Tuesday, October 7, 2014
"Stop the coming Civil War."
WND EXCLUSIVE
MICHAEL SAVAGE: 1 MONTH LEFT TO SAVE AMERICA
New 'prophetic' book warns nation ahead of mid-termsPublished: 11 hours ago
When Barack Obama introduced himself at the 2004 Democratic National Convention declaring there was only one America – “not a liberal America and a conservative America” and “not a black America and white America” – many instantly envisioned him as a future presidential candidate with a unique heritage and extraordinary rhetorical skills that would enable him to unite a nation divided over political ideology and race.
Not long into his presidency, however, it became apparent to many, including some liberals, that Obama’s leadership and policies had only exacerbated the divisions.
Most attributed his failures to simple incompetence, but Michael Savage saw something much more sinister happening, and in his new book – “Stop the Coming Civil War” – he charges Obama is deliberately dividing the country.
At the time Savage finished the manuscript, several months ago, many continued to mock the provocative notion that any president would purposefully damage the nation.
Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
But recent events, including the flood of Central American illegal aliens and the entry of the Ebola virus to the U.S., have made “Stop the Coming Civil War,” Savage’s 30th book, seem prophetic.
Meanwhile, an increasing number of bewildered Democrats are distancing themselves from Obama.
In his concluding chapter, Savage bluntly states his book, published by Center Street Books, is about “the conflict the current administration is pushing in the name of a broader worldwide liberal revolution.”
“As I see it, the forces of the left are attempting nothing less than a socialist takeover of the world economy and global politics,” he writes.
In an interview with WND, Savage said his publisher recently expressed to him amazement that “everything you said was going to happen or would happen is happening this minute.”
Savage sees it as deductive logic.
“Obama’s been engaged in a civil war from the day he seized the presidency,” Savage told WND. “He said he’s going to transform America. What was that? What was that declaration? It’s a declaration of war against the country’s traditional values and freedoms.”
“It was clear what he was going to do, but everyone was dancing around the golden calf,” he said.
As WND reported, Savage told his listeners last week that Ebola has now come to the U.S. because of Obama’s open-borders policy, which also has allowed once-eradicated diseases to enter through Central American illegal-alien minors who are being placed in public schools nationwide.
Michael Savage
Savage said the “worst part of the story” is that if Obama is allowed to continue, “this country doesn’t survive.”
He noted Vice President Joseph Biden’s statement at the John F. Kennedy Forum at Harvard last Thursday that the post-World War II order is “literally fraying at the seams.”
“What was he trying to say?” Savage asked. “Was he playing like he’s suddenly discovered what he’s done to the country? And now he’s triangulating his opposition to make believe he’s the savior?
“It’s not just a joke,” he told WND. “We’re at the end of the road here. I don’t want to live in a Venezuela under a dictatorship and look back 40 years and say, ‘Why didn’t someone stop him?’”
In January, Savage told his listeners of his work on the book, calling the things he was discovering “frightening” and concluding, “The more I get into it, the worse it looks for us.”
Last chance
Savage, the author of six New York Times bestsellers, said he had no financial or personal need to write another book. His aim, he said, is to warn the nation that the mid-term election one month from now is the only realistic opportunity to stop Obama.
“After 29 books, I don’t need another bestseller,” he told WND. “What I need is the last chance to change the course of human events. I am praying that the people awaken before the election in November.”
Though he described the Republican Party as “tepid,” Savage said “they’re the only chance we have.”
“If every Democrat Socialist Islamist is fired, and the Republicans take the Senate, we can lobby the Republican Party through town hall meetings,” he said. “We can shake them up and make them do what needs to be done.”
The Democrats, on the other hand, Savage said, “are absolutely immune to any lobbying whatsoever,” pointing to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as a chief example.
“Are you telling me she is going to listen to the average American about saving the country?” he asked. “Of course not.”
See the entire Savage collection in the WND Superstore.
Savage sees the 300-plus referenced pages of his book as a “blueprint for impeachment.”
“I did what the whole Republican Party should have been doing for the last year,” he said.
“You take this book and slap it down in Congress. ‘Here’s the grounds for impeachment. In this blueprint.’ That’s why I want everyone to read the thing,” he said.
Spiritual disease
Savage told WND he was invited to give a few words before the beginning of a Yom Kippur service at a synagogue.
He said he told the large Jewish audience the world “is coming apart at the seams” and people offer many explanations for what is happening.
Savage asked: “When America was ruled by practicing Christian presidents, wasn’t the world a safer place?”
He said silence came over the audience.
“They heard me,” he said. “I didn’t have to say that we have an atheist, communist, socialist, anarchist in the White House. All I said is that when we had a practicing Christian in the White House, the world was a safer place.
“I said there’s a spiritual disease that we’re suffering from, and America put this man in there, and the world is falling apart as a result.”
Read more -month-left-to-save-america/#tG3gOzqumMdpAcRw.99
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
And of course William you believe all this nonsense. A Michael Savage book. Might as well read Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or any number of Obama/liberal haters. They all spout the same nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI'm more worried about the Zombie Apocalypse ...
ReplyDeleteAs a life long believer and supporter of the Conservative ideals and political thought, I find the post here astounding. Does anyone of sane mind, who is capable of rational thinking, believe the views espoused by the author Michael Savage? This is even worse than being conned by the clever but carefully self centered presentations of Michael Moore. Savage makes no attempt to provide a discussion point; he bulldozes through the perceived opposition to his views and gives us a rabid discourse full of his own opinion. Quote “They heard me,” he said. “I didn’t have to say that we have an atheist, communist, socialist, anarchist in the White House. All I said is that when we had a practicing Christian in the White House, the world was a safer place Unquote. There in one sentence we have an atheist, communist, anarchist and although not said I suspect he also wanted to add the N word. All this from a man who wants a Christian to live in the White House! I wonder if anyone will bother to refute the rubbish. Probably not as like me they will only respond when otherwise sensible people follow William in offering support without bothering to offer an alternative.
ReplyDeleteIn a little over two years America will have the opportunity to end your experiment with a colored President and eight years of division and political infighting on the hill, I wonder what will be the result if Carson gets up for the Repubs? No doubt the Dems will then pull a left wing clone of Savage from the woodwork and we shall see more of the same. At least no one could claim the good Doctor is not a practicing Christian. Public opinion, at least the opinion I hear, is pretty much set on electing HRC thus continuing the present situation. I would hope that whoever wins, the nation will get behind the new administration and end the childish infighting which concentrates not on the nation but on the party.
Here in Aussie we have something similar, a divided parliament controlled by splinter groups of loonies in the Senate. Tony Abbott our Prime Minister is known as the “Mad Monk” and having spent some years in early life studying for the priesthood, is well and truly a practicing Christian. Abbott has, in the past few days delivered Australian assistance to the coalition of the willing to destroy the threat in the Middle East. Somehow I think we are going to have to find a better way sometime soon. Perhaps Jefferson will prove to be prophetic when he told us that we need to pull down the system of government if and when it ceases to satisfy the needs of the people.
Cheers from Aussie
1 in 4 Americans are open to secession. Peaceful orderly secession is an alternative king. Childish infighting, as you term it king, is how we control a tyrant who won't guard our boarders, uses federal agencies to pressure those who don't toe the line, spends like a drunken sailor, and flaunts congressional direction.
DeleteIt is intellectually lazy to suggest that the opposition finds it's nexus in racism. Very lazy indeed.
Ben Carson will not be the next president.
Delete"In a little over two years America will have the opportunity to end your experiment with a colored President "
DeleteComments like this incense me because while President Obama is indeed black... or at least half black, it is now and always has been his policies that have angered me. First and foremost he was suppose to remove or roll back some of the hideous policies instituted by GW Bush. He did not and as a matter of fact he strengthened most of them. Second is his blatant and egregious usurpation of our congress, our constitution and black letter law which he swore to uphold. Sorry King, I don't care if he was albino white... He is a bad president and to basically call anyone who dislikes his actions in office a racist puts you squarely in the company of leftist race baiters who can only get mileage by calling people such.
Interestingly people want to give excuse to our divided congress as being a problem. We can see in most every pole that America itself is divided so why would I want those who support my particular view of the issues to give any ground if it isn't in the good of the nation.
I found the Scottish referendum to be an amazing bit of work. Where 50.1% got to decide the fate of the entire nation. a .1% that could change from day to day and perhaps hour to hour. Sometimes things are important enough to need more than a simple majority for conciseness and sometime compromise only compounds a problem.
TS Thanks as always for the response but I must point out that you have deliberately misquoted my remarks and therefore, in your own interests you have turned my remarks into a racist rant. Look again at my post. You quote me with inverted commas but no punctuation. Read the rest of the sentence and you have a fair and accurate quote with which to attack me, if you can. Do you deny you have lived under a coloured president for 6 years with a chaotic congress? As Pres Obhama is the first coloured President, is there any justifiable reason his presidency could not be considered as experimental? With such a poor turnout for the elections, perhaps it does not matter as so few actually seem to have an interest in who shall become President, I would hope that even less would care as to his skin colour.
DeleteI abhor racism in any of its many disguises both in your country and in mine. There have been hideous racial crimes during the term of the current President and we have experienced a little of the same here. There is no place for racism anywhere in the world
As to the internal politics of the US, I normally keep apart from a debate not in my own backyard. I do however see the petty point scoring where one house with a majority of Repubs tries its best to prevent government, either congressional or by Presidential intention. I submit that this is no way to run a nation. What is of greater concern is that when the Presidency is again won by a Republican, we shall see a repeat of the present performance as the Dems, acting like spoilt children, get their own back.
I think in my original post I stated my personal Political color, perhaps you fail to understand the wording but I would advise that to claim Conservative allegiance puts me fairly in your Republican camp. Where I differ from you and some others here is that I am prepared to use two eyes to see the broad picture, no one is totally right and no one totally left; if they are, they are of no value to any nation’s political debates.
Cheers from Aussie
TS. I refer to your figures for the recent Scottish Referendum concerning independence. Could you please offer an explanation for the following official figures which appear to show a vastly differing result to the figures you quote?
DeleteChoice Votes %
No
2,001,926 55.30
Yes 1,617,989 44.70
Valid votes 3,619,915 99.91
Invalid or blank votes 3,429 0.09
Total votes 3,623,344 100.00
Registered voters and turnout 4,283,392 84.59
Voting age population and turnout 4,436,428 81.67
Source: BBC News, General Register Office for Scotland
The figures are self explanatory and your interpretation giving a 0.1% margin for the NO vote is at best questionable and at worst plain wrong. Please note also that voting is not compulsory (as in the US) so the figures represent but 84.59% of the eligible electorate. It is also noteworthy that the voter turn out was the highest in the UK since 1910 just before women became enfranchised Perhaps you could return to your argument and provide elucidation for those of us with an interest in reading your posts.
Cheers from Aussie
DeleteThe conundrum that a black republican president would present for democrats isn’t/wasn’t lost on me King. As you well know, words matter and what is read is just as important as what is written. Regardless the full intent of the message the subtext was that the Obama presidency was an ‘experiment’... and experiment with a colored President. If you mean that all presidential ‘reigns’ are experimental then fair enough, if not then I must conclude that you were speaking of a black president specifically. Had Romney been elected you would have considered his time in office an experiment because he was the first Mormon ever elected? Had Ron Paul been elected, that perhaps would have been a experiment in libertarian governance but to call this administration an experiment because of his race calls into question his... intellect as a black man?... his capacity to lead as a person of color? If ‘experiment’ was nothing more than a splashy adverb; my apologies.
You are of course correct that compromise makes for a smooth running government. Whether the compromises and the degree to which they are taken are actually any good for the nation is another matter. I don’t care about the apparent dysfunction of the government when people are holding the line for their constituents. I have said many times in dealing with the progressive addenda that compromise and time is THIER ally. Ask for 100 and get 50 this year; ask for 100 and get 50 next year equals 100% success in twice the time. My objection to the immigration bill is that in reality it is no different than the amnesty bill put together in 1986. Enforcement, border security and amnesty. The first 2 points were ignored and now the problem is 10 times worse. Why on earth, if my objection in the first place was a secure border /strong law enforcement and I compromised on amnesty before would I fall for the same BS again? Why should I accept the provisions of Obamacare when it was in fact the governments meddling where it shouldn’t have that created the screwed up medical system we now have. People refuse to talk about government’s roll in social and economic problems and therefore refuse to roll back all of the ill consequences of those decisions. Instead, better to pass a bill for more money to buy a bigger band aid (plaster)... so why should one shy away from a fight over the budget?
I am sorry if you see it as dysfunctional but sometimes you just have to say NO! Not some this year and the rest next year but .... NO. Not because I don’t like you, not because I am a hater, not because I am stuck in the 1700’s but NO because the idea is not worth the paper it is scribbled on.... and I can prove that because the last bright spark idea that was presented which looks just like this one, was a mess. Sometimes compromise for its own sake is the best example of dysfunction.
My comments on the Scottish referendum were not directed at the results which were clear but at the process which would have pronounced a winner and decider of the entire constitutional direction of Scotland by a mere .1% margin. Something so important should require much more than a simple majority.
DeleteVoter apathy in the US has long been a puzzle to me. There are a number of things that perhaps lend themselves to this lethargy. Local elections/referenda seem to garner much more interest than do national elections. Perhaps, in a voluntary voting situation, when you see over time that your vote counts less, you question the effort. It should be fairly well known that no candidate above mayor is likely to get on a ballot without preapproval of some party elite and many of those decisions are based on crony ties to business. I would also have to lay some responsibility at the feet of the US education system that, more and more, directs its efforts at social conditioning rather than literacy and civic understanding as attested to my national and international measures. The proof of this is in the many surveys that find people incapable of naming, for instance, the vice president or the branches of government or know any of the provisions of the bill of rights. Also note that, at least in the US, voting age population, which receives the headline number, is not the same as voting eligible voter. Non citizens, felons, and those mentally incapable of voting are counted as voting age. Non citizen population in 1972 accounted for about 2% of the population and today it is closer to 10%. I would like to think that if you put a straight up/down referendum of importance to the people that they would come out... I would like to think.
TS Thank you I shall respond to both replies in one short post. Your accusation of Racism and the “experimental Presidency”. The examples you give conveniently omit to mention the remainder of the sentence I objected to. I linked the first coloured President with the dysfunctional Congress as the experiment. Now of course if HRC gets elected as the first female President and she too has a dysfunctional Congress; then that too could be described as experimental. The term experimental being of course due to the unique combination of factors making up the three arms of government. From your post “As you well know, words matter and what is read is just as important as what is written. “ Yes I quite agree and to this end, I have made my comments here as simple as possible.
DeleteAs to the Scottish Referendum; I fail utterly to understand your point. What does the figure of 0.1% signify and in what context? Concerning the US voting patterns and turnouts, I tend to agree and would offer the suggestion that rectification of the problem is possibly available via compulsory voting ; a system which works well here but it must be your nation which considers changes. It is no business of ours.
Meow. It is certainly obvious by our intellectual mismatch that any confusion over words that you convey must, without question reside with my inability to grasp your ‘simple as possible’ comments. As a matter of fact when comparing your intellect, literacy and superior binocular world view, I really shouldn’t even be in the same room with you. I apologize profusely. Nuff said.
DeleteReference the Scottish referendum... My only point was that for something so terminal, so final as breaking up your country, a simple majority is a very improper way to make such a decision. It should have been determined at the start that a 2/3 or ¾ majority would be needed for passage as a margin of just .1% could change from day to day and is hardly a mandate of the people for something that would be impossible to undo in a vote a few years later. I can freely admit that my thoughts didn’t translate to paper in a way that was readily understandable. Sorry for the confusion.
To your mandatory vote... I know that we all tend to look at things we do as better than others. It is a human failing and a bias that gets in the way of good decision making. That is what I see when people hail a compulsory vote. Creating a far superior voter participation record isn’t really that difficult when faced with the coercion of the state but what does that touted number really say? The argument of course is that it is a civic duty which is a small price to pay for ‘democracy’. Of course putting a mark on a ballot is not a civic act at all... knowing why you put the mark where you did, is. Most voters generally vote in line with the party that reflects their views or in the case of the uninformed, the view they are told to have. Perhaps voter literacy is higher in Australia than in other countries but your 96% headline number doesn’t really speak to that. There is an important group of voters that disappear in a compulsory election. Well informed but not moved to vote in every election, these voters only participate when issues of importance compel them to. By forcing them to vote, the anger or despair that caused them to participate and perhaps radically change the outcome in intermittent elections disappears. There is another reason that a compulsory vote is just wrong in a democracy... some people refuse to legitimize the party lead structure of most country’s elections.. In a democracy, that should be their right.
William my thanks.
ReplyDeleteSecession from what and into what may I ask? Are you speaking of the Jefferson model and if so, perhaps you need to outline it. As I recall, Jefferson did not supply an identifiable alternative; he simply offered change if the citizens demanded it. I can understand the revolutionary sentiment but many revolutions in the past history of the world have left the nations involved with less freedom rather than more.
I have mentioned my opinion that we have been in a "cold civil war" for some time now. This evening for the first time I heard that very phrase mentioned on a major media supplier.
DeleteSecession from those who have neutered our constitution. Revival of our base values. I picture Alaska, large portions of central Canada down through States west of the Mississippi river, along with Texas and several Southern States ending right up against Virginia. The Northeast, northern mid west States, and the Pacific coast can reform their own United States.
A peaceful secession would enable those who prefer to live a Marxist lifestyle, and those of us who prefer freedom, to follow their own paths, side by side.
Thank you William.
DeleteIt has been said that genius is sometimes born of madness, so hang in there my friend. I wonder however have I got it wrong, or do you in fact propose annexing a great chunk of Canada? There is no Jefferson or Monroe or Talleyrand to emulate the Louisiana Purchase and The good Doctor or even Tom Sawyers friend Huckleberry Fin (Huckabee) would find it a daunting task. Could this possibly be a re-run to 1776, the Canadian connection could perhaps make it so. Oh what a debate we could have if this gets up.
Cheers my friend
From Aussie
Annexing would not be necessary king. Once the new group was formed anyone would be eligible to join who held the same constitutional beliefs and values.
DeleteCentral Canada shares geography and common conservative values with many of our "fly over" States. Quebec has been clamoring to become their own State for years. The West coast of Canada could align with California, Oregon, and Washington States if they so choose.
Imagine for a moment the political opportunity the progressive democrats would have to enhance their already rotting major cities. DC could continue to print money and deficit spend to their hearts content.
Imagine for a moment the magnitude of energy resources running from Alaska clear through Alberta down to Texas. Construction of a few major pipelines from one end to the other could easily satisfy world energy demands for centuries.
Whose currency would be a legitimate store of value? Whose currency would you choose to hold king?
It's not as out of the box as some would think king. Expand your mind.