support babalú

Your donations help fund
our continued operation

do you babalú?

what they’re saying






recommended reading

babalú features

recent comments

  • Gigi: There go my purchases of Gucci parfum.

  • marielito: I was there 3 years ago as a tourist and that is the reality for those that go visit the island as tourists. And it could very...

  • asombra: If this pope ever expects my respect, he’ll have to come clean on Che Guevara–squeaky clean. That’s the only...

  • asombra: Repulsive as he is, at least Cardinal Ortega lives in the lion’s den and could all too easily be under blackmail....

  • asombra: Another vitriolic extremist foaming at the mouth, obviously, just like “those people.” Alas, this pope is plenty...

search babalu

babalú archives

frequent topics

elsewhere on the net


King of fools, Czech mate


Back in April 2010, a quote attributed to a Czech newspaper, Prager Zeitung, began to circulate among conservatives. Search for this gem in the Prager Zeitung web site -- in German -- and you will come up with zero results.

It makes no difference who wrote this.  Czech or not, it sums up our situation all too well, and seems all the more perceptive after yesterday's disaster.

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”


8 comments to King of fools, Czech mate

  • Honey

    This is what I have been saying for years. It is not Obama who is dangerous. It is the pompous, holier than thou electorate with no self knowledge and no interest in learning the truth about a candidate if it contradicts their orthodoxy.

    The only thing I disagree with, professor, is that I don't see Obama as a fool, more as a clever and diabolical, destructive entity whose sole reason for wanting power is to take this country down. I don't believe he has one interest in anybody else except as it concerns his ability to keep his power, and he certainly does not care about the American people.

    If you look at the results of the election, so many of the races look suspiciously as if they have been tampered with. Yet in the midst of all of the Obama wins, we now have 30 Republican governors, two new very conservative senators, newly elected majorities in some state houses. You would think that with coattails more reps would have lost. But two of those who lost their Senate races were asked incendiary questions about abortion and answered them clumsily. (No one ever pressures liberals with such questions.) I haven't studied all the races but it looks like if there was tampering with votes, it was only for Obama.

  • Honey

    The pictures changed. How did that happen?

  • OmarD

    I just hope the writer's assertion that the republic can survive the big BO proves to be correct.

  • Rayarena

    Honey, what you have said makes sense. There is a hugh rift between the popular vote and the electorate. Obama wins, yet, the masses voted in 30 Republican governors and two new very conservative senators not to mention Rubio's win earlier on [and yet, Florida's electorate goes for Obama? Huh?]. Of course, the mainstream media is partly to blame for this, but there is something else that leaves one uncomfortable when thinking about this. It doesn't seem that everything is Kosher in this equation.

  • asombra

    Akin and Mourdock, who lost senate races that were perfectly winnable by a Republican, are simply too stupid for politics, and that's saying something (just ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz, among many others). True, there IS a double standard, and the MSM will certaily trip up any Republican it can with something like abortion, but both men simply asked for it. To add insult to injury, Akin, who had plenty of time to step aside and let another Republican run for that seat, resolutely refused to do so despite EVERYONE in the Republican party pressing him to do the only sensible thing after he'd basically nullified his chances. We do NOT need people like this running for office; it's simply counterproductive.

  • Honey

    How about Wisconsin votes in Ryan yet not the Romney Ryan ticket? Does this not also seem amiss?

  • [...] Rayarena pointed out. Something just doesn't seem Kosher. How can FEWER people have voted for Romney than for McCain? [...]

  • Honey

    There are too many things that don't make sense. Do you believe that three million anti Obama voters refused to vote because Romney wasn't conservative enough, in full realization of the result if they didn't vote? I don't believe that number any more than I believe that more Cubans voted for Obama than Romney. Do you believe that more people voted for McCain than Romney? I surely refused to believe that.
    Paranoids can still have real enemies.