Will First Un-American President End The American Dream?

First, for the Moonbats who might scream because I believe Barack Obama is "un-American," well, sorry, but he is.

When I use the term, I am referring to people, institutions and politicians who believe in something different from what the Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. And Obama is surely that. I don't care about his "centrist" rhetoric. I imagine he'll try and play nice. But the man is a Leftist and Leftism is un-American by definition. So chew on that.

But he isn't going to try and "move America Left." He and like-minded individuals are going to try and re-define the Center of American politics, thereby making the Left seem more centrist. Watch what he does below the headlines with regulatory agencies and such. That'll be the better clue as to his real agenda.

He's a collectivist through and through. And collectivism and the basic premise of American exceptional-ism are two very different things.

Obama and the Democrats are going to try and use the current financial crisis to re-make this country more in the model of modern Europe than traditional America. And in that they must not be allowed to succeed.

There's much work to be done by conservatives and Republicans and nothing is going to happen overnight. But once this election defeat is parsed to an annoying degree as so many seem intent on doing, the next two, four, six and eight years will be an invigorating time for conservatives in America.

The battle lines will be drawn around positions and policies. Old and new alliances need to form, or re-shape. But stay vigilant and vibrant, my conservative friends. Over the years ahead we are going to fight to preserve everything that truly makes America great. And in the end, I don't believe we will lose.

The fact is, the vast majority of Americans actually want us to succeed.

A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Just 28% disagreed with this sentiment. That survey also found that 44% of Obama voters agreed with Reagan's assessment (40% did not). And McCain voters overwhelmingly supported the Gipper.

Comments

[Mark Turner]

That being said, there should be plenty of opportunities for the GOP in 2010 and 2012 -- as long as we have a clear, compelling, positive charismatic vision to offer America which highlights its advantages over what Obama/the Democratic party has brought.

[Spartan112]

Dan by your definition anyone who doesn't support slavery is un-American...so are you American?

[templar knight]

The Founding Fathers dodged the question of slavery, Spartan, and passed it off to future generations. Frankly, I wish it had been settled at that time, and not put off. Its odd, isn't it, that politics never changes. Hard decisions are put off until a crisis occurs that is larger and more dangerous than the original decision. We learn little from history.

[RogerCfromSD]

Leftists ARE, by definition, unAmerican.

They do NOT support the Constitution. If they did, there would be no abortion, and no question that America is head and shoulders above ANY other country's system of government.

Since Leftists want to have Big Government, welfare-socialism, and fascist tendencies, they are acting against the Constitution (which promotes SMALL government, individual freedoms, and natural rights).

[Mark Turner]

You've got to remember though, the US constitution was a pretty leftist, revolutionary document when it was created. Democracy was little known in a world that consistent mostly of absolute monarchs. Slavery and colonial condecension were mainstream throughout western Europe, and some of it manifested itself in America; blacks weren't even given the right to vote until the 1960s; women only a few decades before that, and the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" helpedf justify the effective genocide of the American Indian tribes for a while. I'm not justifying any of this, nor am I out to persecute it, but that's the way it was. We are the United States of America, not the Perfect States of America. We have done in a little over 200 years what most countries on earth have not even come close to accomplishing. Those that have come close harken to ancient and medieval legacies which have long since died.

[Spartan112]

The Founding Fathers dodged the question of slavery, Spartan, and passed it off to future generations. Frankly, I wish it had been settled at that time, and not put off. Its odd, isn't it, that politics never changes. Hard decisions are put off until a crisis occurs that is larger and more dangerous than the original decision. We learn little from history.

Posted by: templar knight | Monday, November 10, 2008 at 10:50 PM

When they defined Blacks as 3/5th's of a person they failed to pass it off, they defined Blacks as less than human.

[templar knight]

"...defined Blacks as 3/5th's of a person..."

I don't think it was the intent to define blacks as less than human. This was the compromise that made it possible for the colonies in the north and south to come together and form a union. I'm not saying that most people at that time did not think the black race inferior, just that the 3/5's compromise was just that, a compromise and not a statement on the black race.

[Lala]

from Wiki

Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for enumeration purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves at their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College; taxation was only a secondary issue. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but is still generally credited with giving the pro-slavery forces disproportionate political power in the U.S. government from the establishment of the Constitution until the Civil War. For example, in the period prior to 1850, southerners held the Presidency for 50 of 62 years, and 18 of the 31 Supreme Court Justices were southerners despite the north having nearly twice the population by 1850.

The three-fifths compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

[templar knight]

Thank you, Lala. Although it looks insulting today, the 3/5s compromise was not a racial statement, and it shouldn't be interpreted that way. As a matter of fact, it was just the opposite, as the Free States opposed counting slaves at all, which would have the effect of 0/5s, Spartan. Like I said, it was a way of ingoring the slavery problem and shifting the hard decisions to future generations. We know how badly that turned out.

[Todd]

You can hate as many americans: liberals, leftists, collectivists, union workers, unemployed, women, blacks, latinos, professors, college students, coffee shop patrons, immigrants, homosexuals, younger people, muslims, mainline protestants, jews, and many more. You can hate all these people, which often amounts to more than half the country, and still be Pro-America.
Posted by: LOL | Monday, November 10, 2008 at 02:43 PM

"That's silly. I don't hate coffee shop patrons. Geez."
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Monday, November 10, 2008 at 02:52 PM
--------------------
You've pretty much nailed it spot on for the Republican Party, Dan. They've made it very clear that only white evangelical christians are welcome in their party. It's the "I got mine, and if you don't have yours go screw yourself" party. Sounds like a recipe to win a whole lot of elections. NOT.