So Stuck on Stupid
By Erik Rush (06/21/08)
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.
Erik Rush
*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.”
(Printer friendly version) Email: Erik Rush
