On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists ... They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. ...
Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given.
I guess this is how he would explain that there is absolutely no mention of his deep and abiding love for his country in his 442-page autobiographical "Story of Race and Inheritance:" It's "a given." He didn't have any room to mention it.
Of course, nobody will ever ask him about it.
It was how I was raised;
"They are not my people." -- Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro, on why she wouldn't attend her second husband's business dinners with Americans.
it is what propelled me into public service;
You're in Missouri, so show me. Show me which page of your autobiography says your entry into "public service" was motivated by patriotism rather than racialism.
it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged - at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
Isn't that big of Obama? He won't question the Hanoi Hilton survivor's patriotism if nobody will question his. What could be fairer than that?
Your Lying Eyes points out:
Funny, it seems as though on every issue where one of the candidates is unpatriotic [e.g., immigration], the other doesn't fare much better. It kind of makes the no-questioning-patriotism pledge seem less like a high-minded clean-campaign pact than a cease-fire agreement.
You mean, Kodos and Kang Obama and McCain are going to set up a keep-the-public-ignorant cartel an anti-negative campaigning concord?
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
48 comments:
Of course he won't challenge McCain's patriotism. He'll just have his proxies do it for him on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Steve, didn't you get the memo? As Michelle confessed, they only started loving this country when Obama pulled ahead of Hillary in the delegate count.
"I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged"
This was my favorite part. It's the one part that's surely true. He's never had his patriotism challenged before because until now he's never hung around anyone who would think to look for it!
He should have said, "I've had my *alienation* from my country challenged, I've had my racial nationalism doubted, I've had my commitment to the oppressed come under suspicion, but this is the first time anyone's ever cared about this 'patriotism' I'm suddenly hearing so much about."
"He won't question the Hanoi Hilton survivor's patriotism if nobody will question his. What could be fairer than that?"
McCain should offer the same deal: "I won't accuse my opponent's side of racism if they won't accuse my side of it." That would go down as the most ballsy, and hilarious, line in campaign history.
Leftists have redefined patriotism as "dissent".
"I'm on your side, *because* I attack you all the time!"
Attacks are good, see, because they're "constructive" criticism. Never mind that these are the guys who pioneered *deconstructive* criticism...
A fun thing to do is to ask leftists whose patriotism they *do* question. The dumber ones will just stand there slackjawed...the smarter ones will start talking about how we need to bring the Bushitler into the Hague for war crimes. Basically the smarter ones will frame it in such a way that only right-of-center positions are unpatriotic.
Perhaps a better question is to ask them whether a Muslim born in the UK who bombs a bus is "unpatriotic". You'd think they'd just be able to say "of course", but I've found it *really* makes them squirm to admit *anything* negative about a Muslim.
This, by the way, is why everyone should send a copy of Stuff White People Like to their liberal acquaintances...embedded underneath the humor is a stinging conservative critique.
Leftists have been indoctrinated into bending over passively when they are attacked *as white people*, but reacting ferociously when attacked as *liberals*. The exact same sentences from Lander's blog that would occasion a harsh retort were they to concern "liberals" are instead considered profound "funny because it's true" statements about whites. The subtle underlying message is that *only whites really believe the liberal BS*.
The left managed to pull a real coup when they took something the right invested value in -- patriotism -- and slowly redefined it as a weapon against the right ("patriotism is dissent"). So it's worthwhile to think about Trojan Horse type opportunities on the opposite side of the ledger, given the total dominance of leftist values today.
SWPL is probably the best example of the genre. It puts together an axiom all white liberals believe on some level:
"whites -- as a group -- are bad and to be made fun of"
with an indisputable truth:
"you are white"
resulting in a patent absurdity.
McCain should offer the same deal: "I won't accuse my opponent's side of racism if they won't accuse my side of it." That would go down as the most ballsy, and hilarious, line in campaign history.
That is actually a damn good way to see Obama's gambit and raise him. Send that to McCain headquarters!
(Yes, McCain is awful, but at least he's not going to destroy the country on purpose.)
Who could question his patriotism? I mean, it's not like his pastor -- the man who married him, who lent the title to his book -- said "God DAMN America" or that his wife wrote a typo-laden dissertation on her anger towards and alienation from white America.
Oh wait.
"McCain should offer the same deal: "I won't accuse my opponent's side of racism if they won't accuse my side of it."
That's not a fair deal because no one could reasonably challange McCain's patriotism. His position on the 1st amendment however . . .
Someone could reasonably make a case that BHO entertains some racist ideas and policies. Does he support affirmative action? Someone could make a cred argument that AA is racist, Ward Connaly (sp?) seems to have, with success in rational argument and the voting booth.
"Isn't that big of Obama? He won't question the Hanoi Hilton survivor's patriotism if nobody will question his."
When you are given the nickname "the songbird" by your captors, there is much to question.
One thing I've never quite understood; how does getting captured make one a hero. I always thought the war hero was the guy who ran through a machine gun nest with only his GI dagger between his teeth, and came out with an injured batterymate under one arm and a struggling POW under the other.
Since when does being an incompetent fool who got shot down, couldn't complete his mission and then told his captors everything they wanted to know make one John Wayne?
Obama is just beyond parody. The fact that a left-wing Alinskyite pseudo-black nationalist "God damn America" Rezko-loving machine politician fixer like him could even be considered for the presidency demonstrates the utter moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party, and possibly of the country itself. I mean, is this guy for real? McCain is bad enough, and so was Hillary, but Obama? I mean, you've GOT to be kidding. and to think some "conservatives" are supporting this guy.Lord knows, Bush has been bad enough, but we're about to discover that you can do a whole lot woprse than Bush...
Man, Steve really hates Obama.
He'll just have his proxies do it for him on the Sunday morning talk shows.
Clark certainly didn't question McCain's patriotism -- he praised it. Read the actual transcript.
That's not a fair deal because no one could reasonably challange McCain's patriotism.
Hold on -- anyone who supports immigration is not a patriot.
"On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists ... They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. ..."
Wrong. They did act on behalf of a particular tribe and lineage. Sure they wanted liberty, but not as an idea, rather as a tangible reality. And they wanted it for themselves and their heirs, not for some broadly defined "other".
Or at least I assume that's what the founding fathers meant when they wrote "....and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,...." in the preamble of the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.
Is Harry Jaffa writing Obama's speeches now?
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists ... They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. ...
Utter nonsense. The colonists in question did what they did on behalf of their *own* lineages.
The Preamble to the Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Jefferson didn't even want the blacks already in the country living alongside whites. What do you think he'd say about importing more third-worlders (like Barry's absentee dad)?
If anybody bothered noticing this is exactly what that God and Saviour Mandela did in South Africa. He questioned the moral integrity of the whites and implied that if anybody asked questions about his terrorist past he would label them as racists and thus void their standing in any debate. Its basically a direct threat. If McCain were to succumb to this threat he might as well hand over Iraq to Iran and stop acting like a tough guy. The only way to deal with this, considering that the MSM is backing up the threat, a legally dubious thing to be doing, is not to blink and take the guy on head-on.
Truth says...One thing I've never quite understood; how does getting captured make one a hero. I always thought the war hero was the guy who ran through a machine gun nest with only his GI dagger between his teeth, and came out with an injured batterymate under one arm and a struggling POW under the other.
Since when does being an incompetent fool who got shot down, couldn't complete his mission and then told his captors everything they wanted to know make one John Wayne?
Auddie Murphy posts here? The above is laughable but I do agree that anyone supporting immigration is not "patriotic" as I define the word.
Oh, I don't know about laughable. There should be some distinction between a hero and a 'mere' (actually no small honour) veteran. These days 'hero' has become one of the many grossly inflated terms of public discourse.
Why is Truth still posting here? Shouldn't he be busy shoving red pills down his throat with chain mail gloves or whatever?
A POW is a hero because he is a victim - there is no more blessed state than that in the world today.
Ive no idea whether Juan McAmnesty was incompetent or not. Its how one conducts oneself as a POW that counts - easy for me to say not having been in the military or a POW.
James Stockdale passes the test of conduct. Whether McAmnesty does I dont know.
Obama's weasel words appear to be fooling most of the people all of the time.
As ever, the MSM is bewitched, comparing his often duplicitous rhetoric to that of Lincoln. Leftists remain unfased by what Jonathan Freedland in this morning's Guardian (UK) refers to as "the Potomac shuffle" ... "the traditional election-year dance in which a candidate who has earlier moved left or right to win over the party faithful in a primary campaign promptly slides back to the centre to appeal to the rest of the country. Barack Obama [is] quite a mover on the dancefloor ...". Perhaps they believe he will return to his left (default) position once in office.
Obama's reference to tribe and lineage in its 18th century context has to be a willful misinterpretation, not least because it was pretty clear at the time that a considerable segment of the American population was not free to pursue happiness or indeed much else. Jefferson felt bad about owning slaves, as far as I recall.
(I have a curious hunch that Obama, conscious of his skill as a writer, might try to add an addendum of some kind to the Declaration of Rights if he becomes President).
By constantly linking himself to the great figures and achievements of American history, Obama basks in reflected glory. "Philadelphia" and "a more perfect union"; "Independence" and that "simple band of colonists" who met on a "spring morning in April of 1775 ...". It is a kind of patriotism, I guess, although of a somewhat self-serving kind. Dr Samuel Johnson's dictum about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel often comes to mind ...
As a (half) black man, his election would be historic. I just wish I could be less cynical about him.
Those who post to Isteve court the danger that a cartoonist will read their post and run with it.
http://baloocartoons.wordpress.com/
Is this 1984 in Orwell speak?
Obama is an unteathered elite liberal who comes from a radical anti-American family and seeks out even more radical anti-American advisors (Communist Party USA mentor in HI) and supporters (Weather underground Ayers). Obama seeks out the most racists mentors in black liberation Rev Wright to attack traditional So. Side Chicago black pols from the extreme anti-white/anti-US left. He and his wife spend most their entire lives exploiting radical race politics.
So what do you do? You give completely stage managed speeches on how you, Obama, transcend race and are a true patriot. The vast majority of elites and the MSM are 110% involved in the fix.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find too many "heroes" who were assigned to fly ground-attack aircraft in Vietnam, and McCain has given no indication that he was the first.
How many civilians of any age or gender do you suppose McCain killed while bombing North Vietnam?
I wonder if it approaches September 11th's 3K number, which seems to be ample justification to torture "the terrorists." Of course, when they're called heroes, we get a little touchy, though they've met much the same criteria.
I'd say the bottom line is no one who's claim to heroism involves killing non-combatants deserves even lip service, whether they were "just following orders or not," and whether they were caught and tortured or not.
And McCain volunteered for those combat missions to boot.
Headache,
You really are selling Nelson Mandela short. By all accounts, he's a decent fellow and was a far better president than Africa (or America) typically gets. If you don't think he was justified in using violence to fight Apartheid, then you can't say our Founding Fathers were justified to use violence to fight our far less brutal British occupiers.
Like George Washington surrendering the presidency after two terms (when he could have easily made himself King George I), Mandela refused to use his overwhelming popular support to make himself a dictator for life or to abuse his enemies.
To give two examples of his decency, 1. he gave a full pardon to anyone, white secret policeman and black ANC assassin alike, who admitted his guilt to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (and anyone who didn't want to confess was free to emigrate to, umm, whiter pastures). 2. In the first post-Apartheid election (as Steve noted a while ago), Mandela fixed the election. Uniquely in the history of such efforts, he gave himself FEWER votes than he actually He wanted white candidates to have a larger share of the vote so they'd have more political power in parliament and feel a larger stake in the nascent multiracial government.
So, if your argument is that Obama is just like Mandela (and the evidence isn't there to support that), then he deserves to win by acclamation.
Arcsine and Truth what a miserable duo.... McCain put his ass on the line upwards of 25 times on bombing runs and repeatedly turned down being freed by his captors. there's no BUT to those facts. Yes, I wish he was a Immigration restrictionist. How many Vietnamese did he kill? Apparently not enough but he did his best. I wonder if he still hates them?
How frequently, in your writing, do you mention that you love America?
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_13/article.html
In what sense is the patriotism of the candidate supposed to tell me anything about how good a president they'll be? This strikes me as MSM-quality coverage, ignoring the interesting and important issues for surface-level fluff.
As an aside, why is military service so widely considered the ultimate demonstration of patriotism? Was George Washington really a greater patriot than Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson? I know the Democrats thought John Kerry's war record in 2004 would make him hard to beat, but was anyone really convinced that an impressive war record would have made him a good president?
Dan, bombing civillians on the other side of the world doesn't make you a hero. "Truth" is offbase on a lot of things but not on this.
"Why is Truth still posting here? Shouldn't he be busy shoving red pills down his throat with chain mail gloves or whatever?"
No, you got it backwards:
You're the ones who need to be force fed the red pill; I'm the one who wants to stick a fork in my neck when I see how this great nation is being turned into one large slaughterhouse for braindead sheep.
"and repeatedly turned down being freed by his captors. there's no BUT to those facts."
Why is this a fact?
How do you know that he refused the opportunity to leave. Did his captors say this or is it just part of American (PR) folklore. Before you answer that question, Neo, please see above.
Remember, Rock Hudson was a great ladies man according to the press.
ok Truth- I'm with you on being wary of taking every story as fact about McCain but him being offered his freedom has been verified many times. If you doubt that do you also doubt the moon landings? Seems like your anger is misplaced.
Was George Washington really a greater patriot than Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson?
Without a doubt. Merely asking that question is an example of our decadence.
If you don't think [Mandela] was justified in using violence to fight Apartheid, then you can't say our Founding Fathers were justified to use violence to fight our far less brutal British occupiers.
You're a bit confused. There's no comparing a war of secession with a war of aggression. Yes, the American secession movement was morally problematic insofar as secessionists forced their opinion on others. But secession is a natural right, and the denial of a right is an act of aggression that may be properly resisted with force.
South African blacks, in contrast, were engaging in the precise opposite of secession. Rather than separating from the whites ("apartheid", after all means separateness), Mandela and company acted aggressively to take what was built by and rightfully belonged to the whites. Whites weren't "occupiers"; blacks migrated to a South Africa built by whites.
I don't see why McCain is a considered a hero. His refusal of preferential treatment was a matter of duty. Had he accepted, he would have been disgraced, and he would not have been able to continue with a military career, and I'm sure he knew this.
As for bombing people in a jungle half the way accross the world, I don't see that as a great act of bravery. It could have eastily been an act of wrecklessness and incaution, like riding a motorbike on an icy road. Pride cometh before destruction.
I also don't think that McCain deserves veneration for being a veteran. I think that the honor that might have been his due, has now been negated by his false self-portrayal as a great war-hero.
"him being offered his freedom has been verified many times. "
Sir;
I do not mean to insult your, on anyone else's intelligence here, but understand one thing. If you hear something for the US (or any other) government, it's probably a lie, a deception or a half-truth. That's not simply my opinon, it's "been verified many times." We are in the midst of a fake presidential election in which the powers that be dictate thought upon a gullable public, which has been plied with the Haegelian dialect since birth (thesis-antithesis=synthesis).
We are offered a choice of too candidates for the most prestigious job on the planet: One who's main qualification is being a nice guy, the other one who's main accopmlishment in life was getting captured. Why not nominate Leo Buscglia and Patty Hearst?
I have, in my life, worked in print, radio and television journalism and I can tell you that what you get from the press is generally bullshit. For instance, why is it that even on NPR, the Israelies are "soldiers" that Palestinians are "gunmen?" The uniform?
In any event, David Icke, a man whom I do consider a "hero" explains it much better than I ever could:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MoXkTg
-Uoz4
PS: Does it ever strike you as odd, that we landed on the moon in 1969 BEFORE WE EVEN REALLY HAD COMPUTERS, and still have problems getting a spacecraft off the take-off deck thirty years later?
Truth says...We are offered a choice of too candidates for the most prestigious job on the planet: One who's main qualification is being a nice guy, the other one who's main accopmlishment in life was getting captured
whose "truth" is that. I think Obama's a prick and hangs out with psychos. How he chose that wife I'll never understand. McCain's "main accomplishment" in life was getting the Republican nomination. get your facts straight.
I think I struck a nerve with the moon landing.
"Truth said...
PS: Does it ever strike you as odd, that we landed on the moon in 1969 BEFORE WE EVEN REALLY HAD COMPUTERS, and still have problems getting a spacecraft off the take-off deck thirty years later?"
No, it doesn't strike me as odd. We did have computers in 1969 (the first electronic computer dates back to at least 1940). They weren't as powerful as those we have now, but they were sufficient for guidance and navigation.
The problem with the space program now, is that the phenomenal computing power that we now have is squandered on excel, power-point, and CAD, in endless design, redesign, and masturbatory exercises in risk-mitigation (trying to mitigate risks before they even are, or can be, quantified). It is engineering by org-chart: managers have come to believe that all that management voo-doo is actually real, and that if they just structure their management processes right, that real flight hardware will fall out of it. It won't.
Do you doubt that the moon-landing happened? If so, that is a good indicator of your gullibility and powers of reason.
"McCain's "main accomplishment" in life was getting the Republican nomination. get your facts straight."
Yes, he and Bob Dole.
"How he chose that wife I'll never understand."
Yeah, he would have already wrapped up the election had he chosen a white woman.
"The problem with the space program now..."
So, the computers NASA used in 1969 were actually better than those used today?
"Do you doubt that the moon-landing happened?"
I didn't say I did and I didn't say I didn't say I didn't, I simply asked a question that people have asked for 39 years.
http://www.moonmovie.com/
moonmovie/default.asp
Come on guys, I expected more of two of my best pupils. Someday soon you'll be able to snatch the pebble from my hand, but until then do yourselves a favor and...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=utc2VLr
GFEU
Happy 4th to all, be patriotic.
truth only pops up when the topic is barry O. Yet he laments that Steve cannot find another topic. Hey "truth", how about reading some of Steve's other stuff? Maybe then you'll realize that you are the one obsessed about Obama, presumably because you are also black and thus feel racial solidarity, in direct contradiction to your professed non-racialism.
"Truth said...
So, the computers NASA used in 1969 were actually better than those used today?"
You didn't bother reading what I wrote. No, the computers today are much better. Much more powerful. What is lacking today is the will to do it (i.e., go to the moon), the organizational capacity to do it, and the need to do it. There isn't anything up there worth the trip, really. Once you've done it the first time, there's not much reason to do it again.
""Do you doubt that the moon-landing happened?"
I didn't say I did and I didn't say I didn't say I didn't, I simply asked a question that people have asked for 39 years.
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp""
People have asked a lot of things for 39 years. Like why can't I cool my house down by opening the refrigerator door? Why can't they make a car that runs on water? How do they get those little talking people into my TV set. People are stupid.
If you are persuaded by the willful ignorance of the guy who's pushing that moon hoax crap, then you don't believe we went to the moon. Stop prevaricating.
And I ain't "your pupil" jack. There is nothing to be learned from you.
@citizenstephen,
Was George Washington really a greater patriot than Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson?
Without a doubt. Merely asking that question is an example of our decadence.
Merely asking that question means the terrorists have won.
Merely asking that question means you're a lily-livered, yellow-bellied coward who wants to turn the US over to the terrorists.
It's no wonder the terrorists have won since people think Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson are as great as George Washington.
-Senor Doug
McCain is an NAU-loving, Israel First traitor.
His "heroism" in N. Vietnam consisted of committing war crimes for which he was lucky not to be lynched on capture.
He now tries to raise money from a sceptical conservative base by boasting that he did not take an early trip home.
See
www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com
for why he was known as "the PW Songbird".
The "bipartisan" racket of national warfare/welfare politics has crafted its masterpiece: a choice between liberal globalist scumbags.
Bob Barr or nobody.
"Perhaps a better question is to ask them whether a Muslim born in the UK who bombs a bus is "unpatriotic". You'd think they'd just be able to say "of course", but I've found it *really* makes them squirm to admit *anything* negative about a Muslim."
I've actually done this, and you're right: it does make them squirm. A few, though, will boldy proclaim that the bomber really is the true patriot.
(Of course, you can find something similar on the extreme right. Ask a black-helicopter type about Timothy McVeigh. Apparently, Tim's a true patriot.)
citizen stephens: What are your criteria for judging this?
If Washington is a greater patriot, it's because he stepped down at the end of his term, and didn't try to make himself president for life. Not because he was a successful military commander.
Venerating military service as the highest form of patriotism is part of what's wrong with us as a nation right now, part of the slide toward becoming an empire. The military is necessary, and we're lucky to have a very good military. But that's not what the country's about. (The USSR had a very tough military, too. That didn't make it a decent place to live or a country worthy of love or loyalty.)
If you're grateful for what makes the US a wonderful place to live, don't just thank a soldier, you may also want to thank a cop, a doctor, a businessman, an engineer, or a judge.
" Hey "truth", how about reading some of Steve's other stuff?"
Actually, the truth is just the opposite. I post on many topics here, you just don't notice because they are not incendiary to you. It's kind of like the 'all the white chix are dating black guys' theory; It's actually a very small percentage, it just happens that those are the only couples
'you' notice.
"presumably because you are also black and thus feel racial solidarity,"
It's impossible to believe in racial solidarity when one does not believe in races.
"There isn't anything up there worth the trip, really. Once you've done it the first time, there's not much reason to do it again."
Not much reason? How about natural resources? We've been to Antartica before also, strangely enough people continue to go back, and it's probably much less interesting than the moon.
"The "bipartisan" racket of national warfare/welfare politics has crafted its masterpiece: a choice between liberal globalist scumbags."
Finally, someone making sense here.
"People have asked a lot of things for 39 years. Like why can't I cool my house down by opening the refrigerator door? Why can't they make a car that runs on water?"
Yes, and Sparky, there's a good reason people people keep asking those stupid questions.
http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C8115/
As to the moon landing, I do not take a strong opinion one way or the other because I simply do not know, I've read convincing arguments on each side. The intellectual man does not force an opinion upon subjects when he has not done sufficent research.
Mozart and Beethoven, many of the Baroque and 19th c. composers are very popular--for certain peices. These pieces, such Haydns Water Music, Vivaldi's concertos, Beethoven's 5th or 9th, Mendelsohns March and the Tempest, Chopin...I could go on. These pieces turn up constantly in movies, tv, wherever music might be used. Babe used music from the Carnivale by Saint-Saens.
Classical music of certan composers, particularly Mozart, has been used to improve mental functioning and I can attest to that. Those composers hit something in their structure and sound that calm and order the mind, or stimulate and order the mind. I hardly need tell you what the effect of rock music is on the mind. And I like rock, esp. the Stones.
Some of the finest classical music was written at the same time that hand crafted furniture making reached its apex, late 18th c.
I dn't know if there's a connection.
Classical music will be there always, but if you mean by "caring for it" you mean play it or listen to it in a habitual way, not common. But most of us have heard it constantly without knowing what the names were.
Post a Comment