Hitchens: The night we waved goodbye to America…our last best hope on Earth


More appropriate, albeit “glass half-empty”, sentiments…from a Brit, no less….

I guess sometimes you see things much more clearly from the outside looking in.

His points only make it more clear how we have to continue the fight for conservatism, America’s Constitution, and the American Way.

Read the whole piece by Peter Hitchens.  Excerpts below:

On the cult of personality:

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

About the oratorical talents of Obama:

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

On the Chicago thugs running the place (additions in parentheses by me):

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd (election night supporters), they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

On race and how Obama’s never been a part of “the struggle”:

But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

America’s switching of sides:

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

What America has stood for and why She was the last great hope on Earth:

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

 

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. Ahh… more worthless drivel, not to mention several pages of it since my last visit. More interesting since hardly any comments seem to be attached either, which alone should be some sort of indication as to how much people care( not much).

    Anyhow, I did a little thinking over the weekend. Once again, this and the other new posts are tagged with words such as “Socialism”, “Race”, and so on.

    So I gather that the entire foundation of your rapid hate of anything not leaning in the fundamentalist Christian conservative vein is based on what amounts to rather old-fashioned concepts. One of course being government control and regulation- or the lack thereof. Admirable from the perspective of what the Republican party used to uphold as a primary concern but slipped away from and into the second element which is more foggy, and that would be religious morality, and the desire to include- specifically Christian- values into the everyday lives of the average American, especially School children.So let’s take a basic analysis of this shall we?

    Government control, regulation, and involvement. So lets say that we have little to no government control. Let the US economic machine do its work, be free to produce wealth and use the resources of our rich country to generate industry. Lets say that historically, regulation of industry was hardly existent. If that be the case, then right now you would be kissing your children on the foreheads, sending them out with their lunch pails as they headed off for another 12 hour day at the local factory. What? That sounds ridiculous! Of course not- child labor laws don’t exist. ( The Republican party actually objected to child labor laws at the turn of the last century) Secondly, forget about minimum wage. If countries like Mexico can get away with paying a man less than $5 a day… then so too could the US if we didn’t have laws regarding minimum living wage. Additionally, what if you got hurt on the job. Oh well! too bad because the company owes you nothing and can replace you right away. Why? Because there’s no such thing as employee compensation. Sound shocking? It is, and in many other countries, employees don’t enjoy many if any of these luxurious regulations. Think about that next time you buy a Chinese TV set from Wal-Mart.

    While I’m using an extreme here to prove a point, I can also use less extreme, current events to show what happens when industries run unchecked and unregulated. The US mortgage and investment banking industry. Many people assume that the housing bust is simply about houses losing value. In reality, its much more complicated then that. Remember Enron? The mortgage and financial industry did the same thing. Debt was sold in the form of future mortgages ( sort of like oil futures). Future debt was packaged and sold, then re-packaged and re-sold again under the belief that real estate would go up forever. We’re talking trillions of dollars here. Once the defaults came in, all of that future debt became utterly worthless. Being that we are no longer a country that relies on industrial production for economic growth, housing has become the single most important source of financial health. Since the entire system was in the hands of reckless investors, their failure to act responsibly wound up destroying the economy.

    In essence, there was no regulation of these industries. Had there been, we would likely have not wound up in the condition we are in. While over regulation is a bad thing, no regulation leads to outright financial anarchy.

    To add to this, the big argument made by people in your camp is that taxing large companies is evil. It is the one and only reason you recklessly ( I say this because it is) use the term “Socialist”. But we have already tried giving huge tax breaks to corporations and those in the upper 10% of the earning public. The shape of the current economy is no proof that this system works, nor has it ever worked. Thus you have no argument at all.

    The second item: Religion.

    The argument amongst people in your camp is that Christianity must be taught in all US schools as a way of instilling morality. This is a broad statement. Now lets forget the obvious here and pretend that indeed- we teach only Christianity in schools right along with Science,math, and history despite the fact that there are also Jews, Hindus, Muslim, and other religions in the country who do not believe in Christianity.

    But that brings up a second, equally important question. If Christianity… then what type? Christian sects and organizations are just as diverse as the other religions. Saying that you are Christian is generic. Are we talking Presbyterian, Baptist, Southern Baptist, Methodist, or Lutheran? Or- are we talking Quaker, Congregational, Pentecostal, Orthodox, or Capel Cymraeg? Or- are we talking about those who don’t believe in organized religion or those who belong to the Amish community? What about Asian churches?

    I could go on and on and on about this. But the fact of the matter is that just because you teach Christianity in schools doesn’t mean its a universally agreed upon application. You would have precisely the same problem as before, being that a person who was brought up as an Amish person wouldn’t be in agreement with the belief structures of a person brought up as a Presbyterian. Likewise a Presbyterian wouldn’t be in agreement with a Cumberland Presbyterian.

    There’s an important lesson here, and that is the reasoning behind why our constitution explains why religion is to be kept separate from government affairs. The separation of Church and state is not to condemn Christianity or religion in general. It is meant to give those with religious beliefs to practice as they see fit without the forceful administration of government. Besides- If the government forced everyone to be a Christian or be taught it in schools… then this goes against the Republican belief that Government should not intervene in daily affairs and take upon a more agnostic role.

    That isn’t to say parents do not have a choice. Indeed there are private Christian schools as well as the choice to home school their children if they see fit. Again- the beauty of free and open religious practice and the application of it on the private level.

    Again- my simple question that only requires a yes or a no is would you- a parent want a teacher to teach your children a religion that you yourself do not believe? Yes. Or no.

    My two cents…

  2. Bob,
    If this site has such worthless drivel, why do you keep coming back?
    Your guy won…your tone and irritating inability to comprehend my answers isn’t convincing me of anything. Why read?

    Nonetheless, my response is below:

    Tags: I try to keep the tags relevant to what is contained in the post. Yes, Socialism is relevant to this and many other posts. When you have a government buying up/bailing out industry after industry and a President-Elect ready to spread the wealth it is relevant…just because you don’t want to face that fact, doesn’t mean it is not relevant.

    Regulation: I have never said that some regulation isn’t appropriate. My premise is that our founders’ intent was not for government control of industry, economy and our everyday lives….prudence is best when implementing any type of government regulation or control. That doesn’t mean it is not appropriate in certain instances, but our government should always vye on the side of markets, individuals and citizens where possible.
    When the economy and the country is in crisis, is the time for the most prudence, not an all-out effort by the government to gain control of what is not theirs to control….this is why Democrats love the crisis…they use it as an excuse for more intervention that will slowly, if never, go away—and will give them control they seek and likely make our economy worse.

    As far as your example on housing. While Republicans, including Bush, have plenty of blame on their shoulders for the subprime mess, the Democrats were the ones “in bed” with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Chris Dodd – Banking Committe Democrat and Obama were #1 and #2 in amount of funds they received for their campaigns from Freddie/Fannie. Obama was #1 recipient from Lehman Bros…..uncover your eyes and you may just see why the Democrats refused the needed regulations.
    ACORN, an Obama friend and co-fraud conspirator, also has deep involvement with Fannie/Freddie and the mortgage mess. Your beloved Bill Clinton set the blaze afire when he injected the Social Engineering experiment of mortgages for those who couldn’t pay them into the Community Redevelopment Act.

    Most damaging of all is if your party thought more regulation was required, they have been in power in Congress for 2 years and did nothing about it…at the height of the mess! And to Bush’s credit, he laid out a vision of reigning in Fannie/Freddie in 2003, and Congress did not heed the call. The leader of the Financial Services Committee (Barney Frank-D) has was vehemently opposed regulation, lest “affordable housing” not be available. Your guys didn’t want regulation…they wanted Social Engineering in the system and eventually the power they now have over those institutions.

    Had your party (and the Republicans) insisted upon sensible lending practices instead of ACORN/Social Engineering into the lending institutions, we most likely would not have this lending mess.
    Instead of sound (and time-tested) economic lending practices, Democrats promoted and ACTIVELY supported a plan that was not viable….now they (and you) scream for regulation and control….that is not an example of the prudence I was referring to.

    Christianity: Obviously something about Christianity scares you….were you complaining about church and state yesterday, when mulititudes of preachers/religious leaders used their pulpits to tout the savior-like qualitites of Obama? (Farakkhan included?) My guess is you didn’t mind that tax-exempt/church and state issue yesterday…

    You may also want to read your Constitution…the separation of church and state appears no where in it. The concept came from early founder’s writings and was decreed by a judge in the 1940’s, I believe….Conversely, I don’t think the absence of those words in the Constitution means we are a church state–quite the opposite since that is what the founders fled–but I firmly believe our founders intended the free excercise of religion in the public square (that includes schools).

    To the point, I never indicated the need to make public schools religious by teaching Christianity. I merely stated that all religions pertinent to history should be taught in our schools…without the politically correct tilt of our left-leaning public school textbooks. I stated also that doesn’t mean we have church service in public schools…but you skipped over that part.

    As far as Christian private schools or home schooling…yes we have the choice, but we are also forced to pay taxes on public schools that have become increasingly indoctrinating and left-leaning taking God, Christianity and morality out of the schools. If you are like your liberal counterparts, you are opposed to vouchers for private schools and homeschoolers….you’d rather we have the “choice” not to attend public schools, but be forced to support them financially nonetheless…

    Your question is not clear…if my kids would be FORCED, in public school, to act on the religion of Islam or pray for Allah in schools…I am adamently opposed…if they are to learn about Islam and its history in a balanced way, I am all for it.
    Additionally, our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and that needs to be taught and respected. No one in this country is prohibitied from practicing their faith (except perhaps Christians in public schools)…as in other countries where Christianity is not allowed. That is one, of many, huge benefits of living in this country….and frankly, the Left’s strident opposition to Christianity in our public square is disheartening, if not frightening.

  3. Oh my god- an actual thought-out answer for once. But your only response for issue no.2 was “Yes” or “No”. I gather your answer is a no then? If so then we must surely agree then that Christian religious doctrine shouldn’t be taught in public schools. You’ve made numerous comments to the effect that teaching Christianity in schools is vital to restoring the youth’s comprehension of morality and even capitalism. Thus if so, all religions should be taught. Do you see the issue here? The issue is that one religion can’t be paramount over others in a multi-cultural system. Thus it is useful to “teach” them from a topical point of view- as in learning about world religions so that Kids won’t automatically think that others in other countries are automatically “evil” for their beliefs.

    But don’t get me wrong. Religion is a beautiful thing. My Dad actually works at a Church. That’s his job. I go to church as well. But I also feel that we have to be sensitive to a changing demographic. Sure- the US might have been an almost 100% Christian country in 1776… but then again, slavery was also still legal even though there is a section of the Constitution that states that ” All men are created equal.

    Secondly, ACORN has very, very little to do with the overall housing problem. Again, you’re basically taking one of the weak counter-Obama arguments used in the campaign and blowing it way the hell out of proportion. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government supported enterprise, passed in 1970 by the Nixon administration ( That’s right- a Republican) to function as the largest organization in dealing with US mortgages. These two organizations were run into the ground by poor management. Sure- there were some slimy politicians who got involved, but this goes for BOTH sides. No- I’m not a huge fan of Todd myself since he directly benefited from Countrywide mortgage.

    The bailout represents the failure of the overall financial system and its abuse not by politicians- but primarily from irresponsible management. That the US government was painfully aware of the issue and had ample warnings, it did nothing about it until it was too late.

    In regards to ACORN and housing, their primary function is to provide section 8 housing. Seeing as how most metro areas actually failed to meet their own mandates to supply affordable housing during the boom, ACORN’s involvement in the housing mess was minimal.

    Bottom line- the financial crash was dominated by the mismanagement and greed on Wall Street… not in Congress.

  4. Bob,
    If you don’t want Christians to be able to practice their faith anywhere they wish, then I guess you don’t agree with the establishment clause:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
    The religion of our founders was overwhelminingly Christian and their ideas were based on Judeo-Christian principles of morality and conduct.

    You have falsely claimed that I said “that teaching Christianity in schools is vital to restoring the youth’s comprehension of morality and even capitalism”.

    I do believe that about morality, but you are mistating what I said about Capitalism. Teaching Christianity or not has nothing to do with teaching Capitalism. What I said is that schools are failing badly in teaching the history of our country including our Capitalist economy. That had nothing to do with religion.

    Our history as a country begins and continues to this day because of the the Christian men who founded this country…separate the two and you have the failing, politically correct education system we have today.

    At the very least, what’s to fear? Morality and religion are certainly no hindrance to children learning right from wrong. Prayers (or moment or silence) are absolutely harmless except to those who want Christianity or its system of morality out of the public square.
    While our schools should not be places of worship, Christian principles, prayer, Bibles, and even scripture should be welcome in the education environment.
    Your point of view seems to think that education is completely removed from religion and morals; that our founders are removed from Christianity and its principles; & that our country should ignore the majority population of Christians who live here.
    Those who are against the teaching of Christian morals and the principles upon which our country was based, are either afraid of Christianity and its solid morality, or hold the radical view that it should not be a part of our lives or country.

    As far as your “multicultural” view..you can hold that view, but the fact remains that our country has foundings and tradition based on the Judeo-Christian heritage.
    Our founders were overwhelmingly Christians of different denominations. In their words, the government they structured and their intentions, the Judeo Christian principles were used by the founders and the basis of our country was never intended to be a “neutral” or “relative” belief system; or one that should change with the whims of radicals who believe its importance should be minimized.

    From its founding until about 40-50 years ago, our country respected our founders’ intent and their brilliance. Since then, we have had a secularization of America that is against the model of government built by the Christian founders. People such as yourself, and many with a much more radical view, have tried (and succeeded) in many instances to remove our heritage, the Christian faith, and the practicing of it from the public arena.

    If for no other reason, our children should know of our moral founders, their principles based on Jewish and Christian principles of God and morality. They should learn about the deep faith of these people instead of whether George Washington chopped a cherry tree or whether to rewrite history and paint him as a racist for having slaves.

    I would add that education included prayer, and bibles, and the religious history of our founding until about 40-50 years ago. Didn’t seem to harm our parents, grandparents, and so on.
    Your multiculturalist view is more of the same efforts to move our country away from the intent of our founders and into a cultural cesspool of relative morality taking Christianity out of the public square. Our country offers free expression of religion, but that fact doesn’t change who founded our country, the principles upon which it was based…and that we are a nation of Christians. Christians are not asking others to check their religion at the door…and we shouldn’t be asked to either.

    We can agree to disagree.

    ACORN- you are wrong…ACORN has a long history of intimidating banks to offer high-risk loans. When they were not fully successful in getting banks to give out high-risk loans readily, they submitted complaints under the Community Reinvestment Act. When they determined that this tactic was not successful they put pressure on Congress and Democrats and brought Fannie and Freddie into the mix along with weaker standards for Fannie and Freddie….

    Through many of the years of intimidation and efforts to get high-risk loans in play for those who couldn’t pay them back, Barack Obama was funneling money to ACORN through the foundations he represented.
    With an Obama presidency, don’t expect a return to sound loan/mortgage strategy….especially since Obama donated almost $1 million of his campaign money to support the group that had a hand in the financial crisis (not to mention their efforts in voter fraud).

  5. “Christian principles, prayer, Bibles, and even scripture should be welcome in the education environment.”

    If schools aren’t to be places of worship, then what would putting bibles, prayer, and scripture accomplish? It would be worship! Yes- exactly the OPPOSITE of what you said in the sentence prior to this one. So which is it then? You aren’t making a compelling case because you can’t even make a decisive stance on the issue at hand.

    Secondly, you keep mentioning our dear, wholesome, Christian founders, as if they would be so sad to see us as a country that has become increasingly “multicultural”. Let us delve into this for just a second. To be honest, if a majority of those founders were to come back to life today, they’d probably feel more at home then back in the 1700’s. These men were renegades and eccentrics. Benjamin Franklin was a ladies man, regularly sat in the nude outside his home, and participated in odd, weird scientific experiments. The very signing of the constitution was done so after the ordering of numerous kegs of rum and bottles of port. In essence, the “founding fathers” were likely intoxicated during the event.

    But I’m getting beyond the subject at hand. You mention that my “Multicultural” views are destroying the country by turning it into a cesspool of corrupt morality. Very clever. I want you to go to a Mosque, a Synagogue, or some other non-Christian place and tell them all they they are “ruining” our country with their despicable culture.

    What this all boils down to is that we are NOT a theocratic country. Sure- theocratic countries do exist like Iran and so forth. But we are not of that like. You are correct that we have the right to choose how and what we worship. That is the underlying reason behind the founding of our constitution.

    Lastly, about Acorn… Again, you seem to be misappropriating blame. First of all, Obama’s first involvement with it was as their representative ( he was an attorney at the time) in a case involving voter registration. The case also involved the US Justice Department. The result was the National Voter Registration Act, which was formed to make voting easier.

    John Mccain’s smear campaign was made to somehow tie ACORN to the economic crisis. I’ve explained the reasons behind the economic meltdown before, but I’ll repeat that ACORN’s primary purpose in housing is to ensure that lower income housing such as section 8 housing is implemented under mandate per various communities. As I also mentioned, almost all of these required mandates were not met and thus the number of homes bought as a result via ACORN were minimal. The overall blame goes to the lending and financial industry. Trust me- I live in a very expensive metro and have been waiting for prices to fall for years now, so I’m extremely aware of what caused the housing boom. It was the fault of banks, lenders, financial investment firms, and greedy homeowners who made poor and risky choices. Sure- some lower income people who qualified for loans via ACORN probably defaulted on their loans. But to say that ACORN was the primary cause for the overall decline is stupid and totally incorrect.

  6. Bob-
    We agee to disagree…and agree that you are not listening, but filibustering.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: