just a little spin....... why arent the people who voted for Obama Patriots as well ??? or is the hypocrisy in the article overlooked for some reason i can't grasp??
First, and most notable, more than 57 million American Patriots showed up to vote on Tuesday -- This battle is lost, but the war is not. Stand firm, Patriots. Stand ready. Let's roll. On Nov 8, 11:07 am, "Keith In Tampa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that Mark Alexander sums it up best, my sentiments exactly! This is > a good, introspective article. Its time to pick up the pieces and move > forward! > > ============== > ** > *PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE > *Majority fools... > By Mark Alexander > > http://patriotpost.us/ > > This has been an historic week -- for two reasons. > > First, and most notable, more than 57 million American Patriots showed up to > vote on Tuesday -- this despite having been swamped with Leftmedia reports > fawning over the messianic Barack Obama, reports that the election was over, > and reports that John McCain was defeated. > > In the face of all the negatives, 57 million of our countrymen did what > Patriots always do -- put country first and cast their vote for what is good > and right about our great nation. We were unified by our recognition that > the high office of the presidency deserves a man of great and demonstrable > character. We were unified by the knowledge that constitutional integrity is > dependant upon the selection of Supreme Court judges who will abide by the > plain language of our Constitution rather than amend it by judicial diktat. > We understand that if we are not a nation of laws, a republic, then we are a > nation of men imposing their will upon others, a democracy. The latter > always leads to tyranny. > > John McCain was beset by the worst economic crisis in decades (the direct > result of Democrat legislation to undermine free enterprise by rigging > mortgage markets), a sitting president who has been relentlessly demeaned > and atrociously attacked by liberals and their media, and costly but > essential wars on two major fronts, which the public has been told should > not be fought. (When was the last time any liberal openly pondered the > consequences had we not launched OEF and OIF?) > > Yet, of the 120 million ballots cast on Tuesday, McCain would be our > president-elect if just 500,000 voters in eight key battleground states > opted for him instead of Barack Obama. (Just imagine what the political > landscape would look like if the mass media was composed of objective > journalists rather than Leftist campaign hacks.) > > Second, this has been an historic week because a majority of American voters > were lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is > best described as "cult worship," with all its attendant deception. Never > before has the collective idiocy of a nation been so galvanized in support > of one of their own, Barack Hussein Obama. > > In his victory speech Tuesday night, Obama said, "If there is anyone out > there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible > ... tonight is your answer. It's been a long time coming, but tonight ... > change has come to America. This victory alone is not the change we seek. It > is only the chance for us to make that change." > > Ah yes, "change" -- a euphemism for constitutional abrogation. BO's mantra > -- can you smell it? > > What follows are a few other observations from this "historic week." > > Trudging through the smoldering debris of Tuesday's O-bomb, I have completed > my post mortem. Unlike all the party punditry, who tend to form circular > firing squads, here is a viewpoint far removed from the ubiquitous opinions > of Beltway political hacks and media talkingheads. > > First, when the Democrats ran the most uber-leftist member of their party, > Republicans thought they could run a centrist who could make the case that > he swings both ways. Unfortunately, in a time when Congress has far lower > ratings than the historically low ratings of the sitting president, a > centrist who is indistinguishable from the problem is not perceived to be > the solution, no matter how great his patriotic pedigree. > > Second, McCain ran his campaign like George H.W. Bush in 1992, when Bill > Clinton defeated him. Who can forget Bush, in the last debate with Clinton, > looking with disdain at his watch as if to say, "Are we done yet?" > > McCain campaigned as if he had it won. He campaigned as a diplomat, not a > warrior, and diplomats get their hindquarters kicked by warriors. He called > himself a "maverick" (if I never hear that word again it will be too soon), > and, indeed, he was once a great warrior, but after 22 years in the Senate, > the "house of lords," the "deliberative body," he had lost his warrior > spirit. > > On the other hand, Obama approached this campaign as if he had been steeped > in the effluent of radical Socialism, racism and anti-American sentiments > since birth. He did what modern liberals do best: foment discontent, anger, > division, greed, victimization ... you know the routine. > > By the time McCain figured out that he'd have to rekindle his inner warrior > spirit, it was too late. > > Of course, then came the housing collapse and the subsequent stock market > crash, and the credit crisis, followed by cascading consumer confidence, and > the inevitable Leftmedia blaming of the party of McCain. > > But there was one more major factor. Unlike 2004, there was no video message > from al-Qa'ida's Osama bin Laden the weekend before the election; no message > to remind Americans that we are one terrorist nuke away from a toasted urban > center. > > Osama's "October Surprise" shaved decisive votes from John Kerry's lead in > just three days. One might conclude that Osama wised up this time around, in > order to get his man elected. Tuesday was a happy day for jihadis around the > world, but a sad one for those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Citizens of these > two countries have, with a little help from our Armed Forces, tasted freedom > for the first time in decades, and they now fear an American retreat, the > implications of which are dire for the entire region. > > One final observation: Some have suggested that this campaign was all about > class warfare, rich v. poor. Indeed, that was a core message, but this > campaign was really about dirt v. concrete. Obama received most of his > support from urbanites, as one can clearly discern from all those > county-by-county maps of election results. > > Seems the further away some folks get from the self-sufficiency of the land, > the more inclined they are to become dependent on the state. However, the > fact is that concrete dwellers are completely dependent on the production of > suburban and rural areas of our nation, those areas that are firmly under > Patriot control. (Don't repeat this, because it causes a lot of heartburn > among the majority of city folk who have surrendered to serfdom.) > > So, for all those mindless minions whose heads have been stuck in the O-zone > for the last year: You got what you wanted. Now what? > You recall that the only power that politicians have is the power to collect > and redistribute wealth -- to tax and spend. I heard once that there was a > great revolution over this issue, something about taxation without > representation... > > Consider how many times Obama has said that he thinks "people who have done > well like me" should pay higher taxes. If that is the case, then why didn't > he? I checked, and The One has never paid a dime more in taxes than the > minimum required by law. > > In regard to Obama's plan to confiscate the wealth of others, in his > infomercial a week prior to the election, he said, "Just because I want to > spread the wealth around, they call me a socialist. The next thing you know, > they will call me a communist because I shared my peanut butter sandwich in > kindergarten!" > > Of course, Obama isn't proposing to "share" his sandwich. Instead, he's > proposing to confiscate your sandwich, by force if necessary, and give it to > someone he deems more worthy, under the assumption that you aren't > charitable enough to share it yourself. > > However, exhibiting that most universal of traits common to liberals, > hypocrisy, it turns out that the Obamas reported an average annual income of > more than $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, but they gave a measly two percent > of their income for charitable purposes. > > So much for "spreading the wealth around." > > Regarding constitutional liberty, Obama has twice taken an oath to "support > and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, > foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." > > He does not honor that oath because he subscribes to the errant notion of a > "Living Constitution" which, in his own words, "breaks free from the > essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the > Constitution." > > Clearly, as the next commander in chief, he has no intention of honoring his > presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the > United States," but I suspect most of our uniformed Patriots will. > > Obama's executive, legislative and judicial agendas pose a greater threat to > American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great > republic. He'll likely appoint two or even three left-wing jurists to the > High Court in his first (and we hope only) term. > > Expect a concerted effort by the executive, legislative and judicial > branches to undermine the First, Second and Tenth Amendment rights of > citizens, and restrictions on the central government. > > However, Obama and his radical Leftists should not underestimate the concern > tens of millions of my fellow Patriots share about the assault on our > Constitution that will ensue on 20 January 2009. When the next > administration commences to trample on our Constitution -- and they will -- > they risk the potential of civil disobedience at least equal in proportion > to the degree of constitutional violation. > > Thomas Jefferson insisted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time > to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Could Americans take up > arms against each other, Patriots in defense of our Constitutional Republic? > Surely not again. However, anyone who thinks this prospect is preposterous > should put their ear closer to the ground. > > Many American Patriots believe, as did Thomas Paine, "If there must be > trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." > Speaking of concerns, have you read about Barack Obama's "National Service > Plan," which he proposed because, in his words, "We've got to have a > civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, > just as well-funded [as the military]"? This is his version of Bill > Clinton's AmeriCorps, and it is an Orwellian plan to employ legions of his > sycophants in the service of his administration. He proposes spending more > on this "plan" than our current budget for national defense. > > Read all about it in an upcoming edition. > > As for our national security in the next four years, what new can I say > about this issue? Well, just this: I wonder how the election of Obama will > affect military recruitment, enlistments and re-enlistments? Slim prospects > for jobs in the private sector may prop up the military census, but in the > unlikely event that Obama backs off his tax-and-spend agenda, and the > economy improves, military recruiters will have their work cut out. > > Some are insisting that liberals can't keep playing the race card now that a > black man has been elected president (even though less than half of Obama's > family line is of African origin). But liberals are totally dependent on > cultivating constituencies of victims in order to perpetuate their tenure in > public office. As long as there is a Democrat in Washington, they will > continue to insist that the nation is replete with racial and social > injustice (which, they fail to tell us, is the result of liberal economic > and social policies), and that the only salvation for the victims of such > injustice is, you guessed it, to re-elect the liberals who perpetuate it. > > While 95 percent of blacks voted for Barack Obama, it should be noted that > one of the most courageous groups of people in the entire nation is the four > percent of black men and women who voted for John McCain. One of these > Patriots lives on my street, and he told me recently that back when "the > black community" found out he voted against Bill Clinton, it cost him and > his family dearly. That notwithstanding, he displayed a McCain/Palin sign in > front of his house and voted accordingly. > > On Election Day, another neighbor, who apparently had a few Patriot essays > forwarded to her, felt compelled to write me a note defending her support > for Obama: "I am a very patriotic person, a post-college/graduate school > educated person, a consistent churchgoer and dedicated mother, a firm > believer in a woman's right to choose, and a strong Democrat." > > I mention the above only to include the last line of her note: "There are a > lot of people in our community who feel the same way I do." After all, isn't > this all about "feelings"? > > Ask liberals about some manifestation of their worldview -- for example, why > they support charlatans like Obama, the Clintons, Albert Arnold Gore, John > Kerry, et al. -- and invariably they will tell you how they feel. That's why > you can't reason with them. Logic and emotions are like oil and water. > > Fortunately, the majority of my community, my state and my region of our > great nation cast their votes on the basis of reason, logic and good > judgment, not "feelings." > > Finally, as I ponder the "historic changes" of the past week, my first > response has been to pray. I know many of you are responding likewise. > > This battle is lost, but the war is not. Stand firm, Patriots. Stand ready. > Let's roll. > > ObamaVictoryCelebration_TrueColors.jpg > 90KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
