.jpg)
“Regardless of the resources a country possesses,
regardless of how talented the people are, if you do not have a basic system of
rule of law, of respect for civil rights and human rights, if you do not give
people a credible, legitimate way to work through the political process to
express their aspirations, if you don't respect basic freedom of speech and
freedom of assembly … it is very rare for a country to succeed.”
Note to readership: I am out of the office, for a short while. This article has not been proofed, but I want it "out there."
The case
against Obama as to the matter of his demonstrated lawlessness, is rather profound as one works to quantify
his transgressions in this line of thought.
Understand
that “actions speak louder than words,”
but, more acutely in regards to
Obama, “actions define our intentions
and expose our true values.”
Take the
above quote as a prime example. There
will be few who read those words, well
stated, by the way, and come away not feeling betrayed and
frustrated. The man simply does not
believe anything he said in that quote,
without qualifiers embedded after every phrase.
Take “basic
system of rule of law,” for
example. That phrase is qualified by “respect
for civil rights and human rights.” He
is not talking about “law,” but a very
specific “rule of law” defined by a
just accounting for the “civil rights and humans rights” of those under that rule of law.”
He is talking about the rule of law that is defined by a Marxist
inspired agenda embedded in the Militant Progressives’ Utopian dream of “social
justice.” He can postpone or violate
Constitutional law, even “established, legislated law,” if that law does not go to his understanding
of social justice as defined by Marx and other anti-colonial Collectists. Again, such (“social
justice” from a Marxist point of view) is the bedrock of an agreeable “rule of
law,” per Obama. If a comprehensive code for the advancement
of “civil and human rights” as defined by Utopian beliefs is not the effective
law of the land, that “rule of law”
should not command center stage and is to be torn down by any process
necessary, and replaced by that which is
more properly defined. In short, Obama is consistent with his system of law
and order, not ours’.
If the
listener/reader thinks Obama’s “rule of law” is simply “established law,” he will not understand Obama’s statement
and, in fact, will view his words as highly contradictory, in and of themselves.
As you
read the remainder of the quote,
above, you should know, in Obama’s
world, a “legitimate . . . . political process” is actually defined by the
aspirations of those seeking its guidance.
If the law, immigration law for
an example, does not line up with the
aspirations of an immigrant population,
it is neither “credible” nor “legitimate”
from Obama’s perspective. Such law, as a rule of conduct, is not worthy of
emulation, and should be taken down or, if nothing else, ignored.
Finally, he is not talking about “freedom of speech,” and “freedom of assembly.” In fact,
he is not talking about “basic freedom of speech
. . . . and assembly,” but about a “respect” for basic free speech
and assembly -- both considerations of “the rule of law.” In
other words, my respect for the basic
free speech of others, and their coming
together (i.e. assembly) is to be a
matter of law, or the rule of law. In the mind of Obama, if my speech is critical of "their" speech, I have violated the notion of "respect" and stand outside the law . . . . or that should be my situation.
If my conservative speech dominates the air waves, for
example, a “respect for basic free
speech” would demand that others (Marxists, atheists, One Worlders, etc.) have the same opportunities I have, the same degree of “dominance” as
myself; in short, it would demand equal time. It is not enough, for the likes of Obama, that others have their own access (radio, print and televised media), they much have equal time on the same air I have, in the same papers, on the same radio and televised networks.
People listen to conservative talk, [again] for example. "Fairness" in talk "disribution," demands (according to Obama) that a conservative audience be forced to listen to the free speech of others. Of course, one simply cannot force another to listen, but that is not the point. Rather, the size of the audience is the issue. It is not "fair" that Hispanic radio or Black hip hop television do not have the larger audiences. As a consequence, Central Planning comes to the rescue, and forces the networks 9per The Fairness Doctrine) owned by the Conservative or Moderate Media to program the less popular points of view. It is not enough to give the smaller populations equal opportunity as they develop media independence and owenrship, they must share equal time in the same venues developed by Conservative alliances.
Conclusion: If the listener/reader does not approach Obama's speech with HIS definitions in mind, he will be seen as contradictory and, even, inflammatory. He and Michelle are radical members of our society, and they cannot be understood apart from that radicalism. Our problem, of course, is found in the fact that few of us have any exposure when it comes to the message of the radical, Marxist driven community. We know next to nothing about "them," and, as a result, almost everything "they" do comes to us as a surprise. One only has to look to the words of Michelle Obama, as she frames Barack's (and her's) views as to the transformation of this nation.
In May of 2008, while in Puerto Rico, bragged about the new traditions and history Barack was bringing to the nation.
In May of 2008, while in Puerto Rico, bragged about the new traditions and history Barack was bringing to the nation.
Her words include this statement: "Barack knows . . . . . we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." (Sources for this statement: Fox News, here, and DiscovertheNetworks.org, here).
Understand that absolutely no past president or First Lady have ever made such public statements. No one . . . and that fact is the very definition of "radicalism."
Understand that absolutely no past president or First Lady have ever made such public statements. No one . . . and that fact is the very definition of "radicalism."
We want to believe he has the same values as "us." All past presidents, for the most part, have shared in those values and have moderated the more extreme views of their party, whether that be the GOP or the Democrats. Obama IS the extreme Left of his party . There are others more consistent in their ideology, but no one is more to the Left. And this includes Michelle. She attached herself to the more radical populations while at Princeton and Harvard, and views the world as an offended, black woman. Apologies do not change the fact that, with her husband's nomination and election, she was, "for the first time," proud of her country.
I don't fault her for making that admission, but, I, also, will not forget the statement or allow a politically correct "apology" change the impact of that comment. These two are radicals, when it comes to the historicity of this once great nation. They know their time is short, and, as a consequence, they know that "now" is the time to drive their transformation, home. They have been effectively cut off from the legislative process. The question that remains, however, has to do with the lasting impact of his use of executive power and privilege.
Immigration, uncontrolled, pervasive and immediate, has the power of changing a nation, our nation, simply because that immigrant population does not revere our founding principle and does not share in our history. At least, that is how the Obama's see the only remaining source of power they have - the opinions of foreigners who could not care less about our traditions.
Will this strategy work? Time holds our only answer.
Immigration, uncontrolled, pervasive and immediate, has the power of changing a nation, our nation, simply because that immigrant population does not revere our founding principle and does not share in our history. At least, that is how the Obama's see the only remaining source of power they have - the opinions of foreigners who could not care less about our traditions.
Will this strategy work? Time holds our only answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment