A week ago, I wasn’t aware of the Sing for Change campaign to get a bunch of kids singing hymns of praise for this man.
A week ago, I was not informed of the Obama Campaign’s thuggish efforts threatening legal action to stop the airing of an NRA-sponsored ad exposing Obama’s voting record on gun rights, or the airing of another privately sponsored ad exposing his links to the unrepentant retired Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.
A week ago, I didn’t know about similar “Truth Squads” being formed of Donkey Party bigwigs in predicted swing states like Pennsylvania.
A week ago, I would have considered it over the top to directly compare the Obama campaign with a movement from about 70 years earlier, and no doubt many will disagree. For one thing, in just about every campaign since, every major candidate has been compared to those people from 70 years earlier by somebody. It’s worn out to the point of being threadbare, the dead horse has been beaten to an unrecognizable pulp. A more tactful and America-centric approach might be to compare this movement to John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts.
I have not seen any campaign in any democratic Western country in my life go this far.
Well, there was Mr. Chavez in Venezuela. And we can see where he’s taking his country.
The problem with people who don’t see anything wrong with this is that they honestly think that if you take those people from 70 years ago and just subtract out the racism and the mass murder, everything would be fine, as if the worst thing they did was the only bad thing that they did.
It’s the whole idea of insisting on radical change, that when a society and economy powered by independent individuals each doing their own thing runs into a hiccup, it somehow proves the need that they need to be better managed and regulated. It’s the whole idea of getting (supposedly) so far ahead of using blatant lies and smears as a campaign strategy that anyone presenting your political history in any kind of negative context can qualify as a vicious smear artist who should be arrested for something. But don’t say for a second that you’re intimidating your political opponents. Oh, no. You’re just trying to run a clean campaign. And to do that it’s better to be able to deny that you support what the records say you support and muzzle anyone who would point that fact out. Better than to, say, admit that you do support gun control and that technically, though you won’t actually be taking guns away from people as such, you will support regulations that make gun ownership more tedious.
I don’t think Barack H. Obama can articulate in positive terms the idea that if, say, you’re a single mom who has just gotten word that the abusive ex is back in town, you should want to vote for a guy who would probably approve of a 2 week waiting period for every firearm purchase.
Or if you’re the kind of person who goes to the range every week as a matter of habit and custom for the purpose of hanging out with friends and being prepared for the worst case scenario, Barack H. Obama would probably like you to vote for him even though he’d probably sign any bill setting a federal per-round ammunition tax.
Maybe you’re a parent who thinks shooting is an ordinary adult skill to teach the kids along with cooking and driving. With the current trend of some jurisdictions trying to shut down gun shops and ranges within some distance of a school, do you think Barack H. Obama would oppose a bill that would consider allowing children to handle firearms as the equivalent of providing them with pornography or alcohol?
Maybe you’re just some regular person living near a bad area of town. How would you like it if by law, you were required to keep your firearm unloaded and locked whenever you weren’t actually doing something with it, especially if you get woken up by suspicious noises at 3:30 in the morning? Do you think this kind of law is something that Barack H. Obama wouldn’t sign?
Don’t worry, Barack H. Obama will, if you raise these concerns, will tell you that you shouldn’t worry because the odds of any of these scenarios happening to you aren’t all that high. The fact that every day it’s probably happening to somebody in this country is irrelevant, whether or not you profess to care about them.
After all, all you sportsmen out there, nobody’s trying to take away your guns.
Never the hell mind that the Second Amendment wasn’t written for sportsmen. It was written 150 years before that thing that happened in Germany, to prevent exactly the sort of thing that eventually did happen there from happening in America.
Barack H. Obama will make you leave your comfort zone and create a civilian national security force probably under the intentions of creating a source of government jobs for young adults other than the usual ones that operate under the Department of Defense, probably intended so that parents can “send” their “kids” somewhere that will help them learn discipline and stuff without having to actually go overseas and possibly get shot at.
But I can’t help but pose the question– what do you think this civilian national security force will be doing during the election season? You think Obama might want to call them in to help enforce his idea of “fair” campaigning?
The Truth Squad At Your Door: What did you say about Barack H. Obama?
