Many may recall the interview I conducted with my friend and associate, Stuart (a conservative analys
t), several months ago about Barack Obama. We had shared many interesting observations, and one of the main points Stuart brought forth is that when "anti-reality" people rise to power, the hard-working, family oriented individuals who believe in right and wrong are cast out as the new minority.
The interview may be read in its entirety here: "Barack Obama Exposed: An Interview with a Conservative Analyst."
I was talking with Stuart again this morning, and he seemed to be bubbling over with some insights about what defines the real America. I told him I've actually been aware of what he was saying for quite some time. I asked Stuart to do another interview, he agreed and it is my pleasure to reintroduce him at this time.
M: Stuart, I'm glad you were able to join me again for this interview.
S: Thanks; it's great to be back again!
M: We only talked briefly this morning; nevertheless, I was able to recognize what you were saying, because I've been aware of the exact same thing for quite some time. Do you believe so-called "progressives," are trying to define what constitutes the real America?
S: Yes. People basically have changed in this country and a downward spiral has existed for some time. The average American has become less independent, more needy and unwilling to live a conscientious, ethical life.
M: Why has this occurred?
S: Human nature on its base level looks for the easy way out for everything. From childhood a youngster will always tempt his parents to get his way. But a good parent always knows when to say "no." What would become of the child if everyone always allowed him to have his way? Can you imagine a world full of such people?
M: What is the solution?
S: Well, it could be realized or envisioned by creating an ideal model.
M: What should that model be?
S: The best model should be that developed and practiced by the founding fathers.
M: Hmm... If I understand you correctly, our founding fathers not only established our Constitution and a great set of rules, but they were also shining examples (even though I'm sure a lot of liberals would disagree, and they've been taught to believe they were villains of various sorts).
S: Yes. These were men were independent, moral and courageous, and the kind of people ready willing and able to run and maintain a free society. To them, a boundless, but responsible civilization meant more than anything else. They were willing to fight and even lay down their lives for this.
This was the average makeup of an American in those days. Can you imagine a man or a woman such as this asking or begging for welfare, becoming drug addicted, and having children out of wedlock? The list goes on, and these are only a few examples of the overwhelming stark contrast in what we see in today's world.
M: That's very well said. Again, however, I can picture many of our readers (perhaps younger ones) arguing about a multitude of faults they believe our founders manifested, such as being "slave owners," ECT.
This sort of belief has been promoted, and it seems fashionable in the liberal culture. It has unfortunately become accepted as "fact," like evolution or global warming. Many liberals and atheists believe our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and was not meant to be a nation under God.
By accepting such a belief system, it appears they would obviously overlook the good qualities of our founders and reject them as the very example you're pointing out. Is that not true?
S: Absolutely.
Let's put this together. We have our model and we have our modern man. How does our contemporary man actually become like our founders?
It really all starts with the belief system, regarding whether they're viewed as good or evil.
We, the people of today, must realize we have the power to transform our lives into moral and responsible beings by simply living from what we know to be right in our hearts.
M: Okay, but do you feel the liberal culture has altered our thinking, regarding what right and wrong really is?
S: The liberal man is the false man, made up of fears, excuses and rationalizations, never living a true, honest life. His only love is to do unto others what was done unto him, thus being a bigger enabler and corrupting the next generation. These individuals have to be seen for the liars and unprincipled people they really are.
M: Okay, so what about President Obama? Do you have any updated thoughts since our last interview?
S: President Obama has proven himself to be a great liar and a scoundrel. He has already contradicted himself on numerous occasions and has broken many promises.
M: Don't you also believe he has grabbed more power than any other President in U.S. history has acquired in such a short period of time?
S: Yes, and only because he is ambitious and really motivated to do what he wants to do.
M: Do you feel that involves leading us down the path to Socialism?
S: Well, President Obama's thoughts and mentality actually go beyond Socialism. He wants to be people's "everything."
M: Is this not a response to the masses who want him to be their "everything?"
S: It's very sad to say, but yes. If people didn't need his lies and deceit, he wouldn't be there. If people were to wake up and see how needy and weak they are (and decided to live without government aid in every facet of their lives), he would melt like a snowflake in the sun. Then, perhaps he would get a real job!
M: I hear you! Stuart, thanks for chatting with me again. I'll look forward to having you back before long!
S: You're welcome!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26 ( 9 removed by Marty K. )
He believes that "Rush Limbaugh" and "Repubicans" are the problem, instead of Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party from heck. This represents the thinking today's people who have apparently undergone a mass mesmerization and brainwashing.
Sadly, people such Sam refuse to see or acknowledge the people who are causing the problems and he places the blame on the people who actually do have sense.
I guess I would agree with Stuart, if I were a White male. I have said it before, and I'll say it again. We must and can learn from our past, but only if we have the objectivity and moral courage to accept what that past was.
At the time of the founding fathers, you wouldn't have wanted to be a female, or anything but Caucasian.
Of course you can all delude yourself into what our history has been, but there is no learning from it, if it isn't the truth.
Nanina, if you review my article, I predicted there would be people similar to you finding fault with the founders. People who would regard them as "slave owners," and such. You are the exact type of person I was referencing and predicted would respond.
Ironically, women of that time were not contentious and were not feminists. HOWEVER...you will only interpret this to mean that they were "oppressed and too meek to stand up for themselves." That is the liberal, feminist way of thinking, and it is also the way all fairly young people (say, under 40 or so) have been trained and conditoned to believe.
Unfortunately, it represents a lack of understanding and a disdain for America and our DECENT founders. I largely blame the school system and certainly the liberal agenda for this very sad indoctrination.
Especially if was as boring and silly as this "interview".
I didn't say "recall;" I said "review." Besides, your name says "Erik," not "Nanina" (even though you sound more like a "Nanina").
You are wrong Marty, I am not under 40 or so . . . I am not a feminist. I know that the founding fathers were involved in sending my Ancestors to reservations. They were involved in taking Indian children from their parents and sending them to Christian boarding schools.
Most of all, I am a realist and prefer the truth. It has nothing to do with being conditioned or looking at things through rose colored glasses. I am sure you will continue to, so the past looks rosy to you. Nothing is every perfect, it wasn't then and it isn't now.
We must and can learn from our past, but only if we have the objectivity and moral courage to accept what that past was.
Of course Marty, some of us live in reality!
Oh I get it now, another one who doesn't really want to discuss anything. I guess the interview was a dead give away. I could interview myself too, and say I am interviewing my friend and associate, Stuart (a conservative analyst), I am very sure his answers would be different.
Oh and Hi Erik, I am certain you are not me.
Only interesting to you.
" and one of the main points Stuart brought forth is that when "anti-reality" people rise to power, the hard-working, family oriented individuals who believe in right and wrong are cast out as the new minority."
That's just more opinion, based on your opinion.
No, I don't RECALL reading anything of yours in the past, but if it's transparent and sloppy as this, it's no wonder.
Regardless, it will be a cold day in heck when you're able to outclass me. In fact, it doesn't appear that you have much class at all with your name calling and girlish silly noise posts that I've had to remove. However, no half-way sensible posts have been eliminated.
THis is a joke, right?
Well, never mind. I don't think I'm going waste much more time on here, if any. The only responses are from a bunch of clueless people. Honestly, this is rather disappointing. I hae better ways to spend my time.
When a person has a need to be condescending, anything they have to say becomes moot. If it has validity then they don't need to be condescending.
You do not know me, you do not know what I have been taught and by whom. I have read the New Testaments and the socialists in, there, is called Jesus. I do not lay claim to Christianity, but many people do, yet they scream about socialists.
George Washington wrote in 1785, "let the poor, the needy and oppressed of the Earth, and those who want Land, resort to the fertile plains of our western country, the Second Land of Promise, and there dwell in peace, fulfilling the first and great commandment."
Marty you and your shadow friend made many assertions of "morality" among the founders that should be followed as example. Like slaveholding? (Jefferson, Washington, etc.) Like sexual blackmail? (Hamilton.) Like religion? (Jefferson bible deleting the miracles etc.)
Our founders were men and women of incredible vision and bravery but were made of the same brittle clay as you and me. THey possesed a willing to sacrifice life and fortune for the rule of law under the Constitution, a bright line of seperation of Chuch and State and faith in the peoples ability to govern themselves without kings, noble or priests. Today the RW tries to steal from history selected notions of social and political conformity and use them as wedges to divide the nation. Not on my watch or any other patriotic American.
Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Ironically, you may or may not have even thought of complaining about it, HAD I NOT BROUGHT IT UP FIRST!
The slave situation was an unfortunate occurrence, but guess what, Sam - it was CORRECTED and if there were no decent men, it would NOt have been corrected. THESE ARE THE FACTUAL GROUNDS YOU HAVE REQUESTED.
However, Sam, will you and the other GATHER LIBERALS now be satisified, or happy about anything I say? I think not. Nor do I think you and they will have respect for my right to Freedom of Speech
So why don't you stop loitering around the kitchen, yourself?
Wrong Marty, I have respect for your Freedom of Speech. When people use the argument of Freedom of Speech, they tend to use it as I have said this, so now shut up. You have your right to Freedom of Speech and so do us Liberals. You get what you give, you want your Freedom of Speech respected you have to respect the rights of other to do the same.
If you didn't want input on your article, then you could have posted it without allowing comments. Freedom of Speech has never meant listen to me, but I don't want to listen to you.
You implied I was 40 years old or younger, by the way, thanks for that, but it just isn't true.
You implied that I am a feminist, again that is not true.
You implied that I am a Liberal, and on that one you got it right. What I don't understand is you say it like it is a bad thing. It isn't I am proud to be a Liberal, I have searched my heart and that is where it has led me, I am quite content with it.
Please do not invoke the Freedom of Speech, when what you are really saying is I want you to agree with me, or I will delete your comments. Agree with me or I don't want to hear what you say.
Liberalism stresses the importance of human rights, the rule of law, and representative liberal democracy as the best form of government. Our elected representatives are subject to the rule of law, and their power is moderated by a constitution, which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the majority, thereby liberalism, especially if backed up by a written constitution, becomes a necessary precursor and ultimate guarantor of democracy.
The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of those that are governed.
Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine personal values. In the United States this neutrality is expressed in the Declaration of Independence as the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Liberalism advocates civil rights for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty extended to all citizens equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of race, gender and class.
I have reread this thread and nowhere have I seen your right to Free Speech violated.
Your entire "argument" is that your opinion is more valid than anyone elses, without ANY facts to even support your argument.
No one is abridging your freedom to express your opinion, no matter how patently ridiculous I find it.
Your characterizations of "liberals" are filled with baseless opinion, lies and raging hipocracy. Your rant about "socialism" demostrates ignorance of history and economics. You have no specfices to refute. That is easy for a partisan "spinner" to do. No specifics, no accounatblity. It worked for Herman Goebbles and Karl Rove.
Marty it is YOU that hates America, because you don't have a clue what America is. The myths and ignorance of people like are truly what is wrong with the nation.
Whenever a liberal such as you wants to shut people up and go against their right of free speech, false accusations such as you've presented are made because you can't stand to bear the truth of what's been presented.
In addition, Sam, please learn so spell and/or proofread before replying and accusing others of "ignorance."
Either way, you need to accept that what is RIGHT and what is WRONG depends on the perspective of those judging. Turns out that what is right to you has by society been deemed wrong. Accept that and move on, or complain and die with your political party. The choice is yours