Does Ridding Ourselves of Obama Solve Our Problems?

On July 28th Obama was interviewed on “The View”.  The next day, Sam Youngman wrote an article entitled, “President Obama calls African-Americans a ‘mongrel people’”, which was published in “The Hill”.  One of the comments made by readers reveals an interesting political response:

BY YAWNNNNNNN on 07/29/2010 at 11:24:

GEORGE, FACT: On Election Day 2008, much was made of the increased turnout that Mr. Obama inspired among young voters and African-Americans, and to be sure that fattened his margin. But he won the White House because, the exit polling showed, he got 49% of men, 43% of whites and 52% of independents. Each of these three groups individually makes up a larger share of the electorate than blacks and young people combined. In July 2009, Obama had actually grown that support so that he was getting a thumbs-up job approval from 54% of men, 51% of whites and 52% of independents. But today, the numbers for those three groups show just how far he has fallen. He gets a positive job approval from just 37% of whites, 38% of independents and 39% of men – a roughly 30% drop in all three groups in his support. And the bleeding has spread to his fellow progressive Democrats on Capitol Hill. In July 2009, voters said by 42%-34% that they would back a progressive Democrat for Congress; today, they said they prefer a Republican, 43%-38%. The drop-off among the various demographic groups is similar to that for the coward-liar-teleprompterrea ding-in-chief.

Statistics like these are encouraging to those who look forward to “getting rid of Obama”.  But there is a danger in thinking that getting rid of Obama will “solve” the nation’s problems.  Remember the bumper stickers from the 2008 election that urged: “Anyone But Hillary”?  We got “Anyone” but where did that get us?

The American public still doesn’t seem to understand that “change” isn’t just the result of one man’s efforts.  Obama has the senate and the house in his pocket.  He’s working on the judiciary.  In the meantime, it was a Clinton appointee who ruled in favor of his administration’s lawsuit  against Arizona.  Obama’s appointments are characterized by individuals who have un-American, subversive, even communist backgrounds.  It’s a matter of record.

But beyond the immediate problem of the lunatic fringe that comprises a significant part of the Obama administration, there are ranks without number of educated idiots waiting to replace them when a new President with his (or her?) new administration come into power.  These hoards are being cranked out of our Colleges and Universities, bringing with them the values and views not just of the Left, but of the one-worlders, the internationalists, the globalists.

Nothing is more important to them than saving the world.  That means we  must consider our shared international and regional goals more important than our little, petty, even evil national interests.  You see, it’s nationalism that causes the problems of the world.  And the nation who has had the greatest influence in the world is seen as the greatest villain.  Globalists consider it noble to say, “We are the world.” but brutish, selfish and ignorant to say, “I am proud to be an American; the original intent of our Constitution should be preserved; and we should honor our flag.”

Regardless of who is President, we will still continue to have globalists in government who will not rest until they have destroyed every vestige of American liberty and tradition.  And there seems to be a substantial number of adults today who fail to see the threat that globalism represents to our freedoms.  That’s what really troubles me.  For the last few generations, higher education has become more revisionist, more authoritarian and more perverted.

What I mean by ‘perverted’ is twisted.  It’s hard to get the straight truth anymore.  Journalism students are no longer taught to be objective.  They typically stick close to an agenda — more propaganda than reporting. The worst part of journalism today is that it has become entertainment.  A few sound bytes of information mixed liberally with attractive smiles and inane comments delivered quickly so you don’t really think about it. They are silent about anything they don’t want to you to hear.  Those who control news outlets don’t really want people to be informed about everything.  They couldn’t control how you think, if they did.

Law schools — surely they are bastions of justice and the noble struggle of right against wrong.  No again.  The philosophy of law has done a turnabout since the founding of this nation.  The writers of the Constitution were steeped in Natural Law, which assumes the absolute moral conditions of right and wrong.  But now, the “greatest” legal thinkers consider all that moral ‘rot’ to be relative, and that our laws should reflect the fluidity of changing morals.  There are no absolutes.  That means the Constitution may be reinterpreted to apply to changing standards.  It can mean whatever they want it to mean.

And what can be said about “science” today?  Has anyone proven the theory of evolution?  Some zealots believe so.  But their faith in evolution has opened their eyes to see something not so obvious to “disbelievers”. Another theory (creationism) is not allowed to be taught alongside evolution.  The claim that creationism is “religious’ and therefore not “scientific” is muddied by the fact that creation scientists (with real doctorate degrees) have done scientific research into creationism and published their findings.  They make scientific arguments that in an objective setting would be considered.  More numerous than creationists are scientists who adhere to the “intelligent design” theory.  But the problem is these unapproved theories are heresies. They are unacceptable to the “consensus” of those in power — those who approve who gets into what doctoral program and who gets peer reviewed.

Wait a minute!  I thought the question of the freedom to pursue SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY was settled by the Scopes ‘Monkey’ trial.  I thought all the evolutionists wanted was the freedom to teach evolution ALONGSIDE creationism.  No, no, no.  What they really wanted to do was to replace creationism with evolution, because they see “religion” in conflict with “science”.  However, scientists who are more comfortable with the theory of creationism don’t see that there is a conflict.  What role does SCIENCE play in this disagreement, compared to the role played by POLITICS?

And finally, speaking of the confluence of science and politics, what’s the deal with global warming?  This is the biggest hoax of our time.  The only fact surrounding global warming is that it is a natural, cyclical phenomenon.  It is not man-made and it can’t be stopped by altering human activity.  The fact is that we have actually been in a cooling cycle for the past 12 years.  Idiots point to the fact that the arctic ice cap is melting, but fail to admit that the antarctic ice cap has been growing.  And there has not been the anticipated rise in sea levels.  Suckers moan about how the poor polar bears are drowning because of melting ice, ignoring the statistics that clearly show a growing polar bear population for the past 35 years.  All the computer models, research and data are all bogus.  It’s all a lie.  But Al Gore insisted there was a “consensus”.

Global warming is all about global governmental controls.  The United Nations (made up of a majority of non-democratic nations) has been working for years to establish the authority to tax Americans.  Global warming is one way to do that.  If they get enough people (in our own government) to believe the lie, they can begin to put the squeeze on us.  Another way is through the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would give the United Nations control over drilling for oil (or mining) off our own shores.  We would end up needing permission from them to drill and have to pay them fees to do so.

But the globalists aren’t stopping there.  Treaties are already being put in place which will give the United Nations the authority to send “peace keeping” troops into the U.S.A. without even consulting us.  That’s why both the U.N. and American globalists want to ban the private ownership of firearms, because right now, we could do a fair job of discouraging such an incursion.  Globalists aren’t looking out for American interests. They want the power and authority of a one world government.  And our national interests just get in the way.

That is why it is of the utmost importance to elect government officials who take actions (not just give lip service) to defend America’s national interests.  Regardless of conservative or liberal leanings, I do not trust most Republican or Democrat leaders.  Both major political parties have abandoned nationalism as something to fight for.  Look for candidates in the “third” parties and vote for those who represent your views.  If not, start learning the words to “We Are The World”.

Advertisements

About retiredday

I am Michael D. Day, a regular, everyday guy -- retired. I stand for God-given freedom, which means I think for myself. I believe in being civil, because the Bible teaches that we should love our enemies. But I also believe in saying it how I see it, and explaining just why I see it that way, sort of like 2 Timothy 4:2.
This entry was posted in Globalism, Obama, Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Does Ridding Ourselves of Obama Solve Our Problems?

  1. mode20100 says:

    A+ would read again

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s