This New York Times Story broke 15 minutes ago: “Blagojevich Wants to Defend With Election Funds”
Come on. They left him no choice:
The decision to try to use campaign funds arose on Thursday after the state attorney general rejected a request by the governor to use state funds to pay for his impeachment defense.
I call that: Leninism.
If Obama actually thinks that Lincoln set out to reorder American society, then his mastery of history in very poor. Lincoln’s main goal was to PRESERVE the Union, not alter it. Lincoln would have allowed the southern states to keep slavery if they would have returned to the Union. Only out of necessity to win the war did he start adopting abolitionist policies, and he did that reluctantly. His rhetorical device was to challenge Americans to live up to words of the founding documents; he didn’t twist their meanings for his own political ends.
I think Obama didn’t get his money worth from his Ivy League education. I think Obama is more interested in fabricating history than truely understanding it. Lincoln didn’t want a civil war – maybe Obama does. Or perhaps he’s into the neo-Marxist approach to history – the past can be intepreted any way you want in order to promote a socialist agenda.
Obama has demonstrated time and again that his entire understanding of Lincoln’s greatness is related to Obama himself; that is, Lincoln is important only insofar as he made it possible (via abolition) for Obama to be president.
I must say that I’m beginning to believe that Obama is more/worse than a hard Leftie. He really appears to believe himself to have a rendezous with destiny and to be ordained by Gaia to save us. This would explain his almost sociopathic coolness that is being described now as a virtue but will eventually be seen as a most disturbing symptom of his mania, so obvious that people will say, “how did we miss that?”
#4–Yes, he does have a messianic sense of destiny that I think is directly linked to his own considerable narcissism. He takes Lincoln as one of his foreshadowings and FDR as the other, and I think he aspires to be greater than either. Both of these men effected vast transformations in the nature of the American state. This is what Obama sees himself as being and doing: He sees himself an an historic figure who is going to shift the foundations of American government for generations to come. This is why he views our present distress and economic suffering as his own God-given personal opportunity–he can make us what he will (he thinks) because we have become so disorganized by fear.
#5: While some of our Presidents have been cads and some charlatans, we have never had a monomaniac who has no respect for the constraints of governing, which is what you unfortunately — but correctly — have described.
I would suggest that Commentary analyze Saul Alinsky’s handbook. Maybe write a counter-manual.
What the he** did you people expect?
The guy has been a devotee of Wright for over 20 years, 20 damn years!
He’s a RADICAL!
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS FRIENDS is a radical. From what we know of him, he hasn’t any close friends who isn’t a muslim or a radical.
The only close people to him were Wright, Ayers and Cass Sunstein, and every single one of them, is a flat-out kooky radical.
Black liberation theology isn’t simply brain dead and heretical, it’s radical, it’s radical leftism.
It oozes disdain for Anglo-Americana, which it blames for much of the problems that black people have had over the years.
We elected someone who has SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS with American exceptionalism.
I’m convinced that in the depth of his soul, he no more thinks of himself as an American than that despicable Soros.
He’s no friend of ours, and he doesn’t mean us well.
Well, aardvarck is right. Obama is a transnationalist radical, very friendly toward the Cloward-Piven strategy, and is rapidly trying to redefine “sovereignty” in non-sovereign terms.
Stone-cold Marxist. How is he not?