Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 8:47 am

President Obama cannot be thought to be a socialist, can he? 

At least: President Obama cannot be said to be a serious Socialist?

To be a "socialist" President now in America would be to have such a task of governance shifting even today on the anniversary of our first day of our Civil War.  President Obama if a "serious socialist" would have little time to sleep; President Obama has time for golfing and basketball - how can he be a serious socialist?

It may be too much to hope that this American born "archetype" conceived in "cunning linguistic" relations - Soviet - of his mother and his father, can be said to be a "federalist", yet really if a serious "socialist" how can he have any "time for himself"?

I am thinking I did meet Glen Beck in New Haven back when he was just a new DJ to the area and broadcasting from a New Haven Special Olympics venue I was visiting to catch up with friends I used to have had time to help organize such events.  Some of friends’ favorite station was then KC101. Please don’t confuse my having already been, then, some, where Beck has now gone with were Beck now is. I had already writen my collection titled THE CHARGE OF NEW FEDERALISM near fully before he arrived in New Haven.

And, so on this day the Confederates fired upon Fort Sumter, so starting our American Civil War.  Why, when President Obama effected his oration to all Muslims, from Cairo, did he act a "civil war denier"?

And, so while orating his infamous "speech to all Muslims" - his "Cairo Speech" - why did President Obama put forth upon such soils such a denial of our Civil War with his declaration to so unconsecrate even our Buffalo Soldiers?  Why did President Obama declare and dedicate his "era" and his "policies" so "progressively" by enunciating that American "slaves" got out of such bondage and slavery without violence?  How does such still help at all to "negotiate" with Iran, with Holocaust denying Iran?

A denial for a denial?  Is case of Iran on Holocaust of them more Aryan as a nation, and, Obama’s "civil war" denying an attempt to lose "pride" by admitting American blacks in slavery needed white Americans to fight and die for them and their achieving freedom?

If not "socialist" is he just "progressive" and of "process theology"?  Is he of another Jonathan Edwards?  If not a "socialist" is he more theologic or philosophic?

On this anniversary of the start of our Civil War, Mr. President, can you now finally explain why you attempted "American slaves got out of such bondage peacefully and without violence" and in a speech to "All Muslims" and of an era of Irani leadership of being a nation of many Aryans and with leaders "Holocaust deniers"?

"The last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they’re out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard fro all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your poeple and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party.  Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy." {Remarks by the President at Cairo University, 6-04-09| The White House, www.whitehouse.gov}


Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.