OBAMA -- ANOTHER REASON HE SH0ULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED
OBAMA - CANDIDATE OF THE 60s CULTURE
Please read the piece immediately below --- then go my response that Obama is the candidate of the 60s anti-American culture.
First posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 in part
I have tried to analyze the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) movement in order to understand who the people really are versus the romanticized version portrayed by the media. What is the true essence of the movement. What's the motivation of the demonstrators. What are their goals. How do they truly compare with Tea Party people?
The media typically characterize the OWS demonstrators in favorable terms as objecting to "Wall Street excesses." They do so even after violence and extremely slovenly and illegal behavior has been clearly shown to be prevalent, even anarchy! Politicians and activists have glorified them. More recently the focus is on police excesses. For sure, there may have been some of this, but it is not the prevailing character of the demonstrations. Congress people, even the president, call them "concerned grass-root citizens exercising their rights." They "understand" the "frustrations" of the OWS demonstrators. Delusional or disingenuous?
It is entirely legitimate, to characterize enough of the OWS demonstrators as ANARCHISTS to characterize the entire movement as ANARCHY. Furthermore, it is no longer OWS, it is now "OCCUPY THE NATION," and it would seem, even the world. It's now compelling to recall Obama's declaration to "change America" mentioned later below.
Tea Party people, on the other hand are spoken of by media and politicians in the most disparaging terms -- barbarians by VP Biden(D), sons of bitches to be "taken out," by AFL-CIO union head, Richard Trumka (D) in the presence of President Obama(D) who didn't object, terrorists by Pelosi(D), Paul Krugman(D), Jeneane Girafolo(D), Margaret Carlson (D), and others of their ilk. In the very beginning, Nancy Pelosi called Tea Partiers "Astroturf," not grassroots at all. Media and others must make special effort to find anything illegitimate or illegal about the Tea Partiers -- a sign by a single person, a statement or two, but nothing bordering on anarchy. Largely peaceful.
It is legitimate, and entirely accurate, to characterize the Tea Party demonstrators as peaceful, law abiding citizens exercising their rights to express dissent against government excesses -- spending, debt, regulations that stifle the economy and job creation. They are people who are demonstrating TO PROTECT TRADITIONAL AMERICA and restore what has been lost.
Tea party people are "TRADITIONAL AMERICANS, the OWS and others of the ilk, are ANARCHISTS.
I get no satisfaction from this assessment. Much to the contrary. It is profoundly saddening to see traditional America so in decline as to anticipate her demise in favor or a nation in the image of those who have disdain for her. Sadly, this includes some of the highest officials in government, their empty commentary to the contrary notwithstanding.FOLLOWING IS MY RESPONSE TO THE NY POST PIECE ON "A NIGHT IN ZUCCOTTI PARK -- OBAMA IS THE CANDIDATE OF THE 60s anti-traditional American culture
Irrespective of the stated grievances of those few demonstrators who can put 3 words together coherently, this is very reminiscent of the 60s sub- and counter-culture. So, is it not expected that our senior Democrats, people of the 60s movement, and media would support them. These people high jacked the traditional Democratic Party and have converted it into radical Progressivism (aka collectivism). To deny it is to be delusional.
I've long asserted that the 60s radicals are now in control of Congress and have finally achieved their takeover of America -- Pelosi, Reid, late E. Kennedy, Shumer, Dodd, Frank, Dingle, Waxman, Waters, and many more. How did they achieve a takeover? For decades hey couldn't get one of theirs elected since Carter (D) put sand in their gears. Clinton (their greatest hope) rather turned on them as he was forced to do by a Republican Congress. So, they found an attractive well-spoken young modern-day candidate who was actually born into the sub-culture, raised in it, educated in institutions that supported and glorified it, lived it as an adult organizing (unionizing) those who fed at the trough to become acolyte voter blocs, associated with them openly in "church" (Wright) and in social and academic life (Ayers, and many who are now Czars and other operatives. He held the trump card of being black, a "victim" of America's "sin" of slavery, although he had led a life of privilege. The American voter was gullible and non-discerning enough to elect him in spite of the fact that he had no defining qualifications. None!
The Tea Party folks, like them or not, brought focus on the destruction of traditional America (debt, economic decline, fraud, cultural decay, and overall decline of the American way). The destruction is somewhat bipartisan, especially debt, but the result is a crisis "not to be wasted" as Rahm Emmanuel(D) said.
Those who had gained control were not about to let go of their gains. So was born a counter movement, "Occupy Wall Street" that has become, in essence, "Occupy America." Obama's promise to "Change America and then Change the World" is being played out by this movement. Supporters of the movement are the same as Obama's supporters and puppeteers ( the Edgar Bergens to his Charley McCarthy).
The election of 2008 set up the transformation of "traditional America." The 2012 election will decide if the transformation is permanent. Sad, but realistic.