[Rhodes22-list] Brad's 25 minute demonstration of true evil [political]

Sun Jul 20 16:30:36 EDT 2008

Ed,

Maybe we "jumped the shark" by reacting to Obama's "Civilian National
Security Force" the way we did.  It brought-up visions of Brown Shirts for
me, ie, government paid civilian troops who were more loyal to the leader
that got them the funding and not the nation (and a big, big, big expensive
bureaucracy that was more of a political spoils system). We'll have to
figure this out on our own since the MSM has only published the transcript
of the speech and not the actual speech (minus the part about the Civilian
National Security Force).  You can only get the transcript on the official
Obama website and not the actual speech.  But we know what we saw and heard.

Well, here's the good news.  Maybe he was just talking about a well
regulated militia.  If I'm not to old to join, I'll do so gladly for my free
weapon!

Brad

--------------------------

Saturday, July 19, 2008  Con
Law<http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/07/senatorpresidential-candidate-barack.html>

Senator/Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama wants to create a civilian
National Security
force<http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_07_13-2008_07_19.shtml#1216451854>.
I'm not sure the Senator, who is a constitutional law scholar, understands
the US Constitution. We already have a civilian National Security force. He
can read all about it in the amendments to the US Constitution. Specifically
the Second Amendment.

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

The Militia is the US National Security force and it consists of all the
able bodied persons who are armed and of a certain age group (I think it is
all those people between the ages of 18 to 45 - but I need to look it up) by
act of Congress. The people of the US are already empowered to defend their
country. All that is required is that they visit their local gun store
(except in Washington DC and a few other major cities - Chicago, the
Senator's home town comes to mind) and get armed.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a good idea. It is just that the Senator
is 200+ years late to the party. I wonder if he slept through his
Constitutional Law classes.

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net> wrote:

>
> Brad,
>
> I watched the whole 25 minutes of Obama's speech.  All I could think of was
> Elmer Gantry, Jim Baker and kindred apostles.  Here is a guy who neither
> understands history nor economics nor human nature if he believes what he
> said, and I think that he does.
>
> And for all his acolytes on this forum, and the one ostrich from Chicago
> this is a real failure to distinguish this rhetoric from what was recorded
> from the USA's founding fathers in the written documents and supporting
> discussions on the reasons for founding America.
>
> Socialism and its new cloak 'progressive secularist' has been demonstrated
> to be a system that fails humanity.  Examples of current European countries
> using socialist programs are proffered as reasons why America should adopt
> same.  However, which system has created the greatest advancements for
> human
> kind?  Which country has the greatest wealth to give to charitable causes?
> It is not Greece, France, Italy and other socialist systems.
>
> Obama's speech demonstrated the most incredible lack of understanding of
> economics.   And the gullible just eat this up.  Obama and his followers
> and
> cohorts such as Nancy do not have a basic understanding of what economics
> calls wealth, understanding its creation and the human spirit.
>
> Your comments are apparently understood by a small number on this forum.
> Obama has repeatedly stated he is a progressive.  There is a failure to
> understand that his word 'progressive' is really contemporary language for
> Marxism which is in old language communism, fascism, social democracy,
> etc.,
> etc.  And those systems have led to human misery and worse. Read the
> results
> of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, post WWII Greece, etc.
>
> How many take time to understand who Obama is?  Thomas Sowell illustrates
> that in the following article:
>
> July 08, 2008
> Conservatives for Obama?
> By Thomas Sowell
>
> A number of friends of mine have commented on an odd phenomenon that they
> have observed-- conservative Republicans they know who are saying that they
> are going to vote for Barack Obama. It seemed at first to be an isolated
> fluke, perhaps signifying only that my friends know some strange
> conservatives. But apparently columnist Robert Novak has encountered the
> same phenomenon and has coined the term "Obamacons" to describe the
> conservatives for Senator Obama.
>
> Now the San Francisco Chronicle has run a feature article, titled "Some
> Influential Conservatives Spurn GOP and Endorse Obama." In it they quote
> various conservatives on why they are ready to take a chance on Barack
> Obama, rather than on John McCain.
>
>  What is going on?
>
> Partly what is going on is that, in recent years, the Congressional
> Republicans in general-- and Senator John McCain in particular-- have so
> alienated so many conservatives that some of these conservatives are like a
> drowning man grasping at a straw.
>
> The straw in this case is Obama's recent "refining" of his position on a
> number of issues, as he edges toward the center, in order to try to pick up
> more votes in November's general election.
>
> Understandable as the reactions of some conservatives may be, a straw is a
> very unreliable flotation device.
>
> If all that was involved was Democrats versus Republicans, the Republicans
> would deserve the condemnation they are getting, after their years of wild
> spending and their multiple betrayals of the principles and the people who
> got them elected. Amnesty for illegal aliens was perhaps the worst
> betrayal.
>
> But, while the media may treat the elections as being about Democrats and
> Republicans-- the "horse race" approach-- elections were not set up by the
> Constitution of the United States in order to enable party politicians to
> get jobs.
>
> Nor were elections set up in order to enable voters to vent their emotions
> or indulge their fantasies.
>
> Voting is a right but it is also a duty-- a duty not just to show up on
> election day, but a duty to give serious thought to the alternatives on the
> table and what those alternatives mean for the future of the nation.
>
> What is becoming ever more painfully apparent is that too many people this
> year-- whether conservative, liberals or whatever-- are all too willing to
> judge Barack Obama on the basis of his election-year rhetoric, rather than
> on the record of what he has advocated and done during the past two
> decades.
>
> Many are for him for no more serious reasons than his mouth and his
> complexion. The man has become a Rorschach test for the feelings and hopes,
> not only of those on the left, but also for some on the right as well.
>
> Here is a man who has consistently aided and abetted people who have openly
> expressed their contempt for this country, both in words and in such deeds
> as planting bombs to advance their left-wing agenda.
>
> Despite the spin that judging Obama by what was said or done by such people
> would be "guilt by association," he has not just associated with such
> people. He has in some cases donated some serious money of his own and even
> more of the taxpayers' money, as both a state senator in Illinois and a
> member of the Senate of the United States.
>
> Barack Obama is on record as favoring the kinds of justices who make
> policy,
> not just carry out laws. No matter how he may "refine" his position on this
> issue, he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, who
> was easily confirmed by more than three-quarters of the Senators.
>
> Like people on the far left for literally centuries, Barack Obama plays
> down
> the dangers to the nation, and calls talk about such dangers "the politics
> of fear."
>
> Back in the 18th century, Helvetius said, "When I speak I put on a mask.
> When I act, I am forced to take it off." Too many voters still have not
> learned that lesson. They need to look at the track record of Obama's
> actions.
>
> Back in the days of "The Lone Ranger" program, someone would ask, "Who is
> that masked man?" People need to start asking that question about Barack
> Obama.
>
> Ed K
> Greenville, SC, USA
> attachment:   http://www.nabble.com/file/p18544314/Axis%2Bof%2BEvil.jpg
> Axis+of+Evil.jpg
>
>
>
> Boys and Girls, I know this is a lot to ask, but listen between minute 16
> and 17-
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw
>
> Does this not scare the living shit out of you, or are you made of steel?
> Civilian Corps? What color shirts will they wear?  O'Baby, do you think the
> rest of the country is as f*&k^d as the South Side of Chicago?  Folks,
> we're
> 4 months away from this kind of talk being the norm!
>
> God Save the Queen!
>
> Brad
>
> http://www.nabble.com/file/p18544314/Axis%2Bof%2BEvil.jpg Axis+of+Evil.jpg
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/POLITICS%21-tp18522313p18544314.html
> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
> __________________________________________________
>