Skip to comments.Obama Isn't Trying to 'Weaken America' (RINO op-ed)
Posted on 02/14/2011 8:32:31 AM PST by nhwingut
Some conservative commentators may feel inclined to spend Presidents Day ruminating over Barack Obama's evil intentions, or denouncing the chief executive as an alien interloper and ideologue perversely determined to damage the republic. Instead, they should consider the history of John Adams's White House prayer and develop a more effective focus for their criticism.
On Nov. 2, 1800, a day after he became the first president to occupy the newly constructed executive mansion, Adams wrote to his wife Abigail: "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Michael Medved..a long time liberal apologist. ‘Nuf said.
No, of course not.
He is trying to destroy it. To wit, note the use of Egypt as a proxy to obliterate Israel. To wit, collapsing the dollar with QE. To wit, proceeding unconstitutionally with health care and oil drilling.
In a rare moment of truth, obama told us that he was going to fundamentally change this country.
Fundamentally means to redo the whole order of things.
And his media cheers.
Medved is an anti birther like O Reilly, Beck, Ingraham, Boortz, Coulter, Hewitt and a few other fake conservatives who like that Prince Al Waleed Saudi cash.
That’s a shame. He is so incompetent I wouldn’t be half as worried if the destruction of the US was what he was trying to do.
Why don’t you, Michael, consider HIS history of Bill Ayers, Racist Wright, Franklin Davis and the people he has surrounded himself with: Van Jones, Jarrett, The Wise Latina, Rahmie, Kagan et al, their views towards the USA?
“And his media cheers.” Hopefully the public will wake up and yank the plug on Obama TV. Prince Al Waleed’s Fox is no better.
Don’t forget a $3.7 TRILLION budget where nearly half the money will come from the printing press.
Medved basically trashes the entire conservative movement.
It was an odd opinion piece to be quite honest.
It didn’t actually make any arguments that the big O isn’t trying to weaken the U.S., but rather spent a lot of time on how even bad presidents in the past didn’t have bad intentions. Then it pointed out that the allegations that the O is trying to harm the nation makes the accuser look bad.
Both of those are somewhat reasonable. However they don’t actually address his stated thesis.
I will admit that it isn’t a good position to take in the wider media that the O is trying to hurt America (even if he likely is, and trust me, it wouldn’t shock me since this much concentrated incompetence can’t just be a coincidence) because you can come out looking like a wingnut. However Don’t make that your central thesis the fact that the harm is unintentional when that really is debatable.
A conservative poseur. ‘Nuff said...
Mike’s relatives thought communism would strengthen America back in the day. IMO they were wrong and Mike still suffers from, “but they were good people” mentality.
Mr. Medved. This is the point is it not? It is obvious that he has vigorously pursued things that are demonstrably unpopular. So to what do you attribute this Mr. Medved? Burden of proof switch please.
Somehow your article fails to address the point.
Mike have you ever heard of Cloward-Piven?...
**NOTE: Mike is either willfully stupid OR complicit with it.. I've just upgraded Medved to Useful Idiot..
Whether he’s trying or not, and that’s debatable, even his would-be defenders implicitly report that’s what he is in fact doing. Since he is, what are we to do about it? Sorry, Oprah, but this job isn’t a giveaway so that he and you can feel better about your race as he learns on the job - and he’s not even descended from the enslaved Africans; he’s descended from the Africans who enslaved other Africans.
He calls himself 'conservative' for ratings but appears to most fear being associated with the 'right wing'.
His opinion should carry about as much weight as Bill ORielly's.
Whether by "intent" or by ignorance, the consequence of his adherence to counterfeit ideas, the result will be the same.
On another thread today, Rep. Paul Ryan, in presenting the Republican budget ideas, said:
The principles that guide us; they are anchored in the wisdom of the founders in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and in the words of the American Constitution. They have to do with the importance of limited government and with the blessing of self-government. We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility. We believe, as our founders did, that the pursuit of happiness depends on individual liberty, and individual liberty requires limited government.
Hooray for a representative of "We, the People" who can articulate clearly the idea that individual liberty is rooted in a recognition of the philosophy of our founding documents.
The pesudointellectuals who have come into power in this Administration may claim to be "intellectuals," but they are ignorant of the lessons of the history of civilization.
They are products of a deliberately "dumbed-down" citizenry by those who wished to enslave their minds to a counterfeit set of ideas.
That was not the Founders' plan for America. They expected that the ideas of liberty would be passed from generation to generation, in order that the light of liberty, once kindled, would remain bright.
Instead, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America," because of those who have called themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving and as old as the history of civilization.
American citizens are getting a belated lesson in economics and an American History lesson as a result of the shocking policies of Congress and the Administration during recent months. If the citizenry is awakened, and if they will go back and review the philosophy of the Framers of the U. S. Constitution, they may perhaps begin to understand how America became the symbol of liberty, opportunity and prosperity for millions throughout the world. The following essay, is reprinted with permission from "Our Ageless Constitution." See
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.
The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
No, I agree 100% - he is not TRYING to weaken America, he IS weakening America.
If he was a communist muslim infiltrator, what would he do differently? (and realistically get away with)
Fear a second term as if you life (and your grandchildrens lives) depends on it (because it does)
Stipulating that he is not trying to weaken America, ask, “if he were trying to do so what would he do differently than what he is doing now?”
Medved is a moron: The results are the same whether he is just incompetent or doing it by design
This is the same Medved who back during the election was completely shocked that any Republican would call McCain a RHINO. In fact he was absolutely outraged. I kid you not.
Trying? It just comes as naturally to him as breathing.
Medved is correct. Obastard isn’t trying to weaken America.
He’s trying to destroy it. And he’s succeeding...
Obama is a complete idiot and is weakening America quite by accident.
So which is it, Medved?
No, he is not trying to weaken America.
His goal is to destroy the nation as a Constitutional Republic and convert it into his vision of a racist-socialist-despotic kleptocracy.
Weakening the nation and our economy is just one of the techniques he is using to attain his ultimate goal.
Next election we’ve got to kick the rest of the RINOS out.
By contrast, US traitor Medved ignores that after pRes_ _ent Obama
became POTUS he did the following:
"Impeach Obama Says Sister of Cole Sailor Killed in Terror Attacks
"The sister of Seaman James McDaniels, a sailor killed in the terror attack on the U.S.S. Cole wants President Barack Hussein Obama impeached
over his decision to withdraw charges against the al Qaeda mastermind of the attack."
"Mother of USS Cole Sailor Declines Obama-meet, Says "I Voted for the Wrong Person"
"After Obama dropped the charges against the suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole,
he asked the families of the victims in that tragedy to meet with him.
One mother refused, and now says,"I voted for the wrong person."
John Brennan:"Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam"
This is Medved's proof of Obama's innocent but misguided intentions. Opinion polls.
"They will never succeed in arguing that those initiatives have been cunningly and purposefully designed to wound the republic."
Michael Medved and Peggy the Moocher believe in Obama's good intentions. I don't.
Medved may be overly polite for some tastes but he is a staunch social conservative.
He is an arrogant elitist. In no way can he be considered a conservative.
First the good. Medved has a command of history and geo-political counterpoint that are simply without peer. Even folks with a drawer full of degrees can learn much from listening to Medved on these topics.
Also on the good, Medved prefers ideological challenges, rather than "me too" calls, and he maintains a cordiality with his callers that makes for good exchanges.
Now for the bad. Medved-the-mostly-conservative has some truly horrifying blind spots. Even though he correctly sees Mister Carter as a noteworthy failure, he has openly praised Mister Jesse Jackson. He openly promoted John McCain as the only GOPer who could win. He seems almost personally attached to Hillary Rodham (Clinton), and defends her almost consistently. And, my FRiends, he does not see that our current (and alleged) president just does not appear to share the great feelings for our wonderful Country, our ways, our culture, our history, and our defense, as do most of us American citizens.
To his credit, Michael Medved has come a long way from working for uber-leftie Ron Dellums; however, one suspects, however, that Medved has not strayed quite as far from the shining path as he may believe.
It's called common sense. Even if it was true most Americans would not care. Birthers are considered in the same vain as Truthers (and deservedly so).
A poofter pirate worships his new messiah.
Perhaps, although I myself don't buy it. Medved has been part of the liberal Hollywood elite for too long, and I suspect he uses his recent conservative "mantel" far more for marketing purposes than for ideology.
he was going to fundamentally change this country
He’d say, “Mission Accomplished”, if you ask me.
“Progressives” always think you can have your cake and eat it too. But the wise man knows that such foolery as the Stimulus and deficits will bring down the wrath of the economic gods and there will be a price to pay. The wise man prepares for disaster, thus the ‘hoarding of capital’ or husbandry of resources, and the foolish man spends like there’s no tomorrow thinking all along that this ‘downturn’ is an anomaly.
You left out Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh. They won’t touch the issue either. However Rush has mentioned the issue a few times but in a “it’s other people not me” manner.
I disagree that Michael is an apologist for liberals. It's just that he is too naive, is too willing to attribute noble motives to these power-hungry pols. I don't care whether BO is sincerely incompetent. The consequences to our nation is the same.
And frankly, I am inclined to agree with Michael that BO doesn't want to destroy the country. I think BO really believes that, being Garfield Goose (King of the United States), he can run it "right". In that regard, I don't believe for a moment that BO can be compelled to alter his course. Conceit, thy name is Obama.
Agreed, he is trying to destroy America.