain-Feingold? Where have you ever seen him advocating the principle of limited government and individual rights? Leaving aside for the moment a comparison between McCain and Obama, don't those count as "major flaws" for McCain?

"Major" is a comparative term. It's not an absolute term. Major flaws in Obama are socialism, and appeasement. These are major. There's no ifs or buts about it. McCain has flip-flopped and now completely endorses Bush's tax-cuts, and we all know he's been behind all the proper offensive actions in Iraq.

"So", as in "so what"? What makes you think he will only impose a "few" restrictions or that they don't matter? It matters to those who the government imposes them on and persecutes -- or didn't that occur to you? What makes you think they will be "simply undone" after he leaves office? How? By whom? How about telling us about all the previous restrictions that have been "simply undone" in a subsequent administration? Who got their property back from government takings? Who was compensated for jail time? How do you propose that any of this be "simply done" and how are the victims supposed to survive in the meantime?

You're missing the larger picture. We have to deal with negatives at this point, and I'm perplexed that you're still demanding an Objectivist president. Not going to happen. Fine, one or two people may be arrested under McCain's environmentalist strictures. But a whole American soul will not be extinguished by socialization of medicine. He seems to genuinely endorse tax-cuts, and definitely endorses uncompromising measures in the Middle East. That's not so bad, as far as negative candidates go.

[ewv 0]

"Only" major flaw? What about his generally statist philosophy and attacks on free speech in McCain-Feingold? Where have you ever seen him advocating the principle of limited government and individual rights? Leaving aside for the moment a comparison between McCain and Obama, don't those count as "major flaws" for McCain?

"Major" is a comparative term. It's not an absolute term. Major flaws in Obama are socialism, and appeasement. These are major. There's no ifs or buts about it. McCain has flip-flopped and now completely endorses Bush's tax-cuts, and we all know he's been behind all the proper offensive actions in Iraq.

I don't know that he would be behind all the proper actions regarding Iraq or what he will cave in to or endorse to raise taxes. But you said his "only major flaw" is "respect for environmental issues". His statism goes well beyond that. That is in fact a "major flaw". He is not "Goldwater with environmentalism".

In that perspective, McCain's environmentalism is really not a big deal. He may financially penalize a random company here and there, but that's not a big deal, they can be given tax-breaks after he leaves office.

It's "big deal" to the "random" victims targeted. How many people "here and there" have to be squashed before you stop flippantly dismissing it as "no big deal"? Who is going to find them, if they still exist, and "give" them tax breaks in compensation later? What evidence do you have that that has ever happened or would happen? Why do you think his climate change hysteria energy rationing controls or any of his other viro initiatives would only affect "a random company here and there"?

So he'll impose a few restrictions, they can be overturned. Nothing of his view can't be simply undone after he leaves office.

"So", as in "so what"? What makes you think he will only impose a "few" restrictions or that they don't matter? It matters to those who the government imposes them on and persecutes -- or didn't that occur to you? What makes you think they will be "simply undone" after he leaves office? How? By whom? How about telling us about all the previous restrictions that have been "simply undone" in a subsequent administration? Who got their property back from government takings? Who was compensated for jail time? How do you propose that any of this be "simply done" and how are the victims supposed to survive in the meantime?

You're missing the larger picture. We have to deal with negatives at this point, and I'm perplexed that you're still demanding an Objectivist president. Not going to happen. Fine, one or two people may be arrested under McCain's environmentalist strictures. But a whole American soul will not be extinguished by socialization of medicine. He seems to genuinely endorse tax-cuts, and definitely endorses uncompromising measures in the Middle East. That's not so bad, as far as negative candidates go.

I have never "demanded an Objectivist president" and believe that viroism under Obama could be even worse than McCain. I object to your flippant dismissal of injustices towards individuals, your whitewashing of their scope and intensity, and your false claims that it is all "simply undone" later. Don't tell me about "missing the bigger picture". You show no understanding of or concern for what happens to either individuals or the whole economy because of government enforcing the viro agenda trampling the rights of the individual and killing the Industrial Revolution. I know your philosophical concern for justice -- so where is it? How many individuals have to be screwed before you start to care? How many businesses have to be shackled and their owners bullied and dragged through the mud? How many decades of accumulated horrors, with worse coming in the future, do there have to be before you recognize the significance of what is happening, acknowledging that this too involves the "American soul"? Your whitewash of the problem and your completely imagined, unspecified process of how allegedly "simple" it is to "undo later" are staggering.

[Bill Bucko 0]

As usual, Little Green Footballs links to the kind of exposé you won't find in the collectivist mainstream media.

The author of this piece is an avowed altruist, but apparently of the old-fashioned kind who (in spite of the contradiction) wants to make some room for self-interest. But even he can't stomach the Obamessiah's naked, hatred-ridden New Left crusade to destroy America and replace it with a third-world People's Republic:

from http://www.nypost.com/seven/05302008/posto...sers_113135.htm :

FOR all his soaring, hopeful rhetoric, Barack Obama chose an odd message this week to send Wesleyan's graduating seniors.

Face it, kids - he basically said - Americans are losers. Pathetic, needy dependents who can't make it without help. So forget your dreams, dear graduates. Go forth and aid your fellow deadbeats.

Never mind "The Audacity of Hope." Obama was trumpeting "The Ubiquity of Failure." "The Equality of Need." "The Endlessness of the Dole."

OK, I exaggerate - a little. Here are his actual words: "Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation . . . Individual salvation depends on collective salvation."

That is, unless we come together and fix America's myriad flaws (like poverty, which never disappears), we're all doomed.

This went well past the standard graduation calls for community service and voluntarism. The senator chided those who seek life's material rewards: "Fulfilling your immediate wants and needs," he insisted, "betrays a poverty of ambition."

In fact, Obama himself was betraying a poverty of understanding US history.

After all, it's not too many Americans pursuing their dreams that threatens the nation's greatness - it's too few ....

America didn't rise to great wealth and power because its population was steeped in social work, political agitation and collective care-giving ....

[Bill Bucko 0]

(words from the Obamessiah's speech:) "Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation . . . "

Just as (you should be thinking) the Hitler Youth's collective service helped to shape Germany's destiny.

Yes, I consider Obama more dangerous than McGovern, more dangerous than Carter ... because of the raw nakedness of his New-Left hatred of America. He is comfortable with the rule of brute force ... as perhaps no other figure in American politics has ever been. As proof, look at his multiple terrorist, Marxist, and racist connections.

An Obama presidency would be even worse than a Cuffy Meigs presidency (the thug in Atlas Shrugged who went around with a gun on his hip). Cuffy Meigs, at least, was an obvious thug, not a rabble-rousing con-artist thug. If you want a non-fiction comparison, an Obama presidency would be like a Hugo Chavez presidency.

[Thales 0]

(words from the Obamessiah's speech:) "Our collective service can shape the destiny of this generation . . . "

Just as (you should be thinking) the Hitler Youth's collective service helped to shape Germany's destiny.

[...]

An Obama presidency would be even worse than a Cuffy Meigs presidency (the thug in Atlas Shrugged who went around with a gun on his hip). Cuffy Meigs, at least, was an obvious thug, not a rabble-rousing con-artist thug. If you want a non-fiction comparison, an Obama presidency would be like a Hugo Chavez presidency.

I'm starting to get that sense as well, especially after Priest Pfleger came into the public eye in such infamous fashion. Pfleger is a thug. He threatened to "snuff out" a gun store owner and hunt him down like a "rat". This is Obama's friend, a man he gave $100,000 for some sort of a youth program. Postmodernists, remember, are anti-reason. So, we have a horrible concoction brewing with Obama: racism directed primarily toward whites, anti-Americanism, socialism, environmentalism, anti-individualism, endless deception, strong altruism, lust for power and disregard for people around him.

His friends are by-and-large evil and his church is evil.

This is not good stuff, this is dangerous as hell and a move in a very bad direction.

[PhilO 0]

His friends are by-and-large evil and his church is evil.

This is not good stuff, this is dangerous as hell and a move in a very bad direction.

Not dangerous until he's voted into office. The real question to me is whether America has disintegrated to the point that it would do so. We'll know before long.