The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness

[ccp]

Doug,

"Yes maybe by accident, really it is the radical leftism of his mother.  That is likely what drew her to the African student as much as race.  Obama's other mentors and colleagues had far more direct influence than his father: Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright etc."

And as noted, his college transcripts, his full birth certificate (albeit debatable as to importance), his pre national politics history all seems vague.  We know he did drugs. But we have heard as far as I know, nothing from the leftists he knew and associated with.  Dead silence and only for talk radio and Fox we would know nothing of any of it.

Bizzare.

Not one person from College remembers him?

Yes I agree it is all water under the bridge anyway.  He and the progressive forces behind him need to be beaten on the issues.

[G M]

http://nymag.com/news/politics/70829/index2.html

The president’s friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett sometimes pointed out that not only had he never managed an operation, he’d never really had a nine-to-five job in his life. Obama didn’t know what he didn’t know, yet his self-confidence was so stratospheric that once, in the context of thinking about Emanuel’s replacement, he remarked in all seriousness, “You know, I’d make a good chief of staff.”

[ccp]

I don't like beating dead horses ie: the lack of a birth certificate.  But you know folks, this is not a dead horse.  This guy's birth certificate does NOT exist so states the governor of Hawaii.  Now we can argue all we want about whether this is a big deal for the Republican strategy.  But it is a big deal to me.  I want to know why we have State government officials claiming to have seen the document and publicly making claims it was there and intact when it wasn't.  I want to know why anyone who questions this has to be labeled as crazy.  We have a guy who became President despite the lack of a birth certificate.  This is a big deal.  There was/is a cover-up.

This is legitimate.  All gangster bamster has to do is produce the document.  Now it is obvious why he doesn't.  He doesn't because he can't. 
Maybe many Americans are not bothered by a world class fraud but I am.

What should be done about it?  I don't know.  Whether or not it is a technicality with regards to his mother being out of the country for only a few months is one issue. But isn't Obama's lying about it, aren't false claims from government officials a crime?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvrb7YqdvxE

[DougMacG]

CCP, Very interesting video.  There is no long form or record at either of those two hospitals on that day or any other. The short form was issued based on the birth announcement made by the grandparents(?). My guess was going to be that something else embarrassing was going to come out of this such as no marriage, no father, different date, not that he wasn't born in America.  One rumor that ran through the internet research, perhaps the family picked up and moved suddenly to Hawaii because she was pregnant. That makes more sense than the real story of starting classes a month late and moving suddenly without explanation.  In that scenario, she knew the race of the father and linked up with a more worldly black to give the boy a story and a name.  Obama Sr. either was tricked or knew and went along with it with a little pride but no parental connection.  Aug. 4 1961 may not have been the actual birth date, altered to fit the story line of meeting Obama Sr. and I highly doubt they were ever married.  Would he have to certify he was not already married to get that?  Regarding records, remember that Hawaii had been a state for less than 2 years at this time though record keeping doesn't seem to have changed.  Maybe the grandparents hired medical professionals into their home for the birth, and then went ahead with this story when they were certain of the mixed race baby. Mixed race was likely a big deal to everybody in 1961.  That would explain all the chicanery and secrecy, the avoidance of further embarrassment, respecting the life secrets of his now deceased Mother, why his Obama Sr. never acknowledged until out of curiosity eleven years later.  

Again, none of it points to him being born elsewhere, just lacking documents, which is no crime to me.  If this whole bizarre story came out, as Michelle almost slipped when she said 'Barack's mother was very single and very alone when she had Barack', it would only in my opinion build political sympathy for him and against those scrutinizing the deep secrets of his mother's past.  If Stanley Ann was knocked up by a nameless Seattle black, that makes young Barry more American than even the Kenyan story.

State by state there could be laws passed and challenges made to placing his name on a 2012 ballot.  I predict those efforts will fail because no alternative story of being a native born citizen of somewhere else makes any sense or carries with it any evidence.

CCP, like you say, the story keeps giving off more and more reasons for suspicion so it is hard to let it rest, but he looks to me like a sworn-in President with a valid passport, a short form birth certificate, social security number, etc. so the burden to prove otherwise moves to the accusers IMO who have absolutely nothing.  She had no reason whatsoever that we know of to leave the country, (checking the map-what foreign country is near Hawaii?) and if she did the baby was still born to an American mom with Hawaiian residence who shortly moved back to Seattle.  If Obama was involved in a conspiracy with the Head of the Hawaii Health Dept. to concoct a story that they had examined a non-existent long form, then he is guilty of that, something less I would guess than a high crime and misdemeanor of the impeachable type, and likely impossible to prove.  If proof comes out suddenly (it hasn't and it won't) that he is unquestionably not eligible to be President, proceedings should be started immediately to remove him from office and ... drum roll please... President Biden can be immediately sworn in.  No one wants that.

[DougMacG]

The President hit hard on Education in the State of the Union, unfortunately it doesn't happen to be a federal function as pointed out by George Will today: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20110127states_can_handle_school_reform/

In my daughter's public high school, the graduation rate is 99% and the on-to-college rate is 88%; this is a large suburban school district. 

A short distance away in Keith Ellison's urban district run by Obama's ACORN allies pushing 'welfare rights', the dropout rate is 45%: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=638761

Maybe he was reaching out to those kids who were not likely to be listening, but the rest of his agenda has the opposite effect - sending the message constantly that the rich should pay more and the poor should be entitled to more... spread the wealth.

Leftism is the theme in nearly all of the nation's largest cities where high school graduation rates average 50% and a strong work ethic is the theme across most of the rest of the heartland.

The answer is NOT a new federal program.  The answer is find out what is going right in certain neighborhoods - mostly working hard, working smart, intact families, self sufficiency etc., and emulate it.  Find out what is going wrong in the dysfunctional neighborhoods, mostly a victim, assistance and dependency mentality, and stop contributing to it.

[ccp]

Doug posts:
"CCP, like you say, the story keeps giving off more and more reasons for suspicion so it is hard to let it rest,"

Hears more today from Drudge.  What can I say?  All Obama has to do is grant permission to release it.  Yet the story keeps on giving with his refusal to do so to the point of spending a lot to stop its' release.  The only answer is it simply doesn't exist.  Below is another Dem ruse:

Hawaii lawmakers want release of Obama birth info
            Buzz up!848 votes ShareretweetEmailPrint Reuters – President Obama makes a point during his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on …
 Slideshow:President Barack Obama  Play Video Barack Obama Video:Rand Paul: Obama 'Been Co-Opted By The Tea Party' ABC News  Play Video Barack Obama Video:Turmoil in the Arab World FOX News By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Mark Niesse, Associated Press – 1 hr 47 mins ago
HONOLULU – Five Hawaii Democratic representatives want to pass a law making President Barack Obama's birth records public and charge $100 to see them.

The bill, introduced this week, would change a privacy law barring the release of birth records to anyone unless they have a tangible interest.

The measure hasn't been scheduled for a public hearing yet, and can't move forward until that happens.

Its primary sponsor, Rep. Rida Cabanilla, says she wants to end the controversy surrounding Obama's birth by handing over official state records to those who will pay.

She says the fee would help offset the extra work by state employees who handle frequent phone calls and e-mails from people who believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii.

Hawaii's health director has said she's verified Obama's original records, and notices were published in two newspapers within days of his birth at a Honolulu hospital

[DougMacG]

Asked elsewhere: "At the beginning of 1996, Obama was able to get all of his opponents thrown off the ballot." Can you elaborate?  How did he do that and who helped him do this?
----------
Try this link to Chicago Tribune coverage.  The one he attacked was the same one who handpicked him as successor and previously endorsed him. It was impressive how instantly he knew which were the bad signatures in his own precincts on a campaign where he so recently worked.  Asked how removing names off of the ballot served the electorate, he pointed to the result, himself elected, and said they did pretty well. 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5693903.story
Obama knows his way around a ballot

By David Jackson and Ray Long Tribune staff reporters
 April 3, 2007

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot."

But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled.

"I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator."

[DougMacG]

Obama's new vacuous campaign slogan winning the future (equals the not very family friendly initials) definitely belongs under Humor/WTF in this forum. It was Palin who identified the initials (who should have left it to others), but I forgot that was also the exact title of Gingrich's book.  My guess is these speech writers along with the orator have read nothing outside their own cocoon and were copying Clinton's vacuous "Bridge to the 21st Century' the best they could.  Wonder if the new, improved, centrist leaning, results oriented administration will take up any ideas from the title they plagiarized: http://www.americansolutions.com/take-action/2011/01/winning-the-future-for-america-or-for-politicians.php

"# UTILIZE ALL OF AMERICA'S VAST ENERGY RESERVES, including oil, natural gas, wind and solar as well as the vast potential for nuclear power to produce clean abundant energy and American jobs.

# TAX REFORM TO FAVOR JOB CREATION, SAVINGS, INVESTMENT, PRODUCTIVITY, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, including eliminating the death tax and capital gains tax.

# GOVERNMENT REFORM TO MAKE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES LEANER, MORE ACCESSIBLE AND MORE EFFECTIVE, including acquisition reform, better use of information technology and changing government work rules to make it easier to reward good workers and fire bad ones.

# EDUCATION REFORM TO EMPHASIZE MATH AND SCIENCE LEARNING by giving tax incentives to those who pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) degrees and allowing professionals using their math and science degrees to teach part time without having to go through the unionized credentialing process.

# JUDICIAL REFORM including tort reform to cut down on frivolous lawsuits and stopping the worrying trend of judges using foreign law as precedent in US cases.

[ccp]

"I forgot that was also the exact title of Gingrich's book"

I would not discount the possibility they knew exactly what they were doing when they used the same phrase as Newt's book title.
In trying to sound more like Reagan, and more emotional like Clinton it would not surprise me if they were co-opting Newt's phrase.

Just like Clinton co-opted "smaller government" and welfare reform.  One strategy the Dems use is to steal good Republican ideas and take the credit.

"Wonder if the new, improved, centrist leaning, results oriented administration will take up any ideas from the title they plagiarized"

I agree with your skepticism of this and strongly doubt it is any more than your apt descirption, of a "head fake".
Like Saul said, "if you want to change them pretend you are one of them".

[G M]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

Loss for words. WTF!

[DougMacG]

Strategically, we probably shouldn't have given Obama the numbers and locations of our arsenal either.  Voters should be able to make one small mistake without losing all their security (and freedoms).  I suppose wikileaks would have found that out too.

[Freki]

I wonder if we will hear of this in our main stream media?


What do you know I just heard a lead in for this story on Fox

[G M]

Let's see if NBC/SeeBS/ABC/CNN cover it.

[Crafty_Dog]

Sorry, I am not clear here.  Was it Bush or BO who slimed the Brits?

[G M]

WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain's nuclear secrets
The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

**Much worse than the snubs of the Brits Barry has done up to now.

[G M]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353888/WikiLeaks-claim-US-set-reveal-British-nuclear-secrets-Russia.html

America is to give the Russians details of Britain's Trident missiles under a new treaty, according to the latest WikiLeaks revelations.

The deal, which will be signed by U.S. President Barack Obama next week, will see Moscow given information about the missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in America.

The Daily Telegraph claims the Americans used the details of British nuclear secrets as a 'bargaining chip' to persuade Russia to sign the key treaty.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353888/WikiLeaks-claim-US-set-reveal-British-nuclear-secrets-Russia.html

[Crafty_Dog]

Thank you for the clarification and citation.

[G M]

Intelligence Failure   
By Ralph Peters
New York Post | Thursday, January 08, 2009

WOULD you ask your accountant to perform brain surgery on your child? That's the closest analogy I can find to the choice of Democratic Party hack Leon Panetta to head the CIA.

Earth to President-elect Obama: Intelligence is serious. And infernally complicated. When we politicize it - as we have for 16 years - we get 9/11. Or, yes, Iraq.

The extreme left, to which Panetta's nomination panders, howled that Bush and Cheney corrupted the intelligence system. Well, I worked in the intel world in the mid 1990s and saw how the Clinton team undermined the system's integrity.

Al Qaeda a serious threat? The Clinton White House didn't want to hear it. Clinton was the pioneer in corrupting intelligence. Bush was just a follow-on homesteader.

Now we've fallen so low that left-wing cadres can applaud the nomination of a CIA chief whose sole qualification is that he's a party loyalist, untainted by experience.

The director's job at the CIA isn't a party favor. This is potentially a matter of life and death for thousands of Americans. But the choice of Panetta tells us all that Barack Obama doesn't take intelligence seriously.

Mark my words: It'll bite him in the butt.

After the military, the intel community is the most complex arm of government. You can't do on-the-job training at the top. While a CIA boss needn't be a career intelligence professional, he or she does need a deep familiarity with the purposes, capabilities, limitations and intricacies of intelligence.

Oh, and you'd better understand the intelligence bureaucracy.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was blindsided - and appalled - by the Obama mafia's choice, has the essential knowledge of how the system works. She, or a similar expert, should have gotten this nod. But the president-elect wanted a clean-slate yes-man, not a person of knowledge and integrity.

We're witnessing the initial costs of Obama's career-long lack of interest in foreign policy, the military and intelligence. He doesn't think the top job at the CIA's important and just wants political cover on that flank. (Guess we got Panetta because Caroline Kennedy has another engagement.)

Forget a "team of rivals." Obama's creating a campaign staff for 2012.

Of course, he's reeling from the shrill rage of the Moveon.org crowd over his nomination of grown-ups to be his national-security adviser, director of national intelligence, administrator of veterans' affairs and, yes, secretary of state. (By the way, how could Hillary be dumb enough to accept a job where success is impossible?)

Panetta's appointment is a sop to the hard left, a signal that intelligence will be emasculated for the next four - or eight - years.

Think morale's been bad at the CIA? Just wait.

Conservatives played into this scenario by insisting that any CIA analysis that didn't match the Bush administration's positions perfectly amounted to an attack on the White House. Well, sorry. The intelligence community's job isn't to make anybody feel good - its core mission is to provide nonpartisan analysis to our leaders.

To be a qualified D-CIA, a man or woman needs a sophisticated grasp of three things: The intel system, foreign-policy challenges and the Pentagon (which owns most of our intelligence personnel and hardware). Panetta has no background - none - in any of these areas. He was never interested.

If you handed Leon Panetta a blank map of Asia, I'd bet my life he couldn't plot Baghdad, Kabul or Beijing within 500 miles of their actual locations. (Maybe he can see China from his California think tank?)

This shameless hack appointment is the first action by the incoming administration that seriously worries me. Get intelligence wrong and you get dead Americans.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-cia-chief-based-congressional-mubarak-testimony-on-media-broadcasts/

Report: CIA Chief Leon Panetta Based Congressional Testimony On Mubarak Departure On ‘Media Broadcasts’

by Colby Hall | 10:30 pm, February 10th, 2011


CIA Director Leon Panetta testified to Congress today of a “strong likelihood” that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would step down by the end of the day. The report of his impending resignation was only eclipsed by the news that Mubarak would NOT be stepping down as Panetta had indicated to congress. The worse part isn’t that Panetta was basing his statement on on media reports (and not intelligence.) No, National Intelligence Director James Clapper outdid Panetta with his erroneous claim that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “secular” organization.

Certainly the current upheaval unfolding in Egypt is a fluid situation, best described as a leaderless revolt that has put the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA all on their heels. As it turns out, the true diplomatic stars so far in this story has been the media, who’s on the field reports have not only created compelling visuals for cable news outlets around the world, but also, strangely, informed the CIA director in his statements to Congress.

According to a report by Mark Landler and Mark Mazzetti for the NY Times (emphasis mine):

    Mr. Obama watched Mr. Mubarak’s speech on board Air Force One, returning from a trip to Michigan, the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said. As soon as he arrived at the White House, Mr. Obama huddled with his national security aides. The administration appeared as taken aback by Mr. Mubarak’s speech as the crowds in Tahrir Square. The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, testified before the House of Representatives on Thursday morning that there was a “strong likelihood” that Mr. Mubarak would step down by the end of the day.

    American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts, which began circulating before he sat down before the House Intelligence Committee. But a senior administration official said Mr. Obama had also expected that Egypt was on the cusp of dramatic change. Speaking at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, he said, “We are witnessing history unfold,” adding, “America will do everything we can to support an orderly and genuine transition to democracy.”

[prentice crawford]

Woof,
 I tell you who needs to step down... our President and his whack job bunch of La la land nincompoops! How can they be so clueless? I tell you guys, what I get from all of this tom foolery is that we are in serious danger of having another 9/11 level terrorist attack coming our way very soon. We are no longer safe because these idiots are not capable of staying ahead of our enemies. Hell, they don't even know who our enemies are!
                                                       P.C.

[ccp]

"American officials said Mr. Panetta was basing his statement not on secret intelligence but on media broadcasts"

I don't know who the "American officials" are.

I don't know that I believe the above statement.

Take nothing the media tells us as "truth".  Take it all with a "grain of salt".

We don't know and will likely never know the truth here.

Either way Panetta looks bad.  But the above way makes him the fall guy - the other way Obama looks bad too.

[ccp]

I don't know.  Am I too sensitive or what?  Am I the only one who finds Obama's trying to copy or compare himself to Reagan as quite offensive?  He is the exact opposite in Reagan in personality and in beliefs and in policy.  I find his own comparisons to the real "gipper" as quite insulting:

***Obama Refers To Himself As "The Gipper" In Farewell To Gibbs
 
President Obama recounts an anecdote about the 2004 Democratic National Convention at White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' final press briefing:

"The most challenging problem was what tie to wear. And this went up to the very last minute. I mean, 10 minutes before we were about to go on stage we were still having an argument about ties. I had bought five, six ties. And Michelle didn't like any of them, Axelrod didn't like a couple of them -- him being one of the best dressed men in the world. So we really valued his opinion.

"And then somebody -- I don't remember who it was -- turned and said, 'You know what? What about Gibbs' tie? What about Gibbs' tie? That might look good.' And, frankly, Robert didn't want to give it up because he thought he looked really good in the tie. But eventually he was willing to take one for the gipper, and so he took off his tie, and I put it on. And that's the tie that I wore at the national***

[DougMacG]

Any one of these slips is the downfall for ordinary politicians.  It takes a little more to bring down a religious figure.  You recall he starting biting his lower lip to show compassion after studying predecessor game films.  I mentioned on the other thread that the 'cadence' was developed sometime after 1995 tape.  His whole oratory style is learned or contrived.

Calling himself The Gipper, coincidentally with this Reagan birthday - unbelievable.  Like Dukakis on the tank, Nixon I'm not a crook, Dan Quayle called out on comparing himself to JFK, Clinton I did not have sexual relations with that woman Ms. Lewinsky, George Herbert Walker Bush amazed to see grocery checkout.  I don't know which of these personal stories or political mis-steps will become the symbol for his failure.  I thought it would be "Cash for Clunkers - The Documentary of a Disappointing One Term Presidency".

[JDN]

Hmmm methinks we protest too much.  Hardly, not as serious as "I'm not a crook" although as a side note, I think Nixon is underrated. 

Let's look at the context.  We are discussing, in a fun/serious manner what tie to wear.  Gibbs is asked to donate his tie.

"Let's take one for the gipper" or "Let's win one for the gipper" is an expression I've heard long before (I'm old)
Reagan was President.  It's been a while, but I've heard it used in business and on the sports field.

It's a rather innocuous innocent somewhat playful yet it can be serious phrase.  I don't think any disrespect was meant to President Reagan. 
I think it dates back to Knute Rockne or somebody, but I forget....  Frankly, I heard it more often in the midwest...

[DougMacG]

[The Gipper] "is an expression I've heard long before (I'm old)Reagan was President"

True, but the point wasn't that Reagan claimed authorship; it is an association that everyone our age has with Reagan that Obama who recently studied up on Reagan intentionally co-opted for himself.

"I don't think any disrespect was meant to President Reagan."

True, it was just the opposite.  Again the point was to falsely self-compare, something Dan Quayle would have been well-advised to have avoided.

The parallel in a nutshell is this.  Both were elected in a mess.  Both took on transformation - in polar opposite directions.  Both had popularity issues at this point in their Presidency.  In Obama's case his main problem is popularity with his policies.  At Reagan's low point, his policies that would set off a quarter century of economic growth, bring down the Soviet empire and end inflation were already in place.  He had the confidence of knowing the American economic engine was going to roar and it did at growth rates almost never seen before and went from popularity in the 30s to winning 49 states.  President Obama has none of that going for him, talks out of both sides of his mouth, and would like to win 49 states.

I'm not a crook was a far more memorable moment but equally false.  In the age of youtube and a billion(?) to be spent on reelection, don't think we are done seeing whatever turn out to be symbols of his failures.  See GM youtube post for an example.  His longing to be like Reagan I am saying could very easily and likely backfire on him.

Nixon was multi-faceted. With hindsight on past Presidents and their stewardship of economies, I can't get past something he did called the price-wage freeze by government on the entire private economy (Fascism, no?) to squeeze out 7% inflation that continued in spite of that up to 14% by the end of the decade.  Add Gerald Ford's program (in Nixon's second term) of wearing buttons called Whip Inflation Now, the idea that inflation is caused by citizen's greed and solved by talking people out of acting in their own self interest or by tying their hands.  These are(IMO) dunce level understandings of economics and examples of why I draw a distinction between supporting conservative policies and supporting people who place an R by their name to get elected.

[ccp]

***"I don't think any disrespect was meant to President Reagan."

True, it was just the opposite.***

IT is meant to appear like he is admiring of Reagan.  Truth be - he absolutely is not!

It is again the scam - pretend you are one of them and then you can change them!

Some years back I posted Jeffrey Sachs politically charged commencement speech at my nephews graduation wherein he reiterated Carter was/is a hero and was ahead of his time.  He pointed out the countries and sovereingty is "medeval" and outdated.  He stated that after Carter came Reagan and he set us on the wrong path to continued sovereingty, oil, big business, world poverty, and the rest.  And now here we are 30 years later and we are seeing global warming, continued war, over population, population shifts, continued world poverty and relative affuence in other parts of the world.  It is all the same theme of the progressives who want one world government, socialism, and windmills.  Obama has historically surrounded himself with these people and has always been of this nature.

He does not admire Reagan.  Progressives like him *despise* Reagan.  JDN - wake up.  This is all a ruse.  Like I said - you can fool some of the people all of the time.

[JDN]

"Progressives like him *despise* Reagan.  JDN - wake up."

Wait a minute.  In general I like/respect President Reagan.  And so far, I agree, Obama isn't close to being Reagan.   

[G M]

Are you a "progressive" like Obama, JDN?

[JDN]

I prefer to think of myself as a progressive like Theodore Roosevelt; perhaps a bit to the right of him.

I must admit, I am becoming disillusioned with Obama.  While I don't have children, it does seem unfair
to burden our youth with even more debt than may be humanly possible to repay in their lifetime, much less mine.

[ccp]

"And so far, I agree, Obama isn't close to being Reagan."

And "so far"?

Why, he never has been or could he be.

And in that case don't you find it odd he is trying to pretend he is like Reagan?

You don't find it an insult to your intelligence?

JDN you seem like a good guy but you are incredibally naive.
Obama and his managers are trying to manipulate his image.

All the while he is a radical progressive.
He jammed down our throats his agenda and only now that he doens't own Congress he is playing the same con that kept Clinton in the game.
It is a proven winning strategy and you falling for it shows how easy it is to manipulate people.  I posted multiple times my biggest fear was Obama would pretend he is moving to the center and fool the swing voters and his ratings would go up - just like Clinton did.

The jornolist people are helping him get this total nonsensical transformation of his image out there.

 

[ccp]

"I must admit, I am becoming disillusioned with Obama"

Disillusioned with Obama or his policies?

He has done what he set out to do though not as much as he would like.  He has not been able to tax near as much as he could.  He hasn't gotten the energy bill passed, he hasn't gotten citizenship pathway for for the hordes of potential Democrat voters (yet).

But he has pretty much been, by far, the most progressive Presdient we have every had though he tries to hide it and deny it.

So what is disappointing to you about him?

Could it be that you are coming to realize he is selling America down the drain by giving away our sovereignty around the world and spending us into oblivion and trying to answer every single humanity discomfort with more government programs?

[JDN]

@CCP

I'm disillusioned with his policies.  As a person, I don't think he is a bad person, just misguided.   

He is spending too much; a day or reckoning will soon be upon us.  If I spent like he does, I would be bankrupt. 

@CCP
You said,  "my biggest fear was Obama would pretend he is moving to the center and fool the swing voters and his ratings would go up - just like Clinton did."

I understand your fear that this may enable him to be re-elected.  However, one thing I love about our system is the check and balances.  I'm glad the Republicans dominated this recent election.  My heart, and I think most of America's heart lies in the middle.  10% are too conservative, 10% are too liberal, but 80% like me simply want to be safe, we have a conscious and therefore support reasonable social welfare, education, and infrastructure where truly needed, we believe in fairness and democracy and we want to live in an environment that rewards hard work, creativity, and entrepreneurship. That is what has made us great. 

I think the middle is the best place to be for all of that to happen.  I love politicians in the middle; the zealots scare me.
And again, I think most of America agrees with me.

[DougMacG]

First off for JDN, I asked for your views and you elaborated nicely so I thank you! Secondly we have areas of agreement and disagreement we can followup on.

I have to brush up on my history, off hand I would say I'm no fan of T.R. but would be happy to return to the tax, spend and regulatory levels were during his Presidency 1901-1909.  I like that you picked a period prior to the 1913 16th amendment authorizing income taxes.  I may be to the left of you; I favor keeping the income tax. but limiting it to a high single digit percentage.

To just pick a year of his progressive Presidency, 1906 revenues were 595million, spending  570million and surplus 25million. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf (p.25)

Spending and taxes were roughly 8% of GDP which is about right to me.  http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html I would go up to about 9.9% today but would fight to keep it in single digits.   In 2011 the numbers are roughly spending $4 Trillion, revenues $2.5 Trillion and deficit $1.5 Trillion, about 27% of GDP for spending not counting state, local etc.  Note we skipped over billions unit somewhere in there. We jumped form millions to trillions.  A trillion is a million million, so spending jumped roughly 2000-fold since then.

[ccp]

"As a person, I don't think he is a bad person, just misguided."

We disagree on that point.  I think any President who persistantly deceives the American people on his true intentions, is by definition a bad person.
At least Jimmy Carter was honest.  I disagreed with him completely yet I respected him as a person.  Remember there was a time when he was the most respected ex-president (though no more).  I feel we knew where Presidents stood until Bill Clinton turned it into a fashion statement that lying, deceiving, twisting the truth etc is cool.

You think Omama's intentions are good?  A guy who sits and says he is not into distirbuting wealth when anyone can see he is (only for openers)?  When did the country lose the concept that honesty is part of a person's character?  I guess with Clinton.  The left seemed to get more and more excited over his bs.  They were gitty with glee at lines like, "what is is"?

BTW, what is a TR progressive?

I cannot figure out your position. 

[JDN]

@CCP

I've always liked TR's quote, "Speak softy, but carry a big stick." TR got things accomplished.  TR was a straight shooting (literally)  Republican and he had a a heart.  Rare in those days.

Then TR formed and ran (he lost) in 1912 on the Progressive Party political party.  We take quite of few of these items for granted today,
but at that time, they were quite innovative.

In the social sphere the platform called for
A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled.
Limited injunctions in strikes.
Farm relief.
Workers' compensation for work-related injuries.
An inheritance tax.
A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax.
The political reforms proposed included
Women's suffrage.
Direct election of Senators.
Primary elections for state and federal nominations.
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term).
The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote).
The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote).
Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote).
However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that
To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day.[5]
To that end, the platform called for
Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions.
Registration of lobbyists.
Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings.

[ccp]

JDN,

Thanks for the detailed answer.

"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

TR tried to address problems that did and still do exist.  Seems reasonable attempts at fixing true corruption and an unfair world.

There is no question the rich and wealthy businesses have very unfair advantages.  In 1980 the top 1% had 10 % of the country's wealth.  Now the estimate is 18%.

This is a problem without any answer from the Crats or the Cans.  Free markets make this worse.  Yet redistribution doesn't work either.  The more we have social programs the lazier and more dependent people become.


We are still being robbed by Wall Street.  Big businesses squash smaller ones.  Katherine and I are destroyed by the music/entertainment industry while pigs like Gaga tell us how they write stolen lyrics while smoking dope.  And we have the President of the USA inviting JLo to the WH for the super bowl even though she claims she wrote or co wrote some lyrics that were stolen from us.  So you don't have to convince me about corruption.

I feel the issue is not more regulation per se.  I think it just means enforce the laws that already exist with updates for electronic crimes etc.  Then again all humans including police, lawyers, government officials, elected officials are all corruptable.  It just is this way.  Always has been and always will be.  Nothing will ever stop this.

***I just come down on the side of more freedom vs more and more and more government that will stifle us till we turn into total wards of the state.***

Neither approach is perfect or great. 

[Crafty_Dog]

February 22, 2011
But That’s What Community Organizers Do
by Victor Davis Hanson
Pajamas Media

During the Republican convention of 2008, Rudy Giuliani rhetorically asked: what is a community organizer? I think we always knew the answer without even referencing the guidebook of Saul Alinsky.

President Obama need not worry about budget deficits in the manner of Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Unlike state officials, he can print money, and raise fees and taxes. The nation’s more affluent, unlike blue-state refugees seeking red-state low tax sanctuaries, cannot flee anywhere. That makes it easy for President Obama to weigh in on the Wisconsin unrest by suggesting an insolvent state government was more interested in destroying the public unions than meeting a $3 billion budget shortfall.

That characteristic eagerness to grandstand on extraneous issues, while ignoring federal crises, is characteristic of this administration. It will not make meaningful progress in addressing its own massive trillion-dollar debts, reexamine the looming disaster of ObamaCare, gear up to produce more gas and oil in the face of skyrocketing energy costs, or seriously explore ways to get unemployment down below 9%.

Yet in the last twenty-four months, we have learned that the president will indeed declare that: the governor of Wisconsin is using his state budget disaster largely to punish public servants; the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, act “stupidly” and racially stereotype minorities (“typically”) as do most police departments; the state of Arizona harasses Hispanic children when they go out to eat ice cream, and thus Mexico’s efforts to sue the state should be joined by the US government; much of our ills are due to “fat cat” bankers who junket to Las Vegas and the Super Bowl and cannot seem to grasp that at some point they have made enough money; the pro-democracy protestors in the streets of Tehran are not to be encouraged by our “meddling” (because of our past sins of involvement in Iran), but their counterparts in Cairo are to be encouraged by our meddling (despite our past sins of involvement in Egypt).

In addition, why would the president call for “sacrifice” in lean times, advising Americans to cut out going to dinner and to “put off” a vacation — while favoring Martha’s Vineyard for vacation, as the first lady (of erstwhile “downright mean country” repute) seems especially fond of Vail ski escapes in winter and Costa del Sol Mediterranean jaunts in summer? Is not symbolism important in these hard times?

Why, why, why all this? In a word, because that is what community organizers are supposed to do, even — or rather, especially — when they become the establishment. Cannot we answer Giuliani’s question? As a general rule, the “organizer” is not indigenous to the community, but as a sort of roaming utopian he travels widely to detect supposed foci of injustice (think an Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson), even to the point of worrying about professors being locked out of their homes or the tranquility of ice cream parlors in Arizona.

Almost immediately there is an artificial divide constructed between an oppressive “them” and a victimized “us,” usually on rigid class, gender, and racial lines. Some such university study is cited to “prove” injustice based on the absence of parity in income, healthcare, or education. Then the community organizer rallies the “community” to “get in their face” and agitate, which can encompass anything from suing in court, holding mass rallies, conducting voter registration drives with accordant intimidation, visiting the private homes of supposedly culpable officials, bankers, and the wealthy, and threatening strikes, slow-downs and disruptions. These metaphorical “hostage takers” must be “punished” as “enemies,” relegated to a proverbial backseat, and in such a fight have their knives rhetorically trumped by our guns.

Indeed, the supposed exploiters are deemed “fat cats” who often favor “Wall Street,” enjoy privileges that accord them Super Bowl or Las Vegas junkets, continually “raise the bar” on the rest of us folks, and can’t seem to figure out that at some point they have surely made enough money from others.

The remedy is always adolescent — the perceived government program and entitlement are demanded without any worry about who is to fund them or how. The community’s perceived “needs” are the sole point of contention, not society’s ability to meet them. The assumption of the community organizer is that there is an amorphous “they” (so often white, male, heterosexual, upper-middle class, Christian) who have done something wrong, or whose ancestors have done something wrong, that both results in their own present privilege and requires appropriate redress, in the moral sense.

The logic is circular — more public money to deserving constituents ensures political support and in turn requires higher taxes from others to pay for it, a two-pronged redistribution plan of taking from the undeserving to allot to the more worthy. Absent from the community organizer’s ideology is any sense that the individual might in some cases bear some responsibility for the ensuing inequality — encounters with the criminal justice system, poor family planning, reckless use of easy credit, involvement with dangerous and addictive drugs, no interest in formal education, or adoption of a popular culture that promotes anti-intellectualism, misogyny, illegitimacy, and defiance of accepted norms. Again, some sort of deliberate prejudice is more likely, and thus state money is justified as a sort of reparation for the collective sins of society, as well as a wise investment to prevent social disequilibrium, if not outright public unrest.

Note the flip side: those who are better off enjoy such benefaction largely as a result of birth, privilege based on the exploitation of others, bias against someone who does look like them, random chance, accident, illegality, or immorality — rarely is success due to harder work, careful planning, more education and training, deferred gratification, or wiser personal decisions. The point is not how someone got more than others, but the suspect system that allowed them to get that more — and how to correct it.

There is never any followup (think audit of the second stimulus, or reexamination of ObamaCare) about the cost effectiveness of the new grant or program. The key is getting the money, not ensuring that it is well used. The organizer — often far better educated than his constituents — then moves on, either to other crisis spots or into politics on his way up his planned cursus honorum. Moreover, the organizer feels a certain sense of entitlement, given his good works — an exemption as it were to live a particular and much deserved lifestyle not always that different from (and indeed at times far better than) the supposed purveyors of social injustice. That the creation of huge entitlements creates social dependency, disrupts traditional local and family networks of mutual help and reliance, emphasizes poverty entirely in a political rather than a spiritual framework, or enables rather than addresses destructive behavior is of less interest to the careerist organizer — either because he sees problems only in classical material terms, or because he is long gone after the money is allotted, or because unanticipated disasters are not his purview, or because dependency, not alleviation of pathology, is the more important goal.

So we should cease being surprised that the president editorializes about extraneous issues while ignoring critical ones, or that the administration is now addressing breast pumps, or that Obama has ignored the findings of his own debt commission, or that he has added 200,000 new federal workers at a time of fiscal insolvency, and on and on.

You see, that is what community organizers do, now and in the past.

©2011 Victor Davis Hanson

[DougMacG]

A book out of print but often referred to with regard to Ayers and Obama, I came across the list today FWIW:

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2009/01/strategies-and-tactics-for-radical-activists-by-saul-alinsky/

[ccp]

Doug,

Yes, we see this everyday in the MSM propaganda machine.

Rather sickening.  I don't see anything in here about the truth or facts.

One correction:

"Unions used this tactic" on rule 10.

Unions aka the Democrat party use all of these rules.

[ccp]

Now he sounds like Carter for sure.  The job is just too big for the ONE.  Remember when Carter admitted he didn't know if one man could handle the Presidency anymore?  Here we go again:

“Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’”

“Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East,” The New York Times, March 11, 2011.

Mr. Obama is right.

If you’re president of China, people around the world who are fighting for freedom don’t really expect you to help. If you’re president of China, you don’t have to put up with annoying off-year congressional elections, and then negotiate your budget with a bunch of gun-and-religion-clinging congressmen and senators. If you’re president of China, you can fund your national public radio to your heart’s content. And if you’re president of China, when you host a conference on bullying in schools, people take you seriously.

Unfortunately for him and us, Barack Obama is president of the United States. That job brings with it certain special responsibilities. It’s a tough job—maybe tougher than being president of China. But Barack Obama ran for president of the United States. Maybe he should start behaving as one.

[DougMacG]

Richmond Time Dispatch Op/Ed
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/oped/2011/mar/15/TDOPIN02-us-stunned-by-latest-undercover-sting-ar-905677/#comments

U.S. stunned by latest undercover sting
By A. Barton Hinkle
Published: March 15, 2011

The nation was left reeling yesterday by the revelation that the presidential election of 2008 was a hoax. The shocking announcement came when White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Barack Obama has been working in secret with conservative provocateur James O'Keefe since 2007.

The long-running hoax is the most elaborate yet in a series of recent sting operations by primarily right-of-center gadflies that have embarrassed organizations including ACORN, Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio.

Those stunts, as well as the prank call to Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin that was captured on tape last month, proved to be sources of personal or institutional embarrassment. Historians warned yesterday that the latest caper may inspire a sense of national shame.

Origins of a hoax

Carney said the scam entailed pulling together demographic, social, cultural and policy characteristics to create the most exaggerated Democratic candidate possible without stepping over the line into caricature.

"By combining empty, touchy-feely slogans like 'hope' and 'change' with far-left-wing policy planks and presenting them in the person of a racial minority from a major Midwest city with an Ivy League background, we thought we might be able to make a good showing in Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe even capture the Democratic nomination," Carney told reporters. "But the entire country? No. We never, ever for even a second imagined the American people would elect someone who had served only half a term in the U.S. Senate to be the leader of the entire free world."

Obama won the presidency with 52.9 percent of the popular vote, defeating Republican nominee John McCain, who received 45.7 percent.

"All you guys in the press were so giddy about it," Carney continued, "we couldn't really just announce that the whole thing was a big fat joke, you know? I mean, how would that look?"

Contacted by phone, O'Keefe said he, too, was surprised the hoax had lasted as long as it did.

"I thought people would catch on in the early days, like with the clinging-to-guns stuff," said O'Keefe, referring to an incident at a San Francisco fundraiser in which candidate Obama said small-town Americans "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

O'Keefe said he also expected the ruse would be unmasked when Obama said that "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," and again when Obama claimed, "I've now been in 57 (U.S.) states," with "one left to go."

"We modeled the 57-states gaffe on Dan Quayle's 'potatoe' mistake," said O'Keefe, referring to a 1992 incident at a Trenton, N.J., elementary school in which then-Vice President Dan Quayle added an "e" to "potato." "We figured Obama would become a national laughingstock like Quayle, (but we) underestimated the tendency of the press and the public to forgive mistakes by people they like."

Worldwide deceit

Victims of the fabrication stretch around the globe. "President" Obama has held numerous meetings with foreign heads of state, among them Chinese President Hu Jintao, leaders of NATO and the G8, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee also was taken in, awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009 — only months after he had taken office and just weeks before he announced an escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

Reaction from abroad yesterday was swift.

"I'm not surprised," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"Well, that explains everything, doesn't it?" said British Prime Minister David Cameron. "I mean, really now."

A prank gone too far

As the 2008 campaign wore on, O'Keefe said, insiders grew worried Obama might actually win. They began dropping hints that the candidate was just a parody. They had him complain about the price of arugula to Iowa farmers. When that didn't work, Obama went bowling, scored a 37, and then joked that the almost impossibly poor performance "was like the Special Olympics or something."

"A few right-wing bloggers made a big deal out of it," O'Keefe said. "Nobody else seemed to notice."

The hint-dropping campaign intensified after Obama took office. Justin Whittemore, a former White House staffer who was part of the elaborate plot, said advisers began copying policy positions straight from The New York Times and the liberal Center for American Progress in an increasingly transparent attempt to provoke suspicion.

"We've tried everything," O'Keefe said. "Nationalizing health care, the stimulus, a $4 trillion budget, insane levels of debt, even high-speed rail. No matter how ridiculous a proposal we come up with, people take it seriously."

Asked why he is pulling the plug now, O'Keefe replied that the good of the country was at stake. "Things have gotten way out of hand," he said. "People are talking about a second term now. It's just gone way too far — even for me."

[G M]

Bwahahahahahahaha!


Good one, Doug.

[DougMacG]

My prediction that BHO will not be the nominee of his own party is totally wrong - so far, with about a year to go.  A combination of two things would need to happen I think for Obama to throw in the towel, approvals dropping into the 30s and the emergence of a real, Republican challenger.  Maybe neither will happen, we will see, but it is hard to see how approvals won't fall further with the events already set in motion.  62% want Obamcare repealed.  Bumbling over Egypt, blathering over Ghadafy, dithering over Japan, not even present over a domestic energy crisis, handing deterrence to the Russians, clueless about the private economy etc. etc.  VDH says it all so much better...
--------------------------
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262335/president-hamlet-victor-hanson
Victor Davis Hanson

March 17, 2011 12:00 A.M.
President Hamlet
Thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them.

More than 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote a riveting tragedy about a young, charismatic Danish prince who vowed to do the right thing in avenging his murdered father. That soon proved easier said than done. As a result, Hamlet couldn’t quite ever act in time — given all the ambiguities that such a sensitive prince first had to sort out. In the meantime, a lot of bodies piled up through his indecision and hesitancy.

President Obama wanted to give us all universal health care. But then he discovered that the country was broke and that most people did not like his massive federal takeover. So we got both his health care and, so far, more than 1,000 exemptions from his landmark plan for unions, corporations, and entire states.

The president wished to please his liberal supporters with more government redistributive programs and higher taxes on the wealthy. But such entitlements cost lots of money — more than $4 trillion in new borrowing in just three years – and scare to death the job-creating private sector. So the president not only borrows at record levels, but also sets up a commission to warn us that his borrowing will soon bankrupt the country. He damns the “fat-cat bankers” and the rich who “at some point” have made enough money, even as he courts them for campaign donations and begs their companies to start hiring new employees.

Obama warned us that we could not drill our way out of the ongoing gas crisis and needed instead to develop new green energy. As proof, he borrowed billions to promote wind and solar power, and stopped most new leases for fossil-fuel exploration in Alaska, the west, and offshore. But it turned out that we still need lots of oil as gas nears $4 a gallon. So the president brags that America is now pumping more oil under his green administration than ever before — but neglects to mention that this is true only because Presidents Clinton and Bush long ago approved the sort of oil leases that Obama had rejected.

President Obama wanted so much to discontinue George W. Bush’s war on terror that he banned the phrase “war on terror” altogether. He apologized to the Muslim world, promised to “reset” our foreign policy, and vowed to close Guantanamo Bay and stop the other nasty Bush antiterrorism protocols. But our “to be or not to be” Hamlet also wanted to continue to keep the country safe from another 9/11-style terrorist attack, so he kept Guantanamo open, quadrupled the number of Predator drone attacks, and either preserved or expanded all the Bush protocols that he had once derided.

Abroad, a new multilateral Obama wished to act only in concert with the United Nations and our allies. He vowed to respect the sovereignty of other countries and not “meddle” in their affairs by imposing American values. And yet the president also embraced eternal and universal human rights and wanted the United States to be on the right side of history. So he criticized our intervention to foster democracy in Iraq even as his vice president praised it. We surged in Afghanistan even as we posted deadlines to leave. We promised not to meddle to support Iranian protestors, and to meddle to support Egyptian protestors.

Hosni Mubarak was a dictator and was not a dictator, who had to leave yesterday, today, or maybe tomorrow. The situation in Libya is deemed “unacceptable,” but how exactly it could be made acceptable is never spelled out. Intervening there to support rebels is said to be good; but apparently so is supporting Saudi troops intervening in Bahrain to put down rebels and protect the status quo.

Middle East strongmen, the president tells us, are cruel and must leave. But the why and how of it all are also never stated. Are they supposed to flee only when protests reach a critical mass? In Egypt and Tunisia, but not in Saudi Arabia, Syria, or Iran?

President Obama has spent most of his life either in, or teaching, school — or making laws that he was not responsible for enforcing. His hope-and-change speeches were as moving in spirit as they were lacking in details.

But now Obama is chief executive, and learning, as did Prince Hamlet, that thinking out every possible side of a question can mean never acting on any of them — a sort of Shakespearean “prison” where “there is nothing either good or bad.” Worrying about pleasing everyone ensures pleasing no one. Once again such “conscience does make cowards of us all.”

Hamlets, past and present, are as admirable in theory as they are fickle — and often dangerous — in fact.

[Crafty_Dog]

Reality Check
BIG Meltdowns Imperiling the U.S.
"If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation." --Samuel Adams

The surfeit of images documenting human suffering and destruction in Japan after the 11 March Tohoku Earthquake and resulting tsunami is dreadful. Though the estimated 10,000 dead in Japan pales in comparison to the more than 200,000 dead in the Haitian earthquake of January 2010, the implications of the unfolding crisis, and its consequences for the 1.5 million Japanese men, women and children now homeless is staggering. Complicating matters is that, as of this writing, almost one-third of Japan's energy production capability is disabled, which is to say that providing basic resources and services for all of Japan is increasingly difficult.

Additionally, the crisis has significant implications for critical U.S. national security objectives and operations in the region, including containment of North Korea and counterbalance to the rapidly growing Chinese deepwater naval threat.

Japan is a vital national security ally in Asia and host to several major U.S. military staging and support bases. Under the post-WWII Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, the U.S. is committed to providing Japan with maritime and ballistic missile defense and disaster response capabilities. In return, the U.S. maintains a major military presence for deployment in the region, including the Seventh Fleet based in Yokosuka, Air Force fighter squadrons at Misawa and Kadena and the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force at Okinawa. More than 35,000 uniformed military personnel and another 5,000 DoD employees compose U.S. forces in Japan.

All that notwithstanding, on the day of the disaster in Japan, Barack Hussein Obama responded with a golf outing (his 61st as president) followed by an evening hobnobbing with major donors and his media sycophants at the annual Gridiron Dinner. While horrifying images of the quake and tsunami were seen around the world, Obama kept to his schedule, unwilling to interrupt it long enough to support Japanese leadership via the basic gesture of a reassuring interview with its national news service, NHK. He did find time, however, to record a presidential address on "Women's History Month."

To be fair, Obama issued a brief statement through the White House communications office: "Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to the people of Japan... The friendship and alliance between our two nations is unshakeable..."

"UNSHAKEABLE"? Perhaps he meant to say, "The friendship and alliance between our two nations will never melt down..." Who could make this stuff up?

By contrast, recall, if you will, 8 January, the day Arizona Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among those shot by a sociopath, who killed six others. As that event unfolded Obama's PR team released real-time photos of their boss looking very "presidential" in the White House Situation Room, the intelligence management center run by the National Security Council staff.

Apparently, the crisis in Japan offered no immediate opportunity to convert tragedy into political triumph as did the attack in Tucson, so his tee time took precedence.

In the days since the Tohoku Earthquake, Obama has agreed to several televised interviews, all with domestic TV stations in 2012 election battleground states. Oh, and he took time to fill out his March Madness brackets and share his NCAA tournament picks with an ESPN reporter and camera crew before he and the First Family are head off to sunny Rio de Janeiro for the weekend. (Sometimes it is hard to distinguish Obama's lifestyle from that of a lucky lotto winner, except that the lotto winner is spending his winnings, not taxpayer earnings.)


On the other hand, the Leftmedia is using the "nuclear meltdown" at the Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 plants as political fodder derail efforts to jumpstart the U.S. nuclear power industry.

However, the greatest nuclear threat to the continental United States is not a power plant meltdown, but the detonation of a fissile nuclear device in a U.S. urban center by jihadi terrorists. Given the meltdown in the Middle East; power struggles in Egypt and Libya; growing unrest in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Algeria, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen; and an emboldened enemy in Iran, the probability for a nuclear attack against the U.S. or against one of our key Western allies has increased significantly.

A quick reality check reveals a direct correlation between dramatically increased instability in the Middle East and Barack Obama's AWOL response to crises in the region. His weakness and timidity and the consequential perception of diminished American influence in the region and around the world are an enormous threat to U.S. national security. (As you may recall, we're also trying to manage a warfront in Afghanistan and ensure stability in Iraq.)

Closer to home, there's a war on our southern border, and it's out of control. For the record, there were more civilians murdered by warring drug factions in one Mexican border town, Ciudad Juarez, adjoining El Paso, Texas, in 2010, than were murdered by Taliban and jihadi forces in all of Afghanistan last year.

Obama is AWOL in that crisis, too, except for a few calls for additional gun control measures on this side of the border -- as if that were going to end violence in Mexico.

Despite all this, the most serious threat to U.S. national security is the meltdown of the U.S. economy orchestrated by Obama and his Democratic Socialists. Obama's radical mentors and benefactors must be proud!

In the words of the inimitable Yogi Berra, "This is like déjà vu all over again." Barack Obama's "leadership" is a redux of Jimmy Carter's ineptitude, but the consequences in terms of international threats, critical energy issues and an imploding domestic economy are far more perilous this time around.

Obama's domestic and international debacles leave one nostalgic for a real president, one with a clear vision for restoring America to her greatness, a national leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Fortunately, there are some contenders on the horizon, and there is still time to raise one up.

The next president must possess the leadership attributes that Obama sorely lacks. In the words of Samuel Adams, he must be a man "of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth," in order that "our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation."

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

[ccp]

OK now he is the "weakest" prez in history?  He is not liberal enough.  The guy who with the Dem leadership in both houses rammed the biggest soicalistic agenda down all our throats is suddenly not strong enough?  The left still is in denial.  He is not falling in poll numbers because he is not liberal enough.  They refuse to get it.
Madcow was on the other night saying how the media is not covering the story in Wisconsin enough.  She thinks it is huge and they are not covering it.  The Miami mayor got fired for raising taxes and giving pay raises to gov employees.  Just the opposite of her tirades.  Yet, they ignore the truth.  They still want to demaguage this to death and the country into the sewer.

Can anyone believe the insanity of below's article with statements like:

"Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action."

These are the same liberal people who were the first to condemn Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan.

****President Barack Obama's supporters believed that he had the vision to transform America
Friday March 18,2011
By Anna Pukas 
INEFFECTUAL, invisible, unable to honour pledges and now blamed for letting Gaddafi off the hook. Why Obama’s gone from ‘Yes we can’ to ‘Er, maybe we shouldn’t’...

Let us cast our minds back to those remarkable days in November 2008 when the son of a Kenyan goatherd was elected to the White House. It was a bright new dawn – even brighter than the coming of the Kennedys and their new Camelot. JFK may be considered as being from an ethnic and religious minority – Irish and Catholic – but he was still very rich and very white. Barack Obama, by contrast, was a true breakthrough president. The world would change because obviously America had changed.

Obama’s campaign slogan was mesmerisingly simple and brimming with self-belief: “Yes we can.” His presidency, however, is turning out to be more about “no we won’t.” Even more worryingly, it seems to be very much about: “Maybe we can… do what, exactly?“ The world feels like a dangerous place when leaders are seen to lack certitude but the only thing President Obama seems decisive about is his indecision. What should the US do about Libya? What should the US do about the Middle East in general? What about the country’s crippling debts? What is the US going to do about Afghanistan, about Iran?

What is President Obama doing about anything? The most alarming answer – your guess is as good as mine – is also, frankly, the most accurate one. What the President is not doing is being clear, resolute and pro-active, which is surely a big part of his job description. This is what he has to say about the popular uprising in Libya: “Gaddafi must go.” At least, that was his position on March 3.

Since then, other countries – most notably Britain and France – have been calling for some kind of intervention. Even the Arab League, a notoriously conservative organisation, has declared support for sanctions. But from the White House has come only the blah-blah of bland statements filled with meaningless expressions
and vague phrases. Of decisive action and leadership – even of clearlydefined opinion – there is precious little sign.

What is the Obama administration’s position on the protests in the Gulf island state of Bahrain, which the authorities there are savagely suppressing with the help of troops shipped in from Saudi Arabia? What is the White House view on the alarming prospect of the unrest spreading to Saudi Arabia itself? Who knows? Certainly not the American people, nor the leaders of nations which would consider themselves allies of America.

The President has not really shared his views, which leads us to conclude that he either doesn’t know or chooses, for reasons best known to himself, not to say. The result is that a very real opportunity to remove an unpredictable despot from power may well have been lost. Who knows when or if such an opportunity will come along again?

Every day for almost the last two months our television screens, radio broadcasts and the pages of our newspapers have been filled with the pictures, sounds and words of the most tumultuous events any of us can remember in the Arab world. The outcome of these events, once the dust has settled, could literally change the world. Yet Obama seems content to sit this one out. He has barely engaged in the debate. Such ostrich-like behaviour is not untypical of the 49-year-old President who burst through America’s colour barrier to become the first African-American to occupy the White House.

Two days after taking office in January 2009, he pledged to close down the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, which has become notorious for holding detainees for years without trial. Obama promised to lose the prison within 12 months and to abolish the practice of military trials of terrorism suspects. It was an important promise. America’s reputation had been severely tarnished by revelations about the conditions at Guantanamo, by reports of waterboarding and extraordinary rendition (transporting prisoners to a third country for torture) and by the appalling treatment of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Closing Guantanamo was a redemptive gesture. Two years on, not only is the prison still in use but its future is as assured as ever. Ten days ago, the President signed an executive order reinstating the military commissions at the island prison. Human rights organisations were outraged. “With the stroke of a pen, President Obama extinguished any lingering hope that his administration would return the United States to the rule of law,” said Amnesty International while Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, declared the President’s action to be “unlawful, unwise and un-American.”

White House spokesmen insisted the President was still committed to closing Guantanamo, which currently has 172 detainees in custody. It was Congress, they said, that had refused to sanction the transfer of the prisoners to the US mainland for trial, leaving no option but to keep the prison open in Cuba. Very little has been achieved in the quest to secure peace in the Middle East. Under Obama, US foreign policy is founded on extreme caution. At first this cool-headedness was a welcome change from the naked aggression of George W Bush and his henchmen Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

It is also true that the President is constantly stymied by a hostile, Republican-ruled Congress. But Obama’s apparent reluctance to engage with momentous events is starting to look like more than aloofness. Some tempering of America’s role as the world’s No1 busybody may be no bad thing but under Obama the US appears to be heading towards isolationism. He is hardly doing much better at home. Economically, the US is in big trouble but the national debt is not shrinking.

Ditto the country’s ecological health; the American love affair with the car and oil remains undiminished despite any alleged commitment. But the White House appears to shy away from any tough action. The energy with which Obama entered the White House seems to have all gone in the push to bring in health care reform, which many Americans didn’t want (or still don’t realise they want).

All of which means that it is starting to look as if Obama and the Democratic Party have but one aim in mind for the rest of this presidential term: to get elected for a second. That means not doing anything that might upset any number of special interest or niche groups, which in effect means not doing very much at all. So, not too many harsh but necessary measures to tackle the financial deficit; no clear direction on where America goes with Afghanistan, even though the war there is going nowhere except from bad to worse.

The Obama government can’t even give clear direction on whether the American people are in danger of exposure to nuclear fallout from Japan following the devastating earthquake and tsunami. The US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin advised San Francisco residents to stock up on radiation antidotes, prompting a run on potassium iodide pills, while the President said experts had assured him that any harmful radiation would have receded long before reaching the Western shores of the US.

Yes we can was a noble and powerful mantra which secured for Barack Obama the leadership of the free world. Those than can, do. It is time he started doing.

[G M]

When sanctions don't work, it's ok to use military force to remove a middle eastern dictator!



Glad that's been settled.

[G M]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf_au8EZ04&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZf_au8EZ04&feature=player_embedded

[DougMacG]

First note, the theme of the video in the previous video might be what finally brings him down.  It covers the disengagement very well!  Second I note that 64 senators sent a letter to the President asking him to engage on entitlement reform.  He was not present, in Rio, not available to receive the letter. Third I would note that regarding basketball a different presumed candidate led her team as point guard to a Cinderella story state championship for highly underrated Wasilla.  The incumbent candidate is talking about spectator sports - aka sitting on the couch watching government controlled monopoly television.

Isn't it strange how every story about the administration seems to keep falling under the themes of glibness or cognitive dissonance.

This one, "White House to Push Privacy Bill" flies in the face of all the new invasions on privacy, like HEALTHCARE, and everything we learned from the year of WikiLeaks, that our government can't keep national security information private - private conversations with our closest allies, how are they going to protect the national database of women who had abortions or any other sensitive area of heathcare information.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202971768984598.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond&om_rid=NsfeYb&om_mid=_BNgLb4B8Zs-2Ds

Same administration, same week, is pushing for school administrators to track children's posts on facebook more closely.

The worst private information seizure I have faced was from trying to change the bank account my state required car insurance gets taken  from.  They needed DOB, SS no, bank info obviously, all secret questions answered etc, and the only reason I was switching was because of other federal mandates on banks causing that account to be service charged to death and forcing me to use other accounts.

Cognitive dissonance.  Stop taking all our data would be the best way for government to help with privacy.

[G M]

"The fresh prince of Bill Ayers"




As seen in the comments at hotair.com

[Crafty_Dog]

Top 10 Rejected Obama Mission Names
Apparently the White House tossed out a number of perfectly good names before arriving at "Operation Odyssey Dawn":

10.Operation Nine Months In The Senate Didn't Prepare Me For This
9. Operation Organizing for Libya
8. Operation Double Standard
7. Operation FINE! I'll Do Something
6. Operation Enduring Narcissism
5. Operation So That's What the Red Button Does
4. Operation France Backed Me Into A Corner
3. Operation Start Without Me
2. Operation Unlike Bush Wars This One Is Justified Because Hey Look A Squirrel
1. Operation Aimless Fury

[G M]

Operation Infinite Vacation