Bookmark and Share


Saturday, January 17, 2009

Dear Mr. President, this conservative wants you to fail.

Download The Full Audio MP3 below: Right click then Save Target As


I find myself using a lot of analogies lately and this presentation will continue that trend. First and foremost, I need you to understand one thing; President Obama (It’s still weird for me to say that), is not a terrorist. This is not a premise for my argument so if anyone brings this up again, whether personally or on my blog, I’ll just have to correct you again. So no, President Obama is not a terrorist. I also need you to remember what an analogy is, like I said last time, an analogy is comparing two things with differences and similarities to gain clarity on one of the two things being compared.

So do we understand each other? Let us begin. There is a war being fought right now in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas. The two groups believe of themselves that their goals are noble. Israel wants to just be left alone and for Hamas to stop firing rockets into their country. Hamas on the other hand are seeking the total annihilation of Israel. My question to you is this, who do we wish to succeed? Now many republicans (not conservatives) are saying, we need to support this new president and hope for his success. Well we need to ask the republicans making this silly request, how do you define success? If by success they mean the betterment of the United States then yes, this conservative wishes that. The problem lies in the incompatibility of President Obama’s goals with the betterment of this country - in the same way Hamas’ goals are incompatible with the betterment of any country or anyone for that matter.

So then what are President Obama’s beliefs and by implication, his goals?

On Social issues:
• He does not believe that a fetus is a human being until after 9 months. He expressed this view on the floor of the Illinois senate as he was explaining why a survivor of a botched abortion is owed no medical care.
• He believes that homosexual couples are equal in every way to heterosexual couples. He did stop short of supporting gay marriage but that strikes me as being rather inconsistent. My point is this; people who are on the side of gay marriage have a friend in the White house now.
• He has never opposed his party’s liberal views on anything. He was the most liberal senator.

On economic issues:
• He believes high taxes are awesome.
• He believes that all major industries would be better off if they were run by the government. So he’s definitely socialistic in his views.

On matters pertaining to government:

• He thinks Justice Clarence Thomas is not smart enough to serve on the Supreme Court.
• He wants our courts to be fair (to the small man) not just. So that our courts would no longer be guided by the constitution.
• He believes that government is the rightful benefactor of we the people.

On national defense:

• He does not believe in gaining information from terrorist by any force.
• He does not believe the United States has the moral high ground in the war on terror.
• Warrantless wire taps should be strictly prohibited in gaining intelligence on our enemies.
• He wants to quit in Iraq before the job is done.
• He thinks it is ok to advise the president of Iraq without the permission of the president (then George Bush).

Finally on love for country: Obama blames the United States at every opportunity, even on foreign soil.

There is so much more I could add to this list but as Shakespeare once wrote, “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, and tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes, I will be brief.” Now I understand that you might have a more liberal worldview. And in your case I could see why you might be able to wish President Obama success in his endeavors. Please understand however that as a conservative and given everything this man believes in; I could no more wish for the success of Hamas than I could the success of President Obama because in my heart I believe his views, if he’s successful at carrying them out, will ultimately hurt the country. And so although my title for this week sounds somewhat mean-spirited, It is not meant that way, in fact I have a tremendous amount of respect for the office.

I don’t wish him success but I do wish him God’s blessings and a speedy recovery from his liberal affliction. After that miracle occurs I Danian Michael will join the chorus line wishing President Obama success. Until such time however, this conservative whishes him failure. God bless America!

Danian Michael,
Political Agenda.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am an independent. I am probably the average center right person you hear about. I do think the fact he is our first Black president is a positive for our country's racial divide. On policy,though, he does seem very liberal which is why I didn't vote for him. But..I'd like to see what he does...I am hoping that he moves to the center (and there are some indications that he has). However, I admit that I am concerned for our country's security if he does not.

January 22, 2009 at 6:29 AM  
Blogger Danian Michael said...


Thank you for your comment. I agree with you that he needs to continue his journey to the right and I will support him in this journey. Like I said, when he is cured of his liberal affliction I will be right behind him, even when the cure is only a partial cure. I know he's a Democrat so I have to be somewhat pragmatic in my approach to his presidency; a democrat is what the country (thinks) it wants right now. But the fact of his wrong views and goals for this country remains just that; wrong view and goals for this country. And so against what might seem insurmountable, I have to fight the good fight. And I hope you will too Anonymous.

January 22, 2009 at 9:51 AM  
Blogger Agent of change said...


I saw your title and I had to read where you were coming from. Actually I listened to the presentation. I like your speaking voice. Anyway I thought you would have been just another sore looser republican. But I was wrong. Good job.

I do have one question however, what do you say to people who genuinely support our troops but don't like their mission, say in Iraq?

January 22, 2009 at 11:27 AM  
Blogger Danian Michael said...

Agent of Change,

Great question. I have always maintained that people who were against the war never really supported our troops. They may have respect for our troops, they may even love our troops but they never supported them. Support is indelibly link to the goal of that which is being supported; indeed they are mutually exclusive.

January 23, 2009 at 1:42 PM  
Blogger BiGhEaD said...

Supporting our troops is all our government should be concerning themselves with. We've already lost more men and women in battle than died in 9/11. We've dumped trillions of dollars into a war on terror that is finally starting to show it's true form... a scam by the Military Industrial Complex. It's a different world, that's for sure. But the problems of the world will not be solved with bullets, rockets and tanks.
Terrorism is not like a cancer, something that can be "burnt or cut out", like I've heard some Jewish folks talk about the Palestinians on youtube. It is a reaction to an action, and the most obvious action they are reacting to, is our unconditional support of Israel. And to the point about Barak's liberal leanings, so far, he sounds about as liberal as Bush when it comes to the middle east.

January 25, 2009 at 12:41 AM  
Blogger BiGhEaD said...

One more thing, I assume based on your last comments, that you don't support the troops that went over there, and became conscientious objectors when they were backdoor drafted??? Just curious...


January 25, 2009 at 12:44 AM  
Blogger Danian Michael said...


Did you actually say, "Supporting our troops is all our government should be concerning themselves with." All I can say is wow!! On this you and I have complete agreement. This was bound to happen one day.

I just have two questions: You condemn us for reacting to terrorism; Do you have a condemnation of the terrorist for their reaction to our support of a country? Do we not have the right to support a country. 2nd. Question; Is the killing of innocent people a reasonable reaction to our support of a country and if it is, well we certainly can react to the killing of our people with the killing of theirs.

We are way of topic here but you know me, I'll go where you go even if it's off on a tangent.

I don't understand what you mean by backdoor drafted, please explain as I don't want to assume. And my answer to your last blog entry is this. I have a profound respect for our troops, all of them. But to the ones whose goals are diametrically opposed to my own (on anything); no, they do not have my support. But does that surprise you. I don't suppose you have any support for members of our armed forces who want to pursue things you disagree with?

What say you?

January 25, 2009 at 6:12 PM  
Blogger BiGhEaD said...

To answer your first question, well, there were about three lumped into one...
"You condemn us for reacting to terrorism;" I condemn the way we reacted to 9/11. Iraq didn't attack us, why did we attack it? 15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia, we're still friends with them.
"Do you have a condemnation of the terrorist for their reaction to our support of a country?" Yes. I strongly believe that using violence against civilians for political gain is wrong, in every way. Where you and I differ is how we see what the U.S. is doing in the Middle East. It is impossible to snuff out extremism by killing more civilians, even if they are "collateral damage" to getting the "bad guys". Every man woman or child that we kill, has a brother or father, or son, that will be that much more likely to join a terrorist organization to get revenge. Every time we use economic sanctions against a country, and kill hundreds of thousands of children, you are going to make enemies. The best way to fight terrorism, is to remove the motive for joining. If you don't want to fight insurgence forces, don't be an occupying force in someone's homeland.
" Do we not have the right to support a country." This leads me to Israel. It is one thing to support a country with aid or be an arbitrator with surrounding nations. I am all for diplomacy. But the U.S. foreign policy with Israel has been one that has fuelled the violence in the Middle East, not quelled it. The U.S. has been the sole roadblock to several UN Security resolutions, that were meant to cut down terrorism, reduce violence, and so on. The US and Israel consistently vote these things down. We give Israel over $2B a year in Military Aid. Why??
I think I answered the second question already. nothing about terrorism is "reasonable". I just wish the US would stop being the leader in committing terrorist acts...
And for the backdoor's called Stop-loss. can't believe you haven't heard of it, they even made a movie about it. Service men and women fulfill their duty to the government, and just when they're about to leave, they are sent back to Iraq, or Afghanistan, or wherever... but it's not negotiable, and it's illegal. well, it was until Bush wrote a signing statement that made it legal. It's basically a back door draft. they get them on the way out...
As far as supporting troops "who want to pursue things you disagree with?" I'm not sure I get it. I mean, there are all kinds of people in the armed forces. good guys, some bad guys, whatever... of course I can't give a blanket statement that says I support all troops, even those who like to kill kids for fun... WTF?

January 28, 2009 at 10:13 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home