<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The other side of the coin</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/</link>
	<description>Just another Pajamasmedia.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2012 04:07:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storm-Rider</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-17158</link>
		<dc:creator>Storm-Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-17158</guid>
		<description>Benj,
Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but that doesn&#039;t diminish his understanding of elitism as an unjust and often tyrannical form of government power - power which does not derive from the consent of the governed.

There will always be an elite class of scientists and thinkers, but there must not be an elite class of rulers. Elite minds are as easily drawn to totalitarianism as ordinary minds - probably moreso, because elites often worship the superiroity of their own minds. 

Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing - an elite was a prerequisite.”

That is a lie.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benj,<br />
Thomas Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but that doesn&#8217;t diminish his understanding of elitism as an unjust and often tyrannical form of government power &#8211; power which does not derive from the consent of the governed.</p>
<p>There will always be an elite class of scientists and thinkers, but there must not be an elite class of rulers. Elite minds are as easily drawn to totalitarianism as ordinary minds &#8211; probably moreso, because elites often worship the superiroity of their own minds. </p>
<p>Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing &#8211; an elite was a prerequisite.”</p>
<p>That is a lie.</p>
<p>“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benj</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14783</link>
		<dc:creator>Benj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14783</guid>
		<description>Storm - Consider the very quote you cite: 
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson

Isn&#039;t it clear that Jefferson&#039;s own position as a slaveowner made such pronoucements slightly problematic inside his own head? As you may know, Jefferson&#039;s thinking about  slavery (and black people) wasn&#039;t static. And if you probe into his thoughts about the relations between &quot;the people&quot; and their representatives, you&#039;ll see there are nuances there as well. I didn&#039;t misquote Jefferson - and you couldn&#039;t claim that I did. So you reached into your back pocket for &quot;you&#039;re lying&quot; (and pointless bluster about me and the devil Marx walking side-by-side.)  It&#039;s a response that&#039;s not worthy of a (small d) democrat. I believe Jefferson would think you&#039;re taking his name in vain...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Storm &#8211; Consider the very quote you cite:<br />
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t it clear that Jefferson&#8217;s own position as a slaveowner made such pronoucements slightly problematic inside his own head? As you may know, Jefferson&#8217;s thinking about  slavery (and black people) wasn&#8217;t static. And if you probe into his thoughts about the relations between &#8220;the people&#8221; and their representatives, you&#8217;ll see there are nuances there as well. I didn&#8217;t misquote Jefferson &#8211; and you couldn&#8217;t claim that I did. So you reached into your back pocket for &#8220;you&#8217;re lying&#8221; (and pointless bluster about me and the devil Marx walking side-by-side.)  It&#8217;s a response that&#8217;s not worthy of a (small d) democrat. I believe Jefferson would think you&#8217;re taking his name in vain&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storm-Rider</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14623</link>
		<dc:creator>Storm-Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14623</guid>
		<description>Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing - an elite was a prerequisite.&quot;

That is an untrue statement; and if stated to mislead, it is a lie.

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benj: “Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing &#8211; an elite was a prerequisite.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is an untrue statement; and if stated to mislead, it is a lie.</p>
<p>“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” Thomas Jefferson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benj</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14622</link>
		<dc:creator>Benj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:13:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14622</guid>
		<description>@ Storm - “You’ve lied about Jefferson” The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a “liar” hints at’s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It’s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there’s a tension in Jefferson’s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the “republican-demos dualism” is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You’re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by “intelligence above the common level.” J. was no Hruska.

Go back and look at the histories of “fugitive democrats” around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you’ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson. 

One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would’ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L’s approach to demos than to J’s… By the way, you know I like Paine - I’m a Big James Otis fan too!!

One more story - A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend - a historian of American populism and dreamer of King’s dream - asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line - didn’t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O’s taste for Ham…</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Storm &#8211; “You’ve lied about Jefferson” The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a “liar” hints at’s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It’s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there’s a tension in Jefferson’s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the “republican-demos dualism” is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You’re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by “intelligence above the common level.” J. was no Hruska.</p>
<p>Go back and look at the histories of “fugitive democrats” around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you’ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson. </p>
<p>One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would’ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L’s approach to demos than to J’s… By the way, you know I like Paine &#8211; I’m a Big James Otis fan too!!</p>
<p>One more story &#8211; A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend &#8211; a historian of American populism and dreamer of King’s dream &#8211; asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line &#8211; didn’t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O’s taste for Ham…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benj</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14621</link>
		<dc:creator>Benj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14621</guid>
		<description>@ Storm - &quot;You&#039;ve lied about Jefferson&quot; The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a &quot;liar&quot; hints at&#039;s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It&#039;s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there&#039;s a tension in Jefferson&#039;s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the &quot;republican-demos dualism&quot; is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You&#039;re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by &quot;intelligence above the common level.&quot;  J. was no Hruska.

Go back and look at the histories of &quot;fugitive democrats&quot; around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you&#039;ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson. 

One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would&#039;ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L&#039;s approach to demos than to J&#039;s... By the way, you know I like Paine - I&#039;m a Big James Otis fan too!!

One more story - A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend - a historian of American populism and dreamer of King&#039;s dream - asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line - didn&#039;t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O&#039;s taste for Ham...



One And not just to this issue. (Again -the ad hominen assertion that I&#039;m M is suggest another interpretation of J. is  is  The notion that anyone who disagrees with your ou&#039;ve lied about&quot; C Jefferson&#039;s letters to Depont de Nemours. You&#039;;re certainly</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Storm &#8211; &#8220;You&#8217;ve lied about Jefferson&#8221; The notion that anyone who disagrees with your reading of J. is a &#8220;liar&#8221; hints at&#8217;s wrong with your appraoch to so many issues. It&#8217;s the argufying style of a little totalitarian. The idea there&#8217;s a tension in Jefferson&#8217;s conception of what one (eminent) scholar calls the &#8220;republican-demos dualism&#8221; is pretty uncontroversional among students of J. You&#8217;re certainly right that in the letters to Depont de Nemours, Jefferson emphasizes the necessity that the people be able to throw their reps out. But he certainly holds to the idea that the reps will be marked by &#8220;intelligence above the common level.&#8221;  J. was no Hruska.</p>
<p>Go back and look at the histories of &#8220;fugitive democrats&#8221; around the time of the American rev and the making of the constitution and you&#8217;ll find there MANY voices who offered a sharper challenge to elites than Jefferson. </p>
<p>One way to think about all this is to go back to the origins of Anglo-American radicalism. Consider, in particular, the famous arguents over property qualifications between the Levelers and the spokesman for Cromwell. Doubt J. would&#8217;ve have identified with the Levellers. But there were some Americans way back in the Continental days who were closer to L&#8217;s approach to demos than to J&#8217;s&#8230; By the way, you know I like Paine &#8211; I&#8217;m a Big James Otis fan too!!</p>
<p>One more story &#8211; A few years back when I went to see O at a book signing, my old Southern friend &#8211; a historian of American populism and dreamer of King&#8217;s dream &#8211; asked me to pass on the word to O that he was in a position to make the greatest contribution to American demos SINCE Jefferson. My bud is a BIG Jefferson fan. I dutifully passed on the line &#8211; didn&#8217;t sense it went over that well. I remembered all that when O invoked HAMILTON during his Spring speech on the economic crisis at Cooper Union. AS you know, Ham was better on the issue of Slavery than J. Maybe that had something to do with O&#8217;s taste for Ham&#8230;</p>
<p>One And not just to this issue. (Again -the ad hominen assertion that I&#8217;m M is suggest another interpretation of J. is  is  The notion that anyone who disagrees with your ou&#8217;ve lied about&#8221; C Jefferson&#8217;s letters to Depont de Nemours. You&#8217;;re certainly</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storm-Rider</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14616</link>
		<dc:creator>Storm-Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14616</guid>
		<description>Well-stated comment on Obama from American Thinker:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_unspoken_campaign_message.html

America&#039;s outlook with Obama as POTUS and CINC with democrats controlling congress: (Not just a worse-case but a likely scenario.)

Part 1: The White House: as POTUS, Obama will appoint a collection of anti-American, anti-Semite advisors and cabinet members to oversee foreign policy; (all selected by George Soros and his henchmen based on the principals of Jimmy Carter&#039;s presidency). Air Force-one will be Bill Ayers private transport, until he flies it into the Pentagon. Rev Wright will be the White House Chaplin. The White House staff and advisors will be a gathering of anti-American, anti-Christian numb-skulls indorsed by move-on and code pink. The White House will be overrun with BHOs corrupt Chicago cronies. (I can only imagine Michele Obama as first lady and primary WH advisor on Wright-Alinsky ideology). The Lincoln Bedroom will be filled with adoring Hollywood nit-wits. The oval office will be home to a cabal for the demise of traditional America values, (you know, those racist, gun-toting, religious clingers have got to be neutralized).

Part 2: The Military: As CINC, Obama&#039;s first priority will be to marginalize the US Armed Forces. His handlers will redefine the military by insidious appointments; from the SecDef thru the Joint Chiefs, to the area commanders (good-by Petraeus). Senior military Officer and enlisted will retire, mid-grade officers and NCOs (the leadership backbone) will quit, and the junior officer and enlisted will be left floundering and leaderless. US super power status will be degraded to a poker bluff with the military no longer useful as a diplomatic trump card. The US navy will be brought home and mostly scrapped save money. We will be unable to project power any farther than a few miles off-shore and then only to facilitate drug and human trafficking. We will unilaterally disarm, including nuclear weapons and all future weapons systems. (He has already said he would do this). Our remaining deployed military forces will be converted to peace keepers under UN mandate and leadership or brought home and dismissed to join the &quot;civilian national security force&quot;. The remnants of the beleaguered US armed forces will be a blue helmet force under UN control. The once proud United States Military will be replaced with a &quot;civilian peace corps&quot;; Obama quote ;(&quot;We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we&#039;ve set. We&#039;ve got to have a civilian national security force that&#039;s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.&quot;) Obama will only need to control dissent within our own borders; the UN will ostensibly &quot;protect&quot; us and the world from foreign interference. 

Part 3: Foreign Policy: US foreign policy (and sovereignty) will be eventually subordinate to the UN.) Obama will appease every foreign tyrant so they will &quot;like him&quot;. Islamic countries will rejoice at having an ally in the most powerful position in the world; the success of their jihad will be assured. All our intelligence resources will be turned inward and used to control Americans. The CIA and FBI will be Obama&#039;s private police force along with his civilian national security force (to control any pending domestic rebellion). All our current allies will be betrayed, we will acquire a new set of allies: (Vladimir, A-Jad, Hugo, Raul, whoever the hell runs Kenya and you could fill in the other names yourself). Massive give-a-ways will go to his native Kenya (to whoever the hell runs the place) and other failed African countries because he can. (This is already in the planning stage). Iran will have the bomb (with our blessing), Israel will be fighting alone for its very existence against Iran, its puppet states and its own subversive leftists; Lebanon will be lost to Hezbollah; Palestinians will rejoice; Russia will have free reign in its area and all the old USSR&#039;s former satellite countries will be reabsorbed. Al Qaida will dominate the Middle East including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf States. A nuclear Pakistan will be lost, along with Afghanistan to the Taliban. Europe will be hostage to Islamic fundamentalists and no longer a useful ally to the US. Venezuela will dominate South America with Chinese; Iranian and Russia&#039;s help... our crippling dependence on foreign energy will be exploited by our enemies. China will be struggling for super-power status to replace us: (with their nanoweapons technology they may already be in a position to dominate everyone), India will be a failed democracy with nukes. The US, with a European style do-nothing military, will be ineffective for not only our security but the security of the world. The corrupt UN will gain near absolute world power; the American and European leftist will rejoice; (at least until their wake-up call). Our enemies around the world will be emboldened and our old allies will be demoralized; (mostly our eastern European friends). The UN will project a world order that will favor tyrants over democracies; third world countries will be able to bleed industrial countries dry (with Obama&#039;s help). America will not have the political will to resist any foreign country, consortium of countries or amorphorus groups with the aim of absorbing us through unchecked immigration, Islamization or more likely both. It&#039;s actually already happening; Obama will just facilitate it. (Europe has proven that all-out armed conflict isn&#039;t necessary for total conquest with the help of &quot;useful idiots&quot;.)

Part 4: Domestic: Alinsky&#039;s rules for radicals will replace the constitution, socialism will replace capitalism. (Obama has already stated that his model for the social order is his Kenyon father&#039;s idea of the &#039;60s.) We can expect him to follow the failed model of every African country... Every federal appointment, especially the courts, will be populated by leftist, socialist appointees. Anti-American theology will be the guiding religious theme of the White House and the country. Individual rights and free speech will be what the ACLU decides it will be. Our National Borders will vanish and the indigent from all countries, along with their contraband will flood into the US until the country is bankrupt. Our entire social fabric will be altered... Judeo-Christian values will be unacceptable. Even a slightly altered supreme court will rewrite the constitution, including the first and second amendment. Gun ownership will be a criminal offense; free speech will turn even more politically correct (critical speech of our &quot;rulers&quot; will be punished.) Obama already owns 90 percent of the media and will be shooting for 100 percent. The so-call &quot;fairness doctrine&quot; will finish off radio and the internet. Government will own all vital industry; (this will make for inefficiencies, cost overrun and endless bailouts and subsidies). Three quarters of the population will work for, or be beholden to the government and half the country will live on government welfare (enough to lock in the democrat vote for endless re-elections); all accomplished with the unfaltering cover of a scurrilous, compliant media. Socialism will seep down to state and local levels by the demographic shift brought on by unchecked immigration and welfare. English will be a second language. The teachers Union will absorb a massive share of GDP with very little trickling down to actual useful education of students. Schools will be government propaganda factories (even more than now). The military budget (especially R&amp;D) will be slashed to near nothing to help finance liberal social programs and bribe corrupt politicians. Labor unions will dictate to company management and along with confiscatory taxes, drive them off-shore. The few people still in private enterprise will pay the bulk of the taxes, under onerous government oversight; the few companies that do survive will be besieged by greedy trial lawyers that will increase their cost of doing business to eventual bankruptcy. With America&#039;s financial debacle, most of America&#039;s capitalization will be, by necessity, from foreign sources... America&#039;s natural recourses will be nationalized and raped to bolster the engine of socialism; (see Hugo Chavez, Obama&#039;s role model). With socialists in charge, our hydrocarbon wealth and all other energy sources will be exploited without regard to environmental damage, global warming or any other hoax:(with socialism you don&#039;t need any phony ways to control the masses.) The Southwest US has shown us the effect of uncontrolled immigration on our culture, language and politics. We have plenty of &quot;useful idiots&quot; right here in our congress, universities, ACLU, state and local political offices and endless special interest groups. In fact it would be hard to find a &quot;useful patriot&quot; in any of these offices. Obama will be able to control election outcomes, like his idol Hugo Chavez, to insure a second term and maybe even more: (president for life?). Virtually everyone that supported Obama these last few years will be &quot;thrown under the bus&quot;, their usefulness over. The Soros world-view is pretty much like described above and he and his cabal will be calling the shots. Obama is simply a figure-head, empty suit who will carry out the orders of his masters to the letter. 

Part 5: The End Game: Disabuse yourself of the &quot;hope&quot; that after things get so screwed up &quot;we&quot; can kick the bums out! There will be no &quot;we&quot;, at least with voting power. Obama&#039;s puppet masters will flood the electorate with shadow voters and organize local, state and national Chicago style &quot;Acorn&quot; groups to insure only the votes they want counted will be, as many times as necessary; the democrats in congress will find some way to finance this corrupt organization and liberal judges will rubber stamp the whole blatant fraud. Within the first two years of the anointed ones presidency, conservatism will be a pariah and Judeo-Christian culture will be on the run. True Conservatism will be forced into &quot;fight or flight&quot; mode. Conservatives, by definition, love America, and I&#039;m pretty sure the crew of the Titanic loved their ship too, but what are the other options when you hit an iceberg named Obama.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well-stated comment on Obama from American Thinker:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_unspoken_campaign_message.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/the_unspoken_campaign_message.html</a></p>
<p>America&#8217;s outlook with Obama as POTUS and CINC with democrats controlling congress: (Not just a worse-case but a likely scenario.)</p>
<p>Part 1: The White House: as POTUS, Obama will appoint a collection of anti-American, anti-Semite advisors and cabinet members to oversee foreign policy; (all selected by George Soros and his henchmen based on the principals of Jimmy Carter&#8217;s presidency). Air Force-one will be Bill Ayers private transport, until he flies it into the Pentagon. Rev Wright will be the White House Chaplin. The White House staff and advisors will be a gathering of anti-American, anti-Christian numb-skulls indorsed by move-on and code pink. The White House will be overrun with BHOs corrupt Chicago cronies. (I can only imagine Michele Obama as first lady and primary WH advisor on Wright-Alinsky ideology). The Lincoln Bedroom will be filled with adoring Hollywood nit-wits. The oval office will be home to a cabal for the demise of traditional America values, (you know, those racist, gun-toting, religious clingers have got to be neutralized).</p>
<p>Part 2: The Military: As CINC, Obama&#8217;s first priority will be to marginalize the US Armed Forces. His handlers will redefine the military by insidious appointments; from the SecDef thru the Joint Chiefs, to the area commanders (good-by Petraeus). Senior military Officer and enlisted will retire, mid-grade officers and NCOs (the leadership backbone) will quit, and the junior officer and enlisted will be left floundering and leaderless. US super power status will be degraded to a poker bluff with the military no longer useful as a diplomatic trump card. The US navy will be brought home and mostly scrapped save money. We will be unable to project power any farther than a few miles off-shore and then only to facilitate drug and human trafficking. We will unilaterally disarm, including nuclear weapons and all future weapons systems. (He has already said he would do this). Our remaining deployed military forces will be converted to peace keepers under UN mandate and leadership or brought home and dismissed to join the &#8220;civilian national security force&#8221;. The remnants of the beleaguered US armed forces will be a blue helmet force under UN control. The once proud United States Military will be replaced with a &#8220;civilian peace corps&#8221;; Obama quote ;(&#8220;We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we&#8217;ve set. We&#8217;ve got to have a civilian national security force that&#8217;s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.&#8221;) Obama will only need to control dissent within our own borders; the UN will ostensibly &#8220;protect&#8221; us and the world from foreign interference. </p>
<p>Part 3: Foreign Policy: US foreign policy (and sovereignty) will be eventually subordinate to the UN.) Obama will appease every foreign tyrant so they will &#8220;like him&#8221;. Islamic countries will rejoice at having an ally in the most powerful position in the world; the success of their jihad will be assured. All our intelligence resources will be turned inward and used to control Americans. The CIA and FBI will be Obama&#8217;s private police force along with his civilian national security force (to control any pending domestic rebellion). All our current allies will be betrayed, we will acquire a new set of allies: (Vladimir, A-Jad, Hugo, Raul, whoever the hell runs Kenya and you could fill in the other names yourself). Massive give-a-ways will go to his native Kenya (to whoever the hell runs the place) and other failed African countries because he can. (This is already in the planning stage). Iran will have the bomb (with our blessing), Israel will be fighting alone for its very existence against Iran, its puppet states and its own subversive leftists; Lebanon will be lost to Hezbollah; Palestinians will rejoice; Russia will have free reign in its area and all the old USSR&#8217;s former satellite countries will be reabsorbed. Al Qaida will dominate the Middle East including Iraq, Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf States. A nuclear Pakistan will be lost, along with Afghanistan to the Taliban. Europe will be hostage to Islamic fundamentalists and no longer a useful ally to the US. Venezuela will dominate South America with Chinese; Iranian and Russia&#8217;s help&#8230; our crippling dependence on foreign energy will be exploited by our enemies. China will be struggling for super-power status to replace us: (with their nanoweapons technology they may already be in a position to dominate everyone), India will be a failed democracy with nukes. The US, with a European style do-nothing military, will be ineffective for not only our security but the security of the world. The corrupt UN will gain near absolute world power; the American and European leftist will rejoice; (at least until their wake-up call). Our enemies around the world will be emboldened and our old allies will be demoralized; (mostly our eastern European friends). The UN will project a world order that will favor tyrants over democracies; third world countries will be able to bleed industrial countries dry (with Obama&#8217;s help). America will not have the political will to resist any foreign country, consortium of countries or amorphorus groups with the aim of absorbing us through unchecked immigration, Islamization or more likely both. It&#8217;s actually already happening; Obama will just facilitate it. (Europe has proven that all-out armed conflict isn&#8217;t necessary for total conquest with the help of &#8220;useful idiots&#8221;.)</p>
<p>Part 4: Domestic: Alinsky&#8217;s rules for radicals will replace the constitution, socialism will replace capitalism. (Obama has already stated that his model for the social order is his Kenyon father&#8217;s idea of the &#8217;60s.) We can expect him to follow the failed model of every African country&#8230; Every federal appointment, especially the courts, will be populated by leftist, socialist appointees. Anti-American theology will be the guiding religious theme of the White House and the country. Individual rights and free speech will be what the ACLU decides it will be. Our National Borders will vanish and the indigent from all countries, along with their contraband will flood into the US until the country is bankrupt. Our entire social fabric will be altered&#8230; Judeo-Christian values will be unacceptable. Even a slightly altered supreme court will rewrite the constitution, including the first and second amendment. Gun ownership will be a criminal offense; free speech will turn even more politically correct (critical speech of our &#8220;rulers&#8221; will be punished.) Obama already owns 90 percent of the media and will be shooting for 100 percent. The so-call &#8220;fairness doctrine&#8221; will finish off radio and the internet. Government will own all vital industry; (this will make for inefficiencies, cost overrun and endless bailouts and subsidies). Three quarters of the population will work for, or be beholden to the government and half the country will live on government welfare (enough to lock in the democrat vote for endless re-elections); all accomplished with the unfaltering cover of a scurrilous, compliant media. Socialism will seep down to state and local levels by the demographic shift brought on by unchecked immigration and welfare. English will be a second language. The teachers Union will absorb a massive share of GDP with very little trickling down to actual useful education of students. Schools will be government propaganda factories (even more than now). The military budget (especially R&amp;D) will be slashed to near nothing to help finance liberal social programs and bribe corrupt politicians. Labor unions will dictate to company management and along with confiscatory taxes, drive them off-shore. The few people still in private enterprise will pay the bulk of the taxes, under onerous government oversight; the few companies that do survive will be besieged by greedy trial lawyers that will increase their cost of doing business to eventual bankruptcy. With America&#8217;s financial debacle, most of America&#8217;s capitalization will be, by necessity, from foreign sources&#8230; America&#8217;s natural recourses will be nationalized and raped to bolster the engine of socialism; (see Hugo Chavez, Obama&#8217;s role model). With socialists in charge, our hydrocarbon wealth and all other energy sources will be exploited without regard to environmental damage, global warming or any other hoax:(with socialism you don&#8217;t need any phony ways to control the masses.) The Southwest US has shown us the effect of uncontrolled immigration on our culture, language and politics. We have plenty of &#8220;useful idiots&#8221; right here in our congress, universities, ACLU, state and local political offices and endless special interest groups. In fact it would be hard to find a &#8220;useful patriot&#8221; in any of these offices. Obama will be able to control election outcomes, like his idol Hugo Chavez, to insure a second term and maybe even more: (president for life?). Virtually everyone that supported Obama these last few years will be &#8220;thrown under the bus&#8221;, their usefulness over. The Soros world-view is pretty much like described above and he and his cabal will be calling the shots. Obama is simply a figure-head, empty suit who will carry out the orders of his masters to the letter. </p>
<p>Part 5: The End Game: Disabuse yourself of the &#8220;hope&#8221; that after things get so screwed up &#8220;we&#8221; can kick the bums out! There will be no &#8220;we&#8221;, at least with voting power. Obama&#8217;s puppet masters will flood the electorate with shadow voters and organize local, state and national Chicago style &#8220;Acorn&#8221; groups to insure only the votes they want counted will be, as many times as necessary; the democrats in congress will find some way to finance this corrupt organization and liberal judges will rubber stamp the whole blatant fraud. Within the first two years of the anointed ones presidency, conservatism will be a pariah and Judeo-Christian culture will be on the run. True Conservatism will be forced into &#8220;fight or flight&#8221; mode. Conservatives, by definition, love America, and I&#8217;m pretty sure the crew of the Titanic loved their ship too, but what are the other options when you hit an iceberg named Obama.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storm-Rider</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14598</link>
		<dc:creator>Storm-Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14598</guid>
		<description>Benj: &quot;Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing - an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind - the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc.&quot;

No, Thomas Jefferson was the worst nightmare of elitists of all stripes - including Monarchists, Emperors, Fascists and Marxist/Communists. Thomas Jefferson was the antithesis of Plato and his longing for an elite cadre of rulers, i.e.: the &quot;Philosopher Kings.&quot; All of Europe&#039;s disastrous tyrannies, starting with the Roman Empire, and extending through Medieval times and into the Twentieth century relate to Plato&#039;s elitist dreams. You&#039;ve lied about Thomas Jefferson - you will not reinvent Thomas Jefferson at The Belmont Club. By the way, my great uncle founded a major American University.

&quot;The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.&quot;    Thomas Jefferson

&quot;Action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately, and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic&quot;  Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.”  Thomas Jefferson

&quot;The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt.  This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.&quot;   Thomas Jefferson, 1817

I do not wear Thomas Jefferson as a talisman. Thomas Jefferson simply voices the American Revolution - you have an aversion to Thomas Jefferson because, as a Marxist, you have an aversion to the American Revolution and an affinity for the Communist Revolution. You wear Karl Marx as a talisman.

&quot;I declared to them point-blank: we have received our mandate as the representatives of the proletarian party from no one but ourselves.”  Karl Marx

&quot;The method of engaging in trifles at public meetings and doing real business on the quiet justified itself brilliantly.&quot;  Friedrich Engels

“The goal of socialism is communism.”  Vladimir Lenin

“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”  Joseph Stalin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Benj: &#8220;Jefferson’s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing &#8211; an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind &#8211; the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc.&#8221;</p>
<p>No, Thomas Jefferson was the worst nightmare of elitists of all stripes &#8211; including Monarchists, Emperors, Fascists and Marxist/Communists. Thomas Jefferson was the antithesis of Plato and his longing for an elite cadre of rulers, i.e.: the &#8220;Philosopher Kings.&#8221; All of Europe&#8217;s disastrous tyrannies, starting with the Roman Empire, and extending through Medieval times and into the Twentieth century relate to Plato&#8217;s elitist dreams. You&#8217;ve lied about Thomas Jefferson &#8211; you will not reinvent Thomas Jefferson at The Belmont Club. By the way, my great uncle founded a major American University.</p>
<p>&#8220;The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.&#8221;    Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>&#8220;Action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives, chosen immediately, and removable by themselves, constitutes the essence of a republic&#8221;  Thomas Jefferson, 1816</p>
<p>“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.”  Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>&#8220;The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt.  This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism.&#8221;   Thomas Jefferson, 1817</p>
<p>I do not wear Thomas Jefferson as a talisman. Thomas Jefferson simply voices the American Revolution &#8211; you have an aversion to Thomas Jefferson because, as a Marxist, you have an aversion to the American Revolution and an affinity for the Communist Revolution. You wear Karl Marx as a talisman.</p>
<p>&#8220;I declared to them point-blank: we have received our mandate as the representatives of the proletarian party from no one but ourselves.”  Karl Marx</p>
<p>&#8220;The method of engaging in trifles at public meetings and doing real business on the quiet justified itself brilliantly.&#8221;  Friedrich Engels</p>
<p>“The goal of socialism is communism.”  Vladimir Lenin</p>
<p>“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”  Joseph Stalin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benj</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14567</link>
		<dc:creator>Benj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 05:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14567</guid>
		<description>@ Storm - I was tempted to go quote a couple of Palin&#039;s answers to Couric&#039;s questions. She was speaking gibberish. Not common sense. And she was definitely spooked a couple of times. On HH, she may well have got back her mojo as per Peterike. But I can&#039;t see why Clubbers who are so skeptical of cultural elites would dig a pol who assumes &quot;Joe 6-pack&quot; is a term with a positive valence. She&#039;s traducing part of her own constituency and she doesn&#039;t even know it...Ah authenticity.

Your apology for Palin reminded me of that Roman Hruska line when that pub senator was defending one of Nixon&#039;s picks for the SCOTUS, HArold Carswell, despite C.&#039;s mediocre record as a judge. Hruska famously claimed:

&quot;Even if [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren&#039;t they, and a little chance? We can&#039;t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.&quot;[1] 

You invoke Jefferson all the time. And I know you sincerely love your image of him. But you use his words as talismans - If you really examine his writing, you might find something truer (and more vital) than Timeless Wisdom. Jefferson&#039;s own ideas about Demos and Republics, for example, are pretty directly relevant to the Palin problematic...

J. defined a republican system as as &quot;action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence.&quot; While claiming the people were &quot;constitutionally and conscientiously democrats,&quot; Jefferson  circumscribed &quot;action by the citizens.&quot; He thought ordinary folks were &quot;competent to judge of the facts of ordinary life,&quot; as when serving on juries, but they were &quot;unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level.&quot; Jefferson&#039;s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing - an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind - the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc. 

I don&#039;t share J.&#039;s a prioris here. (Just as I don&#039;t have much use for his &quot;Notes on the State of Virginia&quot;, where he helped invent &quot;scientific&quot; racism). But, in this case, the point is not GOTCHA Tom. (Or Gotcha Storm!!) The interesting thing is that your hero acknowledged a tension between everydailiness and excellence. I don&#039;t think his elitism is the answer. But forget tme. J. is your Grandee and it seems less than Jeffersonian - and less than honest - to suggest he&#039;d welcome the prospect of a proud provincial becoming president. 

PS It&#039;s also less than honest to insist that Obama is a &quot;Marxist Socialist.&quot; Saying it 
(over and over) don&#039;t make it so. Same with the Alinsky refs. The guy hlmself wrote a specific critique of the Alinsky-inspired model of organizing. His own politics owe more to King and SNCC (and Fred Douglass and Lincoln). You know, the heroes who made it impossible for scoundrels to find refuge in Jefferson&#039;s words...

.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Storm &#8211; I was tempted to go quote a couple of Palin&#8217;s answers to Couric&#8217;s questions. She was speaking gibberish. Not common sense. And she was definitely spooked a couple of times. On HH, she may well have got back her mojo as per Peterike. But I can&#8217;t see why Clubbers who are so skeptical of cultural elites would dig a pol who assumes &#8220;Joe 6-pack&#8221; is a term with a positive valence. She&#8217;s traducing part of her own constituency and she doesn&#8217;t even know it&#8230;Ah authenticity.</p>
<p>Your apology for Palin reminded me of that Roman Hruska line when that pub senator was defending one of Nixon&#8217;s picks for the SCOTUS, HArold Carswell, despite C.&#8217;s mediocre record as a judge. Hruska famously claimed:</p>
<p>&#8220;Even if [Carswell] were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren&#8217;t they, and a little chance? We can&#8217;t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.&#8221;[1] </p>
<p>You invoke Jefferson all the time. And I know you sincerely love your image of him. But you use his words as talismans &#8211; If you really examine his writing, you might find something truer (and more vital) than Timeless Wisdom. Jefferson&#8217;s own ideas about Demos and Republics, for example, are pretty directly relevant to the Palin problematic&#8230;</p>
<p>J. defined a republican system as as &#8220;action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence.&#8221; While claiming the people were &#8220;constitutionally and conscientiously democrats,&#8221; Jefferson  circumscribed &#8220;action by the citizens.&#8221; He thought ordinary folks were &#8220;competent to judge of the facts of ordinary life,&#8221; as when serving on juries, but they were &#8220;unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level.&#8221; Jefferson&#8217;s tacit conviction was that when it came to the actual work of governing &#8211; an elite was a prerequisite. You know the sort of people he had in the mind &#8211; the kind who found universities, libraries, design Monticello etc. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t share J.&#8217;s a prioris here. (Just as I don&#8217;t have much use for his &#8220;Notes on the State of Virginia&#8221;, where he helped invent &#8220;scientific&#8221; racism). But, in this case, the point is not GOTCHA Tom. (Or Gotcha Storm!!) The interesting thing is that your hero acknowledged a tension between everydailiness and excellence. I don&#8217;t think his elitism is the answer. But forget tme. J. is your Grandee and it seems less than Jeffersonian &#8211; and less than honest &#8211; to suggest he&#8217;d welcome the prospect of a proud provincial becoming president. </p>
<p>PS It&#8217;s also less than honest to insist that Obama is a &#8220;Marxist Socialist.&#8221; Saying it<br />
(over and over) don&#8217;t make it so. Same with the Alinsky refs. The guy hlmself wrote a specific critique of the Alinsky-inspired model of organizing. His own politics owe more to King and SNCC (and Fred Douglass and Lincoln). You know, the heroes who made it impossible for scoundrels to find refuge in Jefferson&#8217;s words&#8230;</p>
<p>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fred</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14543</link>
		<dc:creator>fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:43:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14543</guid>
		<description>Storm_Rider,

Your above posts summarizes everything I am trying to tell people about our next President, Barack Obama.  It will be calamitous for the nation, and most people are sleepwalking towards disaster.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Storm_Rider,</p>
<p>Your above posts summarizes everything I am trying to tell people about our next President, Barack Obama.  It will be calamitous for the nation, and most people are sleepwalking towards disaster.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Storm-Rider</title>
		<link>http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14540</link>
		<dc:creator>Storm-Rider</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 2008 03:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2008/09/28/the-other-side-of-the-coin/#comment-14540</guid>
		<description>Mr. Ambati,

Consider this statement from Barak Obama:

“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems….I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons….I will not develop new nuclear weapons….”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

This defanging of our American Military is, of course, the highest priority of our enemies. The disarming of our American Military, as stated by Barak Obama, is at the top of the wish list of Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and the leaders of Communist China and Communist North Korea. Barak Obama&#039;s statement must find expression in our enemies&#039; wildest dreams. Our enemies are busy developing regional and intercontinental missile systems; and they are developing future combat systems, new nuclear weapons, and they are weaponizing space. Our enemies will never give up nuclear weapons even if they make such an agreement - they are totalitarians - they wish to keep theirs while we discard ours - and that will be the end of the era of sacred human liberty.

Tell me how it is that Barak Obama can be trusted with the Presidency of the United States. How can we trust a man who would give our enemies what they want the most - while we are at war? Only a fool or a traitor would make such a subversive and anti-American statement. Only a fool or a traitor would put at risk the lives and sacred liberty of the United States.

Intelligence is not the full measure of a man or a woman.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Ambati,</p>
<p>Consider this statement from Barak Obama:</p>
<p>“I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems….I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons….I will not develop new nuclear weapons….”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE</a></p>
<p>This defanging of our American Military is, of course, the highest priority of our enemies. The disarming of our American Military, as stated by Barak Obama, is at the top of the wish list of Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez and the leaders of Communist China and Communist North Korea. Barak Obama&#8217;s statement must find expression in our enemies&#8217; wildest dreams. Our enemies are busy developing regional and intercontinental missile systems; and they are developing future combat systems, new nuclear weapons, and they are weaponizing space. Our enemies will never give up nuclear weapons even if they make such an agreement &#8211; they are totalitarians &#8211; they wish to keep theirs while we discard ours &#8211; and that will be the end of the era of sacred human liberty.</p>
<p>Tell me how it is that Barak Obama can be trusted with the Presidency of the United States. How can we trust a man who would give our enemies what they want the most &#8211; while we are at war? Only a fool or a traitor would make such a subversive and anti-American statement. Only a fool or a traitor would put at risk the lives and sacred liberty of the United States.</p>
<p>Intelligence is not the full measure of a man or a woman.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

