Scary! Madness of the Tea Party (video)

Miss*Bijou · Oct 29, 2010

.

It is as if a group of moderately talented performers has walked on stage at a comedy club on Improv night. Each hears a shout from the audience, consisting of a bizarre but just barely plausible fear or hatred or neurosis or prejudice.

And the entertainment of the evening is for each to take their thin, absurd premise, and build upon it a campaign for governor or congressman or senator. The problem is, of course, when it turns out there is no audience shouting out gags, just a cabal of corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and political insider bloodsuckers like Karl Rove and Dick Armey and the Chicken Little Chorus of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

And the instructions are not to improvise a comedy sketch, but to elect a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward** to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.

Result: the Tea Party. Vote backward, vote Tea Party.

In a special twenty-minute commentary, Keith Olbermann blisteringly indicts this election season’s wave of “tea party candidates,” entirely by quoting their own words. The picture revealed is of “a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get.”

Really, this is worth watching. A small preview:

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, Sharron Angle, compared rape to, quoting, "a lemon situation in lemonade." She would deny an abortion even to a teenaged girl who had been raped by her own father.

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate to be the only Congressman in Delaware, Glen Urquhart, said "there is no problem that abortion can't make worse. I know good friends who are the product of rape."

Mr. Urquhart also does not believe the phrase "separation of church and state" was said by Thomas Jefferson.

He thinks it was Hitler: "The next time your liberal friends ask you about the separation of church and state, ask them why they are Nazis."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Ohio 9th, Rich Iott, not only ran around in a Nazi uniform celebrating their military tactics, but implies he is a Veteran and as late as this March listed his occupation as "soldier" even though the volunteer militia to which he belongs has never been called, will never be called, to any active service, in the 29 years in which he has belonged to it.

It's more than just dress-up. They mean business - literally. The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate for New Jersey's 3rd House seat, Jon Runyan, defended corporate tax loopholes: "Loopholes are there for a reason. They are to avoid people from really having to pay too many taxes."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, John Raese, explained, "I made **my** money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that's a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country."

The inheritance tax applies only to estates larger than $3.5 million. For the 99.8 percent of Americans not affected by the estate tax, there is the minimum wage, which Mr. Raese also wants abolished. Or there is Social Security.

I cannot believe people can be that dumb

...or even dumber and vote for these clowns? wtf? Anyway - Watch the video or read the transcript at MSNBC for the rest.

It gets better (or worse?

)..

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc5a0b34" classid="clsid

.

Bartdude · Oct 30, 2010

dood said:
the Tea party is a predictable reaction by the far right to the Obama administration. The United States of America is indeed in sorry shape, but little of it has to do with Obama. An economy and nation is like an Oak tree that is dying. The rot starts 10 years before it's toppled by the wind. The USA is much the same. Poor policies from both Clinton and Bush came a climax & now Obama runs the shit show. Predictably, folks like those in the Tea Party are quick to point out the current state of the government without mention the long road that brought the US to where it is. It parallels the auto industry. The failure of GM didn't happen last year, it started happening 25 years ago when it callously wrote off it's Japanese competition as "head gasket a day" (once the term for Honda). When Clinton offered the industry grant money to invest in hybrid's, they did nothing but the terrified Japanese stepped out....and here we are today.

For the record, I'm an Albertan & I tend to be very fiscally conservative. Sadly, the problem with being a Conservative in this day and age is that it seems in vogue to be a "ranting raving right wing moron" that plys the usual stereotypes instead of having thoughtful discussion. Ranting Tea Party types are the equivalent of ranting Union types that simply have an agenda & pay no attention to the complexities of the modern world. If no taxes & no business rules were the only reason for economic growth, Haiti would be more powerful than China.

This pretty much sums it up.

Shakerod · Oct 30, 2010

I can't believe there are still people out there that think Obama is doing anything on his own, he is being coached on every every move he makes, and has pretty much done the exact opposite of everything he campaigned on. Just look at the people he appointed to run the executive branch of his government. It is pretty much all Wall Street bankers. I have really woken up the last few years, as a staunch Democrat, I thought there was great hope when Obama was elected. I even voted for him. I am clearly seeing now that there are people higher up that are calling the shots. American's better wake the fuck up to this reality, and soon. In fact it might already be too late.

picknshvl · Oct 30, 2010

Thanks for posting that video Bijou, I love Kieth's commentaries. When Ronald Reagen took office, we (the U.S.) were the worlds leading creditor nation, now we are the world leading debtor. We imported more raw materials and exported more finished good then any other nation, now it's exactly opposite. These are the fruits of deregulation and supply side economics (reagan, thatcher and their ilk). In the glory years of America when everyone was working, mom stayed home with the kids, the economy was hummin along, the top marginal tax rate was between 75-90%. people didn't take huge salaries they put that money back into the company. CEO's made about 43x their average worker, reagan lowered the tax rate to 28%, now CEO's make about 400x times their average worker. Reagan was also anti union ( eventhough he was president of the screen actors guild at one time), union market share is almost non existant, except in the public sector. If you put money into the hands of working people they spend it, If you put money in the hands of rich people they stick it in their pocket. Pretty simple, it's suppose to be a government of, by and for the people, sad though it may be, it was bought and paid for long ago!

Stbljmpr · Oct 30, 2010

I am in agreement with alinburnaby. The US is bankrupt and not just financially. They have lost their integrity, compassion and heart. I am an American living in Canada. Trust me when I say that how ever bad it is here, you would not want to be there.

FunSugarDaddy · Oct 30, 2010

The problem Obama has, over and above the loss of jobs, is that he and to a certain extent George Bush, are forced to manage the expectations in American when the American empire is clearly declining. In my opinion, it likely would have have declined regardless of what Bush did, but starting two wars, and the associated cost of these wars, was like throwing gasoline on a small fire. The effect of these wars was to serious accelerate this decline. There are things that can be put in place to slow it down, and perhaps put their financial house in order but they're all tough measures. They would include cutting milliary spending significantly, adding a gasoline and a VAT tax (it the only country without one), and tackling many of the pension obligations the states and the federal government owes it's employees, which amount to about $5 trillion, in unfunded obligations, and rationalize health care, as the US pays double the health care costs that most western countries pay, on a per capita basis, and receive less positive outcomes.

juniper · Oct 30, 2010

Tea Partiers are an aggregate collection of (mainly) middle-class Americans who are frankly angry at the way O'Bama and his Democratic majority have run the USA into the ground. As such, they do not speak with one cohesive voice and, amongst them, can be found some ignorant elements. The overall effect, however, has been to vitalize opposition to O'Bama, his policies and activities.

The battle in America may be defined as the rights of individuals (Republicans) versus the wishes of the collective (Democrats). In addition, the battle may otherwise be defined as the incursion of big government in most walks of life (Democrats) versus a much more limited role of government (Republicans) in everyday life. It is ironic to see that some of the very people who promote the features of O'Bamaism, such as Bijou, and who maintain such a strict requirement for personal freedom in their personal lives, also advocate for a political system which encourages government control in many areas of everyday life, thereby limiting personal freedom.

Further differences include foreign policy in which O'Bama appears not to be aware of the dangers of Islamofascist regimes and even, like the good community organizer he apparently was, extends his hand to Islamofascist led countries while isolating America's real friends. Homegrown terrorism has continued to develop in the USA in the face of an American government which continues to espouse multiculturalism while European countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden) are not only having second thoughts but are challenging the very liberal mentality which brought this disease on in the first place. Americans, and with good reason, do not feel protected. Even in Canada, homegrown terrorism has become evident and, in spite of the liberal sentiment regarding unbridled multiculturalism and political correctness, Stephen Harper has exhibited a steadfastness that does our country honour.

O'Bama, himself, remains a mystery in terms of actual place of birth (in the USA or on foreign soil), college records and BA Honours Thesis, law school records at Harvard and complete lack of published research, the latter being puzzling given his apparently distinguished academic record. No president in recent history has lacked so much transparency. Given the internal disasters occurring in the USA under his leadership and the rise of Islamofascism outside the USA plus O'Bama's apparent disregard of, or inability to deal with, the enemy or, in the worst of all scenarios, his actual complicity with them, as well as the American public's growing distrust of the man himself, the fall of O'Bama is about to take place with the coming American elections.

After the elections in the USA are cleared away, and after the one-month hiatus when all the incumbents remain whether or not they have been ousted in the preceding election, one will see a huge turnabout in the House of Representatives where the Democrats, under O'Bama, had ruled with a significant majority. In addition, the majority of the governorships (thirty-seven out of one-hundred will be voted upon) will return to the Republican Party. The U.S. will also be voting on their own internal state representatives. These are more grassroot elections. It is expected that the Republicans will swarm in this area as well and this will have a more low-key but longlasting effect on American politics. The U.S. Senate is also being voted upon. There are thirty-seven seats of a total of one-hundred up for grabs as Senate seats are for six year terms and the voting for approximately one-third of the seats takes place every two years on an alternating basis. Changes in the composition of the Senate are therefore a more gradual procedure. Pundits, according to polls, are predicting a significant rise in the number of Republican Senators after the coming election but not quite sufficient to win a majority of seats. Of course, with the energy of the Tea Partiers and the general mood of the American people, angry at, and disappointed in, President O'Bama and the Democrats, the results of the coming election could be far more profound than what any recognized pollster has so far imagined.

I, myself, have become increasingly conservative in my own political views. I find that socalled liberals are not "liberal" at all but more demogogic in their respective outlooks. That means that they do not really countenance opposing views. As far as I am concerned, these "liberals" have betrayed the true meaning of liberalism. I associate this attitude with the Marxist and Democratic camps in the USA and with the NDP in Canada.

HankQuinlan · Oct 30, 2010

juniper said:
Tea Partiers are an aggregate collection of (mainly) middle-class Americans who are frankly angry at the way O'Bama and his Democratic majority have run the USA into the ground. As such, they do not speak with one cohesive voice and, amongst them, can be found some ignorant elements. The overall effect, however, has been to vitalize opposition to O'Bama, his policies and activities.

The battle in America may be defined as the rights of individuals (Republicans) versus the wishes of the collective (Democrats). In addition, the battle may otherwise be defined as the incursion of big government in most walks of life (Democrats) versus a much more limited role of government (Republicans) in everyday life. It is ironic to see that some of the very people who promote the features of O'Bamaism, such as Bijou, and who maintain such a strict requirement for personal freedom in their personal lives, also advocate for a political system which encourages government control in many areas of everyday life, thereby limiting personal freedom.

I call bullshit. You have been absorbing the Fox-type propaganda. The Tea Party candidates -- for the most part, including Rand Paul -- have been co-opted by the mainstream big money Karl Rove Republicans who have funded their rallies from the beginning. Most of the attendees are indeed frustrated middle-class whites protesting "big government" while collecting their Medicare benefits. They are angry because they see that their country is no longer meeting their dreams, and they see people in goverrnment who do not look like them.

The Republicans in reality have never been about smaller government; they just switch the huge expenses to the military industrial complex rather than social programs. The Democrats usually try to spend on both. And please -- if you mean the rights of the individual to own guns, and to reap huge profits from corporations, then Republicans are the way to go. If you interpret individual rights to mean control over your own body, then forget it -- they have had to go with the moralistic Christian wingnuts to shore up their support. No rights to abortion, drugs, health care, a decent education. No reform of Wall Street (not that the Democrats have done much either).

The only result of a Republican victory will be a return to ignorant Bush policies, and the loss of the (very small) gains made in the last couple of years. The money will still flow upward.

There will be no real reform when big money is in charge, and the tea baggers are not going to be the answer. They don't stand for anything but hate. A true party for change -- against the vested big-money interests -- will only come about when it is clear that it is too late the the country to recover.

And everything that is wrong in the US is part of our culture too -- it is just slower and less obvious, but we are on the same slide downhill.

By the way, when did Obama become Irish? Is your constant mispelling (O'Bama) some kind of tea party insult? I am genuinely curious as to the intent.

juniper · Oct 30, 2010

With respect to the spelling of Obama's name (O'Bama), it was my mistake, I imagined I had seen it spelled with an apostrophe, simple as that. Thanks for pointing out my error.

I enjoyed your respectful rebuttal, incidentally, Hank. It may well be that both the USA and Canada are going down the tubes. I see the external threat as Islamofascism. The internal threat is the utter inability of western democratic countries, so caught up in a bubbleheaded form of faux liberalism, to defend themselves. This includes a form of multiculturalism which denigrates and downgrades our respective home (native) cultures and an inability to grasp that other cultures do not ascribe to the same values as we do. Here I would refer to our shocking inability to deal with the mentality of Islamic terrorists and imagining that there is a possible common ground. The great historian, Arnold Toynbee, in his voluminous work on the history of the world's civilizations, pointed out that all civilizations, except one (I think it was the Incas) were significantly weakened internally when destroyed by foreign powers. This is not a good legacy to leave our children.

chilli · Oct 30, 2010

Juniper are you really so clueless? Or are you just trying to rewrite history because you seem like your Glenn Beck's Bitch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble...Relief_Program

"The Troubled Asset Relief Program, commonly referred to as TARP or RCP, is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector which was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis."

"On December 19, 2008, President Bush used his executive authority to declare that TARP funds may be spent on any program that Secretary of Treasury, Henry Paulson, [19] deems necessary to avert the financial crisis. This has allowed President Bush to extend the use of TARP funds to support the auto industry, a move supported by the United Auto Workers."

As some of you may or not be aware Bush appointed Henry Paulson as the US Treasury Secretary who used to work for Sachs as their CEO.

Time had this to say about Paulson:

"In 2008, Time named Paulson as a runner-up for its Person of the Year 2008, saying, with reference to the Global Financial Crisis of 2008: "if there is a face to this financial debacle, it is now his."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...us_Act_of_2008

On the US Gov'ts Stimulus Plan.

"It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush with the support of a majority of Democratic lawmakers, as well as a minority of Republicans"

Now those are the facts - that have somehow been spin doctored into Obama's fault.

Obama (who the fuck cares where he was born, you freakin racist) walked into this mess.

When Bush left office, this is what he left for the next incoming President.

ie:
*4-6 trillion dollars in debt for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
*No Child Left Behind (not paid for)
*Medicare Part D (not paid for)
*30% of US manufacturing jobs left for overseas in the 8 years of Bush's administration.
*1 in 8 homes in foreclosure when Bush left office.

And here's the worst of the worst...

A RECORD *600,000 to 700,000 thousand Americans were losing their jobs per month when Bush left office.

I have news for you Jiniper - any President who took over that kind of MESS - was never going to meet anyone's expectations of being able to fix it.

Republicans / Democrats / Conservatives / Liberals - their all responsible - I'll give you that - but Bush really outdid himself.

Bush was a mental midget a point Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Goofball and now you, would all like us to all conveniently forget.

juniper · Oct 30, 2010

Chili--"(who the fuck cares where he was born, you freakin racist)": Inevitably, someone has to get hot under his head while displaying his ignorance when talking politics. In this case, Chili, the rule of law in the USA is that a president must be born in the USA, no way around it. It has always been the case. Requiring this does not make me, or anyone, a "racist". This condition applies to anyone and everyone holding the presidential office in the USA. Noting that Obama's birthplace is problematic and that copies of his birth certificate (as well as other questions about his private life as noted in my previous post) are not made public also does not make me a "racist". I'd prefer to assume that you will regret your remark after reading this post, Chili. And I hope that my referral to American constitutional law has been educational.

Ray · Oct 30, 2010

I see the external threat as Islamofascism. The internal threat is the utter inability of western democratic countries, so caught up in a bubbleheaded form of faux liberalism, to defend themselves.

Are you horrified that Calgary has a Muslim mayor?

Multiculturism in North America and Europe are two completely different matters.

In North America, immigrants came to start a new life and become part of the landscape. For the most part, they integrate, speak the language, and the kids being born here don't connect to whereever their parents came from. 'They' become 'us'.

In Europe, the situation was different. After the great wars, Europe needed skilled workers to rebuild it's society and it's factories. They asked and recieved workers from their former colonies. Europe saw it's immigrants as 'guests'. Meaning at some time, they were supposed to leave.
There was no attempt at making the workers integrate. There was no need. They weren't supposed to stay long.
But something else happened. It was the Europeans that started emigrating. To North America. Which meant the factories needed even more 'guest workers', not less.
This situation has compounded for 3 generations now, which is why Europe is where it is at with it's immigrant communities.

The ones who grew up in Europe aren't going back to a third world country with it's lack of economic opportunities. They want to stay, work, build their places of worship, which terrifies the locals. Because the reality is hitting home that the foreigners are no longer guests, but 'locals'.

The Tea Party appears to be a dumbing down of Republican Party leadership. They appear to be targeting an emotional response by preying on people's fears. There is no intellectual discussion taking place.
As has been noted by others on this thread, what we are seeing is a slow, gradual decline of the American Era. The party is over, and now it's time to face the bill. People are not capable of facing this reality.
The 2 ruinous wars egged on by arrogance by the previous administration is how the US got to this point.
It no longer matters what Obama does or what his successor does. They're screwed.

juniper · Oct 30, 2010

Looks like my original post to you, Ray, didn't make it so if this a duplicate, just say it's a poster's error. At any rate, I'm delighted Calgary has a Muslim mayor provided this mayor is a proud Canadian and not a homegrown terrorist nor a sympathizer of Islamofascism. I do not know anything about him, incidentally, so I am not suggesting there is anything problematic about him. I am in favour of all immigrants who come here to work, to educate themselves and/or their children, who strive to live honest lives and who wish to contribute to our society while bringing in a taste of their own (former) culture. This would be to our (Canada's) benefit. I am against a form of multiculturalism which values other peoples' cultures more than our own, however. I am against a form of multiculturalism in which we apologize for what we are (as Obama seems to do even in the most outrageous cases when dealing with the heads of state where constitutional rights which we take for granted are strongly discouraged if not disallowed). And I am against homegrown terrorism of the kind seen in the Khadr family or in the Toronto 18 or of the kind so often perpetuated with such deadly consequences in the USA. So my question for you, Ray, is, how do you see such terrorism in our own country and in the USA? Why do you think this has come about? Do you think Obama could do a better job in obstructing it? Do you think Obama's attitudes perpetuate it? Do you think homegrown terrorism is of any significance? I'd just like your intelligent reflections on the subject, Ray.

Ray · Oct 31, 2010

Why do you think this has come about?

My personal opinion only, and opinions formed from reading the statements made by the scumbags as to why they did what they did:

A lot of these individuals are immigrants from countries that are presently being attacted in the 'War on Terror'. A misnomer, if you ask me, because it isn't fighting terror, but creating it. Seeing the high civilian death toll enrages a number of people who came from these countries, and leads some to carry out acts of revenge.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism/index.html

You seem to be hung up on Obama. It wasn't Obama's actions that triggered all this, he inherited this mess.
And of course, we are all against the 'home-grown' terror that we have been witnessing lately.

One of the reasons that groups like Al-Qaeda exist and find supporters is that they live under stifling dictatorships that are supported and armed by those same countries that claim to champion democracy and human rights.
The people can see the hypocracy in the words and deeds of our elected leaders.

During the Cold War, the world was mostly divided under 'Democratic West' and 'Communist East' with some nations in between becoming members of the 'Non-Aligned States' who did not take sides and tried to maintain relations with all.

In Eastern Europe, and South America, there were a number of democratic movements that sprung up. They were put down harshly, but they did not give up. They recieved support from the democratic nations.
Eventually, the democratic movements won over in their societies and communism collapsed.

What most don't know is that at the same time, there were similar democratic movements in the Muslim world. For reasons unknown to us, the major western powers did NOT support the movements within the Muslim world, and decided to create cozy relationships with the various dictatorships.
The members of the various democratic movements within the Muslim world were left to hang. Literally.
A number of these movements were identified as 'terrorists' because the dictatorships said so.

Google Rachid Ghannouchi. (Tunisia.)
Look at how the military uprising in Algeria to overthrow the democratically elected government is called an 'Islamist uprising'.
I think most people are aware by now of how the US overthrew the democratically elected secular government of Mossadegh in Iran and imposed the Shah and trained his terror police, the SAVAK to eliminate the democracy movement. The rise of the Ayatollahs was a backlash to that. And unfortunately, the situation for the Iranian people has not improved one bit.

This, my friends, is 'why they hate us'.

Is it going to get better?
The US government just signed an agreement to sell $60billion in military hardware to the Saudis.
Further entrenches the dictatorships.
Al-Qaida continues to get recruits.

hunsperger · Oct 31, 2010

dood said:
the Tea party is a predictable reaction by the far right to the Obama administration. The United States of America is indeed in sorry shape, but little of it has to do with Obama. An economy and nation is like an Oak tree that is dying. The rot starts 10 years before it's toppled by the wind. The USA is much the same. Poor policies from both Clinton and Bush came a climax & now Obama runs the shit show. Predictably, folks like those in the Tea Party are quick to point out the current state of the government without mention the long road that brought the US to where it is. It parallels the auto industry. The failure of GM didn't happen last year, it started happening 25 years ago when it callously wrote off it's Japanese competition as "head gasket a day" (once the term for Honda). When Clinton offered the industry grant money to invest in hybrid's, they did nothing but the terrified Japanese stepped out....and here we are today.

For the record, I'm an Albertan & I tend to be very fiscally conservative. Sadly, the problem with being a Conservative in this day and age is that it seems in vogue to be a "ranting raving right wing moron" that plys the usual stereotypes instead of having thoughtful discussion. Ranting Tea Party types are the equivalent of ranting Union types that simply have an agenda & pay no attention to the complexities of the modern world. If no taxes & no business rules were the only reason for economic growth, Haiti would be more powerful than China.

as much as I think you are a pussywhipped pleaser...

I have to say this is a very insightful post...

in total agreement...

I guess you're like a broken clock, you tell the right time twice a day at least...

yes the Tea Party is the extreme right-wing fringe, consisting of a bunch of right-wingnuts...

equally bad is the extreme left-wing fringe consisting of a bunch of left-wingnuts...

all have one purpose in mind...

their self-serving agendas...

just like Bijou...

Miss*Bijou · Oct 31, 2010

Ray said:
My personal opinion only, and opinions formed from reading the statements made by the scumbags as to why they did what they did:

A lot of these individuals are immigrants from countries that are presently being attacted in the 'War on Terror'. A misnomer, if you ask me, because it isn't fighting terror, but creating it. Seeing the high civilian death toll enrages a number of people who came from these countries, and leads some to carry out acts of revenge.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism/index.html

You seem to be hung up on Obama. It wasn't Obama's actions that triggered all this, he inherited this mess.

Thank you Ray, good post. People have such tunnel vision. The acts of terrorism were horrible, but they did not come out of nowhere.

I watched this video of a talk by Robert Fisk a while back and I think he really offers a different perspective than the limited one we're usually given in mainstream media and from politicians.

.

Miss*Bijou · Oct 31, 2010

hunsperger said:
all have one purpose in mind...

their self-serving agendas...

just like Bijou...

Oh, it's you again. Welcome back, Troll.

Ray · Oct 31, 2010

MrsBijou,

That was a great clip. I saw all 57 minutes and 42 seconds of it.
Pretty sums up my views of how we got to where we are.

I had read quite a few essays of his over the years, but somehow he had dropped from my conciousness last few years. I have some catching up to do.

Thank you.

Bartdude · Oct 31, 2010

juniper said:
Tea Partiers are an aggregate collection of (mainly) middle-class Americans who are frankly angry at the way O'Bama and his Democratic majority have run the USA into the ground. As such, they do not speak with one cohesive voice and, amongst them, can be found some ignorant elements. The overall effect, however, has been to vitalize opposition to O'Bama, his policies and activities.

The battle in America may be defined as the rights of individuals (Republicans) versus the wishes of the collective (Democrats). In addition, the battle may otherwise be defined as the incursion of big government in most walks of life (Democrats) versus a much more limited role of government (Republicans) in everyday life. It is ironic to see that some of the very people who promote the features of O'Bamaism, such as Bijou, and who maintain such a strict requirement for personal freedom in their personal lives, also advocate for a political system which encourages government control in many areas of everyday life, thereby limiting personal freedom.

Further differences include foreign policy in which O'Bama appears not to be aware of the dangers of Islamofascist regimes and even, like the good community organizer he apparently was, extends his hand to Islamofascist led countries while isolating America's real friends. Homegrown terrorism has continued to develop in the USA in the face of an American government which continues to espouse multiculturalism while European countries (the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden) are not only having second thoughts but are challenging the very liberal mentality which brought this disease on in the first place. Americans, and with good reason, do not feel protected. Even in Canada, homegrown terrorism has become evident and, in spite of the liberal sentiment regarding unbridled multiculturalism and political correctness, Stephen Harper has exhibited a steadfastness that does our country honour.

O'Bama, himself, remains a mystery in terms of actual place of birth (in the USA or on foreign soil), college records and BA Honours Thesis, law school records at Harvard and complete lack of published research, the latter being puzzling given his apparently distinguished academic record. No president in recent history has lacked so much transparency. Given the internal disasters occurring in the USA under his leadership and the rise of Islamofascism outside the USA plus O'Bama's apparent disregard of, or inability to deal with, the enemy or, in the worst of all scenarios, his actual complicity with them, as well as the American public's growing distrust of the man himself, the fall of O'Bama is about to take place with the coming American elections.

After the elections in the USA are cleared away, and after the one-month hiatus when all the incumbents remain whether or not they have been ousted in the preceding election, one will see a huge turnabout in the House of Representatives where the Democrats, under O'Bama, had ruled with a significant majority. In addition, the majority of the governorships (thirty-seven out of one-hundred will be voted upon) will return to the Republican Party. The U.S. will also be voting on their own internal state representatives. These are more grassroot elections. It is expected that the Republicans will swarm in this area as well and this will have a more low-key but longlasting effect on American politics. The U.S. Senate is also being voted upon. There are thirty-seven seats of a total of one-hundred up for grabs as Senate seats are for six year terms and the voting for approximately one-third of the seats takes place every two years on an alternating basis. Changes in the composition of the Senate are therefore a more gradual procedure. Pundits, according to polls, are predicting a significant rise in the number of Republican Senators after the coming election but not quite sufficient to win a majority of seats. Of course, with the energy of the Tea Partiers and the general mood of the American people, angry at, and disappointed in, President O'Bama and the Democrats, the results of the coming election could be far more profound than what any recognized pollster has so far imagined.

I, myself, have become increasingly conservative in my own political views. I find that socalled liberals are not "liberal" at all but more demogogic in their respective outlooks. That means that they do not really countenance opposing views. As far as I am concerned, these "liberals" have betrayed the true meaning of liberalism. I associate this attitude with the Marxist and Democratic camps in the USA and with the NDP in Canada.

Holy crap.

LOL

snif · Oct 31, 2010

I'm sure it won't happen , (but stranger things have happened, kinda)
Could you imagine a world with Sarah Palin as President?

Scary! Madness of the Tea Party (video)

Sexy Troublemaker

New member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

New member

I dont re Member

New member

Member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Banned

Sexy Troublemaker

Sexy Troublemaker

Well-known member

New member

Banned