Recently in ELECTION '08

Category

"...That is why you must join us and leave those who have brought you nothing but war, inflation, and discord...Let us make a new beginning today..."

And so the emissary of "change" -- "a new beginning" -- declared.

But, do you know who that emissary was?

Barack Obama? His wife about husband, Barack Obama? Hillary or Bill Clinton about Obama (or themselves)?

Could be, could very well have been said by any or all of those individuals in the last few days from the Democratic National Convention.

However, that statement that I've quoted was made in April 1925 by National Socialist, Julius Streicher, propaganda meister among meisters for the German National Socialist Party ("Nazis"), Julius Streicher, known in history since passed as "The Beast of Franconia."

Tomorrow, the world will be beset by the intrusive broadcasts of Barack Obama as he pronounces himself from the Mile High Stadium in Denver, CO, before "Roman columns" dressed in "the Obama insignia" -- that giant "zero" with a red-striped foreground (the propaganda-point of that insignia is that it is unique to "a" man and the party politic and affixes itself to all-that-is-said-to-be-national, just as with previous configurations fulfilling the same purpose in other lands) (a "new seal" for a "new country" -- hardly a happenstance message or afterthought statement by the Obama/Left politic of today, because the insignia is INSISTED upon the eye, it represents, for lack of a better word for it, "force" of sorts, as in, "a force to be followed" -- it represents, by how it is applied, by the use of the mark, an overtaking or replacement of the existing country with an individual personality supplanting country and the red-stripey centermost addition is the "pathway" or force to be followed [I add, whether one wants to or not, like going down a drain, and thus, the trouble implied by the statement made]).

The giant columns, the stadium, the "special insignia" (bars/lines), the Messianic posturing and goals of singular, saving-grace "one" with the leader, these were each and all used at Nuremburg many decades ago, and used in the very same methods, for the very same purpose - a few terms changed but the politics remain the very same, reoccuring as I write this, from the horrible past to the horrible present.

The results of that horrible past were, to put it mildly, despicable. Falling victim to the same hypnotic effects for the same reasons -- with a few changes of terms but formulated upon the same political goals, deploying the same atmospheric imagery -- is lunacy.

"...Still standing in Nuremberg are the two sites where most rallies took place, the Luitpold Arena and the Zeppelin Field. Both were constructed on a grandiose scale.

The Zeppelin Field, built between 1934 and 1937, was modeled after the Pergamon Altar, a magnificent second century BC structure in what is now Turkey.

Rows of columns stood at each side of the limestone tribune from which Hitler delivered his orations. Dominating the scene was a huge gold-plated swastika. Thirty-six light towers flanked the field.

Hitler had more than 100 anti-aircraft spotlights installed around the flanks of the field, all pointing straight up. One of the most famous images of the rallies was created when Hitler switched on all the spotlights simultaneously, creating what some called "a cathedral of ice."

The swastika was blown up by American troops in 1945; the columns were destroyed in 1967.

What remains today are the stands on either side of the tribune, the tribune itself, and the light towers and stands on the sides of the field, which is now used for special events..."

Others have written:

CORONATION IN THE TEMPLE OF OBAMA

THE GREAT TEMPLE OF THE OBAMA NATION, THE "BARACKOPOLIS"...

HOTAIR blog-roundup, of sorts:
OBAMA'S TEMPLE FOR THE CULT OF PERSONALITY...

Unanimous response from us among the Right: McCain lept forward by bounds in the visit with Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church this past weekend. And, Obama -- who I certainly don't support politically but who I'd anticipated would do reasonably well or at least, well enough -- fell flat in his visit with Warren in the same venue, preceding McCain's visit.

Obama appeared downright unfriendly -- to the audience present and to the audience via the televised event. He was tense, his body language dismissive, turning away from the audience, facing Warren throughout the entire visit, nearly negating any impression of "availability" to the public: stiff, rigid in body while his speech was meandering and wandering on most responses to Warren's specific questions. But most offensive to me was Obama's continued redirection (or, perhaps, interpretation) of Warren's questions about a myriad of issues to a focus about himself, about "Barack." Listening to him go on about himself as he did to what extent he did, while providing a number of conflicted or obfuscated responses on issues, was not only uncomfortable to watch and hear, but also offensive.

McCain made a great impression, to the contrary of that made by Obama. He upped the enthusiasm immensely among the Right, he refreshed the hesitations about his candidacy for the Presidency to rally those hesitations to confidence, and interacted favorably with all present, Warren, the audience, us the viewers of the broadcast.

What I saw and heard from and about Obama was a somewhat unfocused, impatient but reasonably nice guy named Barack Obama whose mind is busy and occupied but whose character appears evasive and because of that, manipulative.

What I saw and heard from and about John McCain was a man ready to handle the conflicts and pressures of the United States Presidency with focus and wisdom, succinct and available, and most of all, protective of our nation.

I now feel far more confident in voting for McCain this Fall and let's hope he continues to surprise us with increased delights, as he displayed this past weekend from Saddleback Church.

Wizbang's Jay Tea has written a good post about the event -- the real question emerging after Saturday's Saddleback event is that Obama and campaign immediately began the blame-game about McCain and everyone else when it became clear that Obama did badly (the comments on Jay's post are a good read, too):

THE REAL QUESTION AFTER SADDLEBACK

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez discusses Obama's woeful denigration of Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas - perhaps, "inexplicable" is more appropriate a description:

DOUBTING THOMAS

The biggest offense of the night, however, was Obama's deceitful response about his position on abortion (and about partial-birth abortiion, specificall), his ensuing denigrations about Republicans allegedly "lying about" him and his position (while his legislative history reveals Obama to be lying, not Republicans), and Obama's later admission when confronted about his own deceit, that he was, in fact, not being "truthful."

Obama has had the weekend - two days since - to revise his opinions, while, horribly, no child who loses their opportunity to live the life they would otherwise live has such an opportunity when they are instead mortally victimized by acts made possible by legislation that Obama has both supported and enabled.

From MIchelle Malkin (with links):

LIES, DAMN ABORTION LIES, AND OBAMA'S SMEAR OF PRO-LIFERS, and,
IS OBAMA...PULLING ABORTION STATS OUT OF HIS WAZOO?

All told, I now feel much more confident in my intended vote this Fall for John McCain. And I hope that McCain selects Mitt Romney for the Vice Presidential position.

After watching the four-minute-plus interview with Michelle Obama on ABC's "Good Morning America," I counted no more than approximately five/seven full eye-blinks and a number of partial blinks (half-lowered fluttering eyelids but not full blinks) by Michelle Obama; the woman is anything but mesmerizing and to the contrary, continues to present a frightening presence.

I also watched this afternoon's Bill O'Reilly broadcast with special attention to the "Body Language" segment (one of my favorites); the professional opinion from the "body language expert" is non-judgemental about the absence of blinking, but O'Reilly mirrors my concerns as to what the absence of blinking by Michelle Obama "means" otherwise -- I think the body language expert got this wrong because Michelle Obama's non-blinking, steely persistent and wide-eyed-open staring is utterly abnormal. What abnormality it represents, that's the issue.

In my view, it represents extreme dominance and what I mean by that, is that it's not credible dominance (as in, leadership) but aggression attempting to be dominant (as in, not leadership; perhaps, even, threating). It's a very big red flag as to who this person actually is -- and also reason to consider the possibility that Michelle Obama's displaying some abnormal physical behaviors due to drug side-effects; in the case of wide-open non-blinking eyes, that's indicative of an amphetamine or hyper-active-inducing drug of some sort.

For balance, there's this segment from Greta Van Susteren (Susteren interviews the editor of MARIE CLARE magazine about their interview with Barack Obama - "the wife" is emphasized in both).

I searched the news otherwise from this past week and spliced-in between the media hounding the Obama's so-called-vacation-while-raising-funds-in-Hawaii with panting questions -- about, oh, the second hand on their watches -- I find a number of links to Barack Obama's complaints about FOX News, as he alleges, as being responsible for creating a bad rap about his wife, MIchelle. Obama gets more publicity by talking about himself, when he isn't talking about his wife and blaming anyone else for not talking about both of them enough or well enough or at all -- for that, there are always the gossip blogs among the Left, who can be counted on to promote themselves and the Obamas (and Oprah, et al.) while hatin'-on the Right.

He opines:

"I think that if you've been watching Fox News then probably she's been misunderstood because I do think there's been a fairly systematic attempt by the conservative press to paint her in a completely false way. Michelle is very comfortable in her own skin and I like that skin, of course. So I don't want her changing and I don't think she's looking to change. Michelle's not somebody who wants to be deeply involved in policy development."

(Violins here.)

I agree with Karl Rove from his comments on FOX (August 11, 2008), and that is, that, there is meaning (validity, cause) in criticising Michelle Obama -- and I dismiss the Left's attempts to duck down a rabbit hole about Michelle Obama from whence they yell about Conservatives "attacking Michelle."

To the contrary, it'd be an act of "self-attack" by this nation not to critically evaluate Michelle Obama (even if she was as moderate and modest as imaginable but in her specific case, she's not only demonstratively politically Left but has also devoted a great deal of her life to that pursuit.) Michelle Obama's history literally disproves Obama's allegation that she "does not want to be...involved in policy development." And that statement by Obama (above quoted in-full) is yet another one of those wiggle-waggle expressions from Obama wherein he can certainly have it mean anything he may want it to ("deeply involved in policy" and thus, almost certainly, be "involved in policy development", the ever-splitable Obama-terms-to-infinity).

Michelle Obama deserves the bad reputation she has made for herself based upon herself. I can't say anything decent about her character other than she's raising children and is a mother and is married. Beyond that, she's a bad person in my view, based upon who she is. In her own words, in other words, she's condemnable in reference to the White House.

So this is no aimless person in Michelle Obama, and it is misleading for her to be lauded by the Left, so the Left defends her, as being an "outspoken woman" -- it's wrong to extend her special privilege to offend if not threaten, based upon her gender and to attempt to bury or suppress the specifics about who this person (though female) is: a socio-politically-radical, specifically antagonistic socio-politically motivated person in conflict with a great deal of what our nation is about.

The only enthusiastic comments I've yet to read about Michelle Obama are from associated media and from her husband (understandable, but, he's identifiable by his associations and he should be man enough to understand that, that he'll be evaluated by his relationships, including as to his activist wife) and from other persons who share in Michelle Obama's beliefs -- who are involved in Black racial supremacy movements or hold those beliefs.

In other words, she's being promoted by Black racial supremacists (among all races, people who seem to think that because she's Black, because her husband is Black, that that somehow bestows upon her/them some special advantage -- to support and enjoy her/them because they're Black; while I see no reason to reject them because she/they are Black, there is also no reason to woo either for that reason, that reason alone, unless one is racially motivated).

But the "zombie-staredown" Michelle Obama just enacted on ABC today is more than enough to concern me. Call it instinct.

This article is exeptionally ghastly:

"Obama More Alpha Than McCain." The writer of this piece must really, really believe that TRANSFORMERS was a true story -- she obviously is far too easy to please with any tidbit of information about anyone with two legs, two ears and, well, that's about it, she's pleased.

"Alphas" don't hangout on the beach and smoke dope, including crack-cocaine (but Obama has), are not lost for anything meaningful if not cogent to say without prepared speeches (but Obama is), do not limit visits with troops on "international jaunts" to grabbing "a few of them" to play basketball with so he can have some neat photos taken (but Obama has - the list of depressing character failures by Obama is extensive here but the Left is impervious to them). It's horrible to think that, to the Left, Barack is "alpha." Leaves me wondering just how they have come to so confuse so many terms to such extrents ("up" is "down," "down" is "up," "alpha" is a dog food, etc.). And, anyway, aren't (actual) alpha males those men the Left so hates and ridicules? You know, the ones who win the wars (and fight them), shoot guns, don't like shopping, guard the remote, like to plot and plan and compete and...

So, overall, the media continues to fawn and mist over these two people, Barack and the wife; perhaps this will provide more incentive to people to run in the opposite direction -- at least, to smart people.

Here are some very interesting "screen shots that Obama doesn't want you to see."

Michelle Obama supports partial birth abortion

Michelle Obama's senior thesis says her primary commitment is to the Black community, not to all Americans. (This is consistent with Barack Obama's Black Nationalism as described in "Dreams From My Father");

and...

Michelle Obama's Partial-Birth Abortion Fundraising Letter