Only He Who Risks, Is Free..

I met a very interesting character today on Twitter.. specifically, an individual that goes by the handle, ObeyMyObama; whose profile states:

The people want PROVISIONS supplied & RISK removed. Statist gov't only option. Statism works with fair & just leader like Obama. AcceptCopeObey

At first I thought that this was obviously a sham account; one that was created tongue and cheek.. but the more that I observed this fruitcake, the more I saw that this person was actually serious:

http://bit.ly/edmSn0 We believe a strong central government, led by a honorable, fair & just authority is most efficient & equal. #p2 #tcot

And...

We don't think that freedom is most important thing. Equality is most important. Government is the answer. #p2 #tcot

So I decided I make contact with this person:

>>@obeymyobama <<

to which this sad, sad person replied,

Communism failed, unfortunately. Statism will work this time w/ fair & just leader. Obama removes risk & provides provisions.

To which I retorted,

@obeymyobama And who provides Obama with the provisions to provide to you? Is it the magic provisions dust that Obama carries in his pocket?

To which she retorted:

@Leo_Pusateri those that can provided, must provide. Equality is the foundation to a fair and just society. Don't hate, give if you have.

Can one believe that such people exist in our United States? Someone who wants to be taken care of, womb to the tomb, so willing to give up their liberties in lieu of a life supposedly free of risk.

This exchange made me think a lot about how some people are quite comfortable with living their lives in economic squalor, devoid of liberties, so as to provide themselves with a false sense of security. This harkened back to me in the form of a poem from the 1980s that had been shared with me:

Only a Person who Risks is Free

To laugh is to risk appearing the fool.
To weep is to risk appearing sentimental.
To reach for another is to risk involvement.
To expose your ideas, your dreams,
before a crowd is to risk their loss.
To love is to risk not being loved in return.
To live is to risk dying.
To believe is to risk despair.
To try is to risk failure.
But risks must be taken, because the
greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing.
The people who risk nothing, do nothing,
have nothing, are nothing.
They may avoid suffering and sorrow,
but they cannot learn, feel, change,
grow, love, live.
Chained by their certitudes they are slaves;
they have forfeited their freedom.
Only a person who risks is free.

- anonymous

What a bunch of INGRATES!

20 years ago, the Berlin wall was torn down; soon before, President Ronald Reagan exhorted Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall!"

It was the genius of Ronald Reagan's policies, coupled with Maggie Thatcher and Pope John Paul II that fostered the conditions that allowed the two Germanys to unite, as East Germany, which was run like a prison by Michael Gorbachev himself, was under the thumb of communist rule.

But what do these low-life scum do as a "thank you" to Ronald Reagan?

They honor another wad of scum, Gorbachev himself:

It was the finale to a day of memorial services, speeches and events that attracted leaders from around the world, including former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Merkel and 78-year-old Gorbachev stood shoulder to shoulder as they crossed a former fortified border crossing point between East and West Berlin to cheers of "Gorby! Gorby!" bring this up to the first reference to gorby.

[snip]

Merkel, who was one of thousands to cross that night, recalled that "before the joy of freedom came, many people suffered."

She lauded Gorbachev, with whom she shared an umbrella amid a crush of hundreds, eager for a glimpse of the man many still consider a hero for his role in pushing reform in the Soviet Union.

"You made this possible — you courageously let things happen, and that was much more than we could expect," she said.

Even our supposed President, Barack Hussein Obama, gave absolutely no props to Reagan:

In a video messaged screened at the main event, President Barack Obama paid tribute to the dissidents and demonstrators who ushered in the fall of the wall 20 years ago.

"Let us never forget Nov. 9, 1989, nor the sacrifices that made it possible," Obama said to applause and cheers.

Not one mention in the article about Reagan or Thatcher. Not. One.

And don't count on our Alzheimer's-laden secretary of state to recall the real reason for the fall of the Wall & the opening of the Brandenburg Gate:

Clinton paid tribute Germany and other countries who shook loose communist binds.

"We remember the people of the Baltics who joined hands across their land ... we remember the students of Prague who propelled a dissident playwright from a jail cell to the presidency," she said. "And tonight we remember the Germans, and especially the Germans in the East who stood up to say 'No more.'"

Not one mention of Ronald Reagan. Not. One.

Ungrateful. Bastards.

Paging Neville Chamberlain...

Bush administration policies made it tough on tyrants. Saddam Hussein was toast. Mohammar Khadaffy, seeing the writing on the wall, suddenly turned into a good guy. Even Kim Jong Il thought twice about beating his chest and preening his trollkin hair in touting his nuclear capabilities.

Yep, to paraphrase a rap song, during the Bush administration, it was hard out there for a tyrant.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama: Since his inauguration, Ponyang has re-started its nuke program, Ghadaffi is now supporting Iran's nuclear program, and Iran is...well, kicking its thermonuclear program into full gear.

Ain't it a caution as to the difference nine months can make, now that Barack Hussein Obama is doing his level best to make the world safe for tyranny...

President Obama dismayed America's allies in Europe and angered his political opponents at home today when he formally ditched plans to set up a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The project had been close to the heart of Mr Obama's predecessor, President Bush, who had argued before leaving office in January that it was needed to defend against long-range ballistic missile attacks from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

But it had hobbled relations with Russia, which considered it both a security threat and an unnecessary political provocation in its own backyard.

This of course, comes on the heels of this news:

VIENNA — Experts at the world's top atomic watchdog are in agreement that Tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to developing a missile system able to carry an atomic warhead, according to a secret report seen by The Associated Press.

The document drafted by senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency is the clearest indication yet that the agency's leaders share Washington's views on Iran's weapon-making capabilities.

It appears to be the so-called "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program that Washington says is being withheld by the IAEA's chief.

The document says Iran has "sufficient information" to build a bomb. It says Iran is likely to "overcome problems" on developing a delivery system.

At any rate, since Putin and the neo-Soviets in Russia got their way, at the very least, Obama's decision to pull a Nancy will reap dividends in getting Russian cooperation, right?

Not so fast, appeasement breath:

"Those who are talking about a concession to Russia are primarily those who are looking for a bargaining chip in seeking extra dividends of some kind from us," said Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian envoy to NATO, in remarks carried on the Interfax news agency. "In actual fact, the Americans have simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty-bound to pay for someone to put their own mistakes right."

The Obamateur makes the world less hostile to tyrants, destabilizes the balance of power, and continues to weaken the United States to the point of impotence in the process.

A socialist utopian trifecta.

There. Don't you feel safer, now that hopenchange is here?

Chaos as a Tool of the American Left

A good friend of mine pointed me to a must-read article (READ THE WHOLE THING) by James Simpson that was actually written two months before the Presidential election, in September of 2008. In it, Simpson writes about the Cloward-Piven strategy, that is, a strategy formulated by two radical university lefitsts during the 1960s; a strategy utilizing contrived and orchestrated chaos to achieve political ends.

Immediately upon reading the piece, the following passage stood out:

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

"Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

I might add, Alinsky is an ideological mentor to Barack & Michelle Obama.

I also might add that our own book of rules is a list of ideals for which to strive, which, as is the case with the Commandments, we all fall short, though we continue to strive for those ideals.

The Socialist book of rules is a dumbing down, a nihilist concept that since we all fall short of moral purity and perfection, why even strive for it? The definition of moral purity is then defined down to living according to the Machiavellian tenets that any means, including the economic and moral destruction of one's own nation, are justified if they will serve to create their inarguably unattainable earthly socialist utopia. With the leftist rule book, and with tactics such as moral relativism the left can change the rules as they go along; consequently, in their minds, they ALWAYS live up to their rules..because essentially there are none.

It's time that socialists are held not to to their own book of rules (since in effect, they have none), but to the results they promise as they tout their policies. The socialist policies of Barack Obama and the dems have netted not a utopia, but the exact opposite world in which moral degradation and chaos rule the day. They decapitated the black families in the great society, initiated unending cycles of poverty, placed moral standards at their lowest common denominator til in their 'moral equavalence' game neither a standard of morality nor the will to strive to live by morals exist, period.

They have left and continue to leave societal, moral and social destruction in their wake.

They have promised a better life for all who subscribe to their philosophy, yet, through the redistribution of wealth and through moral equivalence, multiculturalism, not to mention their zeal to throw God out of the picture at every turn, they have and continue to create pandemonium.

Where is their neo-socialist/neo-communist paradise on earth?

Despite the left's rising tide this past decade and a half, I've yet to see any sign of it. Despite the "great society," despite the transfer of untold trillions of dollars in wealth, I haven't seen a smidgen of benefit to the individual, nor the society at large.

Where are the results, lefties?

Fellow Travellers...

Nothing says "I'm down with the socialist struggle," like a knowing glance and a "soul brotha" handshake.

Story here.