It's Over-- We've Lost


cdowis
 Share

Recommended Posts

I came across a very interesting commentary by Michael Savage.  He gives us a perspective on what is happening in the world that would sound very familiar to members of the church.

 

Michael Savage  criticized President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Merkel and other Western leaders with a provocative comparison he recognized could be misunderstood.

They are doing, he said, what Adolf Hitler did in reverse: Instead of invading other countries, they are letting foreigners invade their own countries.

"Hitler was a psychopath," Savage said, who "invaded other countries to impose his nation's, let us say, his distorted values and race on other countries."

"What is Obama doing?" Savage asked. "He's invading his own country with people of other races and other cultures and other languages to wipe away the predominant language, the predominant culture of his own nation. He is equally mad.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/michael-savage-weve-lost-the-battle/#Sgw1OvReukabLj46.99

 

 

 

I suggest that you listen to the first five minutes of his broadcast.  Very thought provoking.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

It's a bit hard to take the "Obama is equally as mad as Hitler" thing seriously.

I agree. That kind of hyperbole makes it difficult for me to take Michael Savage seriously at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to listen to Michael Savage periodically... and then he got kicked out of the UK and everytime he's on the radio he's talking about how terrible the UK is for kicking him out and how he's raising funds or something to fight them or some such... it was the same stuff even after a few months, so I just go back to the FM channels.  He must have gotten removed from the radio station because some other guy's show has that spot now.  Andy Dean or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He's clueless and that says it all."

 

OK, you do have a clue, so please help us.

 

1. Would a rational person start a world war?  (Of course not)

2. Savage gives several points where Obama is making war on his own country. Do you agree with him.

3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country? 

 

Hoping you can educate us on what's going on in the world -- the Iran treaty, ISIS, Iraq, dismantling the military in both funding and manpower, open borders.

Savage is clueless, so please give us a clue.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Would a rational person start a world war?

 

    No.  Hitler did.  Obama didn't.

 

 

2. Savage gives several points where Obama is making war on his own country, based on the evidence Savage gives us.  Do you agree or disagree with him?

 

     Disagree.  Just because you disagree with Obama's principles and policies does not mean he is intentionally trying to sink this country.

 

 

3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country?

 

    No.  But then Obama is not waging war upon his country... so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have opinions - as does Michael Savage.  We currently think Hitler is evil because the lost a war.  But we may forget that he was a socialist.   He was not extreme right - and it was only when he was opposed that he became vicious.  His first step was to use government agencies to harass his opposition.  He then took steps to blame others for his mistakes and justify harsh measures (such as violations of rights under the law).  At first his harshness did not seem to be that harsh.  But he began to concentrate his power - then anyone that did not fully support him became his opposition.  Most citizens of Germany did not know of the execution holocaust that he had planned - until after the war.  And to this day there are elements that do not believe it.

 

Our leaders certainly do not blame their opposition for their mistakes???  Why if for example if a the Secretary of State made a mistake that resulted in the death of an ambassador - They would resign.  If an appointed official - say over the Internal Revenue Service was found to discriminate against a citizen for political opinions - they would be removed from office and prosecuted.  Unlike Hitler - our leaders uphold the law and always put the right of any citizen before political ambition or party.   We have nothing to worry about - yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember Emo Phillips' old joke, "I think racism is really stupid when there are so many real reasons to hate someone."  There are plenty of things that Obama does to mess things up without having to compare him to Hitler.

 

I'm not sure if I've posted this before, but here it is:  During the '08 election there was a lot of talk on conservative websites literally claiming (not just throwing names around) that Obama was the Anti-Christ as spoken of in the Book of Revelation.

 

I got a second opinion from my Father-in-law who is well versed in both politics and scriptures.  His response: "Well, I'm not going to put up much of a fight."  What he meant was that he certainly didn't agree with them.  But why bother fighting to defend someone who's going to mess things up so badly that we'll wish it were the end of days?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Would a rational person start a world war?

 

    No.  Hitler did.  Obama didn't.

 

 

2. Savage gives several points where Obama is making war on his own country, based on the evidence Savage gives us.  Do you agree or disagree with him?

 

     Disagree.  Just because you disagree with Obama's principles and policies does not mean he is intentionally trying to sink this country.

 

 

3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country?

 

    No.  But then Obama is not waging war upon his country... so....

 

Just curious, can we assume that you did  listen to his commentary -- just 5 minutes or so, until he begins talking about his forty solutions.

 

For example, can you give us just four or five reasons for his claim that Obama is attacking the United States?  I don't mind an honest disagreement, so long as one is educated on his views..  For example, do you know what has been happening to the military lately.  What exactly was his point regarding the borders -- what was the comparison that he used.

 

This would be far useful that simply saying "No he isn't."

 

I really did have a reason for starting this thread.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"He's clueless and that says it all."

 

OK, you do have a clue, so please help us.

 

1. Would a rational person start a world war?  (Of course not)

2. Savage gives several points where Obama is making war on his own country. Do you agree with him.

3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country? 

 

Hoping you can educate us on what's going on in the world -- the Iran treaty, ISIS, Iraq, dismantling the military in both funding and manpower, open borders.

Savage is clueless, so please give us a clue.

 

1 - Sure why not?  God commanded the hebrews to conquer/decimate certain civilizations in the Bible.  I'd say more often than not that isn't the case, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a rational man to start a world war given the right circumstances.

 

2 - What counts as "making war"?  We all like to use certain terminology to exagerate or talk up something, but claiming he is "making war" seems a bit over the top to me.

 

3 - Sure why not?  If I was elected President I would most definitely wage war upon certain parts of this country, starting with the politicians, and work my way down.  I don't agree with most of what Obama is doing to change this country, but I can understand someone believing a certain way and acting accordingly, regardless if I agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

migrants_3482985b.jpg

 

 

We are witnessing here death of national borders, not only in Europe but also in the United States.

 

You can defeat a country with superior weapons of war, but this represents a new form of conquest.  You freely allow millions and millions of "refugees" with no attempt at controlling who is entering the country. Many of these refugees come from a culture alien to our cultural values of democracy, tolerance, the rule of law.

 

The purpose of a border is to protect its citizens.   The This is so important that the country will spend a significant part of its wealth to protect those borders with police and the military.

 

Why would a leader of a country allow this to happen?  Simple, you provide them almost the same benefits as you give your own citizens.  And then, you find legal loopholes which give them the ability to vote.  This is all done in the name of compassion and charity.  You attack those who oppose these policies as "racist".

 

AS Savage pointed out, "H" tried to conquer other nations through a superior military.  But today we see a "reverse invasion", where the enemy is invited and welcomed, along with legitimate refugees, to cross our borders at will.  It may be a decade before the damage is fully realized, but the enemy will be within our borders.

 

This article addresses some of these issues in more detail.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/11955742/We-are-seeing-the-last-dying-days-of-open-frontiers-in-Europe.html

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, can we assume that you did  listen to his commentary -- just 5 minutes or so, until he begins talking about his forty solutions.

 

For example, can you give us just four or five reasons for his claim that Obama is attacking the United States?  I don't mind an honest disagreement, so long as one is educated on his views..  For example, do you know what has been happening to the military lately.  What exactly was his point regarding the borders -- what was the comparison that he used.

 

This would be far useful that simply saying "No he isn't."

 

I really did have a reason for starting this thread.

 

Yes, I listened to the commentary and read the transcript.

 

It is silly to think that Obama is deliberately attacking the US by giving asylum to Syrian Refugees and Latino children.  Is it misguided?  Yes, I don't agree with these decisions.  I would rather that we have a strong foreign presence so that we can make Syria safe for Syrians and South America safe for South Americans instead of making them safe by bringing them to America.

 

But to say that "he is trying to wipe out the white man, the culture, and the language of America" is crazy talk.  America is a country of immigrants.  America never said - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... unless they're latinos or arabs, then we don't want them because they'll wipe out the white man".

 

There's a reason the Founders of the Constitution doesn't have a law dictating what the national language is...

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I listened to the commentary and read the transcript.

 

It is silly to think that Obama is deliberately attacking the US by giving asylum to Syrian Refugees and Latino children.  Is it misguided?

 

The Syrian refugees and the open border with Mexico are two very different issues.  

 

1. The "Syrian" refugees are not all Syrian, but come from several underdeveloped countries in the area.  Read the statistics in the link in my last post.  Others are simply taking advantage of the chaos.

2. It's a very long story, but the Syrian refugee situation is based on Obama's incompetence, not just with Syria, but, more importantly, with the chaos in Libya and his insane war with Gadaffi.

 

 

  Yes, I don't agree with these decisions.  I would rather that we have a strong foreign presence so that we can make Syria safe for Syrians and South America safe for South Americans instead of making them safe by bringing them to America.

 

But to say that "he is trying to wipe out the white man, the culture, and the language of America" is crazy talk.  America is a country of immigrants.  America never said - "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... unless they're latinos or arabs, then we don't want them because they'll wipe out the white man".

 

The issue is not the national and racial makeup of immigration, but controlling access to our border and  making common sense decisions on those individuals who are admitted into this country.  I have no problem with Arabs, Hispanics, etc, but I do have a problem allowing rapists, murderers, etc into the country which is happening right now.

 

Without secure borders, this country will eventually descend into chaos.  

 

As Savage points out, this is "reverse invasion" worthy of any of our enemies who wish to do us harm.  Anyone can enter the country, and anyone is.

 

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all have opinions - as does Michael Savage.  We currently think Hitler is evil because the lost a war.  But we may forget that he was a socialist.   He was not extreme right - and it was only when he was opposed that he became vicious.  His first step was to use government agencies to harass his opposition.  He then took steps to blame others for his mistakes and justify harsh measures (such as violations of rights under the law).  At first his harshness did not seem to be that harsh.  But he began to concentrate his power - then anyone that did not fully support him became his opposition.  Most citizens of Germany did not know of the execution holocaust that he had planned - until after the war.  And to this day there are elements that do not believe it.

 

Our leaders certainly do not blame their opposition for their mistakes???  Why if for example if a the Secretary of State made a mistake that resulted in the death of an ambassador - They would resign.  If an appointed official - say over the Internal Revenue Service was found to discriminate against a citizen for political opinions - they would be removed from office and prosecuted.  Unlike Hitler - our leaders uphold the law and always put the right of any citizen before political ambition or party.   We have nothing to worry about - yet?

Hitler was not a socialist.

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/germanyandprussia/fl/Was-Adolf-Hitler-a-Socialist-Debunking-a-Historical-Myth.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The female anaesthetist said the German health service has been completely overwhelmed by the influx of Muslim asylum-seekers who are REFUSING to be treated by female medics. 

In a furious outburst the experienced doctor said hospitals simply cannot cope because so many of the migrants require treatments for diseases long since eradicated in Europe. 

She also shockingly claimed migrant parents are abandoning their children at pharmacies across the country after being told that they have to pay a prescription charge for lifesaving drugs.

 

She also claimed huge numbers of the asylum-seekers have Victorian diseases including TB, which they risk passing on to locals. 


Meanwhile, German authorities have been forced to post police at hospitals around the country after others got involved in angry clashes with medics over cultural differences. 


------

"Many Muslims are refusing treatment by female staff. Relations between the staff and migrants are going from bad to worse. 

"Since last weekend, migrants going to the hospitals must be accompanied by police with K-9 units.

"Many migrants have AIDS, syphilis, open TB and many exotic diseases that we, in Europe, do not know how to treat them. 

"If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, they learn they have to pay cash. 

"This leads to unbelievable outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. 

"They abandon the children with pharmacy staff with the words: 'So, cure them here yourselves!' So the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies."

-------------

She said that the estimated 1.3million migrants who have entered the country are "completely unemployable" because they do not speak the language. 

And she added that the burden on the country's failing health service will only get worse because at least one in ten of the women arriving are pregnant. 

She said: "Even the professor who heads our department told us how sad it makes him to see the cleaning woman, who for 800 Euros cleans every day for years, and then meets young men in the hallways who just wait with their hand outstretched, want everything for free, and when they don’t get it they throw a fit.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/614793/German-hospital-refugees-asylum-seekers-migrants-demand-breaking-point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I read the article.

 

The difficulty in declaring something like this is that we are only looking at the political spectrum in a one-dimensional model (right/left).  Some like to point out that there is a second dimension (anarchy/authority).  I would add a third dimension and turn the two-dimensional rectangle into a sphere.

 

Go far enough to the left and you find that you meet far right.  And vice-versa.

 

Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class.

 

This argument is self-contradictory.  What do we do in this country?  We equate class with race.  “ALL” blacks are poor and oppressed.  “ALL” whites have power and wealth.  I wonder where that leaves the rest of us.

 

…the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. 

 

Can I point out that by Mussolini’s definition, that fascism IS socialism in the extreme?

 

“The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state ”  -- Mussolini

 

Under pure socialism all commerce is owned and controlled by the state.  It is only a question of how much.  On the other hand if the government is owned and controlled by corporations, then it is crony capitalism.  But see how similar they are?

 

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a ... mishmash ...,arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. 

 

It is the left wing that wants to the federal govt to have more power (nationalism).  It is the left wing which wants to put down Jews and blame Israel for all Arab-Israeli conflicts.  It is the left wing that wants more socialism.  It sure sounds like a left wing party to me.

 

National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement

 

They can put on the mask of whatever wing they wanted.  In the end, they just wanted the state to have ultimate power.  The left wing is doing the same thing in today’s political climate.

 

In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divides, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism

 

Again we see the left wing ideas that religion should be done away with, political discourse should be limited only to those who agree with the left, and class equality must be mandated.

 

They may reject liberalism which would make it a right wing movement.

They may reject capitalism making it a left wing movement

But they can never reject socialism because that is the very essence of the economy under a totalitarian state.  How could it be any other?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I thought Hitler was a Facist. (I learned that from Mr. Francis in high school, in the stone age before internet.)

Carborendum, I read your post after I wrote my post. Facist is an extreme form of socialism?

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Hitler was a Facist. (I learned that from Mr. Francis in high school, in the stone age before internet.)

He was a fascist.  Read my post (#20).

 

Fascism is the marriage of the corporation and the state.  That is Nazism.  It is total socialism.

 

It is interesting to note that the Italian word for "corporation" and the Italian word for "society" is only one letter apart, so closely are they linked.  Yet the word used by Mussolini in Italian was sometimes translated as "the collective".  That's just screaming out socialism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

He was a fascist. Read my post (#20).

Fascism is the marriage of the corporation and the state. That is Nazism. It is total socialism.

It is interesting to note that the Italian word for "corporation" and the Italian word for "society" is only one letter apart, so closely are they linked. Yet the word used by Mussolini in Italian was sometimes translated as "the collective". That's just screaming out socialism.

Thanks for explaining. :) I did read your post (after I wrote mine...oops, LOL)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note that the Italian word for "corporation" and the Italian word for "society" is only one letter apart, so closely are they linked.

 

Can you explain this a bit further? As an Italian speaker (non-native), I know only of the word "società". ("Corporazione" is also a word, but according to Google Translate, it means "guild".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I type in "Company" "Society" "Corporation" into the translator and I get the same word "societa".  (sorry, I don't have any accent buttons).  But I saw a glitch the previous time I did it and it gave me a different spelling in Italian.  So, I guess there is no "one letter" difference.

 

But the word that Mussolini used was "corporativismo" when he gave the definition of fascism.  That is translated as "corporation" most commonly.  However, it is not a corporation that we think of (i.e. "corp" or "inc." or big business).  It was a set of state sponsored or organized groups that made up sectors of the economy.  The way M. defined them, and expected them to run, it wouldn't be too far to say a better translation was what Ayn Rand referred to as "the collective".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share