The End of the Obama Debate

I previously had written a post where I had asked the question of if Obama was malevolent, or merely incompetant.  I posed the idea that there are three liberal narratives that currently go around about Obama.  The first is that he wants to do things, but the Republicans block him at every turn.  I immediately discarded this option, because there was too much evidence against it.  The second is that he never wanted to do any of what he said, and that he wanted to continue the Bush Doctrine.  The third is that he did want to make good on his promises to the American people, but was simply too cowardly to stand his ground.  Recent events have proven that neither the first nor the third narrative are correct.  The second is the correct one.  Obama is a malevolent force working against the American people.

The first major indication that Obama was playing dumb and really working to continue the Bush Doctrine was the acceptance speech that he gave when he recieved his Nobel Peace Prize.  He basically said that it doesn’t matter what anybody else thinks, America can do whatever the hell it wants, without consequences.  That was the first major hint.

The next was when he failed to live up to his mandate of closing Guantanamo, instead, he pretty much franchised it.  That was the next big hint that something was very off about his character.  Next up came the Bush Tax Cuts.  Obama could very easily have stood his ground, and said that he would veto anything that they put on his desk.  He could have told them that there would be no fly with this.  Instead, he gave the Republicans more than even Bush II had given them.  Bush hadn’t been so generous, so that gives kind of a statement of where Obama stands.

The next big clue was the Debt Ceiling debate.  This was another instance where Obama could have stood his ground, because everybody who is politically aware knew that the Republicans were bluffing.  There was no way that they were going to not raise the debt ceiling.  With the AARP breathing down their necks and the old people saying “You damn well better get me my Social Security!”, we all knew that it was a bluff.  Again, he gave them everything that they want and more.  He barely even hid it.

But this most recent issue is the one that really ends this debate with me.  One can no longer say that he is merely incompetant.  He is malevolent.  He is a force that is working against the American people, not for.  The National Defense Authorization Act has been signed into law.  Obama said, flat-out, that he was going to veto it.  It contains sections which state that American citizens can be hauled off to Gitmo and detained there, indefinitely, without trial or charge.  Effectively ending the Firth and Thirteenth  Amendments to the Constitution.  Not only that, but it also has sections that state that the military can torture American citizens which are in their illegal holding cells.

The real kicker which tips the scales on the question of if Obama is malevolent or incompetant was the fact that the provision that American citizens could be held indefinitely – that was his handiwork.  He asked for that provision.  He asked that our government be allowed to send American citizens to prison for the rest of their living, breathing days.  He wanted to make the provisions that turn this country into a military police state.  And he signed it into law.  This is not debated anymore, it is happening.  America has abandoned freedom and safety and basically told its citizenry – you are not safe.  The military could come for you at any time.

With the 2012 elections just around the corner, the big question becomes – what should we do?  The liberals like me really have nobody to turn to.  All of the Republican candidates are jokes.  Newt Gingrich is an idiot.  Michele Bachmann is insane.  Rick Perry is a bigot.  Rick Santorum is a dumbass and a bigot.  Mitt Romney is the Republican version of Obama (except he’s open about his malevolence, whereas Obama is trying to mask his as “change”)  And then there is the one that the internet seems to just be in love with – Ron Paul.

Ah, Ron Paul.  The character who has such a dedicated fanbase, but so few of his fans are actually aware.  Or if they are aware, they make really stupid defenses, like they have figured something out.  This man is not a viable alternative.  He’s crazy, straight-up.  He’s outright insane.

The first big point of his is that he wants to bring back the Gold Standard, which not only crippled Britains economy when Winston Churchill did it in the 1920’s, but also makes no real sense.  The money system is based on what we preceive as the money’s value.  Ron Paul believes that money should derive it’s value from gold.  Well, the question becomes – how does gold derive its value?  From the same way that paper money does – our perception of its value.  It is ridiculous, worthless, and pointless.  We might as have the Kool-Aid Standard.

Then there is his pro-life views, which so many of the Paulites have come out in defense of.  He believe that life begins at conception, and has said on his website that he is going to overturn Roe v. Wade, and make it up to the states if abortion is legal or not.  Or is he?  He then wants to pass the  Sanctity of Life Act, which would make into law that life begins at conception, so if a state wanted to make it legal, he would impose that they could not.  He would take away their liberty to do so.  Yeah, the big buzz-word of his cultish following, and he wants to overturn it.  Consistency, no?

He also wants to remove social safety nets, like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  He believes that they are unConstitutional.  Yes, because the Constitution is a perfect document, and the Founding Fathers had secret psychic powers that made it so that their perfect document could apply to everything for always.  That’s bullshit.  Straight-up bullshit.  Never mind that the Constitution doesn’t back him up on this.  It allows the government to levy taxes to provide for the people.  It’s in there, folks.  You can argue for the programs, but arguing for the Constitutionality is just ridiculous.

Ron Paul also opposes FDA regulations, which is not only stupid, it’s insane.  He wants there to be no oversight over the food we eat and the milk we drink.  If a person wants to have raw milk, get your own cow.  The people need to be protected.  The people need to be kept safe, because the simple fact of the matter is that the people are stupid, and don’t know any better.  This is not opposing people’s liberties.  If you want to have untreated meat, get your own cow.  If you want raw milk, see previous answer.

Here’s another interesting tidbit- Ron Paul believes that the government should be able to regulate your sexuality.  No joke, he believes that while he opposes sodomy laws, if a state wants to make them, that’s their call.

There is no right to privacy, nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.  There are, however, states’ rights.  Rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Twelth Amendments.  Under those rights, the state of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex.

That’s from his website.  Not only is this idiot insane, he is just as evil as Obama.  Only he is able to clothe it in “Liberty.”  It’s the lovely watch-word that the Libertarians have.  It’s a useless term.

Now, you put these things to them, and many will argue, “well, in the face of federal prisons, we’ll take no abortion.”  Yes, because people are willing to put their personal belief aside for another bit of insanity.  Embracing what they believe as “the lesser evil.”

The problem is that we shouldn’t have to choose!  There should be a rational, sane, and coherant representative who actually has enough balls to be able to fight for what they believe in.  There shouldn’t be some kind of a choice between evil or insane.  It shouldn’t be that the words “lesser evil” are acceptable.  The biggest problem in America now is that we are forcing ourselves to settle for less, because we believe that it is the only way.  Perhaps the biggest failure in this country is the worthless people who are not demanding more from their politicians.  But that is probably also asking just too much.

Until next time, a quote,

“I don’t think that I have to choose between evil and crazy.  I don’t think that I should have to choose between evil and crazy.”  -TJ Kincaid, Crazy vs. Evil

Peace out,



5 thoughts on “The End of the Obama Debate

  1. On November 6 there will be two Wall-Street-controlled candidates on the ballot. If you stick to either of them you will endorse the continuing march toward economic injustice and loss of our democracy. You can bemoan this. Or you can get to work for the real alternative, a sane and principled presidential candidate who is refusing to take campaign donations from Wall Street lobbyists. Her name is Jill Stein. Check her out at

    • Ironic, I just got a comment from another guy about her. I said I would support her, but here in Alaska, that does little good. The election is over before our ballots close.

  2. Pingback: It’s 2012! Time for an Election YEAR! « Lucien Maverick's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s