Tuesday, November 18, 2008

A New Spirit of Sacrifice: Obama

“It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.” — President-Elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008

“It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.” Ayn Rand, The Soul of a Collectivist

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Right to ones own body - abortion

I find few, if any, liberals believe in the right to one’s own body. Oh yes they mention it with great enthusiasm when it comes to abortion but if one tries to apply it anywhere else they run from it.

Thursday, July 24, 2008


Transcript (to the best of my ability and time constraints)

I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had this same blind spot. I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and it to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
Notice that he refers to the constitution in the past tense. To me this is the scariest and most disturbing aspect of this statement. What is the fundamental flaw of the US Constitution that continues to this day? Certainly not slavery that was taken care of with the 13th Ammendment.
I think it has everything to do with the fact that it is a pro-individual document which limits the power's of the government  and hinders the quick restructuring of society. Obama, I feel, is in love with the concept of the power of the state as a force for good and thinks that the proverb: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." does not apply to him or other "forward-looking" progressives.

EDIT 10/28

I was bothered by Obama calling the US Constitution a "remarkable political document" but didn't fully flesh out my objections. I just read Kim Priestap's excellent post at the wizbangblog (October 27th).
Second, he calls the Constitution a "remarkable political document." I think it's fair to say that our Constitution is more than just a political document. It's the supreme law of our nation. It's the foundation of our republic. It outlines our freedoms by stating clearly what the government can't do to us and there's a reason why our Founding Fathers deliberately structured it that way. The President of the United States is required to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. However, by listening to what Obama said in this interview and the 2001 interview that Steve posted earlier it's clear: he thinks the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. And based upon his words what other logical conclusion can someone come to other than Obama doesn't think the Constitution should be protected but should be radically altered so it reflects his leftist views.


Beautifully put.

That post led to another clip on Obama that I think ends once and for all any debate on what Obama means when he says that the constitution is fundamentally flawed.

Speaking of the Warren Court Obama said
"It wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. At least as it's been interpreted and more important interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can't do to you, what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the state government or federal government must do on your behalf."

Anybody who thinks we have "positive" liberties -- an oxymoron in my opinion -- is a socialist. If you don't understand the above statement please read more philosophy and history books.

Hear Obama discussing the Warren Court below:

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Obama and Iran

If Obama did say that Iran is a tiny country that doesn't pose a serious threat to the US then it is hard to imagine how anybody could vote for him to be President of the United States. Such inane reasoning would be laughable in a State Senator. It is dismaying and repulsive in a US senator and would be dangerous beyond belief in a president.

This would be like saying in the 1930s that Japan and Germany weren't threats to the US because they were tiny countries.

It is true that the relative might of the US versus Iran is greater than the relative strengths of 1940 Japan and the US. Nonetheless we are not concerned about Iran launching traditional attacks on US soil. Iran is not going to send over its Air Force and bomb US cities. However there can be a co-ordinated series of attacks (snipers, bombs, suicide attacks and the like) by infiltrated Iranian soldiers.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Gay Marriage

I'm 100% in favor of gay civil unions but 100% against the decision made by the California Supreme Court. This is a matter for the California legislature not the courts. We all know that the legislature and the courts are in constant battle but here is a classic case of the courts overstepping their constitutional bounds.

Talking with Terrorists

Obama and the Democrats should not have reacted so negatively to Bush's comments about talking with terrorist states and organizations. This should not be an issue. Does anyone seriously believe that the US government has not been in contact with Iran and Hamas? Does anyone believe that the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations were not in contact with the Chinese government? Who believes that the first talks between the United States and China was when Nixon traveled there? The issue here is not back room discussions; the issue is with state visits. The only outcome of state visits is prestige being conferred upon despicable people and their organizations. It must be understood that there are situations where talking will not solve the problem, where there can be no common ground.

Say you were the mayor of a town and the KKK was gathering their forces saying that they would kill all the Niggers in the town. What sort of common ground can their be? What sort of compromise? Kill only half the Niggers in town? Insist that the KKK refrain from using the n-word and call all the black folks African-Americans or People of Color while they're being lynched?

No the only communication you could, or should, have with them is "Come here with that shit and we're going to kill you like the fucking rabid dogs you are."