The Obama Problem

Wingnut porn
obama, assassination, death, threats, military, coup, voter, democracy,

What do citizens of a democracy do when they don't like their elected officials?

a) vote
b) vote
c) vote
d) all of the above

Seems obvious, right? Not over at Newsmax, where John L. Perry, who's apparently never heard of voting, wrote this (it was subsequently taken down):

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic. [...]

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later.”

That's right, Mr. Perry went with e) military coup, the hallmark of every democracy.

Mr. Perry, you seditious spleenweasel, I don't have to think up an alternative, nonviolent solution to your nonexistent problem. We already have one: voting. Why couldn't you think of it?

This, combined with the uptick in death threats against our President, combined with disturbing polls to determine under which circumstance we should assassinate our President, makes me a little . . . concerned.

How is Canada this time of year?

Atheists Shouldn't Be Allowed to Vote

conservative, republican, obama, abortion, prochoice, priest, catholic, voter, atheism, atheist,
George W. Bush once famously said that atheists (probably) aren't citizens of the US, and certainly aren't patriots.

Now Euripides puts for the notion that atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote. Well, Edmund Burke apparently said it, but according to Euripides:

Edmund Burke is considered the father of conservatism. He spoke and wrote during the 18th Century during a time of great political upheaval in Europe and in the Americas. His views, though dated according to his own time, can still shed light on the conservative impulse and lead us to understand what it means to be conservative and to stand for conservative values.

I take this quote from a speech he gave, entitled Reflections on the French Revolution. This appears in the book, The Works of Edmund Burke.

When the people have emptied themselves of all the lust of selfish will, which without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should, when they are conscious that they exercise, and exercise perhaps in a higher link of the order of delegation, the power, which to be legitimate must be according to that eternal, immutable law, in which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they place power in base and incapable hands. In their nomination to office they will not appoint to the exercise of authority, as to a pitiful job, but as to a holy function; not according to their sordid, selfish interest, nor to their wanton caprice, nor to their arbitrary will; but they will confer that power (which any man may well tremble to give or to receive) on those only, in whom they may discern that predominant proportion of active virtue and wisdom, taken together and fitted to the charge, such, as in the great and inevitable mixed mass of human imperfections and infirmities, is to be found.

This is a lengthy quote but one well worth reading and understanding. Here's the basic idea: When electing a person into political office and giving him political power, we should only elect someone through our own careful thought and moral wisdom and choose leaders who have active virtue and wisdom.

I would think that we would all agree that in the 21st century United States that politicians are not performing some sort of holy function, for a whole host of reasons that should be immediately obvious to the casual observer. I'm sure this was an acceptable, and perhaps even a true, remark in the mid 1700s, but times, they have a changed.

Although if mid 18th Century thought still prevails in the conservative movement, that would explain a lot. It would certainly explain the GOP attitudes toward minorities and women.

At the risk of being pedantic, a risk he's always willing to take let me break this down step by step. Burke first considers those of us who put people into power. voters. one word. i am indeed the queen of pithy. We have a duty and responsibility to rid ourselves "of all the lust of selfish will." 18th century prose is good for some pretty amusing turns of phrase. Electing someone to power must not be a selfish act, not one based on our own lust for power. We are to act without selfishness, for the good of the whole. In other words, instead of asking "What can this candidate do for me?" we should, instead ask "What can this candidate do for the country?"

and here we have the basis of conservatism: convincing people to vote against their self interest. it amazes me to see people who have no chance of ever making 250k a year (it would take me over 10 years to make that amount), getting all up in arms about a tax on wages over 250k. here's a clue: rich people didn't get rich by raining it down on the rest of us.

as for single issue voting, like abortion, when are people ever going to get that issues are never that simple? example: the local bishop declared that any catholic who voted for obama must confess and be absolved before they can take communion again. the reason? obama is prochoice. a local priest was "relocated" because he gave an interview to the paper in which he stated that he voted for obama to reduce abortions. the priest's logic? 8 years of republican control of the country had not reduced abortions one whit, so clearly, voting republican doesn't solve a thing. he then did some research (i know!) and discovered that abortions are closely tied to the economy. the economy goes up, abortions go down and vice versa. so, he voted for the candidate he believed most capable of repairing the economy in order to reduce abortions.

Getting rid of lust and selfishness is a tough task, impossible, actually. no one is entirely selfless. no one is entirely without greed (the use of "lust" in this situation). and that's a good thing. trust me, if you don't look out for yourself, no one else is going to. see: caregiver burnout. one in which, according to Burke, religion plays a significant role. wait for it. As he states, "without religion it is utterly impossible they ever should [be rid of lust and selfishness]."

a) no one is ever rid of lust and selfishness. b) one can reach nonmalignant levels of lust and selfishness without religion or god. c) he just stated, in a rather roundabout way, that atheists shouldn't vote. one shouldn't vote out of lust and selfishness. one cannot remove lust and selfishness without god. atheists do not have god. ergo . . .

Here is a key to conservatism that atheists suck?, belief that we should serve a higher purpose than our own base lusts. gee, i think that, too. without god. it's called the common good, asshat, and you don't need god for it. well, maybe you do. For "when they are conscious that they exercise,...the power, which to be legitimate must be according to that eternal, immutable law god, in which will and reason are the same, they will be more careful how they place power in base and incapable godless hands."

here we have it, the key to conservatism: vote for the best interests of rich people the country, and godgodgodgodgodgodgod atheists suck!

Ann Coulter Investigated for Voter Fraud

coulter, voter, fraud, conservative, republican, election,
Ann Coulter, yes, that Ann Coulter is being investigated for voter fraud. (Paying attention, pearlysnot? That is irony.)

Apparently, Ms. Coulter lives in New York, but voted in Connecticut using her father's address. Pots, kettles AND glass houses!