Obama Is Wrong, Not Evil
Economically, it hampers the effectiveness of the markets by robbing money from the production of what people want in order to funnel it to what experts think they ought to want. This fails because, for all people’s individual errors, the wisdom of crowds is almost always wiser than the experts. Stealing money from the markets for government schemes destroys jobs, punishes creators, and hamstrings businesses — and all because people with too much education and too little experience think they know better than those on the economic front lines.
But more important, such wealth redistribution is morally wrong, because it takes away our individual freedom of choice. It gives the government the power (though it never has the right) to say to us, “No, you can’t spend the money you earn on a new TV, we want to use it to create green jobs or pay for other people’s children’s education or make sure one race gets as much work as another. We are the compassionate and wise and we know best.” This may seem appealing in the moment but it is viciously destructive over the long run. The moral heart of a nation, of the world, is individual choice. Fashioned, though it often is, in the crucible of foolishness and failure, it is still ultimately the only true path to decency and right action. Without free individual choice, without that crucible, a culture becomes flaccid, passive, unproductive, violent, and morally dead, a place-marker waiting to be conquered by the next group inspired by a moral vision. Welcome to Europe. Careful not to step in the sharia.
Obama is the president, and as such he should not be exempt from the usual attacks both personal and political that leaders have to suffer. But as far as possible, we need to stick to what matters. We need to explain to one another in detail why his ideas are wrong, why they’re failing, why they’ll fail again the next time someone gets the bright idea to elect one of these leftist clowns to high office.
We should not waste this important moment on childish slanders.
Also read: Obama’s “New” Plan Is Just Like His Old Plan
Seventy years or so later people still have trouble with the idea that FDR got us in WWII by forcing Japan into a corner where it had to either repudiate its bone-deep Bushido ethos and imperial designs or go to war against us. Roosevelt wanted us in the war before Churchill’s government fell and the appeasement camp returned to power and the staggering Soviets made a separate peace. On FDR’s birthday in 1941 a Gallup Poll said 80% of Americans were opposed to war. A bold stroke was needed. We had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code (Purple) and four of its 28 naval codes. Naval intelligence knew when Admiral Yamamoto formed up his strike force and knew the course it was taking to Pearl Harbor. Thousands of radio intercepts flowed into our listening stations. The FBI knew a Japanese consulate official was daily radioing Tokyo with warship arrivals and departures. The two carriers at Pearl, the only warships of value according to new naval doctrine, quietly slipped to sea before the attack. Everything, in short, was done to facilitate a successful sneak attack, including withholding much vital intel from the naval and military commanders in Hawaii. Why was this? FDR knew the only way to unite the country in war was to suffer a stinging defeat. The loss of 3000 lives and a few obsolete battleships was a small price to pay. And it was the right decision that FDR made. In one of the greatest blunders in history, Hitler declared war on America a couple of days later. If he hadn’t, our full fury would have been turned on the Japanese. My point is there are conspiracies in government. The Tonkin Gulf Incident was another. To breezily assume Obama is not part of another because he seems like a nice guy is generous but just might be naive. Remember his tutelage under the wing of Saul Alinsky, the truck he had with Bill Ayers. Obama might not be the smiling innocent you think he is.
Never attribute malice to what can adequately explained by incompetence. The Japanese fleet could have been stopped before the attack and the same result could have been achieved. Your point is on top of your head.
Better a point on top than all bone from jaw to crown.
So we both quoted Hanlon’s razor simultaneously…
As a general rule I would agree with the idea that one should “never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”. But not in the case of Pearl Harbor; the historical evidence for conspiracy has been getting stronger and stronger for years, while the case for “mere” incompetence looks increasingly foolish.
Oh jeeze – the Pearl Harbor Conspiracists – truthers from Another Age. So why did the Japanese Fleet that bombed Pearl Harbor miss the tank farm? ALL the g-d fuel for the U.S. Fleet in HUGE white, bloody-obvious tanks that were all IN A ROW, just sittin’ there out in the open? An entire YEAR’s worth of fuel for the Pacific Fleet that would press the counter-attack and halt Japan’s advance?
*They’re in the pictures taken by Japanese aircraft during the attack.*
Not a shot fired or bomb dropped at/on them.
If they had hit just one of the massive storage tanks they would have likely ignited all the rest, and destroyed all of U.S.’s fleet mobility, across the entire Pacific for a whole year in which time they would have had no opposition to their march down to Australia… There would have been NO heroics at the Marianas Turkey Shoot, no Guadalcanal Diary, not much of anything because we wouldn’t have been able to get out there and stop them…
Some conspiracy that.
The Japanese battle plan was to take out the oil tanks on a second attack when American fighters were incapable of organized opposition. But the tactical commander feared counter attack and left in a hurry. Big mistake. It would have taken upwards of a year to rebuild the fuel facilities at Pearl.
God Bless your reasoned response. I swear I thank God for it.
Banjo,
“The Japanese battle plan was to take out the oil tanks on a second attack”
Ummm…there WAS a second attack….
I think there were actually THREE distinct engagemments/commitments by the Japanese that morning…
“But the tactical commander feared counter attack and left in a hurry. Big mistake.
It would have taken upwards of a year to rebuild the fuel facilities at Pearl”
You do realize this supports the exact OPPOSITE of your “conspiracy” theory, dont you?
If it were a conspiracy to “sacrifice a few obsolete battships”, as an excuse to get into a war we wanted, would we not also have stored such irreplaceable fuel elsewhere, like you say we did with our irreplaceable carriers?
To intentionally allow an attack that “normally” should have (by hitting the fuel) knocked us out of serious contention in the Pacific makes no sense, when intercepting their force in the air at sea (because we knew EVERYTHING, right?) would still have caused the “political/military news event” we needed.
Must have been a conspiracy to conspire the event to look like a consiracy that only PRETENDED to be a conspiracy, when the REAL conspiracy was a SECRET conspiracy that only YOU figured out, right?
No, no. Yes, if we would have not entered the war the Axis would have conquered us eventually. But please remeber Hanlon’s razor: Newer ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.
And I don’t think they really realized how important the carriers were until the war proved it. They were still thinking battleships. Remeber, both the Americans in the revolution and the Germans in WWII got their doctrines from British papers, but the British didn’t use them.
It’s Occam’s Razor and you seem not to understand it completely. As for carriers, we had a hundred on the drawing boards or in stages of construction when we entered the war. Their value was perfectly well understood. The Japanese, on the other hand, still subscribed to McMahon’s big guns doctrine. That can be summed up as seeking out the enemy fleet and sinking it in a “decisive” naval battle featuring big guns. They built the biggest battleships in history, two of which were easily sunk by our fleet carriers at war’s end.
There is a distinction between Ockham’s and Hanlon’s razors. The 14th century scholastic William of Ockham argued that Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (“Plurality [of explanations] should not be advanced unless necessary”). Or, in short, the simplest true explanation is the best. Hanlon’s razor (“Never attribute to malice what can be explained adequately by stupidity”) is a special subvariety, but there are many other kinds of false and misleading pluralities beyond malice. In any event, your conspiracy theory is sliced to ribbons by both razors.
1)The Essex class and subclasses were one design, and although several keels had been layed by 1941, we were fitting flight decks to cruiser hulls and even Liberty Ships, once we fully realised the all-importance of carrier-based aircraft in huge, never before inamgined numbers. Indded, we hopped islands, because even with the huge fleet at war’s end, we still needed more planes.
2)Only after Pearl Harbor did the Navy really take battleship construction down a notch below carrier construction, even though Taranto had already shown what even the horribly antiquated British Swordfish could do.
3)You mean, I guess, Alfred Thayer Mahon, the father of naval supremacy theory?
4)Yes, the Yamato and Musashi did die at the hands of, oh, about 1000, planes each, struck by 30-40 bombs and torpedoes each. The lesson is that battleships without airpower are useless, that and aircraft carriers alone, without gunfire support provided by battleships and cruisers are useless, and that all of them are going straight to the bottom if noone keeps an eye on the submarines.
Aside from that, great post.
Alright……..enough.
For one thing, McMahon played quareterback for the Bears in the 80′s. It was Mahan, Alfred Thayer Mahan who was the father of the big gun battelship navies and both navies and the British were big proponents. Both the US and Japan saw carriers as scouting vessels that would operate in advance of the battle line. Yamamoto was still a believer in the all out battle between the surface fleets. It was Minoru Genda who concieved and planned the Pearl Harbor strike.
No, the US did not have a hundred carriers on the drawing boards. Only the Essex-class was in it’s conceptual stages before the war. The US, in fact, had intended to build a total of six Iowa class and planned five even bigger Montana class battleships. Most of these resources instead, went to the Essexes and the follow on Midways when the Montana’s were cancelled in 1943.
The rest of your concept of history is as flawed as you knowledge of naval doctrine in the early-mid twentieth century. Yes, we read Purple. No, we did not read JN-25. Most of it was unreadable until mid-43. There is no smoking gun. Rochefort’s intelligence coup prior to Midway was due more to his brilliance and astute deductions. By his own (and others) admissions, JN-25 was only 10% readable.
Once again…..Alfred Thayer Mahan.
In the early 30′s General Billy Mitchell (I think that spelling is correct)a WW1 pilot, was put through court martial for proving to the powers that be, that whom ever controls the skies and not the seas anymore, will be the military masters of the world. (Via A bombing demonstration that our leaders felt compelled to invite our friends including- the Japanese and Germans and Soviets to watch) Brilliant!—- With bombs dropped from the cockpit ( the pilots opened their hands and said bombs away!) they easily sank the target vessel.
There Generals were very impressed, ours were not, so goes the court martial.
During the trial General Mitchell was asked, Who might use such a tactic against us?
His response: The Japanese. He was then asked if his crystal ball also revealed where the Japanese would attack us? His response: Pearl Harbor. This, almost a decade before the attack at Pearl Harbor.
Captain JJ Clark attacked Pearl Harbor during wargames in the mid-thirties with the same results. The Admirals poo-pooed the manuever.
“There Generals were very impressed, ours were not, so goes the court martial
Sad but true….goes with the “razor” arguments…those conspiracies are simply too advanced and complex to have been sucessfully pulled of by Career Desk Bound Officers.
John Moses Browning had a functioning belt-feed machine gun in the 1880′s
He had no “connections” to the labrith of the Military Procurement System, but was sufficiently well known in the firearms design world to get an informal audience of several Ordnance Officers willing to see his creation.
He demonstrated it with an assistant linking together belt after belt as he fired it…
This gun “ran” continuously for about FOURTY MINUTES without a stoppage.
As Browning tried to imagine which part/component had finally failed,
his assistant pointed out they had exhausted their supply of ammunition.
(about 20,000 rounds)
The Army said:
“facinating machine Mr. Browing, but we cant imagine what on earth we would DO with such a thing”
And we marched off to World War One a generation later, without an American Machine gun.
That we had the incompetence to let Pearl be attacked is no surprise to me.
That we had the competence to PLAN and EXECUTE such a thing, is.
Not buying it. The Battleship Admirals of the USN of ’41 were still calling the shots. Carriers were amusing, possibly useful adjuncts to the battle line and no carrier admirals were of sufficient seniority to gainsay DoN, including Halsey. 6 months later, sure, but that’s a different story, totally.
Admiral Ernest King, chief of naval operations during WWII, was a carrier man and had been for many years.
King replaced Adm. Harold Stark after Pearl Harbor, in March of 42. Ironically, it was Stark who resurrected King’s career in 1940 from the graveyard of the Naval General Board. King was a Battleship Admiral through and through. He only became a Naval Aviator due to a change in requirements that required a commander of carriers, seaplane tenders and aviation shore establishments must be a qualified aviator.
Who cares what a carrier guy did when he was promoted AFTER Pearl, was he in charge of Pearl on Dec. 6th?
I think in this conversation Kimmels Resume would instead apply.
Light years of difference in overall Military capacity (and doctrine) between The Day Before Pearl, and, say, the day after Iwo.
BTW USMC, That comment was aimed at Banjo, not you
Banjo,
…And Halsey picked Spruance, a tin can guy, to lead carrier forces at Midway…
Whats any of this got to do with a non-existing conspiracy at Pearl?
Banjo pretty much has it right about Roosevelt.
But, what’s that have to do with what a scumbag Obambi is?
Obambi is a worthless piece of crap…but, he’s nowhere near as bad as Roosevelt.
Not yet, anyway.
“Naval intelligence knew when Admiral Yamamoto formed up his strike force and knew the course it was taking to Pearl Harbor. Thousands of radio intercepts flowed into our listening stations.”
Absolute malarkey. The Japanese foreign Ministry was completely out of the loop as to naval movements; Purple had nothing to say about them. The only naval code we had succeeded in breaking as of that time was the old Red code which the Japanese had stopped using several years before. Yamamoto’s strike force was under such absolute radio silence that the radiomen’s transmitter keys were removed and locked away in safes. On the other hand, shore stations in Yokohama, Kure and Sasebo busily generated bogus traffic purportedly from the ships that were no longer there, and we fell for it completely.
Right…
Everything is clear when you have all the facts, after the fact.
Thats why “proof of conspiracies” get stronger as time goes by.
I’m an expert in the Battle of Gettysburg…Been there countless times, read a million books.
Maps, Letters, Diaries, Telegraph Messages, the works…
Its so clear, so simple, I could have “out-generaled” Lee OR Meade when I was a Lance Corporal. Anyone could have
But its a bit different when youre there LIVE IN REAL TIME, without historical documents at your disposal, facts and information you didn’t have, from sources you never met, or even knew existed….
Study the whole terrain for a decade (or three), verses only seeing a small slice of it yourself ONCE , an hour ago, and rely on verbal descriptions from other people who don’t themselves have the full picture either. Make your decisions from that angle, see how well you do.
Yup, put it all together, and Pearl Harbor sure was a scam.
Just ask one question….
Did the all the folks involved THEN,
(radar operators, code breakers, politicians, admirals, pilots)
all know OF each other, and everything YOU know NOW.
The “bold stroke” was needed to get us out of the Depression.
FDR’s socialist programs were running out of steam and the government, similar to today, was running out of both ideas and money. A war was the answer. Take 16 million American males out of the work force, accelerate demand ergo full employment, increased tax revenue and a clear road to limitless borrowing.
If indeed, there was a conspiracy I for one believe that was the motivation.
How many flagburning ceremonies did Mr. and Mrs. Obama have to attend before their hatred of America was established?
“Nice guys” don’t: Lie continually, destroy economies, steal from those who have been forced to pay in to Medicare for 46 years by reducing the funds available by 500 billion, kill millions of innocent, unborn babies, promote sodomy, weaken our defenses, help islamic jihadists take over the middle east, etc, ad infinitum.
Obama is a psychopathic monster and should be institutionalized for life.
I believe this is from a Prague Newspaper, but it really does sum it up nicely;
“The Real danger to America is not Barack Obama! The real danger to America is a citizenry capable of entrusting such an inexperienced and incompetent man like Obama with the Presidency.
“It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President.
“The problem goes much deeper and is far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.
“Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.
“While the Republic can survive a Barack Obama; it is far less likely to survive the multitude of fools who made him President.”
Indeed, the Prague commentary makes a good point. Due to our electoral system a hissy fit of the the electorate need not be that large to place an Obama in charge. The real damage was done in the 2006 mid-term elections that put the left firmly in control of Congress. The American electorate has no excuse for giving Nancy and Harry the power they had.
That all bypasses the question of whether Obama is Eeeevil or simply wrong. Framing the question as a dichotomy as Klaven on the Culture (who I sincerely respect) does is incorrect. There is a continuum between innocently incorrect and malevolent evil intent. Obama is somewhere in the middle. He’s a lawyer, and is surrounded by more lawyers. There are no excuses for the systematic disregard for the law as exhibited by the GM and Chrysler bailouts that gave investor money to unions, for intentionally providing automatic and high capacity weapons to gangsters on both sides of the border, or for cutting out the tax payer as creditor in favor of a campaign contributor as is being done in the Solyndra case. I’m sure he is not intentionally trying to destroy the United States (evil) but neither is he an innocent bumbler sincerely attempting to apply a flawed ideology (wrong). He is an ideologue who is hostile to individual liberty and doesn’t mind violating multiple laws to get to the all controlling big government system he feels is best for us little people, and for the elites like himself.
He isn’t purely evil, but he is corrupt and dangerous. He is not simply wrong.
“He’s a lawyer, and is surrounded by more lawyers. There are no excuses for the systematic disregard for the law”
No excuse!?
Dude, that many LAWYERS in this country is the REASON we he have unresponsive lawless cabals running every layer of government from your local school board to the White House.
The Constitution was killed and buried by lawyers long before I was ever BORN.
I’ll vote for the guy who wrote that one!
I prefer EVIL.
They may be evil, but the harm they do while casting looks at the flag is fairly minimal.
The Honored Dead are beyond their reach. If they would try to damage the Honored Dead, the Obamas would only damage themselves.
Obama proves that being wrong, evil and stupid are not mutually exclusive conditions.
Hey, if evil is what you’re looking for, I guarantee you’ll find plenty of it in Obama. And in his entire family, his administration, his Chicago political cronies, his media shills, you name it.
Klavan seems to be a good man, and good men don’t like to see evil in the other people around them. It makes them uncomfortable. But as long as they don’t recognize and identify evil, as long as they don’t put a name to it, they will be powerless to combat it.
Ann Barnhardt makes that point very nicely in her YouTube video on “niceness.” The point is that it is not “Christian” to ascribe innocence to the malicious. True charity involves justice, for injustice always ends up hurting someone. Somewhere in the Talmud it says that if you are kind to the cruel, you will end by being cruel to the kind. In other words, cutting slack for those who hurt other people will end up — surprise! — hurting people. As one of the Hebrew prophets said, “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil.” And Jesus Himself was pretty scathing with those who piled unbearable burdens on other people.
I have some Christian friends who are always wanting to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. My response is that lots of Germans wanted to give Hitler the benefit of the doubt, too — until it was too damn late.
As Jesus said (I’m paraphrasing), we should strive to be as innocent as doves ourselves — but as cunning/savvy/streetwise as snakes. In other words, don’t assume everyone else’s intentions are as harmless as your own.
OK, having said all that, I frankly don’t know whether Obama’s evil or stupid or, as the very first commenter said, somewhere on the spectrum between two extremes. I’m inclined to agree with M. Scott Peck in his “People of the Lie” that at some point stupidity and evil come to the same thing, i.e., there is an act of will involved in choosing to remain deliberately ignorant of the consequences of one’s actions. (I’m probably not doing justice to Peck here, but that’s the way I remember it.)
I do agree with Andrew Klavan that the stupid-vs.-evil debate is rather pointless, since what really matters is DEFEATING this guy and CHANGING the country’s policies. I also agree that this whole lip-reading thing is ridiculous. GUNWALKER and SOLYNDRA and LIGHTSQUARED are out there, folks, and there’s no lip-reading required to see how abominable they are!
I too lean toward evil and not just wrong. The same can be said about Al Gore, second only to Obama as the greatest con-man in or out of government alive today. Both enabled by stupidity and political correctness; but I repeat myself.
I have a question! What is the true definition of EVIL?
My guess would be…? Evil is when you don’t care what woes befall others – as long as it doesn’t happen to YOU!
Here’s a guy(Obama)who with malice o’ forethought, a heart full of hate and from a position of extreme power has:Destabilized the most volitile region on the planet, shamelessly belittled good countrymen, engaged in felonious conspiricies while in office, sanctioned(almost without question)”operations” that have resulted in the murder of US and MEX citizens in furtherance of a political agenda, run roughshod over contract law(stealing individual’s assets),refrained from condemning grossly violent mob behavior by black youths against whites(hate crime)…..etc. Mr Klavan’s post-modernist discomfort with the concept of EVIL is prevalent. Call it what you will, by any name Obama is stewed in it, it oozes out his pores. Wake up Mr Klavan.
What kind of a fool are you Andy ?? Barak Hussein Obama and his wife are full of hate for America,and with the Marxist Left’s help,are destroying our Country !!!!!!!!!!
Agree with Will. The First Lady’s look after the comment was one of contempt, which she’s shown for America in the past.
Andrew, I must disagree with you this time.
Last Friday, Glenn Beck had one of his staffers (who is deaf) read her lips. He said he couldn’t tell what the 1st part was due to the pole being in the way, but the part where he could read her was her saying “Look at how they fold that flag.”
Seems a pretty neutral statement to me.
“that flag”
that’s enough
“Without free individual choice, without that crucible, a culture becomes flaccid, passive, unproductive, violent, and morally dead, a place-marker waiting to be conquered by the next group inspired by a moral vision.”
Just like England and the recent riots that took place there. There is a new “moral vision” taking place in England, one of severe socialism if not outright anarchy. All the country needs is another little push and they will have worse riots. If Europe slides into a newer and deeper recession, these riots will become commonplace. Why? Because the socialists and the anarchists will demand, yes DEMAND, more services from the government, if not more cash. The British government will be blackmailed by a bunch of thugs willing to destroy a city unless they get what they want. And what they want is more of just about everything. They never stop to think who will pay for this “everything,” they just want it. And if they don’t get it, they’ll take it. And that’s how major riots and social unrest runs out of control. So I can’t really understand why Obama and the far left think this is what our ultimate goal should be. I don’t understand why the European economic model, which is now a proven failure (just ask Greece), is what we should be striving for. But, then again, I never understood the far-left, let alone the things they wanted.
If you’ve studied BO for years and made at least 200 videos on him you might come to the realization that he’s both evil and wrong.
My video Postcards from the Oval Office is complete with BO and MO soundbites along with 19 unretouched White House photos of Obama’s feet on WH furniture. There is a link under the video to my Facebook page where you can see just the 19 photos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYJ3SKwaKg8
Oh, that’s rich!
And, just to throw a li’l gasoline on the conspiracy-theory fire, putting one’s feet on things is EXTREMELY disrespectful in Muslim culture. Even given that Obama’s not a Muslim, he spent his childhood in a Muslim culture (Indonesia), and oughtta know the message that sort of thing could send to Muslims about his attitude toward the office of the president, if he bothered to think about it.
I know it tells me a lot, even without that cultural meaning. =’[.]‘=
The last picture was the most appalling. It shows Obama sitting on the desk, and some unkempt slob in dirty jeans (Who is that pig? Why would he even be allowed in the White House dressed like that?) standing there with Obama in the Oval Office.
I have long ago given up trying to give Obama’s clown act the benefit of the doubt– on anything. It is simply disrespectful to put your feet on other peoples’ furniture– yet, there he is, in photo after photo, with his feet on the furniture.
Well, at least this explains why they replaced all the furniture with such cheap, forgettable junk!
If you’ve studied BO for years and made at least 200 videos about him you might come to the realization that he’s both evil and wrong.
My video Postcards from the Oval Office is complete with BO and MO soundbites along with 19 unretouched White House photos of Obama’s feet on WH furniture. There is a link under the video to my Facebook page where you can see just the 19 photos.
Click on my name to see the video.
He could be both.
It’s hard to tell.
I think he’s both.
I KNOW he’s both.
Otherwise, he would not have voted against the bill requiring medical care to be given to babies who survive a late-term abortion procedure.
Before the 2008 election, people accused me of racism because I told people not to vote for Obama. I said that I didn’t oppose Obama because he was black, but because he was a baby-killer.
Oh, and BY THE WAY…
Why modern liberals are 100 percent wrong about everything
Says YOU.
“I’m not even sure I can read her expression — which might be one of appreciation”
And Barry’s chin up raise might be a sign of humility.
It’s not necessarily of arrogance, either. Honestly, if I mimic his scrunched-face head-up posture I get a sense-memory of grief, a combination of pain and needing to feel the light on my face for a sense of hope, that makes me think I must have shown the same exact expression in the past in some of the darker moments of my life. So I don’t point to this snippet for confirmation that Obama is an arrogant piece of work. There is SO much other material to prove that conclusion that I can afford a charitable interpretation here.
No Michelle and Barack are not heartless monsters. But naivete is an valid excuse only for the immature and Michelle and Barack are well into their majority.
They are affirmative action babies full of childish and silly notions regarding large issues about which they know nothing. Sympathetic to the seditious Sharptons and Wrights of our society and hostile toward Bible reverent, gun owning patriots.
Worst of all, they’re absent curiosity about any other POV than their own and are hence incapable of learning and reform.
Some of the American Commies of old were apalled by Stalin’s murder and uprooting of countless millions and some remained loyal Stalinists until the collapse of the USSR. The former were naive, the latter were determinedly evil.
Michelle and Barack are a deliberately corrosive influence. We need to put them behind us ASAP.
If she had said, “All this just for a flag”, why wouldn’t that be important? Couple that with her public statement that she had never been proud of her country until her husband received the nomination. If in fact the first lady distains her country, as do many progressives, why wouldn’t that be an important factor to take into consideration in deciding a citicen’s vote. I’m sure that Noam Chomsky would approve.
When I became a conservative in 1980 I was like Andrew, a little embarassed by us all. I got over it real quick and have learned to embrace my inner wingbat with relish.
About 10 years ago kids entering college had no effective memory of Regan or East Berlin. Before that everyone knew the Pinko perfessors were full of it. In the last 10 years this has not been the case. The young educated had no bassis to resist leftist indoctrination and the fact that (both) Bush presiencies leave the right in shables and the result is Obama.
I hope the proper lesons are learned from Obama.
The young educated had no bassis to resist leftist indoctrination and the fact that (both) Bush presiencies leave the right in shables and the result is Obama.
presidencies
Plus ‘lesons.’
Spell check. Get you some.
Obama seems to be just consistently playing into the hands of the Republicans. I hate to say it, but they were right about his inexperience in Washington. He wasted the Democratic super majority trying to include the Republicans, and now he is being made to pay for that mistake.
Democrats never tried to work with republicans when they had the super-majority. In fact, they completely locked them physically out of rooms where these horrid bills they passed were written.
They lost power becuase they CHOSE to shove socialist healthcare down our throats even though we screamed and beggted them not to. They didn’t care. To top it off – they lied through their teeth about it.
They are liars and they are evil.
The Democrats are liars thieves and evil!
You are exactly the problem, as defined in JD’s comment (#2).
You are either one of the most uninformed of citizens, or you are just blinded by foolish idolatry.
At no time did Obama try to include the Republicans. In fact, the healthcare fiasco was written with virtually no input from Republicans, who were excluded from the serious meetings. Republicans never even had a chance to read the entire bill, and hundreds of pages were added at 4am, then voted on before anyone had read them. Imagine that– the biggest piece of social engineering in our country’s history, but Republicans had no input.
No doubt you listen to what Obama says, and then leave your mind in a drawer somewhere, completely oblivious to the fact that what Obama says has no relationship to what he does. He knows the media and his fawning admirers will not exert themselves to find the truth.
And I agree with lolly: The Democrats who are in the White House and Congress are liars, and they are evil. The voters are removing them as fast as they can, but it may not be fast enough. We have never had this type of evil so pervasive in our government before, and it is frightening.
FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don’t Raise Taxes In A Recession
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE&fe…
“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.” George Washington
He’s both evil and wrong. The clues were there, but people were too smitten with the PR campaign to look behind the curtain. People knew little of what Barack really represented because the Marxist Media hid, obfuscated or diminished his radical ties. But look carefully in Barack’s own words, what he represents: He sought out the Marxist Professors in college, he told Joe The Plumber, that he wanted to redistribute wealth, and he told us that he was going to raise your rates on coal fired electricity. And, Its all coming true.
So you elect a Marxist/Communist and you get misery for an economy.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/obama_chews_gum_at_joplin_memo.html
Ignorance, dogmatism and absolutism drove Adolph Hitler too.
Was he just wrong, not evil ?
Mrs. Obama purportedly turns to her husband and says, “All this just for a flag.”
A deaf lip reader said (he believed) Michelle’s words were: “Can you believe how they’re folding that flag?”
Anyway, while the Obamas have always struck me as a pair of supercilious prats, they’re not heartless monsters…They’re not idiots either.
Michelle essentially called us idiots during her husband’s campaign. She referenced Americans as lazy and incompetent while her husband referenced denizens of the entire western half of Pennsylvania as bitter clingers.
And that’s just the dissing we know about. Individuals in the secret service guarding the Obamas have some stories to tell, and they do not reflect well on either one’s liking for America and Americans.
See the flag pin in Barack’s lapel ? He made a huge deal of not wearing one in the early months of his candidacy, something about showing false patriotism.
Now he’s never see without one.
Like his paeans to how our country works, according to a Constitution, I find him now perpetually sporting the flag pin to be transparently hypocritical. And even…idiotic.
Obama’s new plan is just like the old one.
I disagree Andrew.(*cough* Gunwalker *cough*)
And the list goes on and on and on, but just the man’s lies alone prove this article to be complete nonsense.
Yes he is evil because he was going for a Gun Ban and possibly even a taking of guns legally owned by people like me!
I can take perfectly good care of myself, and it is easier for me to carry a gun than a cop!
Between 150 and 300 people have died in Mexico from weapons directed to them by an operation involving the DEA/DOJ/DHS/FBI/ATF. That’s evil.
At least two US law enforcement officers were killed by these weapons. That’s evil.
The weapons are in the hands of criminals operating on both sides of the border, a threat to the lives of US citizens as well as Mexicans. Thats’ evil.
While claiming it was just a botched legitimate law enforcement operation, the people responsible aren’t answering legitimate authority investigating the operation. That’s evil.
Apparently, they are running similar operations out of two regions in Texas, Florida and Indiana. That’s evil.
Although it involved increasing the violence in a foreign nation. They not only didn’t inform the foreign nation, they didn’t even inform the US representatives down there. That’s evil.
This all appears to be designed to provide a rationale for infringing or eliminating constitutional rights of Americans through increased gun control here. That’s evil.
I agree with Mr. Klavan that we should not waste our time on childish slander but wrong policies that compound our demise is evil even if unintended, which most logical people think it is intentional. Telling everyone that they will forever experience lower and lower standards of living to raise those up less fortunate is wrong but not evil. Taking everyone else down is evil. A real leader is a person that through his professionalism, dedication, policy, actions and encouragement lifts us all up and leaves whatever this person leads, a corporation, farm, government as better than what it was before that person took the leadership roll. Leading the lemmings over the cliff, Mr. Klavan or myself are more than qualified.
I understand where you want to go with this column, and it is true, we need to be able to explain calmly why and how Obama is wrong.
But when a person is wrong because that person sees America as the “empire” whose power needs to be reduced/destroyed, that person, to use a marxist language, is “objectively” evil because that person will tend to do everything he/she can to destroy the Country.
I mean, when in the middle of a serious crisis you keep threatening anyone who has money and so you keep them from investing, you aren’t only wrong, you are ruining the lives of many millions of people who will not find a job.
Wrong and evil.
I agree with AK completely based on observing the left, who operationally hates conservatives. It has made them stupid. Hate can energize your politics, but it also narrows your options. It’s the tool of the mob. Hating your opponent is fighting with one hand tied behind your back. Not only is it a biblical admonition to love your enemies, but even Nietzsche thought it was a good idea.
Obama is probably not evil in the full-bore sense of what you mean. But who you show a clear preference for in terms of associations gets rubbed off on you. And throughout his life Obama has shown a clear preference for the kinds of people that good people, good Americans, would not and should not associate with—people like Ayers, Dohrn, and Alinsky (and maybe Soros, too). He has also shown a clear preference for certain kinds of foreigners (Chavez and Ahmadinejad) and some of them actually have a bloodstained trail. Good people don’t do this. A good person, who is also president, stays away from these people to avoid the taint of who and what they are. If they have to be associated with in some why they are to be kept at a certain distance, but Obama has tried to embrace them. Obama is not pure evil, but he is not a good person in the sense of what most Americans regard as goodness.
‘He wasted the Democratic super majority trying to include the Republicans’…
Janet you need to lay off the smoke.
Better to attacked by an evil man than a good one. An evil man will eventually be satiated, but a good one will keep on going, untroubled by his conscience, since he knows it’s “for your own goor.”
“They’re not idiots either.”
I beg to differ. They may have sufficiently adequate IQ’s but I’ve met many a “smart moron”. By that I mean how and where they apply their intelligence.
Your previous statement says,”…while the Obamas have always struck me as a pair of supercilious prats,” And they truly are. Sophomoric smart-asses of the level one would find when a substitute teacher is trying to manage a high-school class for the day.
He is “a faithful scion of the political culture of the ’60s left,” And therefore, an idiot. The whole ideology of the 60′s left was incubated in the incomplete minds of teens and young adults back then, based on a utopian ideology and largely on ignorance. Hippies who thought communism was the answer, failed to notice the human destruction that such national systems encourage.
When seemingly intelligent people go down ideological paths paved with repeated horrid performance, they are indistinguishable from idiots.
“Naval intelligence knew when Admiral Yamamoto formed up his strike force and knew the course it was taking to Pearl Harbor.”
Wrong. Incorrect. Rubish.
I imagine that style worked well for you in middle school. But you’re wearing big boy pants now. Frame your arguments accordingly.
I’d recommend “The Codebreakers” by David Kahn, specifically Chapter 1, “One Day Of MAGIC”. It describes the events in the context of OP-20-G, the U.S. Navy signal intelligence unit which had broken the Japanese PURPLE cipher system. Kahn makes the following points;
1. The attack force was proceeding under radio silence; in fact, they had left their regular duty radio operators “at home”, sending spurious messages back and forth to give the impression that the carriers and their escorts were conducting training exercises in the Inland Sea. (Most of the IJN’s radio communications were by Morse key, and an operator’s “fist” is as distinctive as a fingerprint.)
2. The “16-part message” sent to the Japanese Embassy in Washington stated that they were to (1) tell the United States that the negotiations were at an end because there was no grounds for agreement, (2) deliver this message exactly at 1300 hours EDT (0700 Honolulu time, a half-hour before the attack was to begin), and (3) destroy all cipher and coding materials and all classified materials before delivering the message. Nothing in the message said anything about an attack.
3. Radio surveillance of other IJN units showed movements of transports- toward the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), and Malaya. No units were known or confirmed to be in the North Pacific. U.S. doctrines at the time assumed that a Japanese attack plan would be consistent with the announced goals of their foreign policy, which held that Asia and environs should be under Japanese rule. The movements of assets detected were consistent with the theorized strategy stemming from this policy. An attack on U.S. territories east of Guam, by comparison, was seen as a low-weighted probability due to logistics. (One mistake was made; nobody noticed that the fleet train movements in Far East waters were notably lacking in fleet oilers- the majority of those available were with the attack force.)
4. Exactly no message intercepted and decrypted by Allied intelligence said anything like “attack Pearl Harbor”. The Japanese government in general, and the IJN in particular, were well aware of U.S. and British Commonwealth SIGINT capability, and thus were careful not to mention such things over the air. Even the message from Cmdr. Fuchida notifying the flagship that they had achieved a surprise attack was a coded one; “To!To!To!” (shorthand for “Tora!Tora!Tora!”; “tora” is the Japanese word for “tiger”).
I can’t speak to the “FDR wanted us in the war” theory (I’m just now starting to read “At Dawn We Slept” by Gordon W. Prange). But no matter what anyone in Washington might or might not have wanted, what mattered here was what the Japanese military wanted to happen. And what they wanted, they got.
The Imperial Japanese Navy made no serious mistakes. We made more than our share.
clear ether
eon
I think the silliest thing about that entire conspiracy theory is the justification.
If FDR wanted to get into the war so badly, an attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese military was going to give him the reason he needed – whether or not the attack was a surprise. Does the tin-foil hat crowd really think the American people would willing ignore a military attack by a sovereign nation?
An American navy sitting in Pearl Harbor prepped for an attack would have achieved exactly the same outcome, with far less loss of (American) lives.
The idea that FDR deliberately badgered Japan into attacking the US has some superficial appeal, but is far-fetched. If he really wanted a war with Germany – and he was certainly having the US act like a belligerent in the Atlantic – did FDR really expect to achieve it in such a roundabout way? Hitler’s declaration of war on the US remains inexplicable, an incredible strategic blunder from a man who, up to that point, had made very few. (Tactical blunders are another story.) The whole conspiracy theory collapses without some reason why FDR could possibly expect Adolf to be so accommodating.
I don’t think it’s necessarily as clear cut as you think it is. I think it has a lot to do with the amount of harm done by an enemy attack.
The events of 9/11 galvanized American opinion in favour of an invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow Al Qaida and its Taliban hosts. The actions of the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber and the Times Square Bomber did not inspire fresh invasions of additional countries because there weren’t sufficient casualties to justify the vast expense of opening a new front. A comparably feeble attack at Pearl Harbor may have similarly failed to inspire America to go to war with Japan.
Suppose the Navy were not just alert to the imminent attack on Pearl Harbor but had had hours or even days to prepare a defense and a counter-strike. Suppose the USN did such a good job fighting back that they sunk most of the Japanese fleet and captured all the surviving Japanese ships, planes and crews.
If America was as overwhelmingly isolationist as an earlier comment suggested – 80% opposed America going to war – I could well imagine isolationist sentiment seizing on this victory to push the message that the Japanese were so obviously doomed to lose any war against America that the Japanese could be easily trounced if it ever became necessary but that it wouldn’t be necessary immediately or maybe ever. Public sentiment might even have persuaded FDR to ignore the Japanese declaration of war. The crushing defeat of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor might even have made them sue for peace rather than face an American onslaught.
I have no strong opinions on whether the US deliberately withheld knowledge of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor from the US units that might have repelled it because I have simply not investigated the evidence myself. However, people whose judgement I trust seem to have come to the concensus that this was simply not the case and I’m inclined to believe them. I’m not a fan of conspiracy theories but I can’t disprove the thesis that the appropriate intelligence was withheld from the people who could have acted on it to insure that Pearl Harbor went ahead as planned by the Japanese. If there was a withholding of intelligence, I can well imagine that a calculating politican, as FDR seems to have been, might well have wanted to ensure that Pearl Harbor was an unmistakeable black eye for America to guarantee that Americans would favour a declaration of war against Japan.
The difference is that, regardless of the amount of damage they (didn’t) cause, the incidents you mentioned were individuals. Now, they may have been attacking on behalf of terrorist organizations, but it’s still a far cry from an attack by the military of a sovereign nation – which was the point I was trying to make.
Imagine, for example, that tomorrow Russia launched a full-scale attack against a U.S. military base overseas. Fortunately, we get intel in time to mobilize our forces, and casualties are minimal, with a clear victory for our side. While I have no idea what the reaction of the current administration would be, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that most Americans – no matter how war weary – would want, even demand, a response.
‘Course, it could all have been Bush’s fault. I mean, his daddy was alive and a naval pilot during the war but who’s to say he didn’t have a political hand in getting the whole thing rolling, right? (just sayin’)
(sarc)
You are leaving Japanese intentions out of the equation. They hoped to destroy the Pacific Fleet as an effective fighting force long enough to consolidate their Asian conquests and build defenses against the inevitable counterattack. As they showed at Okinawa, they believed if enough blood was shed the Americans could be induced to sign a peace treaty. Yamamoto knew they were doomed — he had traveled in the U.S. and seen its wealth and industrial power with his own eyes — but succumbed to native fatalism.
Prange wrote a good book based on the information available to him at the time. Harry Clausen and Bruce Lee wrote the more exhaustive “Pearl Harbor: Final Judgment.” It is a blunders-explain-everything conclusion. General Short’s needy wife played a role. After you finish those, read “Day of Deceit” by Robert Stennett who used FOI requests to dig into the archives at San Bruno. Strangely, a lot of original documentation was removed in the 1970s and never returned. Thousands of decrypts disappeared at an earier date. Also missing is the radio log of the Lurline, the passenger liner that made weekly voyages from San Francisco to Oahu. Its radio operators listened to Japanese radio traffic as the strike force made its way south. Ham operators up and down the coast likewise heard the transmissions. The big ships were passing on messages from Tokyo to smaller ships whose attennas could not pick them up.When the Lurline returned to San Francisco after the attack, FBI agents confiscated the radio log. The Truther meme used in this context is straight out of the Alinsky playbook. You ought to be ashamed if you are still capable of same.
For starters, while morse intercepts knew pretty well which ships were sending messages, since a code keyer’s “fist” is quite distinctive, knowing this didn’t help.
The Japanese fleet comm personnel stayed behind when the fleet sailed from its home base to Tankan Bay, and continued sending normal seeming decoy traffic. (The listeners could pick out specific morse senders, and the traffic was clear evidence that the fleet was going about its normal home waters business.)
The fleet itself maintained strict comms silence during that movement, and the meeting at Tankan allowed Nagumo to update his commanders and finalize details for the trip to Pearl, which was conducted under strict radio silence, and routed far north to avoid usual shipping lanes.
Knowing that Pearl Harbor was a likely target (but by no means the only one), and that Japan was working towards war with the U.S. isn’t the same thing as saying that the IJN fleet was tracked all the way from Japan and that the information was withheld from forces in the field so that the attack would be successful, etc.
But I suppose it helps some people sleep better at night to think so.
Obama is envious, wrong and evil.
I don’t know what was said…nor do I happen to know what is the “wrong kind” of patriotism when it comes to our flag. I do know that many on the left believe that overt signs of respect for the flag equate to jingoism.
I happen to disagree sharply with such an attitude.
I also know from reading Stanley Kurtz’ book Radical-in-Chief that I happen to disagree sharply with the tactics of ACORN, the SEIU, the Midwest Academy, the folks from the Cooper Union meetings, pretty much anything that George Soros stands for and against, the New Party, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, Louis Farrakhan, Michael Moore, Van Jones, the hiring practices of the DOJ as outlined by Christian Adams on these pages, Paul Krugman, much of what is printed on policy in the NYTimes, MSNBC, and pretty much the whole nest of scheming bastions of leftist media.
I hope I am not silly for feeling the way I do and I further hope that I am not focused on unimportant things. The assault on salt of the earth people who oppose wild, rampant, unchecked leftist statism…seems to mirror the assault on free market enterprise and capitalism in general.
Moreover, the stealth manner in which this opposition is infused into our system of government, the distortions and lies told to hide the intent…and to hide the decline created by this failed ideology, is not easily carved away with a dismissive wave of the hand as I see it.
Yes, I indeed believe that the lies, distortions and intentional misleading of the public has an element that is not innocent. It is not the debate between the competing systems that bothers me. It is the false information campaign and the propagandized lies that is offensive.
It is the near criminal intent to deceive and conspiracy to distort that falsely weighs and measures with a thumb on the scale, cheating the voting populace of vital information in a representative self-governing land.
If I am the only one who sees evil at work in such distortion, please accept my apologies for my delusion. And somebody tell Stanley Kurtz and Christian Adams how wrong they are….I mean other than a Soros lackey, of course.
Obama spoke about the flag pin this way in October 2007…
“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest. “Instead,” he said, “I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”
So why are you wearing it on your chest now ?
We cynics see it as yet another flip flop in service to appearances.
Agreed. If it was naive they would be honest and try to explain their positions and plans. That they resort to every dishonest means to get their way just screams EVIL!!!
No, cfbleachers… you are far from delusional. In fact, well stated.
About Obama, I would simply put it this way.
Definately wrong. And evil. And way in over his head.
Folks, let’s keep passing the word.
November, 2012.
You are not alone, brother.
Well, for my money he absolutely is evil. Malevolence and incompetence are NOT mutually exclusive.
Were Lenin and Stalin evil?
It’s unlikely they thought so, although you certaily have to wonder about Stalin.
And they had millions of true believers.
So no, I don’t think our own Little Lenin intends to do evil. He thinks that destroying the country and punishing it for its past sins is a good thing.
And I would suggest that comparing our president to Stalin and Lenin is just as bad (and wrong) as when President Bush was compared to Hitler.
And I would further suggest that anyone who thinks Dubya and little lenin are in anyway similar is a hopeless fool.
If you address me again, don’t use the phrase “our president”. He might be yours, he’s not mine. He deserved to be impeached the day he broke the law to stiff the Chrysler bondholders. Since then, it has become thousands of times worse.
So sadly very true. I swear, this president could launch an unannounced nuclear attack on an ally while directing our entire navy to founder on the rocks and never actually be impeached.
I’m not sure why I’m bothering since I doubt that anything I say is going to sink far enough in to make a difference, but here it goes: He’s not your president? Then who is? Because, whether you like it or not, President Obama most certainly is your president. If you’re an American citizen, then President Obama is your president. Whether he deserves it or not, whether you like it or not, no matter how much it bugs you, this much is true: President Obama is your president. He was legally voted into office by your fellow citizens and he holds his office lawfully.
President Obama is your president.
Merry Christmas.
And, since it seems to have missed you, I was much less drawing comparisons between Obama and Bush than I was drawing comparisons between people who scream “bushhitler” and people who scream “little lenin.”
Your comparing Obama to Lenin is simply wrong. When Obama starts signing orders authorizing the killing of Republicans and civil servants and when he starts annexing neighboring countries (Canada? Mexico?) you can start making that comparison.
What an idiot.
If little lenin had issued an edict to annex Mexico, he would be gone, wouldn’t he? Run out of DC on a rail.
He has done everything he thought he could get away with and more. The list is endless.
The overwhelming evidence is that he has zero respect for the law and American traditions. He is bound only by his own opinion of the threshold of the guillotine.
And yes, I do not accept him as president; Carter yes, Clinton yes, neither was anti-American; this one, definitely anti-American. I wouldn’t stand up if he walked in the room.
No, those people who think evil things are good things, are quite simply evil. Not just wrong. No one will simply say a child molester is wrong, a child molester is evil, period. Obama believes that many things that are simply destructive, the final say on whether something is evil, are good. That makes him evil.
Your argument; That a person who thinks immoral things are good things. That a person who promotes and pushes immoral things onto others against their wills. That a person who excuses the most absolutely immoral things that happen in our world daily. That a person who shows an extraordinary amount of selfishness and entitlement to other peoples money for his own agrandizement. is a nice enough person to be simply called wrong, and not evil.
You know what I call people like you Klaven? Enablers of evil, and thus evil all on your own. You are an appeaser to evil. I recomend you change your tune on this post. Most of your post is worth reading, but claiming that evil is not evil, that sir is unworthy of what you have previously shown as what your character is.
Then… how do you explain all the lying, Andrew?
A man with a good heart but wrong ideas wouldn’t fill every speech with lies, hateful slanders, and straw men. Like it or not, Obama is pushing policies that he himself recognizes as indefensible, for whatever reason.
As usual, Andrew Klavan is spot on… and his commentary about free agency puts something into words that I had never really considered before (it also explains why the Right tend to be more charitable than the Left: someone like Andrew Klavan must wrestle daily with the decision to give to charity, while someone who votes for Obama just says “I’ll vote for the right party and they’ll take care of these decisions for me.”
Well said (and we often need to be reminded that our political opponents aren’t (usually) monsters).
We know he is wrong. We don’t yet know if he is evil— stay tuned, as they say.
What is evil? Malignant narcissism often masquerades as selfless concern.
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience–C S Lewis
Mr. Klavan is not evil, he’s just wrong.
Obama IS evil.
Exactly. Obama is both wrong and evil. I don’t always agree with Limbaugh. He’s got Obama’s measure. Obama, in Limbaugh’s view, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a politician’s garb. Wright said much the same in interview, after his twenty year disciple threw him under the bus: “Very simply, he is a politician; I am a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician and I say what I have to say as a pastor.” Would Klavan say Wright is wrong, not evil? I say they are both evil.
It isn’t often that I disagree with Andrew Klavan, but…
What makes you so sure?
Again, such certainty. There are conflicting reports, you know.
Emphasis added by your humble servant.
It’s your opinion that characterizations of Obama as an enemy of American principles and freedoms are incorrect, and therefore slanderous. As many have already asked, what would Obama be doing differently if he were a dedicated enemy of the United States? that doesn’t constitute proof, but it provides a basis for those of us who suspect Obama’s motives to argue for our point of view. As for “childish,” if there’s a rational basis for our opinions, what then makes them childish? That we differ with you?
There’s a lot of wishful thinking in the world. About 50% of it is about romantic love; the rest mostly goes to politics and public policy. But it is not wishful thinking to say to oneself, “This man is acting as if he hates America and wants to see it brought low,” and seriously entertain the possibility that that is truly the case. Inversely, to assume that one’s adversary is pure of heart, and magisterially reject all suggestions that that might not be the case treads the borderline between hope and folly.
I agree entirely with you.
Mr. Klavan is a man whose fame and influence has largely been increased from his appearing regularly in some very clever videos. Therefor, were the video evidence to support his argument today, surely he would have inserted this video at the top of this post instead of the still photo he used.
Sure looks like snark and disdain written on Michelle’s face.
She bragged during the campaign that Barack was gonna take us outta our “comfort zone”
Got that part right.
I beg to differ.
Obama is a freaking disaster, not merely ‘wrong’.
And he may not be ‘evil’, but he is a habitual liar who is bringing “fundamental change” to our nation via disinformation, unconstitutional edicts, and backroom deals.
But thanks anyways for policing the Net for us, Mr. K. We wouldn’t want private individuals out there doing devious things.
#31 and #35
Your argument is strong: the intent to deceive is clear, the list of colossal lies is long.
And there is another point besides what I have written above:
the twenty years in that “church” and the friendship with a terrorist who is proud of his bombs until this very day.
That “church” was a school of hate, not of political dissent.
Those friends were real terrorists.
We certainly need to avoid the simple “labeling” but we can’t omit to state that America is in danger because there is an evil intention to change it:
I have been rethinking about the “social-democrat” argument and it is not valid.
If Sweden becomes a socialist state nobody notices.
If America becomes a socialist country, the only hope for Freedom in the world is GONE.
The subversives and the terrorists everywhere would have their hands free.
So you must admit that the will to transform America and greatly reduce its might is not an innocent political dream, it would have dire consequences on the whole of the human kind.
The Twentieth Century has been called the century of the massacres, and America was at its peak power: what would happen to the world with a poor and disarmed America ?
SAYS OBAMA IN TODAY’S SPEECH, “IT’S NOT CLASS WARFARE-IT’S MATH.”
Actually, it’s the mathematics of class warfare by the clueless, losing, can’t-pick-winners, crony corrupt (anti-free market) capitalist.
Click ApolloSpeaks to read my widely linked Townhall piece, Barack Obama, The Buffet Rule And Tax Hike Heaven. It’s like nothing you’ve read on the subject.
SAYS OBAMA IN TODAY’S SPEECH, “IT’S NOT CLASS WARFARE-IT’S MATH.”
LOL. That’s rich … coming from a guy who speaks of ridiculously nonsensical notions (such as “profit AND earnings ratios”) and clearly has the mathematical sophistication of a slow 8th grader. I wonder what the Indonesian’s claim that ObamaCare would “reduce premiums by 3000%” comes under? Math? Or just Maf?
Oh, it’s math, alright.
The math tells us that it is virtually impossible for a President, just by chance, to do so many things that work against the country. The math tells us that incompetence would accidentally stumble upon the right solution, the right approach, the right ideas once in a while.
The math tells us that it cannot just be our misunderstanding when Obama repeatedly says one thing, yet does the opposite. It has to be lies, and it has to be intentional.
Obama’s every move is harming America. That is not incompetence. It is evil and intentional.
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE MATH!!! Obama admitted as much during the debates. If you will recall, when it was pointed out to him that raising taxes usually resulted in a drop in revenue, less money for the government. He stated, well it’s about fairness.
The proposal he has put forward is consistent with his campaigning. He does not care about whether raised taxes provide additional funding as long is they make things “more fair” as he defines it. I believe in his mind, it would be more fair if we were all starving together rather than some eating better than others.
The Indonesian Imbecile is both wrong and evil. The only reason he hasn’t totally destroyed the US already is because he’s a low-functioning near-retard.
The Indonesian hates our nation, our people and our institutions. He has done everything he was able to do (with that pea-brain of his) to bring pain and ruin our way and he’s not even done it to enrich any particular constituency, but just to destroy Americans’ wealth and our nation (as he vowed to from long back in that asinine, illegal campaign – yes, holding an American political rally in a foreign nation, for foreigners, is about as illegal as it gets and just about the most repulsive political act one could even imagine).
Evidently, I used a bad word in my previous post …
The Indonesian is wrong and evil. Period. Obvious. End of story.
Anyone who doesn’t understand the CLEAR ill-intentions Barky has for our nation (that he hates with a passion, along with us and our institutions) is too dim to bother listening to about anything. I mean, this ain’t rocket science, here.
“He doesn’t rub his hands together when he’s alone and mutter, ‘The economy is almost destroyed. One more stimulus package should do the trick! Bwahahahaha.’”
Ummm, but then Mr. Klavan states that this is exactly what communists are striving for. And Obama himself said that he wants to transform America. The only way I can reconcile his words with his actions is to understand that Obama is trying to replace the capitalistic/free market system with a crony capitalistic/socialistic/pay-to-play one where political allegiance is the only currency.
Andrew, in a sense no one is evil. Chairman Mao’s policies killed more people than the Holocaust and the Civil War combined. Was he evil or was his communism ideology evil? Tens of millions of Chinese starved to death as a direct result of Mao’s investment in steel production.
As we head into a double dip recession as a direct result of Obamacare, I can the man is not evil (“All this for a flag”) but I can say he is an ass.
I disagree. Obama, and people like him are evil.
When trying to decide whether malevolence or ineptness (or some of each) could explain the destructive choices made by the man in charge, we can only be speculating, so there is no conclusion that is guarantee to be correct. Between the two questions “What’s wrong with this fellow?”, and “what’s wrong with the ideas that justify his choices?”, the second question is more useful, because the questionable ideas are not just his ideas, they are the ideas that made his election possible, and they are the motive force behind the actions of those who have invested their careers in trying to help him further the advance of precisely these ideas.
So, the critical examination of the ideas is the rational approach. It may be different if we did not have elections. In that case hating the fellow would be even harder to avoid, whether any good could come of it or not. So, we must make sure we do not waste the elections, because they are also the process that makes debate possible. Once the campaigns are on, vigorous attempts will be made to make debate impossible, and instead manipulate emotion to drive votes, but this is precisely the trap we must avoid. So let’s not fall in the trap now, because it will be open even wider very soon.
Bush is Hitler. Obama is evil.
A nation gets the government it deserves.
I strongly disagree. No country ever deserved to get leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Il Sung and his son.
If your point is that the people in those countries are to some degree culpable because they “allowed” those leaders to come to power, remember that, of that list, the ONLY one that came to power via democratic means was Hitler. The rest seized power via coups or revolutionary movements and never contested democratic elections. The ordinary citizens of those countries were generally no more enthusiastic about these leaders than we are today; they were typically forced at gunpoint – or by threat of prison/execution – to fall into line behind these leaders. NO one deserves that.
Then change it to, Nations deserve the leaders they allow to remain in office long past the damage they will cause are known.
If you choose to live as a slave to your government rather than possibly die seeking freedom, I have very little sympathy for you. When you allow a charismatic person dupe you time and time again, I have very little sympathy for you. The only innocents of a bad government are the children and the invalids. Beyond that, they are to one degree or another willing participants.
Sparky, I strongly disagree with you. Germans got what they deserved in Adolf Hitler. Germans adored and venerated their Fuhrer. America got what we deserved in Obama in large measure because conservatives and Republicans mindlessly supported Bush, who was in bed with the Saudis and did the Saudis bidding. I agree. Nations get the government they deserve. astonerii is right. “Nations deserve the leaders they allow to remain in office long past the damage they will cause are known. If you choose to live as a slave to your government rather than possibly die seeking freedom, I have very little sympathy for you.”
He is speaking to you Sparky. Stop complacently accepting evil. Fight it or you will have the government you justly deserve.
Evil may be defined as expecting others to follow the rules of society, while feeling no obligation to follow those rules oneself. Evil people don’t go around “doing bad” – that’s just the definition of a psychopath. Evil people simply have no scruples about how they get what they want. I say that yes, Obama is evil. He is quite willing to impose rules on us, but feels no obligation to follow them himself.
Were it even feasible, so called redistribution of wealth by the federal government is far beyond its constitutional mandate.
In a word, unconstitutional.
And the road to hell is always paved with…
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
~Daniel Webster – (1782-1852), US Senator
(Obama) certainly fits the pattern of the “manufactured” radical, one who
internalizes the gestures of the oppressed in order stabilize a
less-than-coherent personality. (Sertorius, PJM, 3/15/10)
“Obama’s leitmotif is: Washington is disappointing, Washington is
annoying, Washington is dysfunctional, Washington is corrupt, verily
Washington is toxic — yet Washington should conscript a substantially
larger share of GDP, and Washington should exercise vast new controls
over health care, energy, K-12 education, etc. Talk about a divided brain.”
~George Will, January 29, 2010
A pleasure reading most of you here at PJM, as usual.
I’m with Klavan here. I’ve seen black women say — and mean — very sweet things with the same expression and gestures seen in this video clip.
There is enough to call the Obama’s out on, where their meaning and intent are undeniable, without seeing portents in the mildew stains on the bathroom wall.
Well, other than, “This bathroom really needs to be cleaned”…
What a dupe !!
Andrew! Andrew! This is extremely important, I hope you read this comment.
It’s *viciously* destructive. Viciously. As slimy as wealth-redistribution is, I don’t think it actually destroys anything via its intense viscosity.
Conservatives believe that there ARE TRUTHS.
Progressives believe that it is possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Kinda says it all
If you do not thing Obama IS evil, YOU are evil and are part of the problem.
You have to be brain damaged to believe he is only “wrong”.
Ah, yes — “if you don’t agree with me then you’re evil!”
I disagree with your statement and I am not evil, nor am I brain-damaged nor am I part of the problem. Your simplisme convinces no one but could easily offend many.
If your ignorance gives you solace, embrace it for all it’s worth.
(psst! Cybergeezer!! If you’d spelled “its” correctly, you might have carried the point. But now I’m thinking you’re the ignorant one)
“for all it is worth” or “for all it’s worth”
Seems right to me, although I can also see how “its” might be used.
Milk a cow for all its worth. Or, milk a cow for all it is worth.
Is there not a slight difference in meaning?
Jeannette; ( Why so many N’s and T’s? Do you stutter when you type? )
1. “its” |its|
possessive adjective
i.e. its hair: its color.
2. “it’s” |it’s|
contraction of
i.e. • it has : it’s been a hot day;
or, it is : it’s a hot day.
“If your dumb, you gotta be strong”. Hope you work out.
Been fun. Seeya. ( Author invokes grammatical license ).
“Wrong” and “Evil” are the same word in Austrian.
Just sayin’ …
Yea; You learnt that at hunior collesh.
First, a disclaimer. I’m not a lip reader. I don’t even play one on the internet. But those last three words by Michelle certainly look more like “fold that flag” than “for a flag”. I also agree with Andrew Klavan about almost everything else in this article (as I usually do!).
I would like to point out, however, that there *have* been evil acts by this administration. The most well known, for the moment, is the Gunwalker (and Gangwalker) fiasco. If these decisions reach all the way to Obama (there’s no proof of that yet, but evidence continues to mount) then I would argue that yes, he is evil.
Arming gangs and drug cartels – no matter how much you may believe in your reason for doing so – is evil. I’m absolutely confident that the people involved didn’t view it as an evil act. They probably still don’t. But who ever does?
So for the time being, I withhold my judgement. Is Obama evil? I don’t think it can be proven right now. But I don’t think it can be dismissed, either. (Sorry Andrew!)
“This [paternalism] may seem appealing in the moment but it is viscously destructive over the long run.”
Mr. Klavan, “Viscously” should be replaced by “viciously” in that sentence, right? Oil, for example, may have the property of being viscous, which means thick or sticky. Or do you really mean exactly what you said? I’ve never heard paternalism referred to as thick or sticky before so I’m not sure if I’ve stumbled on a typo or an unusual usage of Viscous….
It helps to know personally some folks who are very different from you politically.
In my lifetime, I’ve had good personal friends from all across the political spectrum, from self-described socialist (voted for Ralph Nader rather than Dem or Repub candidates) to libertarian and everything in between.
And you begin to see that folks whose political philosophy you regard as dead wrong and perhaps even dangerous, are still decent and likable people whom you’re proud to have as your friends.
So let’s be careful here. Even self-described socialists aren’t ipso facto evil. They really believe that their ideas are the best.
It’s the ideas that are wrong. Those who believe in them are usually just misguided.
Let’s focus on those ideas and go from there.
And before you judge left-wingers as evil, get to know some personally. Have lunch with them. Have dinner with them.
Stop being so pathetically politically correct. Not evil? Get off it. Anyone who embraces Marxism and what it takes to achieve it is stinking evil. Anyone with half a brain who knows what was done to humanity in the name of that monstrosity and still supports it deserves to be called evil and to be hated. You can try to mush mouth this all you want, to appear reasonable, but guess what, evil exists in the world and ALL OF IT has come from the left since the French Revolution started to mass murder in the name of “social justice”. He and the beast he married are no different.
“…evil exists in the world and ALL OF IT has come from the left since the French Revolution…”
I loathe what the Communists have done to this world as much as anyone can but I can’t quite buy that statement, much as I’m tempted. Hitler, at the very least, must be an exception.
Having said that, I should point out that I don’t buy the recent argument that says Nazism and Communism are both forms of collectivism so they are both leftist ideologies. If I did, I might be able to accept your claim that ALL evil starting with the French Revolution emanates from the Left.
Hitler and Stalin, as the leaders of their respective ideologies within their own countries, loathed each other and fought a vicious war that killed something on the order of 27 million Soviets alone, many millions of Germans and further millions of others. Stalin and Hitler were not kindred ideological spirits except insofar as they both loved murdering their enemies.
Mein Kampf provides ample evidence that Hitler loathed communism and that this was a primary motivation in his attack on the Soviet Union.
I think Klavan is right on the money here. Elections are won in America by persuading more of the great moderate plurality than the other candidate. We have all of the objective facts we need to persuade those voters that President Obama has been terribly and irrefutably wrong. When we veer off into the highly subjective and emotional area of intent though, of claiming to know what is deep down in Obama’s heart and that it’s evil, we risk losing an awful lot of those voters who don’t believe it and recoil from garbage such as:
“If you do not thing Obama IS evil, YOU are evil and are part of the problem.”
One can say that all they want, but if they think they are going to persuade many voters with it they are a couple of cans short of a six-pack.
As SG-1 pointed out, when smart people repeatedly make bad decisions, they are indistinguishable from idiots. When people who are wrong continue making decisions that lead to misery for others, wrongness becomes indistinguishable from evil.
So far in this thread only Darbacour has brought up the ‘gunwalker’ scandal. I dont think ‘wrong’ enters into that one. It is pure evil.
The author is, I suggest, asking the wrong question. He is asking whether Obama’s actions are driven by the ideology of socialism, which is harmful in itself, or by his own intentionally malicious agenda of harming the USA. I suggest that Obama is run, neither by ideology nor simply by anti-Americanism.
He is psychologically deviant; he’s a clinical narcissist. This is not your ordinary run-of-the-mill egoism. It’s a full-scale clinical condition, where Obama MUST control all others around him..or…he feels they are a threat to him.
I suspect he moved into clinical narcissism as a young boy (I won’t go into my suggested reasons). If he had remained as a local community organizer, in charge of and in control of underlings whom he ‘activated’ to go out and Do His Words, he’d be relatively harmless.
But, move someone like that into a position of enormous power and expanded contacts with others – and the result is a massive growth in Obama’s Need-To-Control-Others. Obama’s clinical psychosis means that he can’t handle questions, criticism, dissent – because he feels that he’s losing control of the situation. Result?
Obama can’t deal with Congress which is based on questions, dissent, debate. He seeks to override and ignore Congress.
He can’t handle criticism – so, he seeks to censor and shut up dissidents such as FOX News, Limbaugh..and Paul Ryan and any of the state Governors who criticize and reject His Will.
He can’t handle not feeling that HE controls everyone, so he comes up with AttackWatch.com…a blog site to set up an atmosphere of everyone looking at and snitching-to-Obama what ‘He said about You’.
Anyone and anything that Obama feels he cannot control – he drops them instantly. They, and that situation, simply do not exist. So, Obama had no interest in the Iranian demonstrators for freedom. They were demonstrating for freedom. Not Obama. He had no interest in them.
His focus on taxing people, and in particular, those whose hard work has given them wealth, is to reduce Their Power…and show Them that HE, is in Power. HE has power over them and can take away their wealth and reduce them to being ‘just like everyone else’.
At the same time, he, Obama, can’t handle being ‘just like everyone else’, which is why he vacations at Martha’s Vineyard.
Is Obama interested in ideology? No. He leaves that to his minions. He just needs to control people and assure himself that they are lesser-than-Him, and are subservient-to-Him. And..that they love Him.
He’s psychologically a seriously neurotic individual…and given the powers of the presidency, he’s a danger to America.
BHO is pushing his tax and spend “Jobs” bill as requiring people to pay their fair share. I have long held a poorly formed unease with the term “Fair” when used in any political/social context. My discomfort became crystal clear at Church yesterday where the sermon was on the parable of the workers in the vineyard. For those that don’t know the story, a landowner hires some men to work in his vineyard for an agreed day rate. He goes out several more times during the day and hires more workers and promises them the same pay. It all hits the fan when he begins paying them at the end of the day and the men who were hired late in the day were paid just the same as those hired earlier. This wasn’t “fair.” I then realized that no one uses “fair” to advance justice. The term is always used to justify greed while trying to make it sound like you are looking out for your fellow human.
“It all hits the fan when he begins paying them at the end of the day and the men who were hired late in the day were paid just the same as those hired earlier.”
When you say “paid the same” do you mean that the people hired later were paid the same rate or the same amount? It seems to me that it is very fair to pay people the same 20 shekels an hour whether they start first thing in the morning or well into the afternoon. But if pay each person 100 shekels whether they work the whole day or just the last 20 minutes, that seems very unfair.
He pays the same total amount to each person, regarless of the amount they worked. It is the person’s money to spend as he see’s fit. Fair or unfair, no on has the right to tell him otherwise how to spend his own money. Now, to figure out if this activity is good or bad, imagine what happens on day two of the endeavor.
Matthew 20, if you want to read it yourself: The vineyard owner needed harvesters, and went to the local 7-11 to hire illegal day laborers in the parking lot (just kidding). They all agreed that the men would work for the “usual daily wage”. The owner went out again at mid-morning, noon, early afternoon and late afternoon (one senses an urgency about harvesting his grapes; was there a storm coming?) and at the end of the day, he paid the late-comers first, giving them the usual daily wage. When the men who had worked all day got to the front of the line, they were thinking they’d get some kind of a bonus but they too got the prevailing daily wage. They got mad but the vineyard owner said “Tough noogies, I can be generous if I want to”. (Biblical meaning is that God is happy if we repent of our sins on our deathbeds, he’ll welcome us into heaven)
I kind of got that deathbed thing too. But then again, I am not sure that is the moral. It seems to me to be a recipe for slovenly lifestyles. Imagine if the vineyard owner tried to get employees the following day, none who saw this would volunteer until after noon. I always look at the long term effects of an action along with the short term, and this parable at least seems flawed. I agree, that if it was a storm or other reason they had to be harvested that specific day, that this parable would avoid that flaw, but I do not recall seeing a version with that stipulation.
The point is that it would only be unjust for the employer to withhold payment he had promised to the earlier employees. To pay the later ones the same is generosity, not cheating. Don’t be envious of your brother because someone gives him a gift, because the greatest gift is the one God Himself gives- eternal life to all who trust in the Cross and Resurrection of Christ for salvation.
My take on this parable is it’s describing the two Covenants, Mosaic Law and its many ceremonies,rituals,and sacrifices compared to the New Covenant of ‘Grace.’
Christ having fulfilled the Law and its requirements, His death on the cross did away with the yearly Passover (blood) sacrifice for sin, and His righteousness is transmitted to believers/G-dfearers, sparing us a whole lotta ‘work(s).’ (for sanctification/salvation)
I’m not dogmatic about this analogy, I find that many good points can be made from all the parables Christ told, but it seems reasonable.
I like the ‘deathbed’ analogy too…my 93 year old atheist mother accepted Christ on her deathbed, literally hours away from meeting Him.
I think that Obama is a complete disaster on domestic policy and almost a complete disaster on foreign policy. I also have a very low impression of Obama’s personal character.
But I think that Klavan is right. Dead on right. Although there are far more whack-jobs on the left, there are also some whack-jobs on the right. And some of the above comments prove it.
I say that as someone who was and is solidly to the political right of Ronald Reagan. At least Ronald Reagan was a rational man, in control of his emotions.
Reagan actually enjoyed the company of some of his strongest political opponents. My best personal friend for many, many years was the exact opposite of me politically. If you can’t understand that, you are the flip side of the same coin as Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan.
Some of you need to get a grip on your emotions. Maybe take a vacation from politics.
Or maybe I’m evil.
Unapologetic, former terrorist, Bill Ayers wrote most of Dreams. BO has lied about it continually. Has PJ Media ever seen fit to do a story on it?
You’re not alone. Most of the conservative media won’t go near it with a ten foot poll. Why should I respect the opinions of people who deal in self-censorship?
Is it not “evil” for the President of the United States — allegedly the most powerful person in the world — to be persistently and consistently “wrong?” To a great extent, evil is as evil does. Regardless of whether he is evil or simply wrong, he has to be defeated next year.
All these psychological analyses of Obama as to his motivation (Evil? Incompetent? Inept? Ideologically driven?) are a bit late. Probably should have been done before, not after, the fact. Problem now is we’ve got him, at least until the next election, or until he quits. But does it really matter? I’m 68 and well remember that bumbling oaf, James Earl Carter. He wasn’t evil, he was just a dunce in the wrong job. And if we can survive that clown, we can survive anybody, even Obama. I have great faith in the recuperative powers of this country. Obama will be remembered as nothing but an ideological speed bump in our history.
Of course Obama isn’t evil. You’re absolutely right there Mr. Klaven. Is he an idiot at times? Yes. Does he make choices that generally do more harm than good? Yes. Is he responsible for the current economic crisis? Partially the economy itself is lousy around the world, it’s just worse here.
Is he doing this all deliberately with the intent of destroying America and injuring innocent people? Of course not. Obama is definitely trying to fix the mess he’s made, it’s just everything he tries fails, cause most of it is stupid.
No, it’s not a conspiracy, no it’s not the grand liberal scheme to lead America to violent revolution that turns it into the next USSR, and no, it’s not evil. Hitler was evil, Sadam Hussein was evil, Stalin was evil. Lenin had an idea that sounded great on paper but ultimately failed. That’s not evil. Killing people for political reasons is evil. Making people suffer to control them further is evil.
You’re completely right Mr. Klaven, but I’d like to add that maybe if there weren’t so many conservatives willing to stoop to cheap shots and made-up non-scandals, maybe our reputation would be a little better, and maybe we’d be able to actually do something good for America.
Lenin had an idea that sounded great on paper but ultimately failed. That’s not evil. Killing people for political reasons is evil. Making people suffer to control them further is evil.
I’m not sure if you are trying to have it both ways or if it just comes off that way but Lenin was definitely evil by your definition. Not for having an idea about a better way to do things but for killing people for political reasons and for making people suffer to control them further. Don’t take my word for it thought, there are many books on the subject. I’d suggest Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War by W. Bruce Lincoln and A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924 by Orlando Figes.
Too many people have the massively mistaken idea that Lenin was some kind of gentle reformer whose benevolent reign was replaced by the vicious usurper Stalin. Make no mistake about it, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky and a large percentage of the lesser lights who made up the Bolshevik Revolution were profoundly evil by your definition. Lenin simply died early so wasn’t able to do as much damage to his country as Stalin, at least in terms of body counts. But he cleared the way for Stalin to do all his evil and Stalin in turn facilitated Mao’s rise to power in China and the rise of other Marxist dictators as well, like Kim Il Sung.
I hate to tell y’all this, but the question of whether Obama is evil is a trick question. The answer is: EVERYONE’s evil! There are no good people. The Founders, since they actually understood and believed the Bible, knew this to be true. Therefore they strictly limited the power of the Fed gov’t in the Constitution. But We the People, being a wicked and lazy sovereign, and having turned our backs on God and His Word, have empowered and encouraged our ministers for decades to ignore and trample on the document. Obama is just the latest of these. He just happens to be one of the more egregious examples, admittedly…
True that. It’s just a matter of degree. I think some commenters here are overly concerned with how Obama feels in his heart or something. Instead, let’s look at what he DOES that’s objectively evil. Lying, for example.
Hubert H. Humphrey was wrong, nothing more. But Obama is evil.
Obama and the left would not extend the same courtesy to the right that you have just displayed. I’m sorry it’s about time to call bs on them. Their ideas are evil. And they are unpatriotic, elitist supercilious prats. If they want to play by Leninist rules, so be it. The Right has bent over backwards to be generous for half a century and has steadily lost ground.
It is time to take back what has been lost by any means necessary. IF that means stealing from the Ayers playbook, so be it.
Better that we all be damned in hell than that the left gains a single inch.
Evil is as evil does… to mangle a common saying. When BHO submits this ‘Jobs Act’ what exactly is he submitting to congress? It is nothing more than an attempt to use a crisis to feed his socialist agenda. It will not result in more jobs. (Sorry, I don’t consider adding more government employees to be a solution to the current unemployment problem.) What it will do is expand government, and take money from the producers in this country to buy votes of the non-producers and other interests such as various unions. (Vote buying is an art in this administration. Remember ‘Bought Off’ Ben Nelson? Or ‘Bought Off’ Bill Nelson?)
>>>>>
He doesn’t rub his hands together when he’s alone and mutter, “The economy is almost destroyed. One more stimulus package should do the trick! Bwahahahaha.”
<<<<<
What he does say, with cold indifference to our laws and constitution, is: 'Capitalism is almost destroyed.'
And when he is done, when everybody is paid the same, when all have the same Government Issue health care, when everybody has a 'job' the people will say: 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.'
There is another saying: There are three kinds of people in the world:
The ones that MAKE THINGS HAPPEN,
The ones that WATCH THINGS HAPPEN,
and the ones look around and say WHAT HAPPENED?
Far too many people standing around watching and then asking what happened.
Andrew, I love you man (in a manly sort of way). And you’re one of my favorites.
But you got to take the blinders off on this one. Anybody that is a disciple of Saul Alinsky is evil. And that’s the one curriculum Obama gets great grades – Alinsky 101.
Let’s not forget Saul Alinsky didn’t dedicate his book to Lucifer just for grins. Old Saul knew exactly where he stood. Truth be known, so does Obama. And it ain’t for good.
Obama may not be evil but his ideology is. In the end, what’s the difference?
He can be wrong. And he is. But he’s wrong for the wrong reason. Not because he doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows what he’s doing. He seeks to harm America. And that’s what makes him at the very least malicious. It’s quicker (and not wrong) just to say evil.
Mr Klaven;
Anyone who brings before a legislative body a bill requiring that born-alive aborted babies be put in a closet to die is evil.
Sincerely,
Joan
We seem to be looking into Obama’s Universe and are debating its origins.
I will call the two competing theories as thus:
A)The Big Bong Theory
B)Intelligent Redesign
The Big Bong Theorists believe that Obama and his cohorts are simply following the red diaper babies favorite themes and theses to a tee and there is nothing more to the smoke (and mirrors, I suppose) than their zealously implementing their navel gazing ponderings into law. Ruled by hippies and managed by stoners…sort of a “Dude, Where’s My Car Company” innocence and naivete.
The Intelligent Redesign Theorists believe that George Soros is on record about his desire to take down capitalism a peg or two or 100 trillion, Barack Obama, Sr. is on record for socialism, Frank Marshall Davis, James Cone, the Cooper Union crowd, the New Party, Bill Ayers, …all are on record about capitalism and their intense dislike of it. In order to “transform” America, there must be a battle plan. And, that plan is not all sweetness and light.
And the orbits in Obama’s Universe seem to all spin in a similar direction.
The cause of the “red shift”, may be difficult to know for sure, but whether you subscribe to the Big Bong or Intelligent Redesign theories, or both, I would not dismiss either entirely quite yet.
Brilliant, cf. Thanks.
I’m on the fence on this one, unless it’s evil to pretend to be qualified for the world’s most important job, when clearly you are not.
“Big Bong.”
…count on you to deliver the best lines…be seein’ ya in the camps… ;D
Why argue, Obama is both wrong and evil. No contradiction there.
‘Anyway, while the Obamas have always struck me as a pair of supercilious prats, they’re not heartless monsters.’
I’m sure you have something that backs that up? NO?
‘They’re not idiots either’
I certainly disagree with you here – again, some substantiation? Oh, yeah , they have the sense to rape and scrape us, the taxpayer, for their wagyu beef and martha’s vinyard vacays…. so I guess they’re not idiots. Just a$$h0les.
‘What Obama is’ is a shameful SCOAMF that idiots in the MSM and demonrat party foisted upon us. I wish them all extremely short and pestilience-filled lives.
‘We should not waste this important moment on childish slanders.’
Yes, let’s just rebut him civilly, and watch our efforts be ignored.
In their face, twice as hard. Slander, libel, words you never saw in the bible. Irritate them until they make a mistake.
Faint heart ne’er won fair maiden, Andrew.
And yet, neither has arrant douchery. The extremes tend to repel, rightfully.
Klavan is preposterous. After conceding he doesn’t know what was said, he dismisses plausible lip-readings as “childish slander.” His evidence is no evidence, simply an assertion that Conduct Unbecoming a President and First Lady could not possibly have taken place because it is… well, Conduct Unbecoming a President and First Lady. Those offended by Klavan’s preposterous position should note the truth is an absolute defense against a childish accusation of slander.
Hussein, and his leftist ilk, are wrong because they’re evil: “Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.”” – Ayn Rand
“The social system based on and consonant with the altruist morality—with the code of self-sacrifice—is socialism, in all or any of its variants: fascism, Nazism, communism. All of them treat man as a sacrificial animal to be immolated for the benefit of the group, the tribe, the society, the state. Soviet Russia is the ultimate result, the final product, the full, consistent embodiment of the altruist morality in practice; it represents the only way that that morality can ever be practiced.” – Ayn Rand
Hussein’s gang calls it “shared sacrifice.” He’s evil.
I’m not sure about this video, but your claim that he’s wrong not evil is called having one’s head in the sand. Evil people call William Ayers friend. Evil people sit in a so called church of hate and claim they never heard the hate. Evil people sell weapons to drug cartels as a ruse, and claim ignorance, only to find out later, they approved $10 Million in money to purchase those weapons. Those weapons have killed over 100 people. All of these victims were somebody’s baby.
Evil people appoint members of the Muslim Brotherhood to DHS and the State Department, finger the Navy Seals after the alleged killing of Bin Laden, and then those Navy Seals are subsequently killed. I say allegedly killed Bin Laden, because I believe nothing from this man.
Evil people take an oath of office and in that oath swear to uphold the Constitution and then trash it, and give money they’ve looted from the Treasury to their friends at company’s they know will go bankrupt. Then they break the law by giving the owner of this company preferential treatment over those taxpayers he’s stolen from, and those he swore an oath to protect.
Sorry, I don’t buy the wrong claim, he’s evil. There’s more, but not enough room or time to write the lies.
Sweet, I approve of this message!
The video has been removed by user. Guess we’ll never know what it looked like. Personally, I think he’s both intentionally destructive, wrong, a liar, and a fake. But that’s just me.
Klaven, I love your work but I have to disagree. I think you are combining two separate issues and drawing the wrong conclusion.
First issue: If we want to make political progress, let’s stay focused on the big stuff, not the petty things.
I agree. Talking about every little stupid thing obama or his minions says or does is pointless. There are big important issues that need our attention, and Congress is at least half the problem.
Second issue: Obama is evil, not wrong.
I disagree. He is both.
On ideology he is wrong. Communism is horrible and flat-out doesn’t work. Enormous amounts of evidence, and logic, support this conclusions.
His ACTIONS to force americans into communism is the evil part. If he wants to live in a socialist ‘utopia’ cult voluntarily, fine. But he wants to force all of us to live his ideology, while he himself doesn’t live it. That is evil. He lies, steals, degrades himself and others, and is attempting to essentially enslave people into a system he won’t take part it. He incites others to violence on behalf of his marxist ideology (like most other marxist leaders who didn’t do their dirty deeds themselves). A ‘useless idiot’ who believes socialism will help people but ‘wakes up’ and stops as soon as he understands that it will hurt people – he may be wrong but not evil. Someone who understands fully that it hurts people but continues anyway – that is both wrong and evil.
Dude, you need to think about what it means to be evil. Subjugating others for your own desires, or ‘their own good’ is evil. It violates the definition of humanity.
I think you are wrong. The useful idiots you make reference to are actually evil, even while they are ignorant of the harms. As you do not help others subjugate and enslave others ignorantly. If you are ignorant in this respect, then you are negligently ignorant, also known as willfully blind. That is an evil characteristic of a human. Of all the things that keeps the evil activities of the socialists in motion, playing it off as simply ignorance gives it the greatest ability to prosper. Then, it is nothing more than a neutral idea, free to be bantered about and promoted. But everyone who knows what it is, evil, should know better than to let it propagandize itself repeatedly through our society.
Are you sure Andrew? I think you are wrong… First, maybe you are unable to read lips but many deaf people can. Also, do you think Mr Obama did not know he was driving America in the wrong direction? Do you believe he is a stupid?… What about Soros, Hillary, the Czars, his friends; all the Progressives, Radicals, Marxists, Mao lovers working with him…? The main stream Media is working with his agenda, collaborative protecting his steps, lying and hiding manipulating the public opinion making marketing op instead of the news. It seems we are heading toward a catastrophe.
I welcome plausible theories as to why the video was removed by the user:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W5xDBxE_0w&feature=youtu.be
A You Tube search of Michelle Obama + flag will show many copies of the video. Here’s one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk97Ml53Yfg
I wouldn’t read anything into someone deleting their videos.
usually, klavan is right on the mark; however, this time he gives the leftist marxist an undeserved break. obama obviously hates america, wants to hyper-spend and over-regulate it into ruination. how about all those extravagant self-indulgent spree vacations by michelle (the new marie antoinette) o.? if the traditional hordes of illegal donk voters in cemeteries, aliens who should not be voting, felons and those crooks with multiple polling registrations are prevented from cheating, 11/06/2012 will witness another ass-kicking by righteous citizens fed up with corrupt thuggish chicagoland gangsterism.
Here is the video:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/what-did-michelle-obama-say-to-the-president-during-the-911-ceremony/
“such wealth redistribution is morally wrong”
OK. So Obama is not simply engaging in a test of economic theories and proving his theory to be a failure. Obama [and Democrats in Congress and the Judiciary] is engaging in something morally wrong. At what point does the common definition of “Evil” for intentional moral wrong become appropriate?
How about now?
I have read all the above comments, and carefully read Andrew’s article; I am saddened that I cannot agree with him as I usually do.
My thoughts are best expressed by Francis W. Porretto and cfbleachers above; but I would add that Obama has, with the help of accomplices and the media, completely hidden all of his past that may have helped us to decide the ‘evil’ vs. ‘innocent idiot’ question.
For my 2 bits, I reckon he’s evil. I believe he knows exactly what he’s doing, is doing it intentionally, and his goal is to bring down this once-great nation. He appears not to have any ordinary American friends; they are all far-left agitators, terrorists, and the like. Some of the few facts about the Obamas that I am confident of: he likes to play golf, while Michelle likes to spend money.
One more question to throw into the mix: Both he and Michelle have abandoned their licences to practice law. Why would two honest people, with nothing to hide, do that?
If childish slanders help to get Obama unseated, I am all for childish slanders.
Evil is an absolute. There is no good in evil. A human being on the other hand is complex (an understatement). A human being may effect evil while trying to do good. A marxist may see life as a class stuggle for material goods, and think it a good thing to take from some and give to others in a quest for material equality. He is, as Klavan says, wrong but not evil. A thief, or a corrupt politician, however, will take from others in order to enrich himself. It is the selfishness that defines an evil person.
Evil is a very powerful and dangerous concept. Since it is an absolute we may feel justified in absolute measures against it. Therefore human beings are burned at the stake. We see evil and do not know we are staring at a mirror.
Andrew, millions of good loyal Americans in the 1930′s sincerely believed Adolph Hitler was wrong, but surely not evil. Today, most people think Hitler was evil.
Now I read that you tell me point blank that Obama isn’t evil. Well, leaping lizards, sir, what Carnacian ability gives you the power to make that judgment? What a handy tool. You should be a judge.
Regardless, since you obviously believe you can tell wrong from evil, I can’t resist asking you about a number of people from fairly recent history. My question about each. Wrong or evil.
Here’s my list. Please take a whack at it, and get back to me at your convenience.
Joseph Stalin….wrong….or evil
Major Nidal Malik…..wrong or evil
Osama Bin Laden……wrong or evil
Charles Manson…..wrong or evil
Lee Harvey Oswald….wrong or evil
Tim McVeigh….wrong or evil
Osoroku Yamamoto….wrong or evil
O.J. Simpson…wrong or evil
Casey Anthony…wrong or evil
Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf…wrong or evil
Oh, sir, one final thought. Do you believe in lip reading?
One of these is not like the others. Yamamoto was a sailor doing his duty in time of war, attacking the military force of what he was told was a declared enemy (that the civilians screwed up the delivery of the declaration of war is not his fault). A commanding officer is responsible for his own actions and those of his men, not those of his government. Therefore, we cannot blame Yamamoto for any of the atrocities committed by the Imperial Government or by the Japanese Army, just as we cannot blame Rommel for the Holocaust.
“such wealth redistribution is morally wrong”
Yeah, it’s usually called stealing. And, that’s evil. Obama steals…and that’s why he’s evil.
Of course, all politicians are evil to a certain extent, but libtards take it to absurd extremes.
The redistribution of wealth and racial ‘reparations’ in America ‘is not evil’??
Spending future generations into deep debt ‘is not evil’??
After 4 years you still haven’t done your homework or worse, you throw a blind eye to all that is known!? EVERYONE knew in ’08!
“You have to pinch yourself – a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And it’s considered impolite to say so!” – Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08
If Obama’s deeds are not evil— Pride, Envy, Greed, Dissention, Destruction– then what is?
People have this foolish, Saturday-Morning-Cartoon image of “evil.” That it goes running about in a tophat and cape, twirling its sleazy mustache, cackling at the suffering of others. Evil is not measured by motivation or emotion but by DEEDS. If anything the fact that they imagine themselves to be compassionate and good makes their evil WORSE…. C.S. Lewis noted that falling under the tyranny of a hateful despot would be better than falling under the tyranny of a self-anointed moral busybody, because even the worst villain would on occasion grow tired of his malice– but a self-righteous “compassionate” person will torment you endlessly with the complete approval of his own conscience.
Playing golf while you are sending men to die in combat is evil.
Spending $50,000 on a weeks vacation when those who entrusted you with their wellbeing go hungry is evil.
Hiding the place you were born in order to deceive others that you are qualified for elected office is evil.
Taking public monies to enrich your personal friends at the expense of taxpayers is evil.
Bring your children to be indoctrinated to hate others in a so called ” church ” is evil.
Siding with terror states at the expense of states that cherish freedom is evil.
I could go on.
Of course there are some who will say that many others are guilty of these crimes. From a moral point of view that justification holds as much water as when a child, when caught stealing candy from a store, says, ” Everybody else was grabbing candy. ”
Klavans article demonstrates that, for some, moral standards have become a negotiable grey area.
Amazing the ignorance displayed here
the new leftists only knew what they were against: America, or Amerika as they spelled it to suggest its kinship to Nazi Germany.
“Bwahahahaha”
American kinship with Nazi Germany compared to Stalin’s when he helped Hitler rearm during the 30s?
No, Andy, you are wrong. Obama is evil and wrong.
His agenda is an issue, but what sets him apart is that he and his supporters are willing to do anything to get their way, violating standard practice and procedures: he knows no limits, knows no proportion has no center.
Once upon a time, people who placed their ego, their desires above right or wrong were called evil. Not useful now, I suppose, because such things are expected.
Why not just think of him as the enemy since he seeks to impose his will on us legitimized by the use of force rather than persuasion?
Obama is evil. Any radical true-believer in Marxism is evil.
It sometimes happens, Andrew.
President Obama is, I think, listening to advisors who reject our founding philosophy — liberty, limited government, popular government. They believe, seems to me, in rule from the top down — because, quit dimly, they are so much more enlightened than the rest of us. I believe they are also convinced that Republicans lack spines and, eventually, cave — certainly after assault from the media.
Would that Republicans take instruction from the concluding paragraph in Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, and understand that clever ambitious people will try to twist ordinary understanding to their purposes — the antidote to such stratagems — reliance on common sense (and, I would add, our founding legacy).
Are the Obamas and their advisers evil and/or wrong? For sure, they want to turn the political clock back to the days of, per Madison in Federalist No. 57, the “ambitious sacrifice of the many, to the aggrandizement of the few.” It is my sense that democracy rises or falls in direct proportion to the strength of the middle class. The radical left loathes the middle class. But oh, how the radical left loves its empowerment and wealth following thereto.
I offer George Baileu (“It’s a Wonderful Life” as a middle class symbol. ]I offer this test: where would George Bailey feel comfortable –at an Obama $35,800 fundraiser — or at a Tea Party event?
I think there is a very basic and fundamental misunderstanding by Mr. Klavan of who the Indonesian really is. Barky is, at his core, an Indonesian. That’s where he was raised for all of his formative years. That is where his basic personality was set. That is where Barky’s essential world view was set.
In Indonesia, Barky picked up the general third world hate of the first world. A toxic combination of jealousy and stupidity, this is what motivates his every major move. He HATES the US and the West. Barky sees himself as the Avenging Angel of the Third World, come to rain pain and destruction on the US and the West … to exact revenge on us for the illusory humiliation much of the third world feels we have forced on them with our advancements, freedom, creativity and productivity. The fact that they depend on our advancements and productivity for their own existence just incenses them even further (as this is all a third world pathology, to start with). This is the world-view that the Indonesian Imbecile carries. It is not only not American in any way, but it is specifically opposed to America and everything we stand for. BHO came into office pledging to destroy the America that was (forcing a “fundamental transformation” – i.e. a totally different country – which was only a half-truth as the destruction was all that Barky cared about, as has been shown by his every action and utterance since he got into office). BHO made clear that he wasn’t even looking to redistribute wealth, but just to destroy the wealth of those he didn’t like (as when he said during the dem primary debate that he would still raise capital gains taxes, even if he KNEW that it would result in reduced receipts (i.e. hurting the poor he is claiming to be stealing money for) because it was “a matter of fairness” … i.e. social justice … i.e. third world revenge on the US).
This was all clear from way back in the dem primary and no one had any excuse to not see it. Interestingly, those of us who did see this and warned about how evil Barky was were correct in most of our predictions of Barky’s actions (as we understood what motivated him). It was the people who didn’t acknowledge the sheer America-hate/Western-hate emanating from the Indonesian who were constantly confused about “why would Obama do XYZ if it didn’t benefit him or anyone?” with every new stupid and anti-American move by Barky.
Now, some might not consider this perverse third world view to be evil, somehow – even when it’s found in someone occupying the Oval Office – but that comes down to a matter of inconsequential semantics. The truth of it is quite simple, if you assume that the Indonesian hates the US and will do everything his pea-brain can come up with to harm us, then you will be able to accurately predict just about everything he’s going to say or do in the future. If you think he’s just a bumbling fool who is actually trying to help America, in any way at all, then you will continue to be confused by what he says and does, as it won’t make any sense to you.
As for ‘fairness’ the US Constitution does not have a, fairness exemption clause. Since fairness and equality are the basis of Marxism, (translation)Some self described unbiased nothing to gain arbitrator, will decide how to slice the pie. Oh’ you thought that was your pie. No No, you can earn the pie and eat some pie, however you have no say in where half the pie goes. Your not qualified to understand what fair is. For you’ve earned to much at the expense of others.
Nor is there an ‘I will err on the side of life’ clause in the Constitution. Bad judgement call…
How can we call ourselves civilized when we allow horrifying atrocities and genocide of black innocents. This is more than wrong. It is profoundly EVIL:
The Obama-supported rebels left in charge are now conducting a “large
scale cleaning in the areas under their control with the extermination
of all blacks in the capital”, according to The Independent.
Ruthless genocide of blacks in Libya by US/France/NATO backed Al-Qaeda linked rebels has been going on for months. US/FRANCE/NATO who waged war for months for the Al-Qaeda linked rebels-who murder our troops in Iraq-are RESPONSIBLE for stopping the genocide.
US/NATO are also responsible for
rescuing the many blacks kidnapped by the rebels, including the
kidnapped black children who have been horrendously abused by the
black-hater Muslim rebels.
Blacks must have human rights!
STOP THE GENOCIDE!
“We should not waste this important moment on childish slanders.”
Neither should the opposition but they do because their experience and their interpretation of it informs them that “childish slanders” work on the American electorate. We’ll see what happens in 2012 but some, O.K., me at least, are concerned, not by the less than stellar qualities of our current crop of candidates but by the inherent gullibility, inattentiveness, naiveté and ignorance of that electorate based on who they elected President on a plethora of unsubstantiated accolades, feigned oratorical skills, personal associations that would have quickly kicked any opposition candidate to the curb and the flimsiest of any real evidence of leadership. And what is the basis for this claim? The guy’s personal approval rating that any reasonable estimate of his actual performance would put at maybe 20 to 25% is stuck right around 40%. How is this otherwise with an electorate informed by other than “childish slanders”?
Of course, dare it be said, he’s also interracial and the Liberal, “childish slander” machine has predetermined that criticism of Obama, any criticism, must be racist; Janeane Garofalo, that paragon of Leftist political intelligentsia, says “racist, straight up.” Brilliant, no? And no one wants to contradict Janeane. She’s a “comedian” and a movie star! So do you approve of Obama personally? Absolutely, man! I’m no racist!
Let us be clear: There goes the first undocumented U.S. president, a Marxist mulatto to boot. (Do I hear anyone laugh? Well, half of Europe did in 2008, at least the half with email boxes that got the image of a greenback with a Golliwog on it.)
Take a step back from this fact, then consider whether it is important to distinguish between Obama being just plain wrong or die-hard evil. Future historians will rub their eyes in wonder over the current state of the Union – why, the madness of crowds once again came to the fore.
The real issue here is quantity, not quality. Numbers will count.
Are we all then just “Obamaphobic?” Personally let’s judge him on his deeds, which are evil.
“She then allegedly shakes her head and rolls her eyes while the president nods in agreement.” Allegedly? Come on. Please Andrew, don’t morph into John McCain.
Andrew, I agree that it’s nearly impossible to make out what she’s saying, mainly because of that pole or whatever that is in the way. I’m fairly good at lip reading but it’s just too difficult.
But I would disagree that these two people are simply sincerely wrong. Their repeated statements and behavior leave no doubt in my mind that they deeply resent and even despise this country and all it stands for.
I agree about forgetting the lip reading here. Look at their history and it’s clear what they think and how they feel about this country, its principles and its citizens.
Do you know why Obama is toast?
I was getting my teaching credential and I had an experience with one of the instructors that sums up the Obama administration predicament For the first half of our program, they fed us nonsense and latest fads, etc. Diversity, Self-esteem, yada yada. Pure liberal BS. The young education grads with no job experience sucked it all up, vocally disdaining the teachers they observed using old fashioned methods that have worked for centuries rather than the new “enlightened” ones.
Then the second half we went into the classrooms and had to achieve actual results rather than talk about how pefect the children would be, in theory. One fine day one of the student teachers expressed frustration to our professor about the fact that all of his ideas were bunk and challenged him to take us into the classroom and prove that anything he said had merit. He eagerly took the challenge. HA, HA! Talk about a spectacular failure. Did it change the instructor? No. He just made a few lame excuses about how it would work if only this or that.
You see, for liberal professors, it is not about really wanting Johnny to read, it is about the RIGHT way that we should teach Johnny to learn to read. The rubber never has to meet the road, because to them the process is more important than the result. What they are invested in is their process, not your results.
The Obama administration, with all lily handed “intellectuals” is of the same ilk. Likewise, he and his liberal and progressive followers won’t change. They will all continue to insist that the theory is correct, if only Obama would do it right.
Thus Obama, (not their theories!) is toast.
Whoever Andrew Klavan is, he doesn’t have a clue about what is going on in the world and he certainly has no clue about “end-times prophecy.” Barack Hussein Obama is totally evil and also completely wrong. Obama makes most of his decisions based on black reparations and his desire for the destruction of Capitalism in America. He is just doing the bidding of his marxist and satanic handlers. Obama makes Hitler look like a good guy.