An Obama Presidency: our "Barabbas" moment

That's where we as a nation have arrived. The masses have lustily drank the kool-aid, ignoring every warning and red flag.

We're on the cusp of an "Obama Nation." We've ignored Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other episodes from this demented reality show.

After watching a recent Obama rally, I was reminded of a scene in "The Passion of the Christ," where Pontius Pilate when faced with angry mob, asks whom he release from custody, Jesus of Nazareth or Barabbas. According to various books of the Bible, "the crowd chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew^[2] has the crowd saying, 'Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.'"

That seems to be where we are with a potential Obama presidency. The populace has so taken to Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric, that we're completely blind to the man's shortcoming, his associations, and his socialist message. We're essentially giving common sense and rationality a giant collective middle finger.

"Let his blood be upon us and upon our children."

For the "proverbial" bloodshed will be great after Obama passes draconian tax measures, enacts the Freedom of Choice Act, ushers in the Fairness Doctrine, enforce wealth redistribution, repeals the Marriage Defense Act, and pushes Congress to pass cap-and-trade environmental laws.

As Mark Levin from the National Review states, "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

Is this man running for the office of Presidency of the United States, cult leader, or dictator? Where is the humility that other presidents before him have demonstrated? Through so many of his actions, Obama has displayed an air of superiority to working class people.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

So what's in store for us under an Obama presidency? Levin adds the following:

Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

We've fallen victim to (H)is quixotic message. It sounds so alluring, so intoxicating. So much so that we've ignored the blinding warning lights. Let us usher in a socialist era, and the let the blood be upon our children.

For it will be generations that suffer from an Obama nation.

Townhall's Burt Prelutsky offers the same questions:

Why are so many Americans so eager to accept that corporations are the enemy when corporations not only provide employment, but pay dividends to tens of millions of middle-class Americans either directly or through their pension funds? Why are the same folks who are waging war on corporate America so reluctant to utter even an unkind word about Islamic terrorism? I realize that a lot of people get upset when CEOs get paid a ton of a money, particularly when it comes in the form of a golden parachute. But why don’t they get equally upset when a movie actor who’s generally a liberal gets paid $20 million to star in a movie that tanks?

Barry Obama: Robbin' the Hood

I don't know about you, but the Twin Cities Conservative is getting a proverbial "kick" out of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's economic plan.

What is it? Well, undoubtedly you've heard the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice" being bandied about. This basically entails stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or as Obama's vice presidential minion, Joe Biden stated on ABC's Good Morning, "We want to take money and put it in the pockets of the middle class people…"

Okay, that should merely affirm what we know about the Obama camp: that they have designs on planting the seeds of Socialism in this country. Note the following from this article, courtesy of Investors Business Daily:

"'Economic justice' simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism."

Furthermore, according to Townhall.com's Austin Hill:

"Now, Obama and Biden have constructed a campaign that promises to simply take things away from people who have achieved them, and give things to people who have not achieved them. This is “change” that America cannot afford - - neither in terms of monetary, or human capital."This is the type of "change" Obama has in mind: he doesn't want to make average Joe American's life any better, but instead he wants to give those who haven't worked hard "treasure" that other Americans have earned.

How is that fair?

It's not; for the record, there are deserving people in this country; people who can use a helping hand. But don't you think most honest, sensible Americans would rather have a job than merely an entitlement? If Obama wants to mete out "economic justice," why not, IF he's elected President, require those sucking on the goverment teat, to work?

He won't, because he knows that as long as people are receiving FREE MONEY from the government, a basic tenet of the Democratic Party, that constitutes what is essentially a guaranteed vote.

The problem is that these entitlements are like crack cocaine to those who ABUSE them. They are hooked.

Robin Hood, Barry Obama is not.

The Liberals' War: freedom of thought, speech, and expression under attack

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Have you seen this bill currently making its way through the United States Congress?

The history behind the bill is interesting: it originally started out as the "Matthew Shepherd Act," named after the young Wyoming homosexual of the same name, who was murdered because of his sexual orientation.

"On March 20, 2007, the Matthew Shepard Act (HR 1592) was introduced as federal bipartisan legislation in the U.S. Congress, sponsored by Democrat John Conyers with 171 co-sponsors. Matthew's parents, Judy and Dennis, were present at the introduction ceremony. The bill passed the House of Representatives on May 3, 2007. Similar legislation passed in the Senate on September 27, 2007^[27] (S 1105), but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.^[28]

On December 10, 2007, congressional powers had failed to get a bipartisan bill passed, which would update the hate crimes legislation, also attached to the Department of Defense Authorization bill. However, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, says "she is still committed to getting the Matthew Shepard Act passed." Pelosi plans on trying to get the bill passed early in 2008. "
I lived in Fort Collins, Colorado, where I was attending graduate school at the time of Shepherd's murder. A brother of my roommate was good friend's with Shepherd at time, so while I witnessed such a tragedy in terms of location, I also witnessed tragedy on a more personal level."

This sort of legislation is already making headway in Canada and has been implemented in Sweden as well. Even worse, a Canadian court has rules that certain scriptures contained in the Bible can be considered "hate speech."

Unbelievable. While Muslims exhort their fellow terrorists to kill anyone that draws a cartoon negatively depicting Mohammed with a bomb on his head, the Western World is shamelessly pandering to those who can easily a fatwah, rather than those in a religion (see: Christianity) who are taught to turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor.

But, as the liberals are wont to do, it's getting out of hand. It's evolved from targeting senseless violence against intolerant people to now targeting dissenting voices, who believe that "alternative lifestyles" are an abomination, a sin, an affront to God, etc. Doesn't the First Amendment protect dissenting voices?

We've heard and seen the liberals stamping their feet because they believe the Bush Administration, in its effort to protect the American citizenry, conduct warrantless wiretapping on international calls. We've heard them cry that the government is eavesdropping on all of our phone calls.

Does anyone REALLY think that's happening? Perhaps I should, does anyone with a semblance of common sense really believe the government is eavesdropping on calls, for example, between my fiance and me, or even worse, my MOTHER and me.

No, I don't think so.

Ironically, the Left, the champions of the nanny state, wish to control every facet of our lives, whether it's curbing fast food intake, rummaging through our garbage, and meting out economic justice (i.e. redistributing wealth).

The Leninists actually have the audacity to accuse the Bush Administration of curbing our basic civil rights. Yet, right before our eyes, they're attempting to control our very lives.