E. Graham: Obama the destroyer

Karl Marx hated the Judeo/Christian faith and did everything to defy the greatest moral principles ever known to mankind. His adherents today promote quick access to divorce, abortion, cohabitation, gay marriage and more.

Recently, a local news station did a story on the longest marriage in America, 78 years. President Barack Obama learned of the marriage and made public comment on it. The husband of 78 years was a little bit incredulous that his marriage would be noted by President Obama.

I don't wonder, since Obama dares to redefine true marriage. I have heard it said that Obama has surrounded himself with Marxist folks. Certainly, he shows hatred for his Judeo/Christian faith as he promotes gay marriage — never known in history before.

The words of Richard Land are fitting here: "Social conservatives deeply distrust President Obama, whom they believe to be the most liberal and socially radical president ever. They strongly believe that another four years of his policies will permanently harm the social, economic and cultural fabric of our country."

I would say, it could destroy the country.

Elaine Graham, Farmington

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Take a look at

Take a look at what Hitler did when he got in office. Study it well. Then take a look at what obama has done and wants to do. There isn't much difference.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Dan

Dan look at the facts. Take your head out of the sand and do a fair unbiasesd comparison. Thats all I ask.

Bob Woodbury's picture

You base your comment on...

..."I have heard it said..."? C'mon, Elaine. What do you take us for?

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ms. Graham: Just so you know,

Ms. Graham:
Just so you know, referring to oBAMa as a destroyer is an affront and an insult to every great U.S. naval vessel that ever bore the letters DD preceding their serial numbers.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

What is a socialist?

I'm tired of hearing Obama is a socialist. What does that mean? That he believes in roads, schools, libraries, airports? That he believes that communities should care for their children, sick and elderly? That he believes in the United States of America and not a collection of un-united states. Everybody in this country has some interest in how the government works. Some people have a louder voice than others. Right now it is the people with the money and they are saying all sorts of things to scare voters into voting their interests. One such group is strongly advocating war with Iran, for example. Another group is virulently fighting congressional investigations of the financial debacle of 2008 and limits on offshore accounts,tax loopholes and regulations on hedge funds. They say that Obama is the worst president ever without ever getting specific about why that is so. We need to ignore statements like this and look to the money: who is spending it and what they want for it.

David A. Gagnon's picture

You just answered

your question. He believes in the collective and not individualism. He believes in the state (meaning big government) not community to take care of the poor. He believes in taking your money by force (higher taxes)in order to pay for his socialistic ideas. I shouldn't be paying for anyone's healthcare but my own. Social liberals believe I should pay for everyone's including my own. I should be allowed to give if I want not forced into it by liberals who love spending other peoples money and not their own. Fact, social liberals like you and Obama on average are the lowest donors to community programs, veterans programs, handicap programs and the likes,but your the biggest bunch of cry babies. If and when you do donate, your always running your mouth about it. Obama always states when he speaks: I did this and I did that, no matter if he had anything to do with it or not. And by the way, Obama is itching for a fight with Iran, that's what Biden was yapping his gums about when they took office. The big moment that Obama is gonna shine. Remember that.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Where to start

Collective efforts are what built everything in the society you enjoy from roads, airports, electricity, churches, schools, postal service, libraries, hospitals, the military etc. etc. Some of these efforts were voluntary as in church efforts but most happened through taxation which only means that everyone who enjoys the benefit pays their share. No one is obliged to pay taxes. You can always move to Somalia where the taxes are very low or non-existent. You pay taxes because you don't want to live in a society where you have to pay protection money to drug lords and tribal leaders. Or you could move to the South Pole where there is no collective anything. As for the health care law it is not social medecine. Social medicine is what they have in England or what we have in the VA. The health care law requires people to buy insurance from private companies. That is social responsibility not socialism. It is the same as requiring people who give birth to children to pay child support. It means the rest of us are not stuck to pay for their behavior. People who do not have health insurancee routinely stick the rest of us with their medical bills. They need to take responsibility and I have no problem mandating it. The alternative is to let them die in the street when they have a car accident or a heart attack. I have no problem with that but I don't see it happening for practical reasons. As for Iran, Obama has been under heavy pressure from many sources to attack and he has chosen to use sanctions instead for which your side has called him weak on defense repeatedly. Make up your mind.

David A. Gagnon's picture

Really Claire, you really believe that?

Who pays the taxes in this country? The top 50% of all wage earners that's who. And who benefits the most from those taxes? The bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes. The collective is what brought Russia to it's knees and is about to do the same in all of the EU accept for a few that have rescued themselves by changing course and moving away from the collective state. The collective didn't bring out all of the above. Because if we were in a true collective state (of which we are on our way under this President)we wouldn't have all the schools, airports, libraries. A postal service that has run itself off the road, to the point that the private sector could do a better job for less money. The military was not brought about through a collective. It was here long before the income tax. This country got along fine without income taxes as we know them. In 1895 an intermittent income tax was implemented by the Feds. Prior to that it was collecting only pole taxes, excise taxes and sales taxes. 1913 was the year a permanent income tax was imposed on the people. So according to your post we didn't have schools prior to 1913, we didn't have a military, we had roads that may have been dirt but may have been better than the run down roads we have today do to wasteful spending at all levels of government. Oh and we didn't have protection back then, because we had something called the keystone cops I believe. Really Clair. Do you really believe that.

RONALD RIML's picture

I call B.S.

There are no bottom 50% who pay no taxes.

How in the hell does one keep from paying sales taxes, communication excise taxes on telephone bills, excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, property taxes, etc ad finatum.

BTW - The first income tax was levied in 1861, it was later repealed - but again reinstated to finance the civil war - so learn of which you speak.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Liberal use of ctrl-c, ctrl-v

Liberal use of ctrl-c, ctrl-v there Ronald.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Dan, Unlike you, Ronald does

Dan,

Unlike you, Ronald does backup his assertions with supporting material.

I don’t recall ever seeing you provide supporting material.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Maybe this will help you

Maybe this will help you clear your vision about the welfare state.

Testiment to the welfare state.

David A. Gagnon's picture

I was refering to income tax and you knew that

Sales tax and excise taxes property taxes have been around for as long as this country has been in around. And the 50% reference was to those who pay income taxes which I will remind you again that income taxes became permanent in 1913.

RONALD RIML's picture

That's not what you wrote

David A. Gagnon wrote:

"Who pays the taxes in this country? The top 50% of all wage earners that's who. And who benefits the most from those taxes? The bottom 50% who don't pay any taxes."

Don't B.S. - You mentioned nothing about Income taxes. You said: "any taxes"

David A. Gagnon's picture

Hate too say it Ronny boy but your the one BS'n

You BS just like your President does.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Russian collectivism?

I see we have an Ayn Rand admirer. Well I would disagree that the top 50% benefits less. Mitt Romney earns $57,000 a day in interest as a reward for being one of the top 50%. I think he makes out better than any welfare case I ever heard of. As for the rest of us, at the very least we got an education. 12 years of sitting in a warm safe building getting the skills that enable us to write on this blog and earn a living and more importantly educate ourselves as adults and teach our children. And we didn't pay for it but someone did with their taxes. When our home catches fire, someone comes, when our babies get sick someone takes care of them whether we have money or not. I could go on but I'd say the top 50% benefits plenty even from an 8.3 unemployment rate. All the other things I mentioned are paid for with taxes no matter what you call them. The whole notion of rugged individualism is a crock. It made no sense the minute a second person walked on this planet. For me someone who lives in a community and enjoys the benefits that comes with it but doesn't want to support it is like someone who goes to a restaurant, stuffs himself then won't pay the bill. I would not argue that there is waste, and that many government programs need to be improved. That's why we have elections. As for Russian collectivism, I can't believe you really think we are communists. I think Russian totalitarianism had more to do with their downfall than collectivism. If that was the case how would you explain the fastest growing economy in the world :The People's Republic of China

MARK GRAVEL's picture

“If that was the case how

“If that was the case how would you explain the fastest growing economy in the world :The People's Republic of China.”

1. Currency that does not float with world markets.
2. Large supply of cheap and in some cases slave, labor.

Perhaps if you lived in China, you would not be as free to criticize your government in the manner that we do enjoy here in the US. You frequently hold up China in high esteem; I’m not sure that I would; in fact, I know with 100% certainty that I would not.

Lastly, there are privately funded roads, airports, electricity produces, schools, and postal services, and hospitals. I don’t recall any publically funded churches.

The big difference between your view of the world and that of individualist, the collective pooling of funds is voluntary, where it is mandatory in your version.

Let’s examine one of your examples of collectivism, the postal service. Privately owned competitors kick the snot out of the publically funded post-office. If it were not against the law for privately owned carriers prohibiting them from delivering fist-class mail, the publically funded postal services would probably go out of business. Think about it. USPS has a monopoly on first-class mail delivery, and they are staggering toward financial collapse – not good role model for your argument.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The post office

The problem with reading only the headlines and soundbites is that they are misleading. The post office is facing financial collapse for 2 reasons which have nothing to do with its efficiency. One is that Congress requires it to keep a large amount of cash on the books to fund retirement pensions in advance. If I recall correctly 20 years worth of pension funds. No private business has that requirement. Secondly, the post office was not created as a for profit enterprise but as a community service and as such is required to serve every inch of this country whether it is profitable or not. Private companies can cancel service anywhere and anytime a route is not profitable. You are comparing apples and oranges. If you want an only private mail service then you will have to live with the fact that mail will be delivered mainly in the cities and on a schedule convenient to the business and they will close up shop whenever they please leaving you with no mail delivery at all. When all the factors are equal the private concern is almost always more costly and less dependable than a publicly funded service.

David A. Gagnon's picture

Talk to UPS

and FedX about rural delivery. They do it every day at a marginal profit. FedX does home delivery in all rural areas of Maine. UPS does the same with business deliveries. All areas that the USPS doesn't currently delivery including the same areas USPS delivers to. UPS has huge pension funds as does USPS. UPS's retired drivers live pretty well on their retirements. The USPS may have been created as a not for profit like you say, but it is a business, a business that has never made budget, always operating at huge losses, because of bad business practices. Remember, it's still a business.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

David, Let’s assume that

David,
Let’s assume that Claire’s assertion is correct and that private delivers will not service rural areas. Let’s also assume for the sake of discussion that 80% of the USPS budget is spent servicing urban and suburban areas, the same geographic areas that private delivery services thrive, and 20% of the USPS budget is spend servicing rural areas.

Wouldn’t it still be far less expensive for the taxpayer if USPS only service rural areas?

UPSP could save 80% in operating expenses relative to this example.

David A. Gagnon's picture

All a bunch of BS. You just

All a bunch of BS. You just keep eating that BS.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Oh, and you want to know what

Oh, and you want to know what really pisses me off about the post office. My publically owned (i.e. collective) community mail box has two non-functional package boxes with broken keys stuck in the locks. The post office tells me they don’t have the money to fix to boxes. I offered to pay to have someone repair them. I was warned that the postal boxes are property of the US post office and that I could be cited if I mess with the boxes on my own accord (i.e. my individualism).

Three years have elapsed, and the boxes are still broken.

Do we really need more of this form of collectivism – I think not.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

David, Just examine Claire’s

David,

Just examine Claire’s examples.
1. Why is the number of private schools on the rise? Why do people avoid the public schools if they can?
2. Why to people avoid publically funded hospitals and clinics if they can afford too?
3. Why is the US postal office on the verge of financial collapse?
4. and so on and so on…

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Private schools

The number of private schools is on the rise mainly in communities where the public schools are underfunded. You also see a lot of private schools that are religious in nature and some people send their kids to private schools for social and racial motives. The good thing about this country is that we have the freedom to do that. I can tell you from personal experience that many of these private schools go out of existence and when they do students return to the public system because it does not close down. Also private schools are not required to report their proficiency or even to test it and sometimes that can cover up a lot of deficiencies and when that happens the public schools often end up those students in the later grades with huge academic deficiencies. It's difficult to foresee that if you don't test or if your focus is primarily religious or social and you are not monitoring progress. On the other hand I have seen students who were home schooled or who came from private schools who were advanced. Mostly though, private schools have difficulty offering the same services as the public schools especially for the learning disabled. Usually they only accept the smartest students and offer only one kind of academic preparation. That is way less expensive than what the public schools are required to do and it looks really good when all of your graduates get accepted to prestigious schools. Again this is comparing apples and oranges. Public schools are about creating an opportunity for everybody to develop whatever talents God gave them. Private schools are about making money. They usually end up being more expensive, accomplish fewer goals and are less dependable.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Claire, The following comment

Claire,
The following comment that you made is a common claim for underperforming schools:

“…the public schools are underfunded”

Can you quantitatively tell me what is the appropriate level of funding in dollars per student?

How do you measure whether that level of funding is effective?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

effective funding

If I am buying a vehicle, I have to consider what I want it to do. If I commute long distances I probably want a compact with really good gas mileage and can probably get one fairly cheaply. If I am hauling heavy, bulky loads, I probably want a truck which will cost more because I can't get the job done with a compact. If I have a classroom full of students who come from stable, academically supportive homes who have average or above ability, I can educate them fairly cheaply. They need a good teacher and access to technology and they are good. Public schools are routinely educating these students successfully and sending them on to college. If I have a classroom with students who are learning disabled, suicidal, homicidal, have PTSD, or are homeless, those students are very expensive to educate. They need individual monitoring, psychiatric services, counseling, often medical care, food, remedial teachers, sometimes even clothing and social workers. Most teachers do not want to work in this environment or they lack the training to succeed, so it is more expensive to get qualified staff. The goal is to provide the opportunity for EVERY student to develop their abilities so that they can function in society. Because we have mainly community funding the richest communities who have the cheapest students to educate spend the most. The poorest communities, usually rural or inner city, spend the least but have the most expensive students to educate. I call those underfunded because they cannot achieve their goals with the resources they have. Cape Elizabeth spends more than twice as much per student but they have a fairly cheap population to educate. Lewiston has many expensive students to educate and does it with half the funding. Coincidentally, one of the few schools in Maine meeting all the goals of the NCLB testing is Cape Elizabeth.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"DAVID ROCKS", screeched the

"DAVID ROCKS", screeched the parrot.

Mark Wrenn's picture

http://images.dailydawdle.com

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I'm sick of all of it

I'm just sick of constantly hearing about who is and isn't in favoor of gay marrige. I don't care. If two guys or two women want to get married, I say go for it. I can say that because no way in this lifetime will it ever affect me.
I'm single by choise, isn't that just as much an insult to the sanctity of marrage. Most of the people I know including my own two brothers have gotten married had a couple of kids bought expensive homes, then peoceded to get divorced. Then because they didn't learn thier lesson the first time, they got married again. This is what the powers that be are fighting for. Is this the sanctity of marrage? I say if men and women can constantly screw it up, give the gays a chance maybe someone will learn something from them.
Like I said, I'm single. I will always be single. If gays get married, great they cant be worse at it than anyone else. Just stop trying to tell me who is trying the hardest to prevent something that will never have any affect on my life. I know alot of people are going to tell me how wrong I am. Save your time, like most everything else, I don't give a damm.
That had a very pleasant Sunday morning feel to it, didn't it.

Ellis McKeen's picture

Redefine Marriage?

Ms. Elaine, having respectfully read your letters over the years, I would like your opinion. When whites were permitted to marry blacks, was that a redefinition of marriage? Looking forward to your response. Thank you.

GARY SAVARD's picture

Obama may drive us into the

Obama may drive us into the poor house, but he won't be able to destroy us. Other lousy presidents from both parties have preceeded BHO, and left us bruised but still standing.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Agreed, but why give BHO four

Agreed, but why give BHO four more years to finish us off?

GARY SAVARD's picture

I sure as ....didn't say give

I sure as ....didn't say give him four more years Paul, IMO, he's had three too many as we speak!

RONALD RIML's picture

And I would say

Whatever you're smoking - it must be good!!!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That's right, we should all

That's right, we should all be watching the Tron channel, specializing in fantasy, fairy dust, disinformation, unreason, intolerance of differing opinions, and just plain bovine scat.

David A. Gagnon's picture

And the rest of the alphabet

And the rest of the alphabet stations are fair and balanced Danny boy? Working the facts to make this President look good doesn't make them fair and balanced.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...