ErikRush
So Stuck on Stupid
June 17, 2008
Whether one
attributes the success of Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama to
savvy maneuvering on the part of the Democratic National Committee and the
Obama campaign, Republican ineptitude, a biased press or the influence of
shadow governments, in the end the November election’s outcome is going to
come down to Americans’ capacity – or lack of capacity – for critical
thinking.
Despite the last
several years of Americans’ synaptic pathways being deluged by how much
the Bush administration and Republicans employ vacuum-related
techniques, in the aggregate they have more than enough evidence that
conservative principles have proven themselves more fruitful than
so-called progressive ones.
The rub, as it were,
lies in the fact that conservative principles have not been a benchmark
of the Bush administration nor have they guided the Republican Party for
some time. It is fortunate for the American people that Bill Clinton was
more of a narcissist than an idealist, responding to the will of the
people in such areas as taxes and entitlement programs in order to
secure a viable legacy. Had this not been the case, Democrats would now
have even more woes to heap at the feet of George W. Bush.
The election of a
Democrat president – Obama in particular – would mark a perilous quantum
leap toward socialism and an ever-weakening presence on the global
stage, particularly if Democrats retain control of Congress and gain
more seats in the House and Senate.
"Obama praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision to allow
detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment in federal
courts. Enforcing habeas corpus rights, he said, is ‘the essence of who
we are.’”
– Associated
Press, June 14, 2008
The limp-wristed ruling
with roots in a perverted interpretation of law was lauded by the
Democrat candidate; the insanity of granting citizen’s rights to
unconventional, lawless combatants in a global conflict be damned.
Denial of the fact that the War on Terror is an unprecedented effort in
response to an enemy of unprecedented ruthlessness and barbarity which
must be met decisively and unconventionally is patent madness.
Unfortunate that so many have accepted the notion that the entire
phenomenon was a Bush concoction, and that millions may suffer terribly
as a result.
"[Obama’s proposals] include a $1,000 tax cut for most
working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a
‘windfall profits’ tax on oil companies*; a $4,000 annual college
tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service
programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than
$50,000 a year.”
– Associated
Press, June 14, 2008
The transparency of
these proposals would be humorous were they not so manifestly flawed –
and historically proven to be imprudent. Still the masses cheer and gape
over the façade, not considering the following for a nanosecond:
▪ A $1,000 tax cut for
most working families is a joke.
▪ Americans with
incomes of $251,000 are not wealthy, particularly if one has a
family and lives in a large city.
▪ New taxes on oil
companies will simply be passed on to the consumer as they always are,
and Obama knows it.
▪ From whence is this
unfunded mandate of a $4,000 annual college tuition credit to come?
▪ Here, Obama likely
has gained the votes of elderly Americans who make less than $50,000 a
year and pay taxes – all five of them.
But forget common
sense, logic, the historical record, and the truth. As this columnist
has asserted, Obama’s success (to date; he isn’t President yet) has been
but a part of the global-socialist agenda. Turn the American Dream into
enough of a nightmare and Americans will give up on it because survival
– let alone prosperity – under the capitalist system will appear
unattainable.
The former world
heavyweight champion boxer George Foreman comes to mind, and the success
he has enjoyed not only monetarily, but as a successful community
servant. He grew up "po,’” claiming his family was too broke to afford
the "or” (at the end of the word "poor”) in conditions that are more
readily associated with impoverished people in the Third World these
days. Yet, to hear the unshakable faith in the man, which he has also
instilled in his children, that anyone can achieve anything in America
to which they set their minds stands in sharp contrast to the message of
those who stand out as "representatives” of "black America.”
Despite the ongoing
production of multimillionaires in the U.S., even among those who ought
to reside in penitentiaries, the Left continues to propagandize our
citizenry as regards the downside of everything whilst busily working to
manifest that nightmare of universal hopelessness.
"Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black
fathers, who he said are "missing from too many lives and too many
homes,” to become active in raising their children.”
– Associated
Press, June 15, 2008
If that’s his belief,
then perhaps Obama ought to reconsider his core political philosophy,
embrace conservative values and refrain from validating and keeping
company with those who promote victimology, class envy and race hatred.
It speaks volumes to the media’s bias toward this candidate that even
when he catapults boulders from his glass mansion, there isn’t a peep
from the establishment press.
Since most members of
the press have proven themselves to be card-carrying Obamaphiles, save
for independent pollsters – who can be incorrect – there is really no
manner by which one can discern how popular the Democrat candidate is in
actuality.
The press portrays
Barack Obama with the confidence that his occupancy of the White House
is an inevitability. Will conservative Republicans and independent
conservatives, perceiving the gravity of this election in the long term,
vote for John McCain, a man whom they don’t consider conservative
enough?
Only November will tell
whether or not
Dewey has defeated Truman again.
*Obama’s "windfall profits tax” does not conform to the definition
thereof; it would simply be a new tax; in this context, an appeal to
Americans’ resentment of "big oil.”