His ratings are going down in the polls now.. People are waking up from the stupor they have been in from drinking the kool aid and of the new Messiah.... The graphic designers are having fun now...
But too many intellectuals mistook elegance for eloquence. In many cases these were liberals who saw what they were looking for. Still, far too many "serious" conservatives supported Obama because he was – believe it or not – a good speaker.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-03-2009).]
What happened to President Obama? His wax wings having melted, he is the man who fell to earth. What happened to bring his popularity down further than that of any new president in polling history save Gerald Ford (post-Nixon pardon)?
The conventional wisdom is that Obama made a tactical mistake by farming out his agenda to Congress and allowing himself to be pulled left by the doctrinaire liberals of the Democratic congressional leadership. But the idea of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi pulling Obama left is quite ridiculous. Where do you think he came from, this friend of Chávista ex-terrorist William Ayers, of PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi, of racialist inciter Jeremiah Wright?
But forget the character witnesses. Just look at Obama's behavior as president, beginning with his first address to Congress. Unbidden, unforced and unpushed by the congressional leadership, Obama gave his most deeply felt vision of America, delivering the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president. In American politics, you can't get more left than that speech and still be on the playing field.
In a center-right country, that was problem enough. Obama then compounded it by vastly misreading his mandate. He assumed it was personal. This, after winning by a mere seven points in a year of true economic catastrophe, of an extraordinarily unpopular Republican incumbent, and of a politically weak and unsteady opponent. Nonetheless, Obama imagined that, as Fouad Ajami so brilliantly observed, he had won the kind of banana-republic plebiscite that grants caudillo-like authority to remake everything in one's own image.
Accordingly, Obama unveiled his plans for a grand makeover of the American system, animating that vision by enacting measure after measure that greatly enlarged state power, government spending and national debt. Not surprisingly, these measures engendered powerful popular skepticism that burst into tea-party town-hall resistance.
Obama's reaction to that resistance made things worse. Obama fancies himself tribune of the people, spokesman for the grass roots, harbinger of a new kind of politics from below that would upset the established lobbyist special-interest order of Washington. Yet faced with protests from a real grass-roots movement, his party and his supporters called it a mob -- misinformed, misled, irrational, angry, unhinged, bordering on racist. All this while the administration was cutting backroom deals with every manner of special interest -- from drug companies to auto unions to doctors -- in which favors worth billions were quietly and opaquely exchanged.
"Get out of the way" and "don't do a lot of talking," the great bipartisan scolded opponents whom he blamed for creating the "mess" from which he is merely trying to save us. If only they could see. So with boundless confidence in his own persuasiveness, Obama undertook a summer campaign to enlighten the masses by addressing substantive objections to his reforms.
Things got worse still. With answers so slippery and implausible and, well, fishy, he began jeopardizing the most fundamental asset of any new president -- trust. You can't say that the system is totally broken and in need of radical reconstruction, but nothing will change for you; that Medicare is bankrupting the country, but $500 billion in cuts will have no effect on care; that you will expand coverage while reducing deficits -- and not inspire incredulity and mistrust. When ordinary citizens understand they are being played for fools, they bristle.
After a disastrous summer -- mistaking his mandate, believing his press, centralizing power, governing left, disdaining citizens for (of all things) organizing -- Obama is in trouble.
Let's be clear: This is a fall, not a collapse. He's not been repudiated or even defeated. He will likely regroup and pass some version of health insurance reform that will restore some of his clout and popularity.
But what has occurred -- irreversibly -- is this: He's become ordinary. The spell is broken. The charismatic conjurer of 2008 has shed his magic. He's regressed to the mean, tellingly expressed in poll numbers hovering at 50 percent.
For a man who only recently bred a cult, ordinariness is a great burden, and for his acolytes, a crushing disappointment. Obama has become a politician like others. And like other flailing presidents, he will try to salvage a cherished reform -- and his own standing -- with yet another prime-time speech.
But for the first time since election night in Grant Park, he will appear in the most unfamiliar of guises -- mere mortal, a treacherous transformation to which a man of Obama's supreme self-regard may never adapt.
Last night on FOX NEWS, liberal commentator COLUMBIA UNIV. PROF. MARC LAMONT HILL, had this to say about President Obama during his appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show:
"Obama has done an amazing job of going around the country, talking to hundreds of people and not really saying anything in terms of specifics."
I doubt Prof Hill realizes that this is exactly what Rush Limbaugh has been saying about Barack Obama for nearly two years.
Lloyd Marcus Since Aug. 28th in Sacramento, Calif., I have been traveling across America performing on the Tea Party Express tour. Patriots are attending by the thousands, families, grandparents and kids. Everyone extremely enthusiastic, grateful and concerned for their country.
The liberal media is calling them extremists, racists, ignorant and an angry mob. I am the only black performer on the team and the affection from the attendees has been overwhelming. Black conservative authors Selena and William Owens are traveling with us as speakers. Kenneth Gladney, the black conservative beaten by SEIU thugs is touring with us also telling his story. The American people have embraced us with huge loving open arms of brotherhood. If you love America, as the song says, "We Are Family."
One stop was particularly moving. After a rally with thousands, we were headed to our next rally. A whistle stop was schedule because a few folks really wanted to say hello. We were running late and decided to cancel the whistle stop. Then we got the call. "You must stop. There are a lot of people here." The state police guided our bus into a crowd of 500 to 800 people along side the highway.
They cheered and treated us like rock stars. They showered us with hugs, food, homemade cookies, brownies and gifts. Nothing expensive, but overflowing with their love. We used the bed of a pick up truck as a stage and spoke through a bull horn. We said the Pledge of Allegiance and sang "God Bless America". Many in the crowd were sobbing.
When our team got back on the bus, our emotions were high. We have gotten rave reviews and affection at every rally. But this whistle stop did not have a sound system or great speeches. These people were extremely grateful that we were traveling across America to Washington DC as their voice. We felt humbled and blessed to be their representatives and a part of American history.
These folks are not racists, nor are they an angry mob. They are hard working decent American people who love their country and do not want it changed into something unrecognizable. Angry mobs do not bake and bring brownies.
Last night on FOX NEWS, liberal commentator COLUMBIA UNIV. PROF. MARC LAMONT HILL, had this to say about President Obama during his appearance on Greta Van Susteren's show:
"Obama has done an amazing job of going around the country, talking to hundreds of people and not really saying anything in terms of specifics."
I doubt Prof Hill realizes that this is exactly what Rush Limbaugh has been saying about Barack Obama for nearly two years.
Now we know why no one here has anything to say in terms of specifics. They're just following the Divine Leader's example. "And kids--don't forget to drink your Ovaltine blue koolaid!"
It's about a year since Barack Obama has been at the center of US national politics, but it's probably not too early to say that his first year was wasted.
It is also probably too harsh to blame the president for all of the waste. He heads a party that last did something serious in the civil rights era of the 1960s. It's hard, even for the best of leaders, to kick free of the bad influence of your peers.
We all know how it all went wrong.
When Lehman Brothers failed on September 15, 2008, the global financial markets seized up and the stock markets, barometer of the future earnings of the world's enterprises, went south too. At that point, any prudent campaign organization would have said to itself: all bets are off. We'd better start contingency planning for a completely different presidency. By January 20th, Inauguration Day, it was clear that the entire world was in the middle of the most serious financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. President Obama and his team could have junked their game plan and started over. They could have told us that all the goodies they promised us, the health care and the green jobs, would have to wait.
The response of the Obama administration to the economic crisis will go down as one of the biggest blunders in US history.
In his inaugural speech the president decided to stay the course, acting as if the national larder were full instead of empty.
The president encouraged the Congress to pass a huge "stimulus" bill that was, in fact, a bailout for the state and local governments, i.e., state and local government jobs.
The immediate emergence of the Tea Party movement in February told us that something was wrong. Everybody who was anybody sneered at the grass-roots consternation of the American people.
They are not sneering any more.
As it happens, the American people are right. All the bailouts and deficits are just digging a bigger hole. Only one bailout was necessary, the bailout to unfreeze the frozen credit markets and put the banks back above water.
Since February the Obama administration has attempted two more blunders, the cap-and-tax bill, presently hidden away in the US Senate, and the three ring circus of the president's health reform, presently on life support.
Has there ever been a more reckless squandering of political capital in US history?
The irony of the situation is that the failure of its initiatives is probably going to be the one thing that saves the Obama administration. If cap-and-tax fails, and the health reform is reduced to minor tinkering, then 2010 may turn into the year that Congress looks at ending the Bush tax cuts and blinks. With taxes low and new spending shelved, in spite of the president and his liberal Congress, the economy might eke out a decent recovery in 2011 and 2012 and reelect President Obama.
It is telling that the center of resistance to the president's agenda seems to be coming not from the established conservative movement but from some more amorphous, Middle American place. Maybe that's not surprising. When the welfare state crashes and burns it will not necessarily be "women and minorities hardest hit." No, it will be ordinary Americans that will be hardest hit. Liberals and their clients will do fine, protected in their lifetime government sinecures and benefits. Conservatives will do fine, because they never trusted government, and made other arrangements for their security. It will be the moderates, who vote one year for Republican tax cuts and another year for Democratic spending, that will be devastated by the wreck of the liberal spending programs.
So it makes sense that they are the ones instinctively reacting in nervous opposition to the president's huge spending plans.
Some people believe that the president has persisted in his folly because he is an unrepentant leftist. The truth is probably more prosaic. The problem is that the president and his advisers seem to be unable to see round corners or think several moves ahead. They have kept on with their original game plan because they lack the experience and the confidence to change it.
It makes you wonder what would have happened after 9/11 if President Bush hadn't been served as governor of Texas and received his baptism of failure in the oil and gas business. Or if Vice-President Cheney hadn't brought to the team his unrivaled lifetime of experience in government service.
But President Obama is the only president we've got. We must hope that he finds the wisdom and the strength to start over.
FACT CHECK: Obama uses iffy math on deficit pledge
By CALVIN WOODWARD and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Calvin Woodward And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers 16 mins ago
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation's health care system without adding "one dime" to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars.
The president's speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.
A look at some of Obama's claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:
OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.
House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.
Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.
The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.
That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."
___
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.
In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.
___
OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.
THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.
___
OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."
THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.
___
OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.
The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.
___
OBAMA: "If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage."
THE FACTS: It's not just a matter of being able to get coverage. Most people would have to get coverage under the law, if his plan is adopted.
In his speech, Obama endorsed mandatory coverage for individuals, an approach he did not embrace as a candidate.
He proposed during the campaign — as he does now — that larger businesses be required to offer insurance to workers or else pay into a fund. But he rejected the idea of requiring individuals to obtain insurance. He said people would get insurance without being forced to do so by the law, if coverage were made affordable. And he repeatedly criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage.
"To force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh penalty," he said in a February 2008 debate.
Now, he says, "individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance."
He proposes a hardship waiver, exempting from the requirement those who cannot afford coverage despite increased federal aid.
___
OBAMA: "There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage."
THE FACTS: Obama time and again has referred to the number of uninsured as 46 million, a figure based on year-old Census data. The new number is based on an analysis by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which concluded that about two-thirds of Americans without insurance are poor or near poor. "These individuals are less likely to be offered employer-sponsored coverage or to be able to afford to purchase their own coverage," the report said. By using the new figure, Obama avoids criticism that he is including individuals, particularly healthy young people, who choose not to obtain health insurance.
___
Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
There is one line of Obama’s Wednesday night speech that keeps bothering me.
During the speech I, like many others, was frustrated by the president’s lies, manipulations and petty partisanship. But those feelings ebbed in the hour or so after the joint session address.
But there was one part, unrelated to health care specifically, that keeps popping into my head. Near the end of the speech the president said: “We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.”
The line was not at the end of loud rhetorical flourish, signaling the time for applause, yet the chamber erupted in cheers. A certain energy seemed to fill the room as the liberals listening to the speech inwardly realized the magnitude of the president’s statement. Their hearts began to race and their eyes grew wide as a new awareness of the tangibility of their power began to sink in.
When the president and his cohorts embrace the idea that the course of the country should be fashioned by their brilliance or benevolence, they embrace the mindset of the totalitarian. It is a belief that a few should rule over the rest.
Obama and the Democrats (or any elected official) are not in Washington to shape the future, but to preserve the past while individuals Americans decide their own future. The presidential oath is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
The ‘shape the future’ phrase explains Obama’s mindset in a way his other 5,500 words couldn’t. Underneath it all, the speech wasn’t really about insurance, medical care or bipartisanship. The address was about a misshapen idea that, when espoused, changes the president from a citizen protector of Constitutional rights to a despotic destroyer of those rights; all in the name of “shaping the future.”
A conservative media watchdog organization is demanding that the media reports President Obama's "lies, distortions, and exaggerations" delivered in his speech on healthcare reform Wednesday night.
The Media Research Center says President Barack Obama will not stop committing what it calls "serial dishonesty with the American people until the media expose his false figures and bogus exaggerations for what they are: fraudulent scare tactics." The group describes the president's Wednesday night speech about healthcare as "a litany of lies."
Rich Noyes, director of research at the MRC, says The Associated Press did do a fact check on his speech.
"[The AP story suggests] that he uttered 'a variety of over simplifications and omissions,'" says Noyes. "He talked about how he would not add a single dime to the deficit, when the studies are showing it would add about a trillion dollars to the deficit over the second year of the plan. He talked about not permitting any illegal immigrant to be covered, when in fact it was Democrats who voted down any attempt to verify immigration status."
"The list of things that he talked about [was] very misleading," the MRC spokesman concludes, "added to the arrogant veneer of him scolding anybody else for taking liberties with the truth as liars, as he did."
Noyes says Obama's speech was about as "audacious" as one could possibly get. He says while the AP did do its fact check, there has been little coverage from the mainstream media on Obama taking liberty with the facts during his speech. Until that happens, says MRC, it gives the president "a green light to lie and cry wolf about whatever he wants, whenever he wants -- and it will aid in the most radical government takeover ever attempted in America."
Rick Moran The Washington Post is asking why. So are many nervous Democrats who want to know just what concessions Obama expects to get from Russia by groveling and bending to their threats.
As NRO said, the decision to stab the Poles and the Czechs in the back after they went far out on a political limb to support the placement of the missile shield was "inexplicable."
The Post:
Nevertheless Mr. Gates's "almost" speaks volumes -- because the suggestion by other administration spokesmen that the decision had nothing to do with Russia will probably not be credible to much of the rest of the world, including the Russians themselves. By replacing a planned radar system in the Czech Republic with another in the Caucasus and by ending a commitment to place 10 long-range missile interceptors in Poland, President Obama satisfies the unjustified demands of Russia's leaders, Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev. Moscow implausibly claimed to feel threatened by those systems; in reality, Russia objects to any significant U.S. deployment in NATO countries that once belonged to the Soviet bloc. Following his meeting with Mr. Obama in July, Mr. Medvedev declared a linkage between U.S. concessions on missile defense and the conclusion of a new strategic weapons agreement.
Mr. Obama, who -- as it happens -- will meet Mr. Medvedev in New York next week, has now, whether it was his intention or not, conceded to him. "We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement," Mr. Medvedev crowed Thursday. German Chancellor Angela Merkel also didn't get the administration's memo: She called the change "a hopeful signal for overcoming difficulties with Russia when it comes to a uniform strategy to combat the threat of Iran together."
In fact, administration officials say they sought nothing from Russia in exchange for the missile decision -- and, it's worth noting, there have been no parallel steps by Moscow to address major U.S. concerns in Europe or anywhere else. Mr. Putin's foreign minister reiterated just a few days ago that Russia will not support new sanctions against Iran. The strategic arms agreement, though desirable, is of far greater interest to Russia than to the United States.
Does anyone begin to see a pattern here? Obama gives away the store unilaterally - to Iran, to Venezuela, to Russia, to any nation with their hand out - while getting absolutely nothing in return.
Is this the change we were promised? Unilateral concessions are sometimes necessary but Obama makes a habit of it - a bad habit. He has, as the Post points out, made a huge concession to Russian interests and has received no promise of getting anything in return.
The separate issue of pulling the rug from underneath the Poles and Czechs has got Europe in an uproar. If the US won't stand against a newly aggressive Russia, who will? Certainly not the militarily insignificant Europeans who won't even fight in Afghanistan (except the Brits, French, and Dutch).
I think it imperative that Obama be stopped from negotiating any nuclear treaties with anyone. If he is going to give away such an important asset even before talks start, what is he going to agree to once the negotiations actually get underway?
It was the worst thing that the American government could do. This decision was announced on 17 September, when Poland was commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Invasion Day, when the Soviet Union allied with Nazis and stabbed our country in the back.
This was an effect of the Nazi- Soviet Pact that was signed on 28 August in Moscow. After this day, all dreams about resisting Hitler's invasion perished -- two evil empires combined their powers to destroy our freedom and sovereignty.
At the same day, 70 years later, Obama bowed to the Kremlin. It was something that created great turmoil in all of Poland. What is even worse -- people here feel that they were betrayed. It's not only about the anti-missile shield. It's about the Polish attitude towards the USA. The United States was seen as the great defender of freedom and democracy all around the world.
The United States supported Israel against Ahmadinejad's threats. After 9/11, Poles expressed solidarity with the USA without any hesitation, despite the fact that we were risking alienation from some of our European partners.
And after we joined the U.S.-led coalition against terrorism, we were verbally attacked by Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Shroeder -- leaders of two major European powers, but our position was clear and firm: we would stay with the USA and fight against common enemies -- enemies who attacked our ally and the whole free world.
No other country had such a special status in Poland -- almost 80% of Poles sympathized with the U.S. Poland is not a great military power, but it has some influence on Eastern Europe and was a real stronghold of American interests in this region. Whatever Germans, French or other European Union countries would do, Poland always stood arm to arm with the U.S.
Now it all belongs to the past. It's not only about this incident, but it was something that created great outrage here. It's impossible to remain so positive towards the U.S. now - people are reacting emotionally. Even the most pro-U.S. media and journalists comment that our close relations with the USA were a mistake. That we were wrong, and we should focus on our closer neighbours, like France or Germany.
But, some people understand -- as I do, that this is a wrong reaction. Wrong, because people don't recognize that "America" (United States) is only a country, and has a policy that is set out by the current government.
All I can say is that Obama is undermining strong support for U.S. foreign policy, not only in Poland and the Czech Republic, but also in the whole region. This process cannot be reversed under this government (Obama).
But the U.S. won't lose Poland as an ally because many people realize this simple fact: that we can't blame the U.S., but we can only blame Obama's administration. And Obama is not the United States. What is more, Obama's foreign policy hurts U.S. interests all around the world, and the USA is the country that would lose the most from his policies. So, we should understand it here, in Europe, that the major victim is not Poland, but the U.S.
The saddest thing is just seeing the anti-American groups in Europe, the same groups that some years ago shouted about American imperialism, have their moment of triumph. They also point out Poland, saying with satisfaction, "Look, the U.S. is pulling back - you and your policy lost".
Yes, it's their time now. But, we believe that in the future everything could change. Because the U.S. deserves a change now...
Webster defines dissent as: to differ in opinion... to disagree. This implies that one has an opinion. Dissent can be effectively stifled by keeping people too ignorant to form opinions, frightening them into silence or shutting down the means to express dissent.
The mass media that should keep the public informed is instead keeping the public ignorant. It acts as a gatekeeper deciding what we should know. If facts about a controversial person or policy are never revealed, opinions go unformed and there is no dissent. Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of educating the public when he stated, "If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- it expects what never was and never will be."
As the 2008 election was nearing, I had occasion to ask many friends if they weren't troubled by the association of Barack Obama and Weatherman Underground founder and bomber Bill Ayers. Without exception, no one I spoke with had heard of Bill Ayers. No opinion.... no dissent.
When Van Jones, the White House "Green Jobs" Czar stepped down in the dark of night, it was generally reported that he had called Republicans a nasty name and signed the "9/11 truther's petition" suggesting the Bush administration was responsible for the 9/11attacks. If not for Glenn Beck and Fox News, no one would know that Van Jones was a self avowed communist advising the President. That is rather significant information that was withheld from the public and ensured there would be no public outcry.
Then there is demonization of those who voice dissent. It began with the characterization of the tea party and town hall goers as un-American, Nazis, brown shirts, teabaggers, mobsters, and most recently domestic terrorists. But the ugliest technique of all is the race card. Being branded a "racist" is a direct assault on character that makes the average person want to run for cover.
Congressman Joe Wilson was the initial target. His two word outburst on the floor of the House was a breach of decorum, but quickly his very legitimate policy concern was branded "racist" by the likes of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.
Next came the race baiting irresponsible former President Jimmie Carter charging that "There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African-American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white."
Charges of racism effectively squelch dissent when people are afraid to express policy differences for fear of being branded a racist.
The April 7th Homeland Security document profiling, as potential rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists, American citizens concerned about "gun rights" and the "current economic and political climate" was another intimidating event. It led to a policeman detaining an individual by a Louisiana roadside for half an hour to determine if he belonged to an extremist group. His crime was an expression of opinion. He had a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his car.
It caused an uproar when the White House asked people to squeal on their neighbors if they heard some "fishy" ideas about Obamacare. But some individuals are now afraid to sign petitions or express their ideas on Face book for fear of being "flagged" on a White House enemies list.
The major outlets for both information and dissent today are talk radio and the internet. Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission's new "Diversity Czar" is a disciple of "Rules for Radicals" Saul Alinsky and an admirer of Hugo Chavez. Lloyd describes freedom of speech and the press as a "distraction". He proposes whipping private radio companies into line by threats to their license renewal or by taxing them so heavily that they would be driven out of existence.
If that doesn't worry you, consider Senate Bill 773 which would permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector non-governmental computer networks during a so-called cyber security emergency, however that may be defined.
Dissent is not un-American, but trying to intimidate and, squelch free speech is. As the editor of the Morning Journal wrote in an August 9 column, "You had better keep a close eye on this White House. Because the Obama White House apparently has its eyes and ears out on the streets watching, listening and ready to 'flag' anyone who doesn't sing their tune."
Nice! I can see a Dem version with LBJ sitting at one end of the table in a big cowboy hat, and Bill Clinton at the other, smoking a cigar. JFK would be bluffing his hand, and Jimmy Carter just folded.
James Reynolds In the Tolkien mythologies, the Ents are a race of human-like trees living deep in a primordial forest. Ancient, towering creatures, Ents move slowly and deliberately, requiring decades of contemplation before coming to a decision on matters great and small. In the Middle Earth Trilogy, Ents are warned time and again of the danger they face at the hand of man, but it is not until they go to the edge of their forest and witness the destruction of their homeland that Ents rise up and defeat their foes.
For almost a decade Middle America has lived as Ents. Buffeted by the attacks of September 11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the housing crash of 2008, many of my countrymen had, by last autumn, turned inward, losing focus on the cost of freedom. Overwhelmed by the rapid pace of political and social change beyond their shores, a large group of Americans -- like the Ents -- just wanted to be left alone. But change was in the air, and on November 5, 2008 Barack Obama was elected President of the United States on a nebulous promise of “hope and change.”
Fast forward to Monday, September 21, 2009: Nancy Pelosi is blubbering about “assassins,” Jimmy Carter is whining about “color,” Jon Stewart is screaming at the reporters of America as to why two kids scooped them on the ACORN story. And then along comes Bertha Lewis.
The actions of Barack Obama and his minions over the past eight months have awoken the Ents from slumber. Ask any American small business owner, all with legal and moral responsibilities to work within their company's budget. Ask any twenty-year old about their soon-to-be-mandatory health care plan. Ask any senior citizen who now wonders if they will be sharing their health care with 12 million illegal aliens who, according to our president in a speech before the National Hispanic Caucus on September 17, 2009, stated that "this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."
I guess the President didn't lie in his joint session speech; he just didn't tell the truth.
In America, working people hold the political class in contempt for good reason. But we ignore them at our peril. After years of feeling helpless, Middle America is paying attention to the people in Washington, and we do not like what we see. For that I thank you, Mr. President. Because of you, the Ents have gone to war.
Obama and his supporters are being routed. Cap N Tax is dead. Obamacare is on life support. He is trying to go into the new year with a victory and throwing financial reform against the wall. Even that is not sticking.
Now he is flailing away, scheduling media appearances left and more left. The more he is in front of America, the more his numbers plummet. Also the more people see and learn of his policies, the quicker they falter and fall apart. Even the "good" war in Afghanistan is falling apart. Leftists are turning on Obama and demanding immediate withdrawal.
I have no doubt that he will be a failed administration. I just hope he has enough sense not to make too many dumb foriegn policy decisions. It is one thing to screw this country up. It is something completely different to screw our allies. I fear for Israel, Eastern Europe and our allies in Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Obama and his supporters are being routed. Cap N Tax is dead. Obamacare is on life support. He is trying to go into the new year with a victory and throwing financial reform against the wall. Even that is not sticking.
Now he is flailing away, scheduling media appearances left and more left. The more he is in front of America, the more his numbers plummet. Also the more people see and learn of his policies, the quicker they falter and fall apart. Even the "good" war in Afghanistan is falling apart. Leftists are turning on Obama and demanding immediate withdrawal.
I have no doubt that he will be a failed administration. I just hope he has enough sense not to make too many dumb foriegn policy decisions. It is one thing to screw this country up. It is something completely different to screw our allies. I fear for Israel, Eastern Europe and our allies in Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Israel, indeed. Read the following article. Israel should tell Obama to go F himself.
In his new book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," Best-selling celebrity journalist, Christopher Andersen, has blown a huge hole in the Obama genius myth without intending to do so.
Relying on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama herself, Andersen describes how Dreams came to be published -- just as I had envisioned it in my articles on the authorship of Dreams. With the deadline pressing, Michelle recommended that Barack seek advice from "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."
To flesh out his family history, Obama had taped interviews with various family members. Andersen writes, "These oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers." Andersen quotes a Hyde Park neighbor, "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together. It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both."
Andersen continues, "In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's Dreams From My Father would be significant--so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing."
Relationships between President Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seem to be on a downward spiral.
Much was written about Obama's behavior towards Brown earlier this year when the Prime Minister visited Washington. There was no joint press conference between the two heads of government, nor was there a state dinner to honor Brown. As is typical, the two leaders exchanged gifts. Brown presented the type of custom made item normally presented at state visits. In a move widely reported in the United Kingdom, Obama gave the nearly blind PM a boxed DVD set that was not only readily available on line but which was in a format that was not compatible with British DVD players.
Once again, Obama has sent the message that he has no time for America's long-standing ally.
British officials made five attempts to secure official talks with the US President and even agreed to a policy change in an attempt to land a joint appearance between the two leaders, said diplomatic sources.
But the White House rebuffed the offers and Mr Brown, who had hoped to increase his popularity by appearing on his own with Mr Obama, had to settle instead for a snatched conversation with the President in a New York kitchen
While there are many who think that Brown deserves such treatment for his performance while in office, David Hughes notes that the story of Obama's continuing disrespect towards Brown shared the British headlines with the death of a recipient of the Military Cross for gallantry, killed this week in Afghanistan.
What are we to make of this? This country has proved, through the bravery of men like Acting Sgt Lockett, America's staunchest ally in Afghanistan. In return, the American President treats the British Prime Minister with casual contempt. The President's graceless behaviour is unforgivable. As most members of the Cabinet would confirm, it's not a barrel of laughs having to sit down for a chat with Gordon Brown. But that's not the point. Mr Obama owes this country a great deal for its unflinching commitment to the American-led war in Afghanistan but seems incapable of acknowledging the fact.
Maybe Brown can meet with New York governor David Paterson while he is visiting America. The two men can discuss Obama's penchant for public acts of disrespect towards blind political allies who are behind in the polls.
The Associated Press is now chiding President Obama for falsely claiming that his proposed tax on uninsured people is not a tax. It is a tax increase, the AP says, and it would be enforced by the IRS: “Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax. Obama insisted this weekend on national television that requiring people to carry health insurance - and fining them if they don’t - isn’t the same thing as a tax increase. But the language of Democratic bills to revamp the nation’s health care system doesn’t quibble. Both the House bill and the Senate Finance Committee proposal clearly state that the fines would be a tax.”
The AP also notes that the Administration’s proposed health-care tax increases contradict “Obama’s campaign pledge on taxes”: “”I can make a firm pledge,’ he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12, 2008. ‘Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.’ He repeatedly promised ‘you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime.’”
Obama earlier broke his promise not to raise taxes by signing into law a regressive SCHIP excise tax increase and backing a massive new cap-and-trade energy tax (supposedly to fight global warming)
It’s part of a long line of broken promises, such as Obama’s pledge to enact a “net spending cut,” which he broke with huge budgets that will explode the national debt through $9.3 trillion in massively increased deficit spending.
The costly cap-and-trade energy legislation passed by the House and supported by Obama would lead to big tax increases, Administration officials privately have conceded, even though they publicly claim otherwise. “Officials at the Treasury Department think cap-and-trade legislation would cost taxpayers hundreds of billion in taxes, according to internal documents circulated within the agency and provided to The Washington Times” by CEI. It could raise household taxes by $1761 per year, equivalent to a 15 percent tax increase. It would also result in “loss of steel, paper, aluminum, chemical, and cement manufacturing jobs,” as jobs migrate overseas to countries which have fewer environmental protections than the U.S. does.
Obama earlier admitted that “under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” since its costs would be passed “on to consumers.” Although cap-and-trade backers claim it will cut greenhouse gas emissions, it may perversely increase them and also result in dirtier air, as well as harming forests and water supplies.
Americans for Tax Reform summarizes the tax increases in ObamaCare: an individual mandate tax of $900 per individual or $3800 per family (if you don’t have health insurance); an employer mandate tax of $400 per employee if health coverage is not offered; an “excise tax on high-cost health plans”; a “medicine cabinet tax”; capping Flexible-Spending Accounts (FSA’s); abolishing most HSAs; and increasing tax penalties for HSAs.
All these tax increases won’t even pay for Obama’s massive spending binge. He is relying on $2 trillion in imaginary savings to pay for his health-care plan. Even Democratic governors have criticized its huge cost.
One of Obama’s economic advisers said his health-care plan would lead to “crippling deficits” and “higher taxes.” The Congressional Budget Office also says it will increase the deficit.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 09-28-2009).]
It looks like the mainstream media can't be bothered to report on Obama getting his ass kicked by foreign leaders. Gee, they sure were quick to report when Bush was similarly attacked...
