Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The "H" Word

What's in a name?  Well, a lot, I think.  A person's name carries intrinsic meaning, as well as historic, geographic, and familial context.  Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? A name evokes the image of the artifact since it embodies all that we have come to know about the object, through experience and association. So, what of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.?  What's in this name?  And, why so much controversy?  The Obama campaign has forbidden the media from using the "H" word, Obama's middle name: Hussein.  It seems, as with the man, there is much to hide.  To use this name brings shouts of derision from the left and accusations of racism.  The Orwellian Ministry of Truth would not have us linger on the implications of Obama's philosophic lineage.  Obama's name has become a metaphor for all that he would wish to remain hidden.  It is an uncomfortable truth and representative of all that is suspect about his character. He is a pretender to the American tradition and a usurper of our constitutional liberties.  Obama views the constitution as merely a collection of "negative liberties."  Obama would fashion a socialist constitution in which Big Brother's obligations and authority would grow to encompass the dream of the welfare state: the centralized planning of each citizen's duties and responsibilities from cradle to grave. Taxation has been redefined as patriotic duty. Our fore bearers declared that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The incremental destruction of free markets through central planning and the creeping erosion of individual liberties are the necessary outcomes of Obama's spread the wealth plan. Obama's association with William Ayers is suppressed, as well as, his 20 year relationship with the infamous racist, Reverend Wright.  How does a man sit under the tutelage of an avowed racist, anti-capitalist, and America hater and not give assent to the subversive content of Wright's rabble rousing? Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. sat under the ravings of the radical Reverend Wright for decades, nodding his head, maybe belting out the occasional "Amen" but yet we are to believe that now Obama loves his fellow Americans, irrespective of race or creed.  This strains credulity. A long association of this nature, at the very least, suggests a tacit approval of the racist, afro-centric propaganda propounded by Wright.  Obama has much more to hide than just his middle name. Just as the "H" word is off limits, so too is Obama's association with ACORN. History will fully develop the insidious nature of ACORN and its role in the derailing of the Bush boom economy. ACORN is directly responsible for intimidating and bullying the banking industry (through crony Washington lobbyists) into providing loans to minorities who would not otherwise have qualified. Frank, Reid, and Pelosi were all complicitous in this dingy deed. Through their bumbling, millions of Americans are struggling financially. The Ministry of Truth seeks to suppress and forbid discourse that does not comport with it's political doctrines.  But, suppression only breeds rebellion in the hearts of true Americans and leads men and women of thought to wonder what dark and ignoble deeds lie obfuscated behind the threats and intimidation. 


mpc said...

"The Ministry of Truth seeks to suppress and forbid discourse that does not comport with it's political doctrines."

I've noticed you haven't posted the last few comments I've made (which have not been offensive in any way - I just stated my perspective as a liberal Christian), so I must assume that you work for this Ministry of Truth that you speak of.

I won't bother to point out all the flaws in John's recent post (since I doubt you'll post this message), but I would like to point out that "negative liberty" just means that the Constitution mostly spells out what the government CAN'T do. For example, the government CAN'T limit speech, religion, the press, etc. The way John used the phrase, he made it sound like Obama thinks our liberties are negative as in "bad", which is a complete distortion.

Oh - one more thing I have to mention. The anti-spam "word verification" below that I have to enter is "linch", which I don't think is a word but to the ear it would be "lynch". Maybe God is weighing in on whether he thinks there were racist undertones in John's post...?

PS - I just took a screenshot in case you didn't believe me.

EmilyFontes said...

I love your blog! It is a refreshing change from all the obamadoration out there in the media. One thing I'm having a hard time with is the colors on your site. The black background with white text gives me a terrible headache when I read. I can barely get through a whole post! When I first found your blog and started reading ravenously through the archives I practically gave myself a migraine! Pretty please consider switching the colors to something more easy on the eyes. :)

Apathetic Apostle said...

Neither of you have posted any response I have submitted so i doubt this will find its way to your comment page. In any case, as an Independent I have always tried to add some un-biased opinions to your articles. And although you express that this Blog is in support of Sarah Palin, I see just as many articles against Obama. What I don't see is all the articles in support of John McCain. This is representative of the entire Republicn party strategy and it seems that you guys just don't get it. Nobody cares about the smears or the defense of those smears. When a negative ad comes out, it sounds like "bla bla bla bla bla". When someone offers a solution it peaks interest. Those articles about Palins wardrobe...who cares. The emphatic holding onto of the Ayers issue, is pathetic, and more "bla bla bla bla". Give me solutions, not trash talk.

Tami: Blog Creator and Administrator said...

Hey Emily,
Thanks for your comments. I do plan to change the look a bit, but wanted to wait until after the elections to do so!!
Please stay tuned...we so appreciate your support!
God Bless...

Ramona33312 said...

THANK YOU for posting this blog. I know you are getting a lot of crap for saying what needs to be said. The very people who are supposed to PROTECT our freedoms, are the ones who are threatening it the most. Barack Hussein Obama may very well be the most dangerous man on the planet. We has Americans should be very very concerned for our freedoms as we know them.

God help us if he's elected leader of the free world.

mpc said...

Thank you for posting my previous comment! Allow me to say a little more, now that I have some confidence that you'll let this pass through to your site.

My main problem with John's post is that he's trying to prey on people's fears, rather than their rationality. He's not the only one, of course - plenty of people peddle fear in the media these days. But John's post is one of the more extreme examples, painting a nightmare image of an Orwellian dystopia that he says would come to pass under Obama.

What's most ironic about John's post is that Orwell was a renowned socialist. His writings were not against socialism, but rather totalitarian governments that claimed to be guided by Marxist principals, when in reality they were not. By invoking Orwell, John is essentially saying that under Obama, this country would sail right through socialism, past communism (the theory of it, anyway) and into the realm of totalitarianism.

This whole argument is ridiculous, of course. Obama simply wants to adjust the tax rates a little to help out the middle class. Changing the tax rates will not endanger our democracy, lead to Big Brother, or a 'Ministry of Truth'. Rather, it will directly help people like me and my wife who are barely scraping by.

joe said...

I find it interesting that you use Mr. Orwell's Ministry of Truth to support your argument for two primary reasons.

First, "1984's" Ministry of Truth is primarily a work designed to argue against fascism, not socialism. It like his other notable work, "Animal Farm" argues against the sort of check-less growth of government that we have seen over the past eight years. Or, to illustrate the point, Orwell argues that we should not allow power and wealth to continuously be moved up the food chain just as we see in the end of "Animal Farm." He believes that, as Jefferson says, "from time to time the roots of the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of martyrs." Meaning that the little guys must occasionally stand up to the big entrenched guys. Or, that power must change hands periodically. While I will not purport to support the sort of bloody uprising that Jefferson or Orwell advocate I would not see John McCain's plan to continue giving tax breaks to the top tier of our economy as being in the spirit of a Orwellian view of things.

Second, the Ministry of Truth is a state institution. It is not a tool of the people but a tool against the people. While Obama may steer a very large and powerful machine, it is at its core a private enterprise. What would more closely suit your metaphor would be if George W. Bush used the FCC, CIA and NSA to dupe the people into an endless war against a well-publicized evil empire with an easily identifiable leader.

While I commend your use of George Orwell in your post. I would encourage you to re-read his works with a more discriminating eye.

God bless and good luck in the election. May we all be better off for its conclusion.

John said...

Just a few thoughts on the comments.

Obama's comments on the "negative liberties" that compose the Constitution were made in a derogatory fashion. Obama would seek to alter the nature of the Constitution by including "positive liberties" or duties that the government would owe to its citizens. MPC, in the future, at least familiarize yourself with the issues before you comment on them. Our founding fathers sought to constrain the size and jurisdiction of a federal government. Obama, in contravention of the collected wisdom of our founding fathers, seeks to expand the role of federal government. The Obama approach is socialist in nature. It is a Marxist soft-sell. The consolidation of power in a monolithic central government with authority to govern, through central planning, the minutia of its citizen's lives is socialist. The individual is crushed under the weight of the many. Incentive is destroyed. Free markets are hampered. And, the fairness doctrine ensures that no one wins, that citizens may only aspire to the mediocre. Obama's tax plan ensures this. Citizens are discouraged to succeed. The problem MPC is that you need the intellectual acuity to see past the doublespeak and understand the mechanisms of Obama's economic and political theory. Obama's, and socialism's, arguments are emotional in nature. Obama croons about helping the middle class. Sounds heartfelt and brings a tear to the eye. But, in reality, Obama wraps himself in the flag while implementing the centralized planning and wealth redistribution of the socialist. The middle class pays the price. The argument for free markets are rational; however, most people have not developed their rational faculties. It's harder to understand that the engines of prosperity are small and big business. That wealth trickles down. That the power to tax is only the power to destroy. That government spending brings only heavier taxation, debt, or devaluation of the dollar. Tax big business, tax them ad infinitum. Maybe, they'll just take their bat and ball and go play on China's field. Obama is an economic neyophite and juvenile in his approach to foreign policy. At least that's what Sarcosi thinks.

If you feel that we haven't covered Governor Palin's issues then I suggest you explore the scroll function provided on your computer and read the dozens of posts on that topic. Really, how silly. We've covered all the issues in many posts and we address those issues that bear directly on Barack Hussein Obama's character. If you have a penchant for socialism, rebuild the wall and move into your shack just inside the boarders of your socialist utopia: East Germany. You do recall that the wall was built to keep people in? To argue for socialism, given the historical results, is to place yourself firmly in the category of fool.

Finally, MPC have you read 1984? I mean, have you read it right side up and all the way through? Orwell was also anti-Zionist. So what? The logical end of socialism is totalitarianism. Obama's minions descended on Joe the Plumber in true Thought Police fashion. Obama's Ministry of Truth is in full parade. It's a taste of things to come. A creeping erosion of liberty. Obama just wants to add a few more bricks to the socialist monolith.

For all of you on the left, for all those who get a little choked up when thinking of Obama's new utopia and find themselves upset by those who question the motives of the "messiah"; close your eyes, repeat this mantra, and feel better: "ignorance is strength."

John said...

Hey Joe,

First, "Again, it is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian-or 'holistic,' if you prefer-in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say." (Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism)

Second, think ANALOGY Joe, not metaphor. The rest is kinda silly.

While I commend your attempted interpretation of literary device, I would encourage you to reevaluate you grasp of rhetorical mechanism. But, in the process, try not to strain your discriminating eye.

The only way we'll all be better off at the conclusion of this election is with a McCain/Palin victory.

Ryan & Pamela said...

With regard to your attempt to paraphrase Shakespeare - "Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?": The actual quote from Romeo & Juliet is "What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." In this dialogue, Juliet was saying that name SHOULDN'T matter. This is completely antithetical to your "argument" which, overall, is fallacious at best.

John said...

Ryan & whatever,

You were on the right trail with your first sentence where you described the phrase in question as "paraphrase."Paraphrase (IPA: /ˈpærəˌfreɪz/) is restatement of a text or passage, using other words. Your criticism might have some relevance if I were attempting to quote. If you were posessed of the requisite intellectual acuity, you would have understood that the use of the phrase was quizzical; the context does not convey any claim to assert the original meaning of the phrase. The idea conveyed is plain enough to the honest intellect.

The rest of the post speaks for itself. Your bald assertion does nothing but raise questions as to your analytical capability. Mere vituperative and no analysis.