The Evil Obamas
Posted by Ergo on March 4, 2008
The disgusting racket of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation that the Obamas run must be exposed and condemned harshly for all its evilness. If ever I heard anything downright evil explicitly offered as virtue, it has to be these words of Michelle Obama–the wife of US presidential candidate Barak Obama and perhaps the next first lady of the United States:
“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”
And you thought Ayn Rand exaggerated the evilness of her altruistic villains in her novels? The Obamas are right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged. If Barak Obama is elected as the next US president, it will be the end of an industrial and financial powerhouse that literally holds the continent of Africa and many nations afloat, and the start of a self-sacrificial, tribalistic, village economy that will surely bleed to its own death.
I picked up this story from The Undercurrent, which has written up its own harsh condemnation of Michelle Obama. I encourage bloggers to blog this story on your sites as well.
March 5, 2008 at 3:13 am
I wonder what Obama will say when all the good young intelligent people give up their dreams of being successful productive business people and sacrifice their lives to serve other people. I guess the products and services will just invent themselves! The anti-”money makers” must think everything grows on trees. It’s pathetic.
March 5, 2008 at 3:39 am
“…If Barak Obama is elected as the next US president, it will be the end of an industrial and financial powerhouse…”
You need to look at what kind of things this powerhouse has been subjected to in the past: Richard Nixon of wage and price freeze and “We’re all Keynesians now.” fame to name just one. Roosevelt (either of them). The list could go on.
This one anti-profit statement doesn’t significantly distinguish Michelle Obama from anybody else in American politics. They are all alike in this respect.
The end is not more near than it was 40 years ago. It was a lot farther away at that time than a lot of people thought it was. Saying that the end is near now and that one election can bring it on us is a good way to discredit yourself on an otherwise excellent blog.
I think Obama will be, on balance, quite a bit less harmful to our freedom than McCain of McCain-Feingold infame. I plan of voting for the first time in many elections and voting for Obama, and I’ll probably vote for Hilary if she gets the nomination.
There’s also a few ways in which a Democrat victory may be positive for the future of capitalism in the US. The most promising is a backlash against Republican anti-immigration nonsense. An increase in legal immigration and/or a public debate where the Republican fear of Mexicans gets exposed for the insanity that it is would be a great benefit. And this could happen if the Democrats are in power and emboldened in any way.
Republicans forced to explain to each other how they lost may (in some decades) yield a Republican party that’s actually worth something which would be a good thing. I’m actually looking forward to voting Democrat for these reasons.
Also, Obama is the only candidate with anything like a principled stand on gay marriage.
Also, Obama is the first politician to have anything like a principled stand on gay marriage.
March 5, 2008 at 3:41 am
Ouch, that last should have said “first candidate for high office to have something like a principled stand on gay marriage.” There are plenty of lesser elected officials with actually principled views on that issue.
March 5, 2008 at 5:23 am
Good comment above mine….
I saw this TV interview (I can’t remember any of the names, unfortunately). A big Obama supporter (and a Senator) was asked by the anchor during the interview to list any one of Obama’s achievements as an elected official. The guy hemmed and hawed but was, on repeated grilling, forced to accept that he couldn’t list a SINGLE one!
March 5, 2008 at 7:17 am
You know Ergo, I think Rand portrayed her altruistic villains in Atlas Shrugged authentically. I think that is what makes her villains all the more hateful.
March 5, 2008 at 7:18 am
no, not hateful… contemptible.
March 5, 2008 at 11:12 am
Cedar, I agree with most of your points. Voting for the democrats is the only reasonable option this election cycle. This, however, does not mean that ideas like that of the Obamas’ shouldn’t go severely condemned. I am hoping for a Clinton nomination, and the latest results in Rhode Island and Ohio are encouraging. Unlike the pragmaticism of concrete-bound Clinton, Obama is a consistent and ideological believer in the morality of Socialism. In any battle of ideas, Ayn Rand said, it is those who are the most consistent that win.
March 5, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I’ve seen that video myself, Rambodoc. It was funny! And quite frankly, you can’t blame the guy for fumbling all over on Chris Matthews; there really isn’t much to say when it comes to Obama’s track record! In fact, I remember just a couple of years ago seeing him in the Chicago City Hall when I used to work there for the Mayor’s office. At the time, he was there for some school assembly board meeting, I think. And lo, two years later, he’s running for the Office of the President of the United States of America!!!
About gay marriage that Cedar brought up, I’d like to add an important point: it is precisely because Obama is so principled in his views on gay marriage that I hope he does not win the Dem nomination. He is a man of *principles*–the WRONG ones! And the consequences of that can be disastrous. He holds similarly principled views on socialized government healthcare and national “security” (more like international appeasement). That’s the problem, Cedar.
Finally, I’m actually opposed to gay marriage. I don’t want to give the government legitimacy in yet another sphere of private, individual affairs. Likewise, I am also opposed to government sanctions, tax breaks, and other support for straight marriages. Properly, marriages are an individual or family affair; the only involvement I see the government having in this is keeping records of marriages for liability, property, health, and other issues. (For full disclosure, I am gay).
April 3, 2008 at 8:23 am
Obama’s principled views on gay marriage? He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. Unless that’s the principle you like.
May 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I’m a capitalist, pro-free market, and love Ayn Rand’s books. I have a difficult time understanding why so many Ayn Rand followers have developed a hate for Obama.
To start Obama has run a smart campaign, he’s raised more money than any other candidate in the history of the United States, the man hired the best people for the job in his campaing, he used technology in a smart. Obama proved to be a the best business man as far as running an efficient campaign. Wouldn’t Ayn Rand support Obama based on this? Of course she wuold.
Number 2, Obama speaks about changing Washington and the bureaucracy and ending the political game. He’s more anti Washington and anti government than any politician in US history. This is the second reason why we should vote for Obama, he’s the only one that has attacked big Washington government.
Number 3, Entrepreneurs like the founders and current CEO of Google support Obama.
Number 4, if you want to end big government that is involved in nation building in Iraq, Obama is the man. He opposed this Iraq fiasco from the get go.
Number 5, Obama constantly talks about opportunity, the founding fathers, the possibility of hope and dreams. This is the way Jefferson and Maddison and the writers of the american constitution spoke. Obama talks about self reliance and hard work and the american dream. He wants the american dream that has been stolen by politicians back on US soil.
Enough said, Obama for president! obama the best hope for entrepreneurs and hard working americans! Obama, a capitalism that works!
And I can go on and on and on. But seriously, I can’t understand how so many Ayn Rand followers hate Obama. Obama’s appeals to the same constituency as Ayn Rand, the young people that have a dream. I sometimes wonder whether those people that oppose Obama truly understand Ayn Rand. It saddens me how Ayn Rand has been misinterpreted.
May 12, 2008 at 10:05 am
Three more things about Obama. He is the first politician that wants to improve the situation of the poor and senior citizens by cutting taxes. No taxes for senior citizens that make less than $50 K and for families that make less than $75 K. This sounds too good to be true but he mentined it at a town hall meeting in Indiana (there’s a video in youtube).
Obama, like John Galt hates businesses that live off the government. The american health care is bankrupt (costs are 15% of GDP compared to 5% in Japan and 6% in Europe and 9% in Canada) due to the HMO’s and are in bed with politicians and are constantly lobbying Washington. Barack Obama will wean big business and lobbyists from Washington.
Barack Obama will give power to the american citizen and not big government in Washington and the corportate lobbysts. It is people like you and I and businesses and communities that Obama stands for.
Go Obama!
May 13, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand?” asks Charles Krauthammer in his article “Obama’s Revealing ‘Distractions’.”
It’s a good and necessary read:
Obama’s Revealing ‘Distractions’
by Charles Krauthammer
April 25, 2008
RealClear Politics
“Real change has never been easy. … The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November.” — Barack Obama, Pennsylvania primary night speech
WASHINGTON — With that, Obama identified the new public enemy: the “distractions” foisted upon a pliable electorate by the malevolent forces of the status quo, i.e., those who might wish to see someone else become president next January. “It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit for tat that consumes our politics” and “trivializes the profound issues” that face our country, he warned sternly. These must be resisted.
Why? Because Obama understands that the real threat to his candidacy is less Hillary Clinton and John McCain than his own character and cultural attitudes. He came out of nowhere with his autobiography already written, then saw it embellished daily by the hagiographic coverage and kid-gloves questioning of a supine press. (Which is why those “Saturday Night Live” parodies were so devastatingly effective.)
Then came the three amigos: Tony Rezko, the indicted fixer; Jeremiah Wright, the racist reverend; William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. And then Obama’s own anthropological observation that “bitter” working-class whites cling to guns and religion because they misapprehend their real class interests.
In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as “distractions.” And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the “issues.” As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st — and likely last — primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.
Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama’s political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers’ home. Obama’s own campaign says that they maintain “friendly” relations.
Obama’s defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn’t regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Would you maintain friendly relations with an unrepentant terrorist? Would you even shake his hand? To ask why Obama does is perfectly legitimate and perfectly relevant to understanding what manner of man he is.
Obamaphiles are even more exercised about the debate question regarding the flag pin. Now, I have never worn one. Whether anyone does is a matter of total indifference to me. But apparently not to Obama. He’s taken three affirmative steps in regard to flag pins. After 9/11, he began wearing one. At a later point, he stopped wearing it. Then last year he explained why: Because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security.”
Apart from the self-congratulatory fatuousness of that statement — as if in this freest of all countries, political self-expression is somehow scarce or dangerous or a sign of patriotic courage — to speak of pin-wearing as a sign of inauthentic patriotism is to make an issue of it yourself. For Obamaphiles to now protest the very asking of the question requires a fine mix of cynicism and self-righteousness.
But Obama needs to cast out such questions as illegitimate distractions because they are seriously damaging his candidacy. As people begin to learn about this just-arrived pretender, the magic dissipates. He spent six weeks in Pennsylvania. Outspent Hillary more than two to one. Ran close to 10,000 television ads — spending more than anyone in any race in the history of the state — and lost by 10 points.
And not because he insufficiently demagogued NAFTA or the other “issues.” It was because of those “distractions” — i.e., the things that most reveal character and core beliefs.