« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Derangement Syndrome

By: Doug Payton (Diary)  |  October 20th, 2009 at 10:05 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Like the Bush strain before it, Obama Derangement Syndrome is an overly hysterical reaction to what are essentially policy differences.  The most recent episode of the podcast I contribute to, Shire Network News, dealt with this very real issue.  (And this is a right-leaning podcast; we do police our own.)  Talk of a possible military coup because of Obama’s policies is akin to suggesting that Bush would declare marshal law at the end of his term so he wouldn’t have to leave.

As Col. Cucullu, the featured interviewee notes, during at least one time in our history we had a wholly unelected President — Gerald Ford — who first replaced Vice President Agnew, and then got a promotion when Nixon resigned.  We had this situation for a few years and yet no tires were burning in the streets.  This particular republic has proven to be extremely resilient in the face of strangeness like that

I’d like to point out another, more recent example; Oath Keepers.  Founded in March by a former Ron Paul staffer (which, in itself, throws a ‘paul’ over it), it is a group of “non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.”  They have a list of 10 specific orders they say they will not obey.  (Compare this to the 7 promises that men of the Promise Keepers say they will keep.  Odd coincidence there.)

OK, fair enough, although if they swore an oath, and they apparently take it very seriously, why do you need an organization to promote that fact?  Following a quote from Gen. George Washington that starts, “The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves…”, they say “Such a time is near at hand again.” Really?  Why didn’t this organization get started any earlier that March, 2009?  Did something happen then that caused these people to think that they would need to strive even harder to keep said oaths?

A Presidential inauguration, perhaps, just 2 months earlier?  Coincidence?  I think not, especially given whom its founder supported in that election.  And this from a group calling itself “non-partisan”.  Here’s an article in the group’s hometown newspaper, Las Vegas.  I’ll let you decide how “non-partisan” they are.

This is ODS in action.  At best, it’s inappropriate and nonproductive.  At worst, it’s wrong and counter-productive.  This is America, folks.  We can handle this.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Achance

    to defend them and to help them marginalize all who dare oppose Comrade Obama.

  • JadedByPolitics

    ODS and as long as that tool is President well WE will treat him as the lefties and perhaps yourself treated OUR President.

    Don’t come riding over to RedState to save the onslaught that WE on the RIGHT will be throwing at The Won he is going to get it and he is going to get it every single solitary day of his Presidency just as the left did to Bush.

    • Richard Mullins

      so this mass worry is to be expected. One can not be Deranged unless there is something to be deranged about. So all that crap up to and after has proven this worry to be plausible. That’s the only way I can describe this.

      • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

        So then do you think we are indeed in imminent danger of having American cities turned into concentration camps? That what the Oath Keepers are suggesting. Is that an organization you can embrace wholeheartedly?

        I’m just askin’.

        • Richard Mullins

          so the fact that there are groups means that there is a problem. It doesn’t mean that I agree with them or that I think that what they believes that this is going to happen. So you asked and will receive an answer.

          • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

            …these guys are still nutty, IMHO. Why they’re expressing nuttiness is really immaterial. I’m just suggesting we call out nuts in our ranks when we see them.

          • nessa

            Mr. Rhodes was very calm and presented his points in an orderly understandable fashion. Even though the statements from the website were being obviously twisted and marginalized. Very early on in the interview, while Matthews was still attempting to accuse the Oath Keepers of forming a militia and asking if they were well armed enough to stand against the Federal Government Mr. Rhodes countered with:

            ?we swear an oath to the Constitution, not to a man, even if he makes a thrill run up your leg when he talks.?

            Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

            Matthews wouldn’t even allow Rhodes to discuss the Constitution, the document his organization is urging its members to support. Of course Matthews opinions of the Constitution undoubtedly mirror Obamas.

            The only wacko I saw on the video was Matthews and wacko may be too kind a term. Idiot, imbecile, dumba**, and many more accurate adjectives come to mind.

            I’d like to see Mr. Rhodes on Beck or Hannity or even the Leprechaun, they would be able to grasp the difference between upholding an Oath to the Constitution and attempting to amass enough firepower to take on the Federal Government. Thinly veiled, poorly executed attempts to spin this into something it is not. If we’re going to have a big tent there should be room in it for people who support the Constitution.

          • nessa

            http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2009/10/21/oath-keepers-founder-stewart-rhodes-plays-hardball-with-chris-matthews-telling-him-we-swear-an-oath-to-the-constitution-not-to-a-man-even-if-he-makes-a-thrill-run-up-your-leg-when-he-talks/

          • Richard Mullins

            yes, it’s nutty and yes it has Paul written all over it. I don’t think we need them or should we even talk about them. They aren’t really suffering from ODS, they just happen to be a re-hash of earlier things. I don’t mind calling out the birthers, but this kind of stuff has gone on longer then this admin, I don’t see a reason to call them out.

        • Michael Dugas

          So duhpayton, is your whole reason for constantly bringing up a fringe org. like the Oath Keepers an attempt to get someone here to
          make some statement of support on their side so you can find some way to use it against them/us etc? What’s the reason for bringing them up over and over? There not a sister group to us nor have they been a serious point of topic here for anyone but you so what’s the deal? If you really are someone who relates more to our side then the Left why aren’t you harping over ACORN, La Raza, AmeriCorps,
          left wing anarchists, eco-terrorists etc etc? You are no different than the RINO’s we are constantly having to deal with who carry an R after their name but are always finding fault with their own supposed side and appeasing the left.
          And as to than inane comment you made as to why did people who have taken oaths to support and preserve our Constitution and Laws create and organization to promote that fact. Maybe it was so they could network with like minded people. Basically the very same reasons that any group might form, NAACP, VFW, AARP….people with similar beliefs or experiences or conditions can get together for support or to organize and express their needs or opinions to the public or their government. It’s your choice to look at them as bad or extreme but that doesn’t make it any more true than those bogus racial slurs that were recently used against Rush Limbaugh.
          But that’s ok duhpayton, ignore the meat of the issues and keep chewing on the gristle. Keep your attention focused on fake issues created by the left that are nothing more than a smoke screen used to keep you from looking at the real damage they are trying to do.

          • Michael Dugas

            I’d like to point out a few things about this strings original post.
            Over 50% of dpaytons post is about Oath Keepers and he alludes that somehow the fact that they came about in response to Obama’s election is nefarious or extreme in some way. I find them a lot less
            nefarious than those groups that popped up after Bush got (re)elected
            like Code Pink et al. They were not just vocal but they did things like shut down businesses and recruiting stations and blocked traffic etc.
            What is so odd about people who disagree with an administration forming a group to express their beliefs and look for other like minded people?
            Then he links the 10 promises of the Oath Keepers (orders they won’t follow) with the 7 Promises of the Promise Keepers. Now I had to go see what those promises are because I wasn’t too familiar with that group. You can find those promises at the following link and I’d bet that there are very few members of RedState who would find fault with those promises. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise_Keepers
            Then he links to an article from Las Vegas, not written by an Oath Keeper, and asks you to use that article to decide how non partisan the group is. The article couldn’t be more anti-Oath Keeper. It is full of stuff like “In the age of town halls, talk radio and tea parties, middle ground of opinion is hard to find.” No mention at all of left wing groups or news media who have no desire for reaching “middle ground”. The article then points out that the “Southern Poverty Law Center singled out Oath Keepers as “a particularly worrisome example of the Patriot revival.” And then in the very next paragraph links the Patriot movement, and thus the Oath Keepers, “to anti-government militia and white supremacist movements”. There is absolutely no evidence of this as far as the Oath Keepers goes. But lets not let facts get in the way.
            And finally they mention Timothy McVeigh who they say was spawned by the patriot movement. I don’t know if that’s true but there very next sentence reads as such, “”I’m not accusing Stewart Rhodes or any member of his group of being Timothy McVeigh or a future Timothy McVeigh,” law center spokesman Mark Potok said. “But …..” I mean how more leading could you be.
            Remember that report about the rise of right wing extremism in America, the won that basically branded everyone on the right as an extremist and potential homegrown terrorist? This feces is the same thing. Of course not one mention of the racist, hate mongering criminal acts of the uber-left.

            I’m sorry but I don’t believe that this administrations actions are due to Obama’s naivete or sensitivity to criticism. I don’t believe that they are paved in good intentions. The evidence speaks other wise.

          • janis
          • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

            So duhpayton, is your whole reason for constantly bringing up a fringe org. like the Oath Keepers an attempt to get someone here to
            make some statement of support on their side so you can find some way to use it against them/us etc? What?s the reason for bringing them up over and over?

            I brought them up in my original post pretty clearly as an example of what I consider a loony group hurting our cause. Many of he responses I get are essentially “Obama made them do it”. Granting that, does that make them not loony? It’s a non sequitur.

            I could harp on ACORN et. al. (and have in the past, but if you won’t read my other stuff then you’ll just have to take my word for it), but that wasn’t the point of this, rather focused, post. It was just a note to the faithful that there are indeed nuts among us. OK, you may not consider Oath Keepers nutty; your call. Point is, if you don’t ever call out nuttiness from your own side of the aisle, your cause will indeed be damaged and you can be dismissed as a hyper-partisan. I don’t want that for any of us and am simply trying to get folks to think about that possibility.

            Ranting about ACORN would, again, be a non sequitur. As would ticking off a bullet list of all the things I disagree with Obama on. This was just a word to the wise to consider while tacking the issues we find important.

  • Streiff

    He isn’t talking about opposition, he talking about people who seem basically unhinged, like the “oath takers” nonsense. And us putting up with people who are nothing more than birthers or troofers in different guise doesn’t help our cause in the least.

    • JadedByPolitics

      How is it that just the RIGHT cannot have those who say what they want when they want? Kos has all the Presidential candidates at their convention and they as you know threw HATE, RACISM, VILE at anyone who disagreed with them BUT they are “mainstream” to the Democrats. Oh no it’s just us who must be “civil” and “calm” blow it out your _ _ _!

      Not really surprised you rolled in to lift up The Won’s savior on RedState getting kind of accustomed to that.

      • Streiff

        though I feel pretty comfortable in saying it without fear of being disavowed by site management, people can say pretty much whatever they want. When they say it here, it, for better or worse, implies site endorsement.

        There are probably lots of places a person can go and find kindred spirits on the subject of an Obama coup, and a plot to disarm Americans, and his birth certificate, etc. This probably isn’t one of those places.

        There are lots of legitimate reasons to oppose the man. Look at his appointees. Look at his policies. Look at the mismanagment of US foreign policy. We don’t have to go batsh** crazy like the left did with Bush. And if anyone feels that need they just need to be aware that the Ron Paul rule could very well be applied.

        • JadedByPolitics

          YOU are for some reason since The Won uhh Won all about that aren’t you? I really don’t care how the tool who wrote the diary and yourself really feel about the ONSLAUGHT against the IDIOT in chief because I sat and took INCOMING fire for years from the left on President Bush’s behalf and he was a DAMN GOOD MAN! I will not be chided nor dismissed and I will not let the left define ANYONE on the right anymore and this peon has been fighting for Obama since last September so he has absolutely ZERO bonafides to berate us for taking it to the LEFT.

          I don’t care for one moment how you or he see this battle that we are in because I will fight it my way and you all can go on and fight it your way (NOT AT ALL).

          FINALLY who in the hell do you think you are to tell anyone how they can or cannot go after this ZEALOT/LEFTIST piece of crap. It is for each of us to decide for ourselve exactly how miserable we want the left to be and how quickly the I’s will want to elect ANYONE but just to shut us up because the truth is that is exactly what the 06 and 08 elections were about. It was to just shut up the left and guess what? they figured wrong because this country is more divided now then it was at the end of 08!

          • Streiff

            I think civility is really overrated as a virtue. But there is a difference between being uncivil and being nucking futs.

          • bs
    • janis

      in terms of foreign policy? And that his refusal to allow dissent over his actions and policies and appointments are just “thin-skinned’? It’s not just this guy’s diary that is supportive of Obama, it’s his comments as well, along with his disdain for anyone who disagrees with him.

      As for the Oath-Takers, I have no particular opinion about them one way or the other. That they exist does not surprise me, because I’ve heard similar views from law enforcement personnel and retired military members since last spring and, to my knowledge, they don’t belong to that group. As for our tolerance of birthers, they are a bipartisan group, not just confined to the right side of the aisle.

      • Streiff

        I’m simply saying that there is a lot of sheer goofiness out there concerning the guy and we should concentrate on hitting him or real things, not nonsense.

        The oath takers are retreaded Paulites. Their worries can be treated with any anti-psychotic drug and then they can get back to being worried about one world government and fiat money.

        The birthers may be on both sides but they are a symptom of what dpayton is talking about and giving those people safe harbor with us simply on the basis of their ODS delegitimizes us.

    • penguin2

      So why does he come and lecture us as if we are? He also made several disingenuous remarks, that just did not hold water. Look at his comments, he is accusing Us of thinking Obama is a “closet Marxist” or “tyrant-in-training.”

      dpayton came and started out about the oath keepers, I have no opinion on them, but his ignoring all of the attacks that the Obama admin has made on FOX, Beck, Humana, etc. just doesn’t come across right. If dpayton cannot address valid criticisms we have of the Obama administration, then he is more aligned with their side than ours.

      • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

        …because if you’ve read anything else I’ve posted, you’d know my stance, very clearly. Again, it’s *methods* I’m talking about. You really need to understand the difference between the disagreements themselves (which are legion) and the way those disagreements are voiced.

        I’m not lecturing you, unless you happen to be one of the Oath Keepers. In fact, janis has already suggested he is a tyrant-in-training (i.e. he doesn’t have to assume it, in his words) and you’ve flat-out called him a Marxist. So don’t whine about lecturing when the shoe fits.

        And going back to my original response, I was talking about those in Oath Keepers who have, as I said, built an organization around those assumptions. So I wasn’t even really talking about you fellas in the first place.

        Three words: Light. En. Up.

        • penguin2

          Sorry, I couldn’t get back to you until now.

          I don’t know you from Adam, and maybe others do, but to newer readers your treatment of the responders leaves a lot to be desired. You accused a number of us of of strange ideas or being wrong. You’ve not answered one of the concerns we have stated to you. Obama is a known Marxist and since you thought so much of Streiff’s support I will hope that you give more credence to his opinion than you did to mine, because Streiff did say Obama is “an open and avowed” one.

          The biggest problem I see dpayton, is your responses to all of us who called you on several points you made. Maybe your diary didn’t have it all, but your comments certainly revealed good reason for us to respond as we did. Besides that you seem kind of insulting to the readers. If you think what you have to say is right and if you have a good message, then say it in a way that doesn’t insult those who talk to you. And if I seem whiny to you, well I don’t think I’m different than anyone else around here, including you.

          • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

            “I don?t know you from Adam”

            Indeed, and in spite of the voluminous public record of things I’ve written, you’ve passed judgment. Heck, I have RS diaries that you could avail yourself of, since you did find this one, which would point out how wrong you are regarding my political leanings.

            I’m not accusing any of you of anything you haven’t already said here. I’ve not accused you of being part of the “Oath Takers”.

            In fact if Obama whether or not is a Marxist, that really doesn’t have much to do with my main point, which Streiff also agreed with; nuttiness in pursuit of conservatism doesn’t do us any good at all.

            Look, you have no opinion about the Oath Keepers and you won’t lift the littlest finger to see whether or not your accusations about me have any merit. Yet your first post included calling me an Obama apologist.

            I hear Olympic Conclusion Jumping will be an even in the next summer games.

          • penguin2

            I’m going to start from scratch. All I have to go on is your responses here, and you responded in a way that indicated you thought we’re airheads or whatever. You did not address any of the things we quoted you on, and remember your comments counted too.

            Your assumption that we would have or will immediately now read your previous works, isn’t quite fair. We read many blogs, time constraints certainly would have affected whether we would read previous works of yours, today. Your responses to us were also condescending and snippy. Fairly smart people participate in these diaries, maybe you could hold back on your ridicule and examine what someone is saying before you respond as you do.

            Personally, I don’t like negative interactions between folks who are on the same side. But if you want people to accept what you say, then be open to what they have to say.

            Now we can probably leave this and another day will bring new issues to deal with.

          • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

            …is calling someone an apologist when you barely know them. Pardon me if I got snippy when I was falsely accused of being an Obama enabler, a useful idiot, and all manner of things, from folks who insist they simply don’t have time to find out what I really think.

            I’m sure you take that sort of thing in stride. I have a little trouble with that. I’ll work on it.

      • Streiff

        I think he’s an open and avowed one. But I don’t think he’s a “tyrant in training” either. He’s no more going to carry out some sort of coup against the constitution than Bush was going to use the Patriot Act to send Code Pink to re-education camps in Nebraska.

    • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

      Johnny, tell ‘im what he’s won! :)

      (Didn’t think it was that obtuse, frankly.)

      • Streiff

        mkay?

        • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

          Fair enough.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      dpayton, I started to post a response, and it turned into a diary: Discerning between apocalypse and Obama Derangement Syndrome .

      The main message is that we all do have different points when we connect the dots and see a radical threat to our governance and way of life. And we reach that at different times, and we should not be too quick to judge those who haven’t reached the point we have. And we do risk a loss of credibility if we jump too fast and are wrong.

      So I’d rather plead and provide evidence than denounce someone who is along the way but just not as far along.

      On the other hand, I would urge you, dpayton, to not blithely assume that just because we have a long tradition of democratic governance that what is going on now is just another perturbation. That complacency has been the death of many democratic experiments in the past.

      So do not be too quick to dismiss the possiblity that revolutionary change is afoot in Washington – step back and take a look at the larger picture, look at the trajectory, the pattern developing – and then perhaps you’ll see what is alarming so many of us here, because we (like Hondurans) see the script being acted out that has led many other nations into leftist tyrannies – and want to derail that script.

      • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

        And I share your concern about socialistic tendencies, but I really don’t see a coup in our near- to mid-term future. We handled the Gerald Ford case light-years better than some countries that consider themselves healthy republics (IMHO). We have a much freer press such that a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh can indeed make a change for the better in this country. As much as it would be good that it be more free and more transparent, it’s still a very good weapon against internal tyranny, and has proven itself so.

        I wish it were better, but if wishes were horses…

        I gave a pretty specific case of what I see as ODS; a group formed just 2 months after Obama was inaugurated, disingenuously calling itself “non-partisan”, insisting that it won’t follow orders to turn cities into concentration camps. You don’t see that as just a bit over the top? And if so, then understand that’s the only example I’ve given, from which others have taken to mean, unbelievably, I meant *any* opposition to Obama.

        All I’m asking is that the assumptions be toned down a bit, all around, and read and respond to what I actually said.

  • nessa

    …?Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third ? .? At that point he was interrupted by cries of ?Treason!? from delegates who easily recognized the reference to assassinated leaders. Henry paused briefly, then calmly finished his sentence: ?…may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.?

    This was generally considered “over the top” at the time although the Virginia Resolutions were passed. Henry’s oratory was still “over the top” ten years later, in 1775, when he said “The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

    The Oath Keepers may be considered “over the top” as well, but they have a pretty clear cut list of “What We Are Not” on their website. Beginning with “We are Not advocating or promoting the overthrow of any government whether local, state or national. We want our governments to return to the Constitutional Republic which the Declaration of Independence and the
    Constitution defined and instituted.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has deemed them dangerous and attempted to equate them with Timothy McVeigh and others but then again, the DHS already put me in that category for no other reason than my having been deployed recently while executing my own oath to the Constitution.

    Personally, I’m more inclined to see them as modern day “Sons of Liberty”, rabble rousers and pot-stirrers? Without a doubt, but I don’t see any reference to a military coup on their website. Of course, the definition of Military Coup is undergoing a bit of a muddying lately in Honduras so I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.

    • Achance
    • janis

      And I heartily concur.

      • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

        the speech with the exact “Caeser had his Brutus” quote underneath.

        Great post.

        Thank you.

        ColdWarrior
        www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

  • Trelaina

    I submit that some of us can barely get through what is already here, as there are so many great posts. Some of us limit the blogs we read so that we can still manage to have time with our families.

    There are a LOT of people on RedState, and a lot of regular diarists. I personally can’t keep track of each and every one.

    Therefore, instead of berating us for not reading your full posting history every time you submit something, perhaps you should make it clear in each and every post who you are and what you believe. There are a handful of front-page and regular posters who can probably get away with saying “you should know me”. The rest of us don’t have that luxury.

    • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

      Just read my other RedState diary posts? I’ve been an RS member for years, before the Great Software Change where all my prior posts were lost in the sands of time. Hadn’t posted here much since then, been an avid reader, but have started up again in recent months, crossposting what I thought were some of my better works here.

      I understand completely that there’s boatloads to read out there. All I’m asking is that before folks accuse me of being an Obama enabler or useful idiot, they have something other than their own assumptions to back it up.

      (And upon realizing how wrong they were, re-analyze what I’m saying in that light.)

      • Michael Dugas

        are due to naivete or just being thin skinned is ridiculous.
        Our country is in the middle of a huge financial crisis. How can any administration, during a time like this, wish to push so many pieces
        of legislation that will, without a doubt, take this country over the brink
        and into destitution? If Obama Care and Cap and Trade pass it will bring on a financial storm that will make out current situation look like a sunny day. Do you really think he is ignorant of this? That his whole administration is not aware of what will happen?
        And how can you not see his lack of respect for a Constitution as he plans to sign away a huge part of our sovereignty in Copenhagen in 6 months? And when he does that we will become responsible for the financial costs for “greening” all of the third world…on top of Obama Care and Cap and Steal! His ACTIONS Sir point to him trying to bring our country to financial ruin
        and forcing the population to have no other choice but to become fully dependent on the government to survive.
        Meanwhile you come here and try to down play his actions as just rookie mistakes and being sensitive to criticism…are you daft?
        And all the while he’s trying to do everything he can, through Net Neutrality etc, to criminalize all dissent to his actions.
        Maybe you are really a conservative who’s worried about his future
        when it was discovered that the Administration is archiving blogs and posts at sites like ours and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, when it’s concerning discussion and dissent
        of this Administration, and your lack of gonads has you tempering your words…just in case. I doubt it.
        And another thing, I’m not an Oath Keeper or a 3 Percenter, though
        I understand and sympathize with their perspective, but they are only standing up for the Constitution and as far as the Oath Keepers all they are asking is that people like soldiers, cops etc refuse unconstitutional orders like going house to house and taking people guns etc. They have NEVER supported over throwing the government or home grown terrorism…maybe you are making assumptions yes? Napalitano has your ear most likely.
        These are just a few of Obamas ACTIONS that you seem to want to down play but I think it’s your naivete or just plain ignorance that’s the issue here…not ours.

  • janis

    are just “policy differences”? That might be true if you label Bush’s economic policies “pro-capitalism and free markets” and Obama’s “pro-socialism and anti-free markets.” But the differences go way, way beyond those simple ideas. Obama is doing his utmost to transform this country into everything that the left accused George W. Bush of trying to do, but which he never did and never planned to do:

    Obama is seeking the utter destruction of the America that the Founding Fathers risked their lives to create. He is taking away personal freedoms daily and ruining our ability to be both an economic and military force in the world. He is making our country an absolute laughingstock amongst our enemies in a time when they could not be more dangerous. If this man gets what he seeks, we and our children and their children will live under the yoke of debt and diminished freedoms for decades to come.

    Tell me, did George W. Bush decide to put Planned Parenthood clinics in high schools? Did Bush apologize for this country all over the world? Did George W. Bush dither about sending troops when his handpicked general in Iraq or Afghanistan request them?

    I could go on for days, but your first sentence is absolutely clueless.

  • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C
  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    …is Obama going to put PP in schools? I’ve been following the story on this during the morning, and I’ve not been convinced this is what’s planned. Trust me, if it was I’d be railing against it on my own blogs, but I’ve seen nothing clear on it. If you have a link, I’d love to follow it.

    Your other questions are indeed pretty much policy issues. Yes, policies with which I disagree as well, but policy nonetheless. Does talk of military coups do anything to change this?

    But to the large point, you do realize that you sound rather exactly like the liberals that went completely hysterical anytime Bush went after our actual enemies, right? Destroying our way of life, helping terrorist recruitment, shredding the Constitution, that blather? They attributed to him motives that were entirely of their own making, and it hurt their cause. I’m afraid that talk of military coups hurts ours, and that’s why I’m pointing it out.

    I am, and have been, a big enemy of liberal spending policies and their gutting of our military. I imagine you and I are very much on the same side of most, if not all, issues. And there are ways in our republic to deal with them. But providing fodder to allow the Left to brand us as nuts is, indeed, counterproductive. Masquerading as “non-partisan” doubly so.

    And it’s just as wrong to confer motives onto others as it is for them to confer them on you. Complain and shout out about *actions*, vote based on *actions*, be an activist based on *action*, not about something as unprovable as motives. Obama’s policies might take us in a direction towards socialism (and I believe that), but don’t try to assume that he’s a closet Marxist or tyrant-in-training and create an organization around that assumption. That’s what I’m saying.

  • larueladue

    If you really believe that there are only “policy” differences between the Obama administration and the previous Bush administration, you are willfully deluding yourself.

    To suggest that taking Obama’s administration at face value is ODS… to suggest that believing what they are trying to accomplish is exactly what they have said (in the past) they will do once in power is ODS… to suggest that taking their own words at face value is OSD… to equate all this to an equivalent of the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” is demeaning and insulting to Conservatives everywhere.

    This is not the venue to try and push that sort of point of view or agenda…. THAT is “wrong and counter-productive.’

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    I oppose the Democrats’ health reform measures. I was against the stimulus package. Just about everything this guy has done, I see a huge downside to.

    So if that makes me an “enabler”, clearly the word has changed definitions. Very recently.

    Was Van Johnson taken out of government via coup? No, it was the vigorous debate in this country, spearheaded by talk radio and conservative opinion TV. All I’m saying is *that’s* the way to do it, not by suggesting that we’re likely to, any minute now, be asked to “subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty” or turn cities “into giant concentration camps” as the Oath Keepers suggest.

    That’s ODS, and it’s just as wrong as BDS was back in the day.

  • janis

    Look at the leaders in the world that he supports, bows down to (literally), apologizes to, has hours-long meetings in private with (Chavez), and the countries and leaders of democracies that he disses or outright refuses to support– Israel, Honduras, Great Britain, etc. If you are known by the company you keep and the actions you take, then Obama is just another thug and dictator-in-waiting. Do you support his actions against private citizens and against entities such as Humana, Fox News, CEO’s of corporations, etc.?

    You can be as high-minded and “wait and see” as you wish. The rest of us will holler “Fire” when we see the smoke and feel the heat. You can sit home with your garden hose and see what develops. Hint: When your roof catches fire, you might want to finally holler “Fire!” yourself.

  • janis

    And now Obama and Co. are doing all they can to have Fox dismissed and discredited as just a partisan network with no news value. How long do you think it will be until Obama makes a bigger and more damaging move against Fox? And THEN who will be taking down any of his czars?

    Your moderation in this regard is ridiculous and makes you look like the reverse of Chicken Little—- that thing that just clunked you on the head really IS the sky.

  • penguin2

    and conservative opinion TV to ensure we have a vigorous debate. Your response to Larueladue, proves both her and Janis’s points quite well. Your Obama support would have those outlets eliminated. The MSM, who are Obama’s protectors were not covering the issues that Beck, FOX , Rush and other Talk Radio hosts are reporting. The Obama WH is trying to make them illegitimate, so your MSM won’t even follow up on the stories they break.

    BTW, we’re not making Obama out to be an “closet Marxist” or “tyrant-in-training” He is already known to be a Marxist, and the attacks his WH has made on half of the nation, Tea Party members, conservatives, FOX, Humana Health Corp. Rush, Beck, etc. indicates he and his Leftists minions are already tyrant ready.

    I wouldn’t say you are exactly an “enabler”, I would call you an Obama apologist. You’ll not get much support here for these kinds of lectures.

  • Third Street

    “Was Van Johnson taken out of government via coup?”

  • larueladue

    Perhaps enabler is not the correct word, perhaps it is.

    What I was referring to was the cover you (and your ilk ) provide to the administration by: referring to opposition to the administration as suffering from ODS (and playing into their hands by subtly bring the evil Bush into the discussion); associating the “Oath Keepers” organization with an religious, Christian (Oh my, there’s that word!), evangelical organization, effectively dismissing them as nut cases; and bringing the whole Nixon debacle into the discussion through the reference to Gerald Ford, implying that the lawful and orderly change of personnel in our highest office at that time was somehow illegitimate (he as APPOINTED not ELECTED, oh my!) and deserving of riots, etc.

    Maybe enabler was right, according to this definition:

    one that enables another to achieve an end; especially : one who enables another to persist in self-destructive behavior (as substance abuse) by providing excuses or by making it possible to avoid the consequences of such behavior.

    Sounds pretty apropos to me….

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    you can ask anyone who has been here a while and up until just before the last elections My views mirrored yours. I was upset with what I thought was overkill, extreme talking points, name-calling and a lowering of our political debate. I railed against people like Ann Coulter for that reason.

    But now I really don’t care, I don’t give a damn it there are a million birthers or oath takers or someone calls Obama a Marxist-Leninist or a Maoist.

    Because after the last eight years of lies, hate, and calumny by the left, and especially after their despicable treatment of Palin, I think they can all just go to hell. I hate them and I don’t care anymore.

    That is what their Alinsky rules have got for them, division and hate.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    The problem in the GOP is not that there are too many Oath Keepers, rather that there are too many timid Lindsey Grahams!

    We need the courage to go after Obama for his won words and actions with moral righteous indignation and the judgment to not let pimples blown up into “stories” by the media disrract us with the argument that we better be moderate lest we get associated with the far right.

    That lie has made spineless losers of us for too long!

    Courage!

    instructions below, with historical precedents

    want to win? read on

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/10/20/only-rush-like-courage-can-defeat-obamadem-left/

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    I am hollering. The two blogs I run, Considerettes and Stones Cry Out speak for themselves. I’m not waiting and seeing; I’m involved in the vigorous debate of which I spoke.

    I disapprove of the way Obama is handling foreign relations, but they could be just as easily explained as naivete, which I and many other think they are. I don’t support his actions against insurance companies and private news organizations, which could just as easily be thin skin, again, which I and many others think they are.

    OK, so can we get past your simplistic assumptions? Basically, everything you’ve asked me about policy lines me right up with what I bet are your own beliefs. And I’ve said so, on Redstate and on my own blogs. So your assumptions are all wrong. You may need to re-read the post.

    My objection is to the *methods* some are using to express this. They are over-the-top, and are themselves based on assumptions.

    I mean, c’mon, preparing to keep American cities from becoming concentration camps?

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    (and you’re doing a lot of assuming in this thread) that his sortie against FNC will actually work. No one, not the NY Times or Helen Thomas, think it will. It’s only helping Beck’s ratings. Were you aware of this?

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    You are, y’know, actually *reading* my positions? Right? I’m actually writing them here. In English.

  • larueladue

    Apologist probably more what I was groping for. But the effect is still the same, regardless of what you call it.

  • janis

    No, I’m watching what the man and his minions are doing and drawing conclusions that millions of other Americans are also drawing. Obama is not just naive when it comes to foreign policy, he’s absolutely traitorous. Was it just naivete that canceled the promised missile shield for Eastern European countries? Was it naivete that prevented him from supporting the protesters in Iran after those fraudulent elections? Was it naivete that made him and his minions support Zelaya in Honduras over the Honduran Supreme Court and the Honduran Constitution? If your answer is “Yes”, then you are the naive one making simplistic assumptions.

    While I might not jump on board with a group like the Oathkeepers, I don’t doubt their anxiety over what’s going on in this country and their fears that there is worse to come. As for yoursimplistic assumption that Obama is only being “thin-skinned” when he goes after Fox or Rush or whoever is next, then let me know how you feel when you are no longer able to scribble down your ever so moderate thoughts in your little blogs, m’kay?

  • JadedByPolitics

    since before he was The Won….so tool he is and 5 years of being a tool to boot!

  • janis

    with regard to Fox News work the way he desires or not, the fact that he’s even attempting it are alarming and indicative of what he wishes to do, which is to shut down any dissent whatsoever regardless of where it comes from.

    And pardon me for not caring two hoots in hell about what an old hack like Helen Thomas, the Cryptkeeper’s granny, thinks about anything.

  • penguin2

    on occasion. When you come to this site and make excuses and say you “disapprove” of a couple of his policies, well hard to think anything other than what I already said. This is a site with strong minded people and thinkers, and you’ve come here to tell us not to be who we are. You’ve also told us that Obama is not really what he appears to be, and how we don’t know Marxism or bullying behavior or that an opinion by Helen Thomas or the NYT is going to make a difference, if we didn’t have FOX, Talk Radio, etc.

    Your words are typical of people who support Obama and his policies. We are here to fight against the agenda of his Leftist world view. We’re treating you no differently than if you were here apologizing for John McCain or any of the Republican squishes.

  • janis

    is that he’s consistent in his delusions. Makes you want to run over and read his little blogs, doesn’t it? If he’s doing this to try and drive traffic to them, then he’s barking up the wrong set of trees.

  • janis

    I hope he ends up spending his “golden years” in a lovely retirement community in Detroit.

  • JadedByPolitics

    he is a CONCERN TROLL…American Thinker had a brilliant piece about the different types of trolls a few months ago and well the minute I saw his piece I knew exactly what he was and thought hell let me jump in and tell the little man that he has been recognized for what he is :)

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    …you’ve read my blogs. You fellas just have no clue about what you’re taking about.

    Which, as I keep noting, is the problem with assumptions about motive.

  • Vegas_Rick

    NOT recommended.

  • janis

    time and own dime is of no interest to me. I read lots of blogs weekly that I know and respect, even some that are more left-leaning than right. But I respect them because they express the same alarm that I and so many others feel when seeing the encroachments on our freedoms that Obama acts upon daily.

  • janis

    I missed that wrong last name from dpayton. Good catch.

  • Trelaina

    It’s not whether he succeeds at this battle against Fox that matters – it is the pure fact that he’s ATTEMPTING it.

  • aesthete

    Not so much because I agree with you (I don’t) as for the snort that your awesome “cryptkeeper’s granny” one-liner elicited from me :)

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    You’re more than willing to hurl insults and accusations without actually ensuring they’re accurate.

    So then, paste what I said again about “assumptions” here. –>

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    But before my time. No, really. :)

  • larueladue

    I must have missed that one, and it sounds like a good read.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    I do not refer to opposition to the administration as ODS, else I would have to say I myself am suffering from it. I don’t believe I do. You could truly judge for yourself by checking your facts before insulting, but you won’t do that, so we’re at an impasse.

    When you’re better informed, then we’ll talk.

  • Michael Dugas

    This is a group that has formed over stated beliefs they share. Fine.
    But they have done absolutely NOTHING at all but talk.
    Obama has done SOMETHING, his actions speak for themselves.
    They are doing nothing to our cause at all. You are the one damaging the cause by aiding the Left into making them an issue.
    Come back when they’ve done more than make a web page.
    Why don’t you actually direct your energies towards fighting the actual
    ACTIONS being taken by this administration. Those actions are a lot more dangerous to our country than the simply expressed feelings of a group of current and ex military and police etc. I definitely trust them more than I do Obama.

  • ocleverone
  • JadedByPolitics

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/caution_trolls_at_work.html

  • janis

    then I’d be hurling insults and accusations. You’re here saying what you’ve said and the rest of us–mostly–are doing pushback. You don’t like it, you know which way the door is.

    Don’t have to read your sites, as I said, I’ve got a bunch that I go to for info, and not all agree with me.

  • JadedByPolitics
  • larueladue
  • Leopard1996

    I personally believe if your enemy brings a gun, you bring a damn tank. The lefties were able to bring the wildest exaggerations to what was a fairy tale, and got 54% to vote for Obama, and sweep in a bunch of Librocrats to power. I believe that we need to beat this back we have to be as wild, and back it up with facts and reading between the lines.

    Fairness Doctrine- silencing any outlet that is going to give an objective viewpoint or God forbid an objective one.

    Health care reform-Controlling the treatment of and coverage for all medical care, if the powers that be have control of your basic health, you can oppose those powers can you.

    As a libratarian person myself, this stuff is stuff that I totally oppose.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    Shall we include David Duke in this effort? As long as he’s backing it up with facts?

    Do you see what I’m getting at? Loons hurt our cause, not help it.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    …you might try looking at my RS diaries at the very least before accusing me of anything. Yet here you are, proud of your ignorance while pointing an accusing finger.

    Just a common courtesy, is all I’m asking.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    But call both the Oath Keepers and the Lindsey Grahams what they are. I’m just asking we call it like it is, disavow the nuts, and work on (or vote out) the milquetoasts.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    Why don?t you actually direct your energies towards fighting the actual ACTIONS being taken by this administration.

    As I have repeatedly noted, I have and I am. The only reason you don’t know that is willful ignorance on your part.

    You want to be angry with me? Fine. Vent away.

  • Michael Dugas

    I have read ALL your posts here and viewed your links but zeroing in on the Oath Keepers is a waste of time. And going with Obama is just naive or just thin skinned when discussing his actions is ridiculous.

  • Leopard1996

    Is do we have to play by queensbury rules in a fight where the other side is bringing a damn flamethrower. It doesn’t seem that their “loons” doesn’t hurt their cause any, but our “loons” do.

    BTW, I wouldn’t want a David Duke nowhere near this, and he wouldn’t be anyway. I do believe that we need to hit and hit hard and argue with the issues, which a majority of us do. As far as the oathkeepers, from what I read the only thing they did was state that if they were given orders that went against the constitution, they would defend the constitution and the citizens. I don’t put it past an Obama and his advisers to see that something or someone, (like me) as a threat because of what I believe, and I practice the 2nd amendment, to order police to kick down my door and ransack my house with no probable cause other than exercising my 2nd amendment right, or my 1st amendment right.
    If there are links of them calling for revolt or revolution, I will change my mind on them.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    like I said before, After the hate fest of the last eight years I don’t give a hoot in hell who hates the Democrats, or what they say about them. I am just glad that some people do hate, fear, and stand up to them.

  • Leopard1996

    That would be one thing, but this past election, and in 2006 all I saw was vitriol, hatred and personal attacks, I didn’t see one issue where they would have done things better. All they said was we are not them, and it’s Bush’s and Republicans fault.

    And even now I am not seeing honest debate, I am seeing personal attacks and fear mongering. Not addressing the concerns like how the hell are we going to pay for Health Care, Cap and Trade, or this worthless stimulus. No they would rather call us tea-bagging rednecks (which for me no way applies, hard to be a redneck when you lived about 1 hour from NYC, and now live about 20 – 40 minutes from a known city (Cincinnati), as well as being 1/2 black), or we are shills of the oil, health, or some other industry (since I am shilling where the hell is my check).

    So I am more than willing at this point to give as hard as they expect us to take it.

  • http://www.thepaytons.org/essays/considerettes/ dpayton

    I can accept that criticism. Whether or not calling out the Oath Keepers is a waste of time is certainly something we can disagree on, but I hope the larger point, lost in all the heat perhaps, is that we on the Right should be willing to call it out when we see it, and not to excuse it because “they do it worse” or “they started it”.

    I think the Right is more level-headed in that regard, whether or not we all agree on specific people or groups. And hopefully fence-sitters will notice that and be drawn toward our side. That, I believe, is the larger point.

  • Michael Dugas

    don’t police our own. There are Dems who have committed crimes and made all sorts of decidedly bad moral decisions that are still in office. If a Republican gets caught cheating on his wife or doesn’t pay some taxes he’s drawn and quartered. In most cases I agree
    though sometimes I think we throw the baby out with the bath water
    by being a bit TOO quick to throw our own under the bus i.e. Tom DeLay. Wouldn’t you love to have The Hammer back keeping our reps in line and on point. I know I would.