If anything proves that the OpEdNews website is a bastion of liberal kooks, this “editorial” by Rafe Pilgrim sure gives it the stamp of kookiness:
Obama’s masters exert more powerful influence upon him than we do, that is those of us who are aware of the subversion. “Their” support and machinations gave him his job and will gild his future. All that is required of him is his loyalty to “them.”
In summary, what all this means is that we can’t get from where we are to the truth of 9-11, the truth of the motivation to attack on Iraq, the trashing of our Constitution, etc, then on to decent governance without first assembling the forces necessary to move those issues onto America’s agenda, an agenda that will be disallowed by incumbent power unless forced otherwise by citizen action.
I mean its pretty much standard level BDS and 9-11 Conspiracy, but this one thing caught my eye. Mr. (Ms? It?) Pilgrim asserts the following:
History presages four possible variations of fate for our future, here listed in order of decreasing attraction:
(1) An epiphany that finally gifts the citizenry with the insight into the rottenness of our governance and the necessity to change such by direct passive action such as their massive (millions) enduring presence (weeks, months, however necessarily long) at the seat of government (DC) and not to leave until peace and decent governance are assured.
(3) Armed action against America by the decent governments of the world who will have lost patience with the treachery wrought internationally by our government.
(4) Probably the worst of all the possibilities: things would not change but achieve a rotten permanence or perhaps get even worse.
Really? Revolution? This from the bunch that wets themselves at the very thought that something as horrible as a gun exists in the universe and he thinks that a bunch of hippie-dippie kooks will actually start a revolution in America? Maybe a revolution of hernias at people laughing at the idea of this group of twits doing anything but gazing at their own navels.
I ran across a great review of Gordon Brown and The Holy Messiah’s visions for the future by Janet Daley in the UK Telegraph:
Mr Obama – who gives the impression of being considerably out of his depth in the economic maelstrom – talks of an “opportunity” to “reorganise our priorities”. He gave a major speech last week in which he actually seemed to suggest that the present crisis had been caused by America’s failure to develop a universal health care system and to attend to the impending environmental disaster of global warming (“we made the wrong choices”), and that by focusing on these matters a way can be found out of the country’s economic problems.
Is he quite mad? Does he really believe that the banking crisis and the recession were some kind of divine retribution for the absence of universal health care, and excessive carbon emissions? Or is he suggesting that a practical solution lies in spending money on health care and the development of alternative energy sources?
Its a power grab and everyone knows it who is actually paying attention. Here’s Mr. Brown’s vision for the future:
In Gordon Brown’s fantasy, this is an “opportunity” to exercise control over the whole world. Not just stricter regulation by national governments of their own economic institutions, but a wondrous new level of international regulation by supranational functionaries – to be appointed by whom? A World Government agency accountable to no electorate and with no democratic mandate from the populations over whom it will wield such power? Trotskyists used to say that Stalinist Russia had failed to achieve Utopia because it had embraced “socialism in one country” rather than going for “world revolution”. Now, we are being told that Labour’s market-led social justice programme failed because it opted for “regulation in one country” instead of understanding the need for “world regulation”.
Maybe being an ex-Marxist is a bit like being a lapsed Catholic: you never quite get rid of the old thought patterns.
In the more overheated renditions of the Brown theme, there is talk of a “global vision for fairness”, in which the very poverty that is being visited upon all the developed economies will somehow make it possible to redistribute wealth to the developing world.
And these wonderful visions of destroying rich countries in order to make everybody equally poor have been voted into office by a bunc h of idiots who somehow think they will get everything for “free”. Free health care, free mortgages, car tires automatically inflated to the right pressure, free food, and all done by taking the money from the six evil rich people who control all the wealth.
Horse Pellets and Hockey Sticks. We get what we deserve.
So the reason for the Russian invasion of a small southern neighbor? Of course its……
My own view is that the U.S. has displayed a reckless disregard for Russian interests for some time.
much of what we are seeing unfold between Russia and Georgia involves a high quotient of American culpability.
The fact is that a combination of American recklessness,
the U.S. helped engineer events that are now undermining its own interests and the global perception of American power.
kind of pathetic that twits like this one think they are actually Americans.
But let’s take a look at these idiotic statements. We are supposed to respect Russia’s views (like the fact that they aren’ happy about having independent democratic states on their borders). We are undermining American power. Big huh? I though liberals didn’t want America to have ANY power. That the reckless use of American power is the only thing that keeps everybody in the world from joining in a global chorus of Kumbaya. But Americans have been reckless (whew – at least that one is on point for the “progressives”) by being culpable in actually supporting Georgia and its efforts to democratize and liberalize.
Remember a couple of winters ago when Russia “just happened” to have some gas pipleline problems and cut off the juice for the country? Forcing people to start burning their furniture for heat?
And I’m sure it was just a coincidence that Russia “happened” to have 120,000 combat troops on the border with a country about 1% of its size.