Sunday, September 21, 2008

The Most Frightening Two Words in the English Language


Our New First Lady

Our Presidents's Financial Associate

Our President's Spiritual Mentor

A note from Radarsite: On this coming November 4th there is a real possibility that we could lose our country. If we allow this dangerous and inscrutable candidate to actually become President of the United States of America the ramifications are unfathomable. The degree to which this fine country of ours could change forever is infinite. We are at a proverbial crossroads, and the decisions we make this November will effect the lives of countless unborn Americans. I firmly believe that if Barack Hussein Obama wins this crucial election there is a real possibility that America as we know it will cease to exist, America will be destroyed. The reasoning behind this belief was clearly expressed in a previous article Elect Obama, Destroy America, which was subsequently published in the Chicago Sun Times. To attempt to reiterate all of the arguments put forward in that previous article again here would, I believe, only be redundant. So I am once again reposting the original CST article in full. For those of you who have read it before, please feel free to skip over it. And for those of you who are reading it for the first time, please keep an open mind and consider these arguments carefully. Our future literally hangs in the balance. Thank you. - rg

The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Chicago Sun-Times.

Conservative views on politics, culture and current events.
Saturday, April 12, 2008

Elect Obama, Destroy America

Elect Obama, destroy America. Political hyperbole? Right-wing alarmist propaganda?
Consider this.

The Ruinous Bequests of the Sixties

Most protest movements begin as an organized expression of a legitimate grievance -- some perceived societal injustice, perhaps in response to actual governmental or judicial tyranny. If the timing is right and the issues resonate, successful protest movements can flourish and quickly grow into full-fledged revolutions, and revolutions can often degenerate into bloody civil wars.

Is America presently in the midst of such a potentially explosive scenario? Unfortunately, the signs appear to be more and more ominous. Since those traumatic events of September 11, 2001, this nation has been resolutely dividing itself into two increasingly hostile and irreconcilable camps. That reasonable 'middle ground', traditionally amenable to compromise, has been steadily shrinking until it has become all but hypothetical. It has been argued, not unconvincingly, that not since those anxious years in the mid-Nineteenth Century, prior to our perhaps inevitable, but monstrously destructive Civil War, has this great country been so split asunder.
Once again, the split is to be between Republican and Democrat, Right and Left, but this November's election will not be between the traditional Republican Right and the traditional Democratic Left; but rather between an ascendant but conflicted New Left, and a beleaguered and conflicted New Right.

This New Age Democratic Party is torn between the Hillary Clinton Political New Left of old-style Democratic politics -- i.e., pro-labor, pro-big government, "One World", Socialistic agenda -- whose ultimate goal however appears to many to be primarily a personal return to political power, and the charismatic Barack Obama's Cultural New Left, an idealistic social movement, which views political power as simply a means to an end, the end being the implementation of sweeping cultural changes in our American society. Each in their own way are ideological products of the Sixties. But, as destructive as the victory of either candidate would ultimately be to our cherished American Dream, of the two, the prospects of an Obama presidency are by far the most alarming.

Despite his oft-repeated promises to "bring America together", by his own words and actions and revealing personal associations -- and that of his prospective First Lady -- for all of his undeniable charismatic appeal, Barack Hussein Obama is simply a racist. His vision of America is racist, and his solutions to our problems are racist. His appeal is to those backward-looking, self-destructive forces of negativity and defeatism inherent in all cultures at all times. His song is not a new one, it's that same same old seductive siren song of victimization which has lured countless gullible societies to their doom -- 'You deserve more than what you have, and you would have more than you presently have, had you not been victimized by Them, the Enemy, the Other -- the colonialist, the Jews, or the Whites.'Thus, in Barack Obama's skewered vision, America is to be seen as a battleground: it is to be Us versus Them again. The historically suppressed colored peoples of this world versus the ruthless and domineering post-colonialist Whiteys. His appeal is to the politically naive or the purposefully ignorant, those who willfully, for their own selfish motivations, deny all political and cultural progress and achievement, no matter how obvious. Far from the high-minded rhetoric of their humanistic speeches, they are simply the latest genus of that same old species of self-serving politicians -- devious, amoral and cynical. They are intellectually, emotionally, and often financially invested in defeat. They are the dangerous products of protest movements gone awry.

As history has repeatedly proven, once a nascent protest movement begins to succeed and achieve a certain level of public acceptance and validation, it can easily devolve into an entrenched political entity, virtually indistinguishable from any other entrenched political entity, with its own newly-acquired set of selfish goals and objectives. This new political entity no longer has one single clear cut societal agenda (i.e. the Cause); their efforts now become divided. One of their most important goals inevitably becomes self-perpetuation -- often by even more ruthless means than the original tyranny against which they successfully battled. At some point, this political survivalist mentality can, and usually does, completely subsume the lofty goals of the original movement. Thus a new -- and perhaps even more dangerous tyranny is born. A tyranny, like all tyrannies, whose primary mission is to sustain itself at all costs.How many times during these last few turbulent centuries have we seen this fateful scenario play itself out on the world's stage -- in Robespierre's France, in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba -- all with invariably murderous consequences?

But what happens if the primary goals of the original protest movement are actually realized? Does the movement then merely melt away and quietly re-assimilate itself back into that society which it has successfully transformed? Hardly. The movement's leaders have too much invested in the Cause to simply disband their troops and ride off into the sunset. Through the Cause these leaders have achieved power, and power seldom voluntarily walks off the stage.

But with their original goals accomplished and their real or theoretical enemies defeated, what possible purpose can be served by their continuing existence? They have now essentially become Rebels Without a Cause. How, then, can they perpetuate their own legitimacy? The answer of course is to ignore the reality of their victories and create new enemies -- or to somehow skillfully resurrect the old ones.

Virtually every successful revolutionary movement which has morphed into a tyranny has sustained itself in this manner. The once fanatical revolutionaries are now battling counter-revolutionaries. Their entire raison d'etre has now become to prosecute this never-ending battle to purportedly protect the achievements of the Glorious Revolution from its innumerable reactionary enemies. This is an unalterable prerequisite to their survival; there can be no successful tyranny without enemies. Thus the Revolution becomes a perpetual 'work-in-progress', a never-ending war. Now, ironically, to admit success would be to admit defeat. They must continuously convince their followers, or subjects, that they are constantly under siege from these relentless counter revolutionary forces. The leaders are now to be viewed as society's protectors, protecting the helpless vulnerables from the predatory Enemy. And if perchance there is no viable predatory enemy, then they must create one.

The American -- and eventually, world-wide -- protest movements of the 1960s provide us with a perfect example of this ultimately self-destructive paradigm, which -- due in large part to America finding itself in the midst of yet another contentious and unpopular war -- is drawing us once again into its deadly vortex. The protest movements of the Sixties produced some truly remarkable changes for the better in our American society. But there was also a dark side. Part of the message of the Sixties was the message of helplessness. It is "attempting to cure the alcoholic by convincing him that he has good reason to drink". Its well-intentioned but deadly condescension has brought us the bleak realities of inner city despair. The self-perpetuating crime-ridden, drug-infested, inter-generational poverty and hopelessness of the Seventies. And now, they are bringing us this devastating message once again.

The Seventies: The Bleak Landscape of Victimization:
Does it matter that Barack Hussein Obama is at least partially black? Yes, tremendously. Not to us, but to Barack Hussein Obama. It is the very essence of his being, the banner of his Crusade. Without the 'race issue', Barack Obama would be just another politician. It is his focus and his justification. And, if we are not careful it will become ours: there are many among us who have unwittingly bought into the false premise that all of the existential threats we face in this turbulent world are of our own making. They are not evidence of our real enemies evil intentions, but rather the results of our own inherent racism and prejudice. And they will proudly cast their vote for Barack Hussein Obama merely to prove to themselves and to the world that they are not racists.

However, it is certainly fair to ask, if race or color are still truly overriding factors with the American public, then how is it that we exhibited no such national hang-ups when coping with Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice? And if race and gender are still the salient issues they were in the Furious Sixties, then how does one explain the current makeup of our Democratic Presidential Candidates? One a woman, one a black? It's a pretty difficult argument to sustain.To all but the most blind and biased liberals, the surprising victories of the Feminist and Civil Rights movements of the Sixties have been nothing short of astonishing. How anyone in today's America can watch television, go to a movie, listen to popular music, or read a national newspaper and come away feeling that either blacks or women are underrepresented is incomprehensible. Today there are women and blacks -- and, yes, lesbians and homosexuals and transgenders -- in every conceivable facet of American life -- in the military, the media, the business world, sports, entertainment, politics. Only those deeply invested in a contrarian agenda would be cynical enough to deny it.

We, the United States of America, have come closer in this Twenty-First Century to achieving a pure meritocracy than any other civilization in history. But will this undeniable fact impress those self-doomed generational victims and their professional enablers? Hardly. For these aging warriors of the Sixties and their current ideological offspring the very concept of victory is an unpleasant, perhaps even a deadly admission. For without a battle, what use are warriors? If gender-based and racial parity have actually been achieved, then what possible use do we have for a Gloria Steinem or an Al Sharpton ? What, then, can these poor dispossessed Bands of Brothers -- or, more often, Sororities of Sisters -- do with their disbanded warriors ? What roles can there be in today's meritocracy for a NOW or an NAACP? Those roles which would actually benefit man -- or womankind, they have, to their everlasting dishonor, steadfastly refused to even consider. These disenfranchised organizations could help to change the world, but they cannot get past their own deflated and bruised egos. The feminists could be rising as one powerful voice in support of their oppressed sisters in Islam; and the black activists could be wooing their brothers and sisters away from the devastating consequences of a life lived as a victim. But they don't. They won't. To keep themselves in power, to preserve their personal tyrannies, they choose rather to perpetuate the myth, and seal the plight of the true victims of this world.

To vote for Barrack Hussein Obama and his dark vision of America is to vote for defeatism and negativity. It is willfully turning your back on the hope and promise of this wondrous meritocracy we call America. It is buying into the outrageous lie that America itself is the problem, and that only by changing the whole concept of Americanism can we hope to cure the evils of this world.

Would electing Barack Obama mean the destruction of America?
Only you can decide.

Read more from this blogger
The views expressed in these blog posts are those of the author and not of the Chicago Sun-Times.


  1. Excellent article Roger. "I firmly believe that if Barack Hussein Obama wins this crucial election there is a real possibility that America as we know it will cease to exist, America will be destroyed." Yes.

  2. As always, Roger, extraordinarily well thought out.

    I've thought for years that the problem with the modern Democratic party is that it has been hijacked by 60's radicals and those who were primarily influenced by them. My take on this is not so much that they have vanquished their foes but that they've become them. It was a movement that was obsessed with destroying "the establishment". Unlike most anti-establishment movements, they didn't destroy and replace the enemy, they simply moved into the enemy's offices and assumed their roles. As such, I think that this version of the party is constantly working out some self-loathing angst. That's why all of its motivations seem so negative and often un-American.

    The country has been suffering through this "acting out" by the old hippies for too long now. We may never have normal political discourse in this country again if they get to indoctrinate a new generation of Democratic voters. I had hoped that Obama's bucking of the establishment to oppose Hillary Clinton would lead the party in a new way. I truly believe that this country needs two committed, patriotically focused parties to function properly (the one party system is frightening). Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment scurried behind him as soon as they realized they could market his freshness and newness. He might as well be from Pelosi's and Boxer's generation.

  3. Thank you very much Stephen for those kind words and interesting observations.

  4. I agree, frightening. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we're also in for a big dose of "inevitable" no matter which path we choose. Win or lose, those subscribers to the New Left movement will rip us all to shreds. Any number of entities are coalescing, forming the "perfect storm" of THIS century, and its effects will be far more devastating than those of the Civil War and the Great Depression combined. I've long said there will be a revolution in this country, a "Second Civil War," if you will, and its effects will ripple across the globe.

    We're being carried to Hell in a green and yellow basket by a girl in pigtails and bows, and only a few have seen what is lurking behind her pretty blue eyes.

  5. Well written Roger. Stephen is absolutely right. The so-called anti-establishment movement of the sixties did not change anything. They just became the establishment. Which is funny for they were told by the establishment at the time (i.e their parents) that this would happen.

    It is easy to criticize but harder to govern.

    And yes I'm terrified at the thought of Nobama becoming President.

  6. Thanks Findalis. And I agree absolutely.

  7. Good stuff Roger and from all commenters. All I can add is what a told a friend a few weeks ago, after seeing more clips of Obama's trip abroad.

    I simply said, "Barack Obama doesn't wish to be President of the United States of America...he really has his sites set on a Global position of Authority."

    It's my view that Barack Obama is one of the few Americans who hasn't recoiled at what has happened to the European countries with their progressive Socialism and dhimmification. Obama embraces those attributes of Europe and wishes to curse us with them. And it wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear that Michelle Obama was much prouder of Europe as an adult, than America.

  8. The 1960's started an immoral decline in this country. This is when victimhood began. when out-of-wedlock children became the norm, when not holding a job became championed. Then some of the hippies decided being broke all the time and hanging out doing all that stuff they did, wasn't profitable. Then they DID become the establishment, but in an "anything goes" kind of way - very different from their parents. The rings around white collar crimes were bigger and deeper.

    Then came the Clinton and what the meaning of is is.

    We'll never be the same.
    There's too much money at stake for Congress. They have no honor.

    Great post, as always. Roger - the master of essay.


  9. Barack Obama represents the far-left socialist in America. Europeon countries have been governed by far-left socialist governments for years now and wish they had never allowed them into power. America is a few steps behind, but hindsight is 20/20, and since Americans have been given the opportunity to see what happens to countries that vote in politicians with socialist agendas, they better take a good look at their future if they vote in Barack Obama.