Friday, January 16, 2009

On Barack Hussein's Patriotism

As Barack Hussein prepares for his inauguration (the President-Elect will use his full name), Bernard Chapin suggests we should be "Questioning Obama's Patriotism":

The case of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was a cautionary tale. Mrs. Bachmann, while speaking to Chris Matthews on his television show Gutterball, stated, “I’m very concerned that he [Obama] may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about. That’s why they want to know what his answers are.” Matthews, ever the partisan Democrat and by far the most devout of Barack Obama’s biased media protectors, referred to this banal statement as “an extraordinary claim.”

Well is it? Of course not. Given Obama’s career, his words, the tone of his
autobiography, and his associations with ardent America-haters like Father Michael Pfleger, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, and William Ayers, Bachmann’s words were intuitive and anything but extraordinary. That Obama deems America — in its current configuration — a spurious venture appears to be about as controversial as believing that water is wet.

In the president-elect’s vision, we only will become a great nation if we alter ourselves into becoming another nation, one that precisely matches Obama’s desires and expectations. Regardless, Bachmann faced a reelection donnybrook and was forced to
apologize. Recant aside, her expressed opinion was one a sizable plurality of her peers share.

Granted, the pusillanimous nature of the average Republican politician (excluding Bachmann) appalls, but there is no cause for the rest of us to retreat on this issue. In the hopes of clarification, let me state with absolute certainty that the reason we should question the political left’s patriotism is that they are not patriotic.

On a plethora of policies, from immigration to missile defense, the Democratic stance suggests that they do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to America’s national security. Were they not so embarrassed by our history, along with the unfashionable folks who inhabit our non-urban enclaves, they might well think differently.

On a plethora of policies, from immigration to missile defense, the Democratic stance suggests that they do not have a dog in the fight when it comes to America’s national security. Were they not so embarrassed by our history, along with the unfashionable folks who inhabit our non-urban enclaves, they might well think differently.

Moreover, the president-elect’s recent selection of
Leon Panetta to become future director of the Central Intelligence Agency underscores this eventuality. It exposes the Achilles heel of the post-sixties Democratic Party. Mr. Panetta has practically no experience of working with the intelligence community in any capacity and neither does our impending director of national intelligence Dennis Blair. Obama argued that Panetta would be “committed to breaking with some of the past practices.”

Which qualifies him for what? Further, what practices need be terminated? Hopefully, the traditional practice of entrusting those who know how to do their jobs with defending the frontiers is not what he had in mind. In all probability, Panetta’s status as a loyal Democrat and one devoted to the
Change.gov religion is what necessitated his nomination, but placing him near the apex of our national security apparatus is about as rational as the Detroit Lions hiring me to play cornerback. If Mr. Ford can overlook my not being able to cover receivers and withstand punishment, then he definitely will profit from my never rooting for the other team or leaking information to the Packers.

The ridiculousness of Obama’s choice was even apparent to Senator Dianne Feinstein, who
observed, “I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director. My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.” One would presuppose that the United States would benefit from having a CIA director who was familiar with both the military and the war on terror, but such an assumption fails to take into account the weltanschauung of our president-elect.

To Obama, the CIA job is merely a patronage position. Panetta is a Washington, DC, version of a “
soldier for Stroger.” His is a superfluous appointment. As with all leftists, Obama regards America’s principal enemies as being the politicians in the opposition party. The critics of the progressive movement on these shores — as opposed to Islamo-fascists or the dictators of rogue states — are the real threat. After all, what’s a dirty bomb or a hundred thousand Katyusha rockets in comparison to those who correctly deride Obama’s plans for a twenty-first-century economy as “socialism” — which we all know is really a code word for “black.”
Yes, the critics of "progressives"?

That sounds familiar ...

15 comments:

rbosque said...

Obama and his followers want change, and their going to get it. Why the American people chose him in times of crisis I'll never understand. We're in for a rough ride.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks Raul!

Grace Explosion said...

I thought Bachmann was "right on" in her comments and observations. Obama's goals are to move our nation to socialism and Islam, imo. He'll just front one thing and form another. His associations "tell all". By "socialism" what that is: communism = Marxism. Anyone who doesn't take that threat seriously is living in a cave with no light drinking Obamaland KoolAid imo. The author of this article sees it as it is, imo. Obama hates the America I love... which will be no more 1/20/09. (And I can't agree with anyone who doesn't see the incredible shift that will occur - he's already acting like he's our Dictator-elect and that's how the office rules the nation.)

TRUTH 101 said...

You know Grace. As hard as you prayed for Obama to lose, millions of others prayed for him to win. Now whose prayers did God answer?

Grace Explosion said...

God is fulfilling scripture. God also allowed Hitler to take office, T101. God is Sovereign. Nothing happens on earth apart from His Sovereign will. That doesn't mean Obama is anything to proud of - as the 666 beast. Clearly, God allowed Satan's prayer to be answered... just as he allowed Satan's petition to destroy Job's family to be answered "Yes". And it was Satan who did the destruction that followed. God allowed Stalin in office. God allowed Lenin in office. God is Sovereign. God allows wicked men to prosper and succeed... yet has a plan.

God is Sovereign. Sometimes God gives people enough rope - then they hang themselves - like Judas did. Don't take Obama's election as God's approval. The Bible is very clear that God allows the rise of the beast... then destroys the enemies of God.

God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man sows, that too shall he reap.

Tom the Redhunter said...

Grace has you on scripture, Truth.

As for Obama, I'm not going to get into questioning patriotism, because it's used by the left as a stick to beat the right.

But I will say that it is a disgrace that he attended a racist church for 20 years, listening to a kook anti-American hatemonger every Sunday, and got a free pass for it because in one statement he "dissociated" himself from Wright.

I hadn't even heard of Frank Marshall Davis. Sheesh, Obama has more questionable associations than even I knew.

Donald Douglas said...

Thanks Grace!

Donald Douglas said...

Tom: I wrote on all of these questionable associations all year. Yeah, Frank Marshall Davis was Obama's communist mentor. It's really amazing how we have a president-elect who is totally trained in ideological radicalism and one who taught post-structual legal studies at U of C law school.

But Americans elected him anyway. Go figure.

CS said...

Grace, Do you even have a clue what you are talking about with respect to these "communist, socialist, marxist" references you keep referring to?

I am curious whether you have even bothered to digest even a page of the COmmunist Manifesto or some other works of Karl Marx, Trotsky, Lenin and so on?

You may be pleasantly surprised to find out that these folks actually contributed some amazing works of literature as well as social science and didn't fall off the deep end as you seem to have done with your superlative accusations.

Tapline said...

DD, I don't know why it surprises anyone that OB won the election...Americans by in large do not know what we have been fighting during the cold war. Communism they have not been taught what it is they do now even know history. God they don't even know where England is..... When I returned home for Vietnam in 1972. I went to work and at the enterance to my building were two individuals giving out Communist pamphlets. I aalled the FBI and they said It's ok we have our eye on them. It wasn't against the law in America, but we were fighting them in Vietnam....you figure.....and wonder why Americans don't know.......They haven't been taught.....stay well...

Average American said...

You know, one thing that I HAVE credited NObama for was his intelligence. I was under the impression that he was fairly smart. I was WRONG! Anyone that would even consider Leon Panetta for CIA is stupid! Man, are we in for a tough 4 years. It wouldn't surprise me to see the democrats impeach their own President a ways down the road.

Norm said...

The well known method of destroying a bureaucracy is to appoint to its head a person who does not belief that said bureau should exist. That is the reason for some of Obama's appointments. Otherwise, a bureaucracy once created is an ever expanding monster.

TRUTH 101 said...

Let me get this straight Grace and her personality cult followers. Grace says that God answered Satans prayers so Jobs family was killed. Hitler killed millions. Stalin murdered millions because God answered prayers? So Stalin and Hitler didn't have to obey the Fifth Commandment because God okayed it by answering prayers. So all anyone has to do before commiting murder is pray and if God doesn't stop them it's OK.

Tim said...

Norm: You are sort of correct here. But was there any uproar when Brownie was brought in to head FEMA? Didn't think so. The word pusillanimous works there as well.

I have read this theory, which makes total sense--that Bush hired Brownie in order to show just how unorganized and useless government can be. He did get that one right.

But yes, Panetta is an interesting choice. Whether he makes it through, who knows.

Grace: You are certifiable, but entertaining. And I thank the gods you are not in any position of power!

Norm said...

Gee thanks Tim: my, my, the six graduate courses I aced in public administration comes in handy once in awhile.