Skip to comments.Monckton: Obama crew 'existential threat' to U.S.
Posted on 09/16/2012 12:07:13 AM PDT by tsowellfan
Monckton: Obama crew 'existential threat' to U.S. But warns GOP not in position to reverse socialism
John Griffing recently interviewed Lord Monckton, who is sounding the alarm that unless the current warnings are heeded, the West is on the precipice of financial and political collapse.
Lord Monckton: "The U.S. Constitution, perhaps to a unique degree, is a document that defines not the duties of the people to their government but the duties of the government to the people. In terms of present-day politics, all forms of Socialism are variants of Legalism, while the enlightened live-and-let-live approach that your founding fathers had in mind is the very essence of Confucianism.
The framers of your Constitution understood that the people know best what is best for the people: in that sentence is the definition of Confucianism. You now have a Socialist president, a Socialist administration, a Socialist Democrat party, Socialist governors and legislators in many states. These people whatever they say do not believe in the libertarian, democratic principles that your Constitution encapsulates. They hate it....
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
>> These people whatever they say do not believe in the libertarian, democratic principles that your Constitution encapsulates. They hate it..
The contempt is mutual.
I don’t quite think the US will cease to exist should Obama win. But it’ll be a hellhole and its salvagability severely threatened.
I completely agree Republicans aren’t in a position to save us.
Lord Monckton sounds very much like the Churchill of our day.
We would have to have a monsoon of changes in our State Houses, our Governors’ mansions, our Representatives in the House, Senators, the Presidency, and a wholesale dismantling and re-piecing of critical infrastructure components in our Constitutional Republican system to effect any changes as discussed by Monckton in this article.
100 years of Socialist subversion and now outright Communism on display in DC have made it impossible to fix the system as it currently exists. We need to go back to the Federal government the way it existed prior to 1920 to even begin to fix any of the problems we’re having, and I think that would be a crapshoot anyway.
If we don’t get enough people standing up against Socialism and Communism, calling out those adherents, and demanding their persecution and expulsion from America, then they’re simply going to continue to degrade the fabric of our nation to the point of tatters.
Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama needs to be impeached, publicly tried for treason, sedition, dereliction of duty, and outright fraud, and thrown into Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his natural life along with the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, and a few other choice undesirables who are enemy combatants to the American way of life.
Lord Moncton has articulated the basic threat to the United States:
The present administration, therefore, represents an existential threat to the United States.
And the reason this administration is an existential threat to the Republic is that it is driving Americans to destruction with debt. Romney has declined to establish this as the predicate for all the rest of his criticisms against Obama. I note only that Paul Ryan has come closest to seeing this reality.
It does not matter if a tax cut to the highest bracket is unfair if the country will cease to exist. It does not matter whether people with pre-existing conditions cannot get health insurance without Obama care if the entire economy disintegrates and there is no functioning American health delivery system. It does not matter that college graduates are saddled with unconscionable tuition debt if they cannot find a job. None of Obama's cynical race or class war tactics will have traction if the listener already believes that the country is crashing.
That understanding should be the predicate for the entire Romney campaign.
Second, Lord Moncton's remarks illustrate a great mistake committed by the Republicans in campaigns against Obama which is to shrink from exposing the rank unorthodoxies which animate Obama to put the country on a course toward destruction. In other words, Romney like McCain shrinks from the task of morally destroying Barack Obama. This reluctance extends beyond the person of Barack Obama to his policies.
If the listener hearing an attack on Obama's energy policies does not have this predicate in mind, the listener is not energized to get rid of Obama. Obama has, for example, put energy policies in place not to keep the world green but to turn the world red. We end up arguing endlessly over the propriety and reasonableness of EPA rulings, invariably losing in the courts, when the real battle should be over an attempt to circumvent the Constitution by running around left end. The average voter is therefore ambivalent about whether fracking is problematical and Republicans are losing too many arguments to emotional appeals about extinction of cuddly polar bears or flames coming out of sink faucets.
John McCain and Mitt Romney, each in his turn, have failed to explain to the American people that Obama is ruining the country because he is a leftist. This business of saying that Obama is incompetent is all right as far as it goes and there is certainly no rule that says that leftists cannot be incompetent, but the public is not thereby given to understand that Obama is not a nice guy, rather he is an ideologue. As such, there is no hope that he will ever change course to keep the country from going over the fiscal "Gulch"as Lord Moncton calls it.
In other words, the assault on Obama's ideology rather than his competence makes all of the failed policies of the Obama administration clear and explains why they have happened and why they will never be cured as long as Obama is in office. There is no epiphany with these half measures.
Lord Moncton says it this way:
the Republicans dead from the neck up and from the neck down appear altogether inadequate to meet the challenge posed by the impending outright destruction of the United States. Gov. Scott Walker is alive to the danger and is doing something about it in his State: but Mitt Romney is wholly out of his depth on this pressing issue. So, after the coming election, you will either have more Socialism under Obama or a failure to reverse Socialism and its expensive consequences under Romney
If this predicate had been properly installed into the American public, there is no reasonable probability that Bill Clinton could have been able to demagogue the economy and exculpate Barack Obama from guilt for the current mess as he did in his convention speech. The public would know that the fault is not George Bush's trickle-down economics but Barak Obama's take-down Marxism.
One last thought. It is easy for me to blame Romney for failing to attack Obama the way I have described but we all should keep in mind that when Romney advanced a thoroughly justified criticism about the tweet coming out of the Cairo embassy he was gang raped by the mainstream press. It is easy for me to criticize Romney for failing to do what will obviously bring him a mountain of grief from the same news agencies. I have no doubt that his advisers, armed with polling data and focus group analyses have told him that there are certain no go zones concerning criticism of Obama.
Nevertheless, if Obama is not repudiated in this election and if his ideology is not therefore also repudiated, the virus in the American body politic will only erupt again and probably kill the patient.
>> it is driving Americans to destruction with debt.
We can fix debt. It’s harder to fix the obscene entitlement mentality.
The Churchill who helped found Britain’s welfare state?
I suggest 1913. Maybe even 1860, but don’t let’s press our luck.
Lord Moncton and I say it is impossible unless falling into the fiscal Gulch of destruction is first accepted as the predicate, the fundamental understanding of our situation.
The Churchill who put troops into Russia in 1919 and fought against removing them in hopes of defeating the Soviets.
The Churchill who made the "Iron Curtain" speech.
The Churchill of the liberal party after the turn of the 20th century forwarded laws most of us today would fully approve of such as child labor laws and Social Security schemes to regulate the excesses of the Victorian age which were really the excesses of the Industrial Revolution.
Not going to happen so long as you have one more morsel than those for whom "calculation" is an abstract concept.
Sad to say, but establishment Republicans don't want to save us, they just want to continue the gravy train with their party sitting at the head of the table.
It’s one thing to understand the gravity of the fiscal liability and the accompanying complacency , but I don’t agree that hardcore, economic suffering necessitates recovery — assuming what you mean by accepting the inevitable gulch of destruction.
“The increasing power and wealth of the federal government and its various agencies at the expense of the people is growing and ought to be sharply diminished.”
This quote is from Monkton later in the thread article. Here he visits the reason why Romney and the GOP will not reverse the trend, simply because Romney will NOT diminish the size and scope of the federal governments executive branch, which is clearly out of balanced control of both Congress and the Supreme Court.Our country is actually being “governed” ( I use the word loosely), through Obamas fiats of proclamation, i.e. executuive orders.
We must make all of those executive orders lapse unconditionally as a start, once Obama loses his re-election bid.Hopefully Congress will rid itself of Boehner, who himself is nothing more than a foil for these liberal fasists who plague us, as well we need rid of by impeachment,the current bootlicker Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, a disappointingly weak man who has failed his country.
These are all necessary changes which Romney would not contemplate.Obama care is being funded legislatively by Congress as we speak.
I don’t see any way.
We would have to engineer a purge on the level of a Stalin, and who among us would be willing to do that?
"All this for a damn flag."
LM nailed it!
Perhaps, as Romney has apparently concluded, the election campaign is not the time to repudiate, discredit, and piss on Obama’s legacy (and all the Dems he road in on). But if it is not done after Obama’s departure, we are screwed. If Romney is as polite to Obama as Bush was to Clinton, then the chances of real change are minimal.
I don’t believe in child laborious laws nor social security.
Churchill may have compared socialists to nazis after the war, but he was easily more upset by the loss of empire. A loss which he virtually ensured in “the finest hour.” That he fought tooth and nail. The Beveridge Report State his party was willing to meet almost all the way. But you know how it is with (relative) conservatives trying to outbid (relative) socialists.
Though a lifelong free trader, that is about all libertarians can claim in him. He was a Big Government guy his whole life.
The guy who gave the Iron Curtain speech is the same guy who helped hang that curtain. Not that he could have stopped it, after a certain point, but he didn’t have to help.
Churchill was hardly ahead of the curb in seeing the red coup as evil. We didn’t recognize them diplomatically until FDR. He may have been unique in wanting to go to war, but safe to say he was overfond of war.
His welfarism was not just rounding off the evils of the bated unrestrained market. It was importing Bismarkism, and that is the precise original cause of “sovereign debt crises” of today. Well, that or mass democracy itself. I don’t know.
It's ruling class v the ruled.
Mea Culpa, with much sorrow.
I have to confess I’m reduced to nothing more than fighting against that which offends my sensibilities. As for achieving a happy goal...I have no idea how, given the facts on the ground.
everyone will go on looking the other way, and Mr. Obama will get away with it. Whether the United States will get away with Mr. Obama is another matter altogether.
UNCOOL with two Obama logos.
Churchill did want to fight Bolsheviks in the beginning, before it was his concern. He warned about their secretive empire after guaranteeing it to them by arbitrarily choosing nazis as the greater evil. The same nazis he helped put in power, and the same nazis he gained nothing by going to war with. Then not only did he let the commies he inexplicably favored over the nazis not only take Eastern Europe but physically helped them deal with various peaky civilians in their way. But after 50 short years of the National Security State they were gone, so woo-hoo.
“it was parliament that created the welfare state there just as it was Congress over here”
It wasn’t just Congress over here. President Wilson and FDR’s wartime powers carried an enormous load, and you can’t underestimate runaway executive orders. Then there’s the switch in time that saved nine. SCOTUS was a rubber stamp, but a rubber stamp that people unaccountably respect.
As for parliament, over there you must understand the executive branch grows out of the legislative. Not that it matters, because Churchill sat in both.
I would think “no representation without taxation” would work, but how to achieve such a thing with the consent of the governed?
The Democrat Party is more “for the poor person”, don’tcha know? \s
Agreed. It is also why Sarah Palin so stood out and was unacceptable to our GOP mandarins.
In the parlance of marketing, you have summed up Mr. Romney’s approach to Obama perfectly. He fails by only addressing the ‘what?’ and the ‘how?’, both of them appeals to the analytical right side brain, instead of to the ‘why?’ which is a function of the emotional left side, or Limbic brain, where all decisions are made.
People rise to follow leaders not for what they say, but for what they believe; the “why?”.
In 1963, 250,000 people, black and white, gathered semi-spontaneously on the Mall in DC to hear Dr. King’s famous “I have a dream!” speech.
Do you think that they would have responded as they did had his speech been about how “I have a plan!!”?
When the government completely runs out of other people’s money, the wheels will fall off all the socialistic programs that have caused their downfall. Getting rid of Bernanke and his Monopoly money should be Job #1 if Romney is elected.
One word sums it up. CREW.
For those who do not know what a Crew is. It is a name for a group run by the Mafia.
“Socialism Is Legal Plunder”
“Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.”
Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850
DEFUND socialist collectives, foreign and domestic.
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic.
live - free - republic
I remember them and more and more are talking about them -- even labeling them brats..
They were the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats who were celebrated in the establishment MSM as the most intelligent generation ever!. They are now arguably that very establishment that praised them and they hold themselves and their ideological issue in even higher regard.
They hijacked the now defunct Democratic Party in the 1970s. Abe will explain from "the other side."
You initiated a policy to tolerate the Marxist-Alinsky radicals and let them rant; not only has it not ceased but was constantly augmented by decades of infiltration and indoctrination. You now have two Americas. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half statist and half free; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
Obama is a biological-ideological issue of the 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus radical, psycho spoiled brats. It's just simple, plain old-fashion brattiness.
Another example.. take BJ Clinton.. please!
BJ gets Rhodes Scholarship.. the Clinton flak chuckers say he graduated and to this day people over there are still in awe.. off to the foreign press where nowadays for the past 20 or so years we can find news that our MSM spikes..
"Clinton never completed his degree [at Oxford]. . . . Many American Rhodes scholars treated their time at Oxford as a version of the Grand Tour. They had their degree and planned to go to law school when they returned to the US; Oxford was an interesting interlude." The Bill Clinton we knew at Oxford: Apart from smoking dope (and not inhaling), what else did he learn over here? College friends share their memories with Matthew Hoffman
The point.. what BJ learned over there explains some of the things Lord Monckton says is wrong here.
Churchill was the wartime leader...after the war the labor party (under Atlee) promised free health care for everyone....and won a sweeping parliament victory that enabled the left to implement their nationalization (coal, railways, electricity etc) and social programs including the NHS.
Barack Obama, Valerie Jarret, Eric Holder...
Make that 2012.
“Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama needs to be impeached, publicly tried for treason, sedition, dereliction of duty, and outright fraud, and thrown into Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his natural life along with the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, and a few other choice undesirables who are enemy combatants to the American way of life.”
To what end? I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve read opinions here on FR to the effect that carreer criminals should not be supported - even in prisons - by the taxpayers. What will actually happen is that each of these criminals that you have named - and more besides - will retire, move to a gated estate in some country with a warmer climate and continue to steal oxygen from the rest of us. Any discussion - even witful dreaming - of an alternative solution would bring a swift visit from the KGB..., er, Secret Service.
We need a massive shift in philosophy. As long as the majority of people continue to hold to the ideas of Altruism and collectivism the country is headed for disaster. We will keep getting the same kind of leadership elected time and time again. We need to have a revival of individualism and capitalism that the country was founded on. Nothing short of a mass renunciation of the current dominant ideas will save this country. One of the primary pushers of Altruism/collectivism is religion. I know I won’t be popular for saying that here but it is true. Though many Tea Party patriots are for individual liberty and low taxation and limited constitutional government they have bought, through religion, every fundamental principle that underlies and justifies Socialism. They agree with the socialists that they have no right to exist except for the purpose of serving others. The rest follows from that principle. Socialists only change the other from God to the people or the state. The principle is the same though. That is the contradiction that is destroying the country. So long as profits are considered evil and welfare good then there is no chance for a revival.
Can we have a Lord Monckton ping list?
Check and verify photo link?
Typo fixed at #45...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.