Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Obama is Not the Problem

Obama as the Hanged ManWe’re on the mailing lists of several American conservative groups, and every day their emails come rolling in with a steady drumbeat of Obama… Obama… Obama…

Obama, the Socialist. Obama the Marxist. Obama the Muslim-appeaser. Obama the late-term abortionist. Obama the destroyer of the American economy. And on and on and on.

There’s nothing wrong with what they send; it’s all fact-based material. But the obsession with Barack Hussein Obama misses the point about what’s wrong with our country.

An anonymous email that has been making the rounds recently hits the nail on the head:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Barack Hussein is not the disease. Barack Hussein is the symptom.

Despite all the cemeteries that were emptied to vote for him, no matter how many ACORN workers were set to work forging absentee ballots, regardless of the legions of homeless people bused to the polling places and paid in wine and cigarettes to pull the lever for Hope and Change — ignoring all the fraud and manipulation, about half the voting populace wanted him to be their president. And, more than a year later, despite all the dire events that have occurred since the inauguration, almost half the country still approves of him.

Obama is not the problem.

To use a term coined by Richard Brookhiser in National Review, Barack Obama represents the “Numinous Negro” to guilty white Americans. He is the righteous savior with the café-au-lait complexion who can raise his well-manicured hand and offer the boon of negro forgiveness to all of us white oppressors. As Shelby Steele says, he promises redemption to white people.

We elected him to purge ourselves of the sin of racism, and if we were to repudiate him now we would be returning to our sinful racist ways. So we will stick with him through thick and thin, though all his megalomaniacal destructiveness, right up until the moment when he extends his arms, pushes the pillars over, and brings the whole temple crashing down on our heads.

There are a lot of reasons why Obama can pull his sleight-of-hand on us with such contemptuous and cavalier ease. Two generations of dumbed-down propaganda in our education system gave him a head start. His success was facilitated by a political culture that detached itself decades ago from any vestige of the Constitution, and which has left our national leaders more than ready to sacrifice the good of the country on the altar of Mammon. An electorate that derives all its political information from network television and the Jon Stewart Show is an easy mark for a huckster with a smooth line, not to mention that longed-for promise of racial redemption.

But the biggest reason for Obama’s success is the dominance of the Left in all of the major national media outlets. With all those Marxists burrowed into every nook and cranny of the broadcast media and cable news networks, with all the major newspapers and the newsmagazines now wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Democratic party, there was no way that Obama could lose.

If there had been any real journalists doing real investigative work, an empty suit like Obama would never have made it through the primaries, much less the general election. But a fully subservient press suppressed the bad news, magnified or created the good news, and made sure that nothing resembling reality was allowed into the story to mar the postmodern “narrative” of Hope and Change.

A couple of weeks ago, in a totally unrelated thread, commenter doom-and-gloom gave this excellent summary of the way the modern mass media operate in today’s West:
- - - - - - - - -
They didn’t actually say [the man who brought a gun to the Obama rally] was a white racist, that’s the sweet trick about it. It’s a method I pointed out in another thread — manipulating information in a way that’ll give the audience the desirable false impression without literally lying. The media treat all the protests against Obama’s policies as “white lunatics fueled by racial hatred”. They had to hide the black guy’s skin color because it would have interfered with the message they wanted their viewers to get. So, they used a black man carrying a gun to “prove” the protesters are dangerous white racists, but they didn’t actually say he was a white racist, so technically they didn’t lie — can you get any more cynical than that?

Not that they are above lies and fabrications. For instance, there was a Dutch TV item about Islamophobia showing a Muslim woman carrying a bag of oranges, then she dropped the bag and no one of the people passing by stopped to help her pick up the oranges. As it happened, there was another TV crew from another channel that just happened to be there doing something else and they caught the entire thing on film. Turns out that people did stop by to help her, but every time someone approached her the TV crew asked them to leave. You see, they wanted to “document” the terrible Islamophobia in the Netherlands and all these nice non-Islamophobic Dutch people wanting to help a Muslim woman were ruining their “evidence”, how annoying of them!

“Fake, but accurate” — remember? The journalists just “know” a priori that there is Islamophobia, so they don’t need to actually check if it exists, they just need to “prove” it to the public. And that’s how it is with every subject they “cover” — they “know” what the “reality” is and they “know” what should be done about it, so they don’t need to actually report the news, they just need to make the audience believe whatever the “reporters” believe is true, create public “opinion” and promote the “reporters”‘ desirable policies, candidates and election results. And they will stop at nothing to get there.

There are lots and lots of examples of various ways of deception — from bias and subtle manipulations to straight lies and fabrications. It seems to be the norm rather than the exception. There are no real reporters. After all the lies I saw I don’t believe anything the media “reports”. In terms of quality and reliability there is no difference between professional journalism and amateur blogs. There are no reliable information sources. All of them — professional and amateur — are about advancing some political agenda.

It’s a terrible thing for democracy when there is no real journalism, when the reporters betray their vocation and their vital role in the democratic order. The more people find out they are lied to, the more they will turn to alternative information sources, but the alternative sources are just as bad. It will all descend into chaos.

Mohammed al-DuraWe’re all familiar with the staged news produced by “Pallywood”, the Palestinian propaganda masters who conspire with sympathetic cameramen and reporters for various wire services to produce fake news that implicates Israel. But the entire Western mainstream media are simply Pallywood writ large — much more sophisticated, much more technically accomplished, and much, much better funded.

As for alternative information sources — we’re working on that right here. We’re biased and proud of it, but even so we do our best to get those stubborn facts right. When we goof, our readers point it out promptly, and we have to retract and post a correction. It’s a blog-eat-blog world.

The educational institutions are an entirely different problem. Even if the rot were reversed right now, and all the Marxists forced onto the dole — fat chance! — it would take at least a generation for the pernicious legacy of institutional propaganda to fade out and be replaced with a cohort of truly educated citizens.

I’ve been working for a couple of years on an idea for an alternative to existing educational institutions — call it the “Virtual Open University” — which would be untainted by teachers’ colleges, the NEA, tenure, accreditation, and all the other baneful entrenched practices that have enabled the creation of a nation of sheep.

I’ll have more to say about that topic in a future post.

61 comments:

Papa Whiskey said...

What really put BHO over the top in 2008 was the horde of independents who were panicked by the credit crisis in September. They were voting to get the economy fixed, not for a "numinous Negro" -- and still less to be frog-marched into European-style socialism. Now that BHO's intent to do precisely the latter has become clear, those independents are being panicked by him -- and are gravitating rightward. There is thus considerable hope that BHO and his crowd may be thwarted electorally. As Lincoln noted, "You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

You New said...

Excellent article Baron. As a schoolteacher I witnessed first hand the American public schools. Please consider me a backer of your Virtual Open University idea. It needs to happen.

Baron Bodissey said...

Sorry, Papa, but your case is weak. Even Rasmussen reports that Obama's support is still over 45%. Reagan was doing worse at this point in his first term, and the recession back then wasn't as bad as the current one.

After what he's done to America during the past year, Obama's popularity should be in the single digits. The American polity is in appalling shape to show this much support for such a charlatan.

We've got a long uphill battle.

Papa Whiskey said...

Baron --

Didn't say it was a cert; I said there's considerable hope. Numinous Negroes are hardly invulnerable; David Dinkins got the heave-ho after one term as mayor -- and that was in New York City.

Dymphna said...

the “Virtual Open University” — which would be untainted by teachers’ colleges, the NEA, tenure, accreditation, and all the other baneful entrenched practices that have enabled the creation of a nation of sheep ...

Cool. Fjordman could be the first professor. Problem is, how does one classify his area(s) of expertise?

Maybe one course could be "The Renaissance as considered by A Renaissance Man". just sayin'...

For economics, Walter Williams has "Economics for Citizens" up on his website. He's so genial and well-informed.

You New said...

And by the way, the Hanged Man is my favorite tarot card. It's considered the highest card from one perspective. Therefore, the One has once again been glorified!

Arius said...

Excellent, Baron. It is important to remember that Obama is a symptom of what America has become.

Zenster said...

Dymphna: Problem is, how does one classify his area(s) of expertise?

Easy. Permit me to suggest the description of ranconteur Harry Purvis that I frequently borrow from Arthur C. Clarke's collection of short stories, "Tales from the White Hart":

General Expert

Gary Rumain said...

If the assertion that O'Bummer is the “Numinous Negro” to guilty white Americans then they picked the wrong one because he has no historical roots as an oppressed Negro in America. His father is from Kenya - a country that had no historical relationship with America.

If anything, his American roots come from his other half - the white side of him with his mother.

kritisk_borger said...

I’d just like to make a couple of points. First of all, Obama won the election fair and square, if the media in the US didn’t present an accurate picture of his candidacy to the public then that’s simply because the republicans didn’t try hard enough to do so. Politics are dirty business. And let’s be honest the republicans didn’t have a problem when George W. beat Al Gore in a hotly contested election that had to be validated by the courts in the US.

Another factor which probably helped secure Obama the presidency was the republican presidential candidates which included a 70 + year old man and a female gung ho governor with practically no Capitol Hill experience at all. Surely it couldn’t have come as a big surprise that this duo were unpalatable for democratic voter and even some republican voters.

Another thing to consider is that the people who voted for him, yes a lot of the coloured folks and some of the white folks probably voted for him because of his skin colour, but I think the majority voted for him because they agreed with him politically.

As to the media misleading and manipulating voters, yes some of the MSM have got agendas and this comes across in their reporting, but a lot of voters are just plain dumb and they’ll vote for whoever they think is best looking or funniest candidate. Policies and politics have no relevance for them and they are easily duped.

As I mentioned in an earlier thread here on GOV:

“I’ll just mention quickly that during the last EU referendum in Norway in 1994, TV footage from the polling stations showed several undecided voters walking in and out of the polling stations, visibly confused as to whether they should vote yes or no.

I believe the end result was 51 percent No, and 49 percent Yes.”

Henrik Ræder said...

This is good and important material showing how the US can even get to elect such an incompetent, hardly-American president. We need to focus on philosophy, not on persons, and sane election results will follow.

What we also need is more attention to who funded the 0bama campaign, and what they stood to gain.

Rollory said...

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency."

YES.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Liz said...

@ Baron: this is the German version of your article
http://europenews.dk/de/node/31092

Alfons said...

I come here to read objective material about how our culture and especially freedom of speech are under attack by the invasion of foreign guests with sharply different cultures and attitudes. Also to uncover the political correctness of our ruling elite that often tries to mask this invasion. I thought this was your cause.

Now let me tell you that you are hurting your own cause by attacking Obama in a way that borders on racism. Since when has socialism been on your agenda? Multiple fallacies can be found in your arguments. The media filter works for example the other way around as you can read in chomsky's "manufacturing consent" (yes written by a lefty). But it is fairly obvious that to broadcast a leftist message on American TV is like swimming upstream, because the money comes from the other direction.. go figure and read the book.

Furthermore, your article reads like you are masking your main point: your goal. Why should we be convinced that Obama is so bad? I'm not against what you call socialism, for example, for the good reason that you can also not make flights cheaper by taking out control towers at airports. Many prominent economists even in the US agree on this point now. Alan Greenspan is a notable example.

Ok so why is Oboma so bad? Many side issues are mentioned, but you don't give an upfront reason why we should be against Obama. Nor do you arrive to a conclusion. I'm hinging that there are some hidden reasons.

Shame on you guys for this piece of rant. And don't come replying with all your reasons why ObamaCair is bad and this and that. State upfront what you mean when you say that Obama is bad or stick to your initial agenda.

lbertarian said...

the media has been on the left since times immemorial. It's the education system that failed the society. It's the education system that put Mr.O in Harvard (that was not really Harvard), which made his candidacy so formidable on paper.
The problem is that while the smart ones ran off to Wall Street, the sneaky ones took over the school system. Make no mistake, it's not just Howard Zinn and his ilk that brought Mr. O to power - it is the entire culture of political correctness, affirmative action, and victim worship. How do you take this system apart? Can you take this system apart?

lbertarian said...

to Alfons:
what's ObamaCair?
we should pity the program whose supporters cannot spell its name.

Proud Infidel said...

Sadly, this post by the Baron is right on the money. Obama is the symptom of the disease. The fact so many Americans voted for the fraud and still approve of him is dramatic proof of that.

Afon, if you don't know by now why Obama is so bad, all I can say is it must a very nice rock you're living under.

Rollory said...

"I come here to read objective material about how our culture and especially freedom of speech are under attack by the invasion of foreign guests with sharply different cultures and attitudes."

And you have completely missed the underlying reasons WHY these things are happening. They are a symptom in the same way Obama is. They only happen BECAUSE of leftism. If you don't want to face that, don't want to follow the logic, would rather shout "racist!" without being specific about what has been said that is untrue - then you're at a dead end, and had better reconcile yourself to sharia.

"But it is fairly obvious that to broadcast a leftist message on American TV is like swimming upstream"

It is fairly obvious you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

"I'm not against what you call socialism"

Then you are incapable of looking at actions and consequences and putting two and two together to get four.

Alfons said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

Alfons --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

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

Alfons said...

The rock is called clear thinking. It ll keep me sheltered for long time to come.

So let me summarize:

My proposal was: keep spreading the word about islam (the main topic of this website) and we, together, have a change of preserving our beautiful societies.

Your replies were:
- The leftist are at fault.
- Zinn is a p***k
- The education system is bad
- The media is useless leftish crap
- more of that

If your reply now again is that its all the left's fault, then my reply will be: the left has always been there and will always be there. These are people who place morality and compassion higher than obedience to hierarchy and individualism. They have made great contributions, like emancipation of women and of the working class. Ok sure you cannot always use them as is clearly the case with our immigration policies, but thinking this polarized will not get us anywhere.

So why don't you stop victimizing yourself and start using our right of free speech in a responsible manner while still available. Because I still praise your courage for bringing this information to us.

@Rollory do you know that studies prove that logical thinking is actually hampered by political ideologies? And who is not specific? please reread your post and mine.

The Wobbly Guy said...

The interesting point to consider is HOW the left wormed their way into academia, media, and the government. While Gramsci was scary smart in predicting the success of this tactic, I kinda doubt they started out with exactly these intentions in mind.

Is there something intrinsic to education, the media, and the government that attracts the left more than other sectors? Or perhaps it's just the way they are structured that makes them vulnerable?

Rollory said...

The left also places morality and compassion higher than truth.

"studies prove" - which studies? When? By whom? Where are the datasets? Argument to authority will get you nowhere. You said the criticism of Obama verges on racism. Ok: which statements do so? Why are they racist? What is objectionable about them? What is untrue about them?

Whenever anyone starts criticizing the left they get called racist sooner or later, usually whenever there is no counterargument of substance to be made. It loses its force rather quickly.

You are making a lot of assumptions without even realizing it.

Anyway, to the point

"My proposal was: keep spreading the word about islam (the main topic of this website) and we, together, have a change of preserving our beautiful societies."

Islam is not the problem. Any of the major Western powers could take on the entire Islamic world single-handedly and win in a straight up fight. Even the lesser ones like Portugal or Belgium would have no trouble defending themselves if necessary. And yet Islam is taking over. It is not Islam's positive actions that are causing this, it is the LACK of action on the part of white Europeans that is permitting it. What causes that lack of action? THAT is the problem.

Focusing on Islam is a focus on the symptom. The symptoms of the disease can kill and should certainly be treated, but without addressing the underlying pathology, any cure that focuses just on the symptoms will be temporary and eventually futile.

lbertarian said...

Wobbly Guy:
they win by default. People who stand to win from open market tend to go to where the money is. The more successful capitalism, the more money is to be made, the less interest smart people show for such low-paying jobs as teaching - or, moe importantly, teacher training and administration. Thus they simply abdicate the ideological battlefield to the Gramschians. Marx has a point about capitalism burying itself, though mot necessarily in the way he thought he did...

Cobra said...

The problem is over a hundred years old.
It began in the 19th century, when certain people were allowed in this country and they began their war on the Constitution and the country from within.
Thus, the progressive movement began and it fully developed into a fully blown marxist/trotzkyite movement.
This trend allowed the New Deal and this also accelerated the trend.
But the final strategic blow was the 1960's, the Vietnam war which allowed the marxists to burrow deep with the demshevik party.
There are indications that some of the demshevik senators at the time were KGB spies. Certainly open to promote the soviet propaganda.
And the socialist media amplified it.
Reagan was a short respite and he was undermined by the check pants repubics (the Bush family and others...), partly due to progressive reasons, partly to other reasons.
So, the yogurt we are in, now, is very, very deep.
I am usually a positive guy, but our chances to redress the country are 50%-50% at best, at this point in time.

bartholomewscross said...

Hello Alfons. You wrote,

"the left...are people who place morality and compassion higher than obedience to hierarchy and individualism. They have made great contributions, like emancipation of women and of the working class..."

The Right believes in morality too, of course. Remember the Moral Majority?

I think what you mean here is that the Left believes in equality and its corollary non-discrimination. And you're right: the Right doesn't put much stock in that.

But you do, right? In fact, you think non-discrimination is such a great idea that you just call it morality itself. Wow! Quite an endorsement.

But I wonder: how are you going to resist Islam without discriminating against it? Would you explain how anti-Islamic resistance differs from anti-Islamic discrimination?

Andrea said...

"the left...are people who place morality and compassion higher than obedience to hierarchy and individualism. They have made great contributions, like emancipation of women and of the working class..."

HAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAAHAHAA! Oh -- oh my sides...

(gasp wheeze)

Oh, Alfons, that is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. You -- you were trying to be funny, right? That was a joke, right?

Alfons said...

Ok, even freedom of speech has its boundaries. I agree with the redacted version Baron.

bartholomewscross, so call it ideology not morality. They are too idealistic. Anyway you got my point from what I read.

I for one would definitely discriminate against Islam, on the basis that the culture is backward (read post about Sultan's book) and that their ideology is tyranny. Both are incompatible with our western way of life and our constitutions.

With these arguments you get somewhere. Just bashing anything you don't like in this world won't help.

@Andrea: the world is not as you see it on fox news. For outsiders, like me, your news in the VS is completely ludicrous. Both on the left side (MSNBC etc) but especially on the right (FOX news propagandizing the tea parties).
Maybe reading iht.com once in a while wont hurt. Or at least something more internationally oriented if iht is also to "leftish" for you.

I cant help myself i just have to continue writing. Did you know that actually the US population used to be WAY more on the left? Very pacifistic also. That was before your government decided to propagandize for the 1st and 2nd world war. Or at least for the second as far as i remember (all leftist sources, so i cant really refer to them here, but the names of the authors have been mentioned). Also before huge corporations started buying all TV networks and sponsoring presidential campaigns. So don't ya' all worry, y'are exactly where your govrnment wants you to be ;) At least Obama has the courage to discuss honestly even with opponents. Did you see him at the republican caucas. That was such a master piece. So bad for the reps though, many lies where flushed down the toilet. So bad, that FOX had to switch it off. I enjoy so much following american politics and the loony's on both sides. Do you also join tea parties btw? thanks for that too...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/opinion/25nyhan.html?scp=15&sq=health%20care&st=Search
"participants read mock news articles with misleading statements"

Dymphna said...

Alfons--

You obviously don't know much about conservatism in the US. How could you? Unless you know where to dig for the information you won't be able to find it. Our media, academia, and politics are owned pretty well by the socialist left. And media in general don't deal with issues in depth, anyway.

It was conservatives who fought the Democrats for racial equality for many long years. It was an ugly fight on the part of the Dems until they saw government largesse as a way to buy black votes.

Their volte face was done without the least bit of compunction or embarrassment. They were against racial equality before they were for it, to coin a phrase. They were dead set against it for years. In fact, one of their dinosaurs, the senior senator from West VA, is still in office even though he was a member of the KKK. Dems have little shame, most of them. When this senator used the word 'nigger' on national television a few years back everyone was aghast, but he paid absolutely no political price for doing so. This is a double standard that is denied by the left, but it's there -- as has been proved repeatedly in Congress' investigations on ethics and in its sometimes shameful pillorying of conservative nominees put forth by Republican administrations.

Before the 1960's takeover by the socialists, there was a liberal tradition in the US of the classical liberal variety. Daniel Moynihan, the senior senator from NY was one such person. When his party started generating its "War on Poverty" he warned then that they were creating a huge underclass and would destroy the black family. He even wrote a best-seller about it.

Moynihan has been proved sadly right. The giveaway has devolved into a large federalized bureaucracy built to serve the losers it created. Not only has the black family been destroyed but now, in some of the worst places, the mothers are starting to abandon their children. Which will require more govt intervention, more corrupt and incomptent foster care agencies, etc., ad nauseam ad eternitatem.

Various polls indicate that the large, amorphous, unaffiliated 'independent' electorate (i.e., those who actually VOTE), has swung rightward as Obama's programs become more transparent. They haven't registered on the scale as this conservative in a long, long time.

Our mission statement is definitely to fight Islamization and to stand with Israel. However, that doesn't mean we don't take on cultural or political or religious issues. We've been doing that since we opened shop and will continue to do so.

All God's dangers ain't a Muslim. Many of them are, however, the socialist fellow-travelers who use Islam for their own purposes.

Both groups are utopian and thus ultimately destructive to our commonweal.

bartholomewscross said...

Alfons, you wrote,
"Also before huge corporations started buying all TV networks and sponsoring presidential campaigns. So don't ya' all worry, y'are exactly where your govrnment wants you to be ;)"

And then you quote something from the New York Times. Ironic.

First of all, whom do you imagine "all the [right-wing] TV networks" to be? Fox? You do understand that network is "neoconservative" which is to say right-liberal, not right-wing. Did you know that Saudi Prince Alwaweed bin Talal just purchased a 7% stake of News Corp. I imagine he'll want a little respect for the "prophet" in exchange. Any other news organizations in the pocket of the Right?

And I'm sure you know that the NYTimes, the leading newpaper of the American establishment, is openly left-wing.

Finally, as for discrimination against Islam: how are you going to discriminate against a religion without also discriminating against the people who believe in it?

And if you discriminate against the Muslims themselves, you know "people just like you and me", how do you square that with the principle of equality? Do you imagine that Muslims will simply give up their faith once you begin discriminating against it and showing how distasteful you find it? You do realize that people generally take their belief systems very seriously. Why do you imagine that the Muslims are any more likely to recant their Islam than you are to recant, say, your belief in "equality"?

So what would you do with the hold-out Muslims, which is to say, the vast majority of them? What would discrimination look like? Will you keep them out of politics so they don't pass Sharia? How? By forbidding them from voting or running for office?

And what happens when they, by rapid reproduction, outnumber you? How will you maintain power then? Will you herd them onto "homelands" and separate yourself from them? Will you create some kind of system of...apartness, maybe. Yes, that sounds better.

I'm sure you know the perils of, ahem, "apartness". I am less sure, however, that you are aware of how few options your politics will leave you.

You, Alfons, will soon be a minority, and the Muslims the majority. You can either submit to their tyranny or resist it. To resist them successfully, you must retain power over them. To retain power, you must not let them have it. To keep them from having power, you must either kill them or subdue them. To subdue them, you must make them obey with physical force.

What part of the above scheme would you endorse and how, exactly, does it square with the leftist principle of equality, to say nothing of the Christian ideal of freedom?

Perhaps you see now why we on the Right so bitterly oppose you. We realize that the only way both to avoid Islamic tyranny and retain our freedom is to keep the Muslims out of our countries in the first place and repatriate those already here asap.

I look forward to reading your reply.

Cobra said...

Alfons,
I am sorry to say, but you have a lot of reading to do before you can contribute on this blog.
If your intention is not to contribute but to annoy, well, you just did it, but it doesn't help.
And I am not debating you, I am giving you a friendly advise.
This blog is not for repubics vs dem fights, so your leftist plugs are sounding really uninformed and foolish.
We are going much deeper than that.

bartholomewscross said...

Dymphna wrote,

"It was conservatives who fought the Democrats for racial equality for many long years."

I always wince a bit when I see conservatives make this argument. It sounds like we're saying, We on the Right have always been better egalitarians than those on the Left. But egalitarianism is a leftist idea, not a traditional one ("egalite" was a Jacobin thing. I don't think Edmund Burke, for example, put much stock in it).

I think what you're saying here, Dymphna, is that Democrats have defended some questionable discrimination against blacks in the South, and Republicans have opposed them. OK, there is some truth to that.

But it's simply false to imply that the principle of "equality" is a Right-wing principle. It isn't. That highly questionable belief has been the trademark of the Left ever since the Jacobins used it to chop off their sovereign's head. And it's legacy has only become bloodier ever since.

Equality simply doesn't exist. No two individuals are alike, just as no two families are alike, just as no two communities, tribes, nations, races, species, planets, stars and so on are alike. The ruling principle of the universe is diversity, not sameness.

The only context in which equality makes any sense at all is in a spiritual, non-material sense, i.e. before God.

kritisk_borger said...

There will never ever be a society where all the citizens will agree with each other a hundred percent all of the time. Some will be egocentric and others will be empathetic, some will advocate aggression towards others and others will take a more pacifistic path. That’s just the way life is supposed to be.

To me It seems pretty pointless constantly going on about Obama being elected president and that the media helped him out. So what? That just means that the next time around the republicans will have to do a better job. Like I mentioned earlier here on this thread, politics are dirty business.

I think there are more important things a stake than bickering over Obama. He’s the sitting president elected by the people of the US. Get over it folks.

Baron Bodissey said...

OK Rollory, cool it. I sympathize with your opinion, believe me. But you'll have to find a more civil way to state it.

Rollory said...

Aw, c'mon, that was very civilly and politely stated! I even invited him to have a nice day! What more do you want?!?


(... I am not entirely surprised)

Dymphna said...

@kritisk_borger...

I think there are more important things a stake than bickering over Obama...

That's a reductio ad absurdum re the post and comments here. Where you posit "bickering" I see a thesis being proposed -- i.e., that the problem is not our current president, it is those who elected him without thinking through the consequences.

---
You also say:

He’s the sitting president elected by the people of the US. Get over it folks...

Your first sentence states the obvious. Your second is dismissive of the deep harm he has caused and will cause our country. There is no "getting over" this sad fact, but with planning, we can attempt to make sure that his damage is limited to one term and that those who support his huge, expensive programs will also fall by the wayside as we attempt to pick up the pieces.

This ungodly mess is being left to our children to straighten out whilst bent over carrying the debt of the previous generations' on their backs.

Get over it, indeed!

Dymphna said...

But it's simply false to imply that the principle of "equality" is a Right-wing principle...

WHAT???!! Umm...our Constitution? All men are created equal? That's "all men are created equal", it's not "all men are granted equality by the Constitution".

I'm implying nothing. I am saying flat-out that equality is primary to our existence. Equality of oppportunity, that is.

Go ahead and wince. Our Founding Fathers don't mind a bit.

kritisk_borger said...

Dymphna said..

“That's a reductio ad absurdum re the post and comments here. Where you posit "bickering" I see a thesis being proposed -- i.e., that the problem is not our current president, it is those who elected him without thinking through the consequences.”

Well that’s exactly my point. What do you expect to achieve by analyzing people’s reasons for voting for Obama? What do you expect to achieve by blaming the MSM for somehow portraying Obama in a better light than his rival? Obama won the election fair and square, he’s the current president and he is staying in the White house for the remainder of his term. Claiming that the people who voted for him somehow are incapable of rational thinking is absurd.

As I mentioned earlier on this thread;

“Another factor which probably helped secure Obama the presidency was the republican presidential candidates which included a 70 + year old man and a female gung ho governor with practically no Capitol Hill experience at all. Surely it couldn’t have come as a big surprise that this duo were unpalatable for democratic voter and even some republican voters.”

Dymphna said..

“Your first sentence states the obvious. Your second is dismissive of the deep harm he has caused and will cause our country. There is no "getting over" this sad fact, but with planning, we can attempt to make sure that his damage is limited to one term and that those who support his huge, expensive programs will also fall by the wayside as we attempt to pick up the pieces.”

Whether Obama is causing deep harm to America or not is open for discussion. It all boils down to your political affiliation, and I for one don’t believe that the majority of the democrats share your sentiments on that matter. I guess some of them felt the same way about good ole W, and if they did, where they right in thinking that way?

What I’m trying to say is that that’s just the way democracy works. Some people are ecstatic about Obama getting elected, and others are horrified. The best thing to do if you want a change to take place in America is to plan ahead for the next presidential campaign and learn from past mistakes. The best option is definitely not sulking over what happened in the past. There is nothing one can do to alter the past, but there are certainly heaps of things that can be done to change things in the future.

Dymphna said...

The best thing to do if you want a change to take place in America is to plan ahead for the next presidential campaign and learn from past mistakes.

Exactly the point of this post. To discuss some of the mistakes in an attempt to make sure they don't happen again.

That is simply one aspect of "planning ahead".

[We didn't discuss the Republican nominee because he's not currently doing the damage. If he were, we'd be discussing his election and planning to prevent another like it].

===============

The best option is definitely not sulking over what happened in the past.

And the sulker is who, precisely?

When did a discussion of a poorly executed administration become 'sulking'?
==================

There is nothing one can do to alter the past, but there are certainly heaps of things that can be done to change things in the future...

Again, that is one of the more obvious points of the post. From out of those "heaps of things that can be done to change things in the future is to understand what happened in the past.

What you're saying seems obvious and condescending, but perhaps you didn't mean to come across that way.

Lectures as to what we should and should not discuss simply aren't helpful. None of us learns anything except that you think someone is sulking.

Natalie said...

Excellent, excellent essay, Baron. Well done. I'm not sure what else I specifically have to contribute being that quite a few have already commented on this thread, beyond the fact that your essay is excellent.

EscapeVelocity said...

We need to focus on teh media and the education system. The media is working itself out with the expansion of bandwidth. The education system needs to become a primary focus of Conservatives. We need to promote conservatives into the teaching profession and especially the Unis. Pay for scholarships and provide a support network for the Conservative professors, who will undoubtedly be visciously attacked. As we get them into positions or power, they can promote Conservative ideals and ideas, as well as other Conservatives.

The youth are the future. That is why we are fighting a retreating action. All our victories are phyrric in nature. Relying on life experience to snap people out of the Leftist indoctrination isnt going to work forever. As business and corporate cultures become dominated by Leftwing zeitgeist and PC, the way to prosper will be to continue to tow the Leftist party line, lest you be demoted, not promoted, fired, etc.

PS- I agree with Rollory.

Andrea said...

Alfons -- a couple of things:

First, I don't watch Fox News, or any tv news. I don't watch television, and I rarely read the regurgitated pabulum they call "news" on professional news media websites.

Second, you don't know a thing about me, yet you seem to assume that I am as young and as ignorant of world affairs and history as you are. For example, I don't know where you are getting your information about American history, but far from being more "leftist" in the past than we are now, the United States was much more conservative in the past. And we were not so much pacifist as isolationist. They are far from the same thing. But your invincible ignorance -- the sign of someone who has been educated just enough to think he knows everything but not enough to realize how much he has left to learn -- is fortunately not my problem. Experience will be your teacher, and it won't be anywhere near as kind as the people on this comment thread will be.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Actually they did say something like there must be some racial overtone because here it is a black president and white people show up with guns.

Also, about Obama, his approval rating is in the high 30s for white people. Baron, you are missing the fact that white people now in the US are about 60-65% and during Reagan they were 75% or so. If the difference is 10% towards the Mestizo people, then instead of 3 out of 10 support, he has 7 out of 10 support. The left will sweep elections in a couple of decades. Sweep them by large enough margins to easily alter the constitution, by the way. But yes, sadly Obama is what America became due to the leftist media and education and demographics.

kristisk, what planet are you living on? I mean, I can tell you how this goes because it was the same case in my country. Except a small TV channel, every single one of them were pro-socialist and they actually breached the electoral laws about fair representation and not just that, they even continued the smears on election day when it is illegal to discuss politics in the sense of the candidates. No matter what the other candidates do, they will have their words spinned and presented in a bad light and so on. About experience, are you kidding me? Obama had 2 years as a senator as his experience. That's all. And Palin had executive experience, which is what's relevant for a VP or POTUS. I say this as someone who dislikes Sarah Palin. And about empathy, why do you want to express your empathy with other's people money? I'm a good person, I help the homeless, I once didn't eat at school for a week because I gave my food money to a mother who has a paralysed daughter. I help old people cross the street and so on. I just don't want the government to steal my money to do it for me and I don't want the government to subsidize an underclass, which is what they're doing. In the same sense, people who want our societies islamized are capable of rational thinking just like the people who voted for Obama. Your point is? What do you expect from us analyzing Islam? And the best course of action is moving to some states and practicing some good old secession. I'm different enough from leftists that I don't desire to live with them. The only reason why I still live in Europe is because it's still largly European. If we won't change the current trends, I'm moving to Singapore.

Alfons, I missed any racist part so far in this blog post. Funny enough, Obama's win is the crown jewel of political correctness and the invasion. I'm curious about those fallacies, you can maybe show them to us and I don't see how the money comes from the right, considering that you can look at the pay of the leftist activists compared to the right one. As a leftist activist, you can get 35k out of college and the fund from which these people are paid has hundreds of millions of dollars in it.

What's hilarious is that you quote Alan Greenspan on his economic expertise, the man who advised people to take adjustable rate mortgages, even though it was obvious they couldn't afford them and he kept interests too low to doctor up the economy which led to the housing bubble. Most of these experts are those that said that the US economy was just peachy in 2007 when the recession started - hardly someone to listen to. Obama is bad because he is destroying the country that he leads and because he pushes for laws against public opinion. I mean, the latter wouldn't be bad if the laws were any good, but it's just the insurance that the US will not be an economic power anymore. Oh, and this stupidity is bipartisan, I hardly liked McCain or Palin. The only candidate worth while was Ron Paul, even though his foreign policy is misguided at best.

rebelliousvanilla said...

lbertarian has it right. To be honest, I don't care about the current culture. I want it to utterly collapse along with the victim worship, affirmative action, white guilt and political correctness. Why would anyone want to preserve this is beyond me, the last 200-250 years need to be totally deconstructed and we need to start from a fresh base. I don't see our societies as beautiful at all. We are unfree and we lack a lot of basic economic liberties.

Alfons, what you miss is that the left doesn't care about morality. Last time I checked, leftist policies lead to the sl@g culture, massive out of wedlock pregnancy and so on. All these are subsidized by the left, just like feminism who destroyed the family system. And there's no such thing like compassion with other people's money - if they'd be compassionate, they'd donate THEIR OWN money to help people in need. I don't see what's keeping leftists from doing this. Funny enough, if the left is so concerned with morality, I'd like to know the moral argument behind the use of violence to part people from their assets aka taking the money of some people at the point of a gun. And I agree, ideology hampers logical thinking and you subscribe to the liberal ideology of non-discriminattion, feminism is good stuff. Rollory actually has it right, we have problems with Islam because of the liberal worldview, not because of Islam itself - the culture you are trying to help survive is defective and within it, you won't win against a culture that actually asserts itself. You will just cry about how it's social justice while you die off. A culture is supposed to reinforce the confidence of the people who are subscribed to it and the current paradigm just makes my people second guess themselves while empowering the enemy. It's like an army trying to win a battle with an enemy general in command. By the way, you are even clueless about what's left and right in the US. Non-intervention is a conservative policy, not a liberal one. And you don't even know how the tea parties started. For your information, people that have your beliefs lead to our current problems.

Wobbly Guy, yes, the public education will always be leftist because they get their funding from leftists through government policy. They're just pursuing their self-interest.

bartholomewscross, you hit the nail right on the head. The problem is the myth of equality and non-discrimination that are the problems, not Islam. It's our defective culture and societies that are the problem, not Islam. Islam was like this since it existed. You are also right about the conservatives making that equality thing. Actually, that equality myth is part of the problem. If discrimnation is bad, then why would discriminating against certain types of immigrants is bad? People fail to see how certain ideas lead to others. Ideologies are a progression, not static points in time.

EV, how about keeping your children out of the educational-indoctrinational industrial complex? If I will have children, I might give homeschooling a shot. But again, this debate was depressing enough to realize that I better won't bother. This was as disappointing and discouraging as the socialist in my country getting 49.6% of the votes after he said that he will share our land with Ukraine despite that qualifying as treason due to our constitution and after he was exposed for renewing the passports of people who are looked for by the Romanian justice system due to their involvement in bankrupting the biggest mutual fund in my country(he was foreign affairs minister). Funny enough, the night before the presidential debates he went and visited the former owner of that fund because the guy whose passport he renewed got busted and was going to be sent back to my country. I just don't care anymore sometimes, people are too stupid.

Rollory said...

" If I will have children, I might give homeschooling a shot. But again, this debate was depressing enough to realize that I better won't bother."

I hope that's a just momentary black mood. The future belongs to those who show up. Leftists tend not to have many kids, so if we endure our kids win almost by default.

(Well, except for having to rebuild ethnic nations for themselves. But that's a lot easier when not getting undermined by your own people.)

EscapeVelocity said...

EV, how about keeping your children out of the educational-indoctrinational industrial complex? If I will have children, I might give homeschooling a shot. -- RV

That is a solid personal choice. However that leaves the education institutions to the Leftwingers. You can build some new institutions outside the current institutions, to run an end around (such is happening in the media). However with education, it is not advisable to just accept that the Left controls them. Many other peoples children are being indocrinated there. And Rollory has a valid point, except with the Left controlling the education system, they have access to Conservatives offspring's minds to shape them.

So considerable effort needs to be put into this. Its not a trivial matter. The Left is playing chess, and the Right is playing checkers.

One tip RV, I dont know if it directly applies to your country with its history, but here in the US, homeschoolers should use older books to teach from. Many literary childrens works have been "bowlderized" by the Leftist identity groups, and historically scrubbed to suit minority victim gourps and feminists sensibilities. This applies to older readers and textbooks as well. Reference works like Encyclopedias have undergone similar revision to suit the New Left zeitgeist and multiculturalist provclivities.

I recommend...

Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, May 2003)

which details how politically correctness was inserted into childrens books and texbooks.

Here is her website, she is a specialist in education...

http://www.dianeravitch.com/

The key is to look for books pre 1970s, when the New Left Baby Boomer Radicals started their crusades in an organized fashion on Western Civilations and inside the institutions.


bowlderized

1 : to expurgate (as a book) by omitting or modifying parts considered vulgar
2 : to modify by abridging, simplifying, or distorting in style or content

Hope that helps.

EscapeVelocity said...

Damn I just lost a rather big post.

Here is the short version.

Home schooling is great PERSONAL choice, but its not the answer long term. Conservatives might be having more children, but they are being indoctrinated by Leftwingers in the education system...which gives them access to shape the minds of OTHER PEOPLE's children. Promoting and normalizing homosexuality to give just one rather contentious example, but in many ways more subtle.

I dont know how it works out in you country RV, but in the US, homeschoolers should choose childrens books and textbooks, pre 1970, as that is when the New Left Baby Boomer Radicals started their organized march through the institutions and war on Western Civilization. The textbooks, readers, and childrens books in teh 60s were not yet bowlderized and edited to suit New Leftist proclivities, revisionist history, and political correctness designed to suit victimization narratives of minorities and feminists, and promote multiculturalism. This probably goes for much of Western Europe, but the Soviet Communist order in East Europe is probably differnt.

I suggest a book by Diane Ravitch, an education expect in the US about the US experiences with these issues. Here is her website also...

http://www.dianeravitch.com/

Diane Ravitch, The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, May 2003)

Hope that helps.

PS - A very interesting excercise is to get a High School level history textbook on both US and Western Civilization, from the pre 70s and a current one (and Im not even talking about the radical Leftist Howard Zinn's A Peoples History of the US, which is used in some Public High Schools these days)...just your average textbook.

Homeschooler sites in the US review current (and old) textbooks looking for political correctness and other issues, and make recommendations on which are the least eggregious of the current crop. For example those who remain positive about Christopher Colombus.

EscapeVelocity said...

Oops! I guess I didnt lose it.

There is a bit different information in them so give them both a quick read.

Sean O'Brian said...

This morning's USA Today poll puts public approval of the Democrats at a historic low. At this rate they will be wiped out this November. Democratic Party Image Drops to Record Low.

However I think that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Why? A lot of people seemed to only vote for him because he was black. Well, he will still be black in 2012. But we'll see.

Green Infidel said...

On a trip to America a few months before the elections, a local told me that "a lot of people would vote against Obama due to his colour", therefore he'd be voting for Obama. To boot, this was not said in a trendy New York or LA coffee bar while sipping lattes, it was in a 99%-white factory with pickup-driving workers, in the middle of New Hampshire.

If this logic is multiplied by a million (or ten), could it be possible that a sizeable number of voters put a cross next to Barry's name simply to negate the votes of the "racists", and could these votes in fact total more than the these hypothetical anti-Obama bigots?

And by the same token, could these voters unwittingly have voted Hussein in, purely because of the colour of his skin?

Green Infidel said...

"However I think that President Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Why? A lot of people seemed to only vote for him because he was black."

Being black will get you a voting "block", but it's only got a certain limited size - and remember Obama won the election by 4%.

All the polls before the elections showed McCain to be by far the biggest Republican threat to Obama.

If the Republicans want to have any shot in 2012, they'll need to find someone of a similar calibre, who'll also won't be too repulsive to liberals and independents.

If they settle on "love or hate them" candidates like Sarah Palin, agreed - Obama will stroll into his second term, but if they find someone with a broader appeal (Romney?), then could that 4% swing be within reach?

kritisk_borger said...

Has anyone considered that Barack Hussein Obama quite possibly was elected president because the majority of the voters actually considered him to be the best candidate? And maybe it wasn’t a massive “brainwashing” campaign by the American ‘leftist media’ that helped paved the way for him? Maybe he was elected because the majority of the voters were fed up with George W. Bush and his policies? And let’s be honest the man isn’t exactly a rocket scientist.

And maybe people were fed up with Dick Cheney and his “buddies” in Halliburton cashing in on the Iraq war while young American soldiers got their limbs blown up in Bagdad? And maybe the people who gave Obama their vote were against this war and as a result chose not to vote for the republicans? And maybe, perhaps just maybe they didn’t like McCain and Palin?

I think people are deluding themselves if they seriously expect that the republicans should win every presidential election in the US, and if they don’t then it must somehow be the fault of the evil “leftist Media”. Like I’ve mentioned earlier on this thread people have different political views. There’s no such thing as a mono political society where all people think alike and they all vote the same.

This time around the odds just weren’t on the republicans’ side, maybe it will in the next election.

bartholomewscross said...

RV wrote,

" The problem is the myth of equality and non-discrimination that are the problems, not Islam."

Glad we're on the same page.

Dymphna wrote,

"WHAT???!! Umm...our Constitution? All men are created equal?...I am saying flat-out that equality is primary to our existence. Equality of oppportunity, that is...Go ahead and wince. Our Founding Fathers don't mind a bit."

Hey Dymphna. I guess I struck a nerve. I hope there aren't any hard feelings, as I certainly admire this blog and all you and the Baron do.

As for that statement in the Declaration of Independence, yes it's there. I don't think I've implied anything else. I think I said that equality exists in a strictly spiritual sense, i.e. the equality of souls before God.

And I don't believe the founders were referring to any other kind of equality when they penned the DoI.

Baron Bodissey said...

RV & bart --

Actually, the Declaration and the Constitution were concerned with "equality before the law", which is one reason why slavery was so indigestible for the new republic.

I stand by that principle myself. The law should apply equally to all. The colonists wanted to avoid a return to a situation where there is a different law for aristocrats than there is for commoners, or a different law for Catholics than for Protestants, or a different law for farmers than for traders.

I'm in favor of that sort of equality. But that's the only kind of legal equality that I support.

Yes, a rich man can always get his son's speeding ticket fixed, whereas I can't. But that's evidence of official misfeasance and corruption, and not of inequality before the law.

EscapeVelocity said...

Green Infidel, Obama mopped up on the racist vote, far exceeding the racist vote for McCain.


If We Europeanize, Europe is in Trouble

by Jonah Goldberg

linky

EscapeVelocity said...

The racist vote for Obama far exceeded the racist vote for his opponent. Obama won the racist vote.

If We Europeanize, Europe is in Trouble

by Jonah Goldberg

linky

Afonso Henriques said...

I know in the U.S. there's some tradition and all but in my context - and I believe in the rest of Europe as well - Home Schooling is not a sound choice.

For instance, children have to socialise. Then, those hyper protected children would have a shock and would probabily turn against their parents.

My parents / family relaxed their personal educational investment in me - that is *them* educating me - when I was about twelve. And that's why I am not a leftist.

But up till ten I had a pretty tight family with both parents and grandparents trying to actually *teach me* what they knew and their ways of living or something like that.

And what I want to stress is that it is very important for the parents and the extended family to be on top of the children while giving them liberty and freedom for the children to discover the world for themselves.
The parents must have to filter and have the patience to explain everything all the time. Be always present and clearing the minds of the children.

I don't think much about having children but I believe the right thing to do would be to put the kid in a private institution where the education was good and that corresponded with the social level / class of the child, and to *always* being on top of the children taking *personally* care of their education and actually *molding* the children character, while at the same time giving the children liberty and autonomy on its own.

The major problem with this is not the mildly leftist education that children would recieve - really, here even Socialist private schools's education is relatively right wing but not religiously - but the fascination the child would have with the other: The poor, the non white, the foreigner, the immigrant.
Simply because the child would not be used to it (it would be exotic) nor would the child know that those elements are "somewhat not that good" as it would only contact with the upper level of those segments, I guess.

The major problem is parents and extended family and schools and comunity... they all don't care much about the education and the character of the children.

We here have a saying that probabily exists in the rest of Europe, I don't know:

"É preciso uma aldeia para educar uma criança".

"It's needed a village to educate a child".

And it is true. The sense of community (or Nationhood) is very, very important. And it is absent nowadays in the major urban centres and in other places.

Also, team sports are important for males as learning how not to be a bitch is important for females.

I mean, males can dislike team sports and females can be bitchy, but they should at least learn how to sweat for the team and how to be a good girl from childhood.

The theme seems very complex but it isn't. It is just very demanding as the parents have to take their children as a life long lecturing.

And I would not advocate putting the child in the public schools here because, as in most of the United States, the public Schools are filled with poors and ethnics, the education is far from the best and the teachers cannot preform their work properly simply because they have no conditions (here not even in college do they have conditions). Usually, the brightest third is the one that suffers in public schools.

laine said...

Anyone who voted for Obama because he was black were at least half right.

Anyone who thought they were voting for the best candidate were media dupes who had not done a lick of homework and were 100% wrong.

Obama was hands down among the worst presidential candidates ever and that's saying something with McCain as his opponent. Obama was a man of zero personal accomplishment and at best mediocre intelligence (there's a reason those transcripts are hidden) who was promoted every step of the way by affirmative action, a leftist media and a Machiavellian Soros crowd that bought him the presidency with 6B dollars, much of it illegal funding. He was sold like American Idol (also notable for crowning mediocrities) to a public dumbed down by public schooling, black racism and white guilt.

Finally, Americans were too stupid to realize that yet another economically illiterate Dem policy of forcing banks to give mortgages to deadbeats starting under Clinton and enlarged by a Dem Congress during Bush's last two years was what triggered the economic meltdown.
Voters elected the arsonists to put out the fire!

It was a perfect storm resulting in a juvenile marxist in the White House who was above his pay grade as a community organizer. Best candidate? Only for the psychiatrist's couch to deal with his deserting daddy, mummy and race issues.

For the first time the US has a President and First Lady who hate America and who are determined to cripple her and reduce her to another socialist swamp.

laine said...

Sorry, correction: the funding for Obama's campaign was 600 million, (I inadvertently added a zero there) plus the free media backing worth hundreds of millions more rounding it off to a billion dollar prez not worth a plugged nickel.

rebelliousvanilla said...

EV, I'm Romanian. You don't have to teach mature Eastern Europeans on how to phase out propaganda. In my dictionary capitalism is defined as a chauvinist exploitation of the working class or something like that. Ignoring propaganda is second nature to a lot of my generation and the previous ones and believe me, the left there are newbies at propaganda compared to the communists. Most people think that 1989 was an overthrow, despite the textbooks saying it was a revolution. We have a fairly cynical take on government information. lol

And the Romanian textbooks aren't politically correct. We aren't taught that the crusades were an imperial project and that Europeans should be ashamed of the might of the British empire.

kristisk, you don't really know American history and politics. Nobody ever votes for someone because they think they're the best candidate. They vote based on how the candidate makes them feel. You should check the statements of liberals in the media who say their bias leads to 15% or so more for the left - it's their own words.

Baron, I agree slavery was as stupid as releasing the slaves on your own territory without making it conditional on their move to Liberia.

Afonso, if I will homeschool, it doesn't mean that I'll not take my children to the park to play with other children. And I know that liberty thing because my parents practiced with me. You must let your children make mistakes, just not the great ones. On the other hand, as someone who just graduated highschool a couple of years ago, attending class was a bore and I found it a waste of time. Most of what I learned was from my parents and from my individual desire. Except a few subjects, Iwasted my time. As long as education will be designed to equalize(like its now), not make kids achieve their potential, homeschool will be a far better choice if you have intelligent children.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Lincoln, interestingly, had a firm policy of repatriating the slaves back to Africa.

Lech Dharma said...

I was naive to think that the vast majority of American voters would see through the utopian promises and socialist lies of Obama's campaign speeches as I had. I had faith that patriotic Americans wouldn't buy what he was selling in his 2008 campaign: increased government control over the economy and over every aspect of American life; increased government borrowing and spending; "peace" through appeasement and submission.

I am still troubled that some polls show 40% of registered voters still supporting Obama's Presidency and his destructive economic, social, and foreign policies.

Hopefully, enough former koolaid drinkers have now come to their senses, and will vote-out the Obamacrats in November 2010. As long as "they" hold majority power in Washington, and Obama is still at the helm, America is being headed straight into the iceberg.