President Obama's poll numbers went right through the floor today in the Rasmussen Approval Index. The index number is -21 today as 46% strongly disapprove of the President while 25% strongly approve. While Obama's numbers have been tanking consistently for months, today's figure is stunning. Gee, let's see what could have caused it. In Rasmussen's rolling methodology, today's numbers include Monday's polling results while Friday's results were phased out. The main political event between Friday and Monday was the Senate passage of the "Nebraska Care" plan. Hope and Change is not working out so well either, as the President who was going to heal all our divides is finding that we are more divided than ever on race and gender: Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve. That "post-partisan" thing is not playing out so well either, as the country is sharply divided between the parties: Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove. In addition, Obama's sour numbers have reached a critical mass element in soft and hard approvals: Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove. This is the first time he has been underwater by double digits in the overall approval index. It also marks the first time that the "strong disapprovals" outweigh all approval, strong and otherwise. That is 46 to 44%. That gives us yet another index: the "Deep Doo Doo" index of minus 2.
Snapshot of key C. Edmund Wright Indexes: Give A Damn Index -25 This index measures the percentage of overall support that is strong versus overall dissent that is strong. 83% of those disapproving do so strongly, while only 58% of the support is firm. If this is negative, then the most likely movement from here is downward. We have been accurate on this for months. Deep Doo Doo Index -2 This is a new index, measuring all overall support versus just the strong dissent. If this number is not a high positive, the President is in, well, deep doo doo. Get A Clue Index -19 This compares the one legitimate polling sample - likely voters - versus the lowest denominator of polling samples: merely adults. The ten polls using only adults average a +7 while Rasmussen's overall number today is -12. That puts a 19 point gap between legitimate polls and those with an agenda.
I lived for two years in Eastern Europe, during and shortly after the end of the Communist era. In those two years, my wife and I celebrated a traditional Christmas, complete with festive decorations, Christmas cards, modestly wrapped gifts, a holiday meal, and a two-foot plastic Christmas tree that we came upon at the local market. Though our holiday was quite simple, Christmas was nonetheless celebrated joyfully in our hearts. It was accompanied by the knowledge that this day is indeed special because it commemorates the origin of a redemptive faith in human potential. The communist state could not keep us or others among the ex-pat and local population from reciting the biblical story of the birth of Christ.
What it could do was prohibit all public manifestations of the profound religious tradition that had once dominated the hearts and minds of most Eastern Europeans.
I recall trudging through the snow to classes scheduled for Christmas Day -- trudging for two miles each way to avoid riding the absurdly overcrowded buses reeking of unwashed humanity. It seemed odd to find faculty conducting classes as usual and students milling about the university cafeteria, and not a word to suggest that the day was different from any other. There were no greetings of "Merry Christmas," no exchanges of cards or presents, no looks of anticipation or wonder.
What was celebrated instead was the secular holiday of New Year. Special market tables had been set up offering a meager selection of cheaply printed New Year's cards and miserable trinkets for the children: wooden pop guns, cheap plastic dolls, and an especially dubious treat -- a rubber chicken already plucked of its feathers. With classes and work suspended for the holiday, families gathered for New Year's meals and fellowship. Meanwhile, state television broadcast the same old promises: the advent of another remarkable year of sham efficiencies and faked production quotas.
Despite the pretense of religious toleration that marked the last decades of Communism, no one seemed to care any longer. The communist state, it seemed, had succeeded in eradicating Christmas as a public holiday. As my vintage Rough Guide, dedicated to "the continuation of a free, nonaligned and Socialist Yugoslavia" puts it, religious faiths have "experienced a waning of worship" since the rise of Communism (The Rough Guide to Yugoslavia, London 1985: p. 51). At the time that I lived in Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, religious practice was not just waning: it seemed confined to a diminishing population of frail old women (though it now appears to have made a remarkable comeback, flourishing as believers are no longer discouraged from practicing their faith by neighborhood informants and government spies).
Christianity can survive long periods of oppression, but in the meantime, individual lives can be terribly harmed. In Eastern Europe, hundreds of millions of human beings suffered though a grinding half-century of Communist rule. Lacking the wisdom and inspiration of traditional faith, generations passed through life like hollow men passing from Communist youth leagues to Communist workers' associations to communist pensioner schemes.
Yet one of the inescapable paradoxes of Communism is the fact that the godless state, which professes the virtue of materialism, can then so completely fail to provide even the material necessities that most in the West take for granted. Although there were rubber chickens and wooden pop guns in the market, there was a general absence of everything else. By the time Christmas rolled around, there was little variety of food, and milk had disappeared from the stores. Fresh fruit, including oranges and bananas, vanished entirely, as did all fresh vegetables, except for an aging stock of potatoes, carrots, and turnips. Other than some suspiciously outdated and moldy-looking sausages, meat was in short supply. What there was, along with the potatoes, carrots, turnips, and sausages, was the bland production of the state canneries: jams, jellies, canned vegetables and fruits, potted meat and chicken, and an adequate quantity of bread to be washed down with ample supplies of locally produced plum brandy, beer, and wine.
It might seem that the state had at least provided an adequate caloric intake, but every day I saw people of all ages, from young women with infants cradled in one arm to old men in ragged suits, fumbling through garbage bins for bread crusts and bones.
Christmas was also accompanied by the unrelieved cold. The Communist state had guaranteed heating and electricity for all, just as it had guaranteed universal free medical care, but blackouts were frequent and long, and water shortages predictable: two days off, one day on. Every night, the heat was turned off at nine o'clock. I slept in a cold room under a mountain of blankets, sometimes lying awake as my breath rose like smoke in the moonlight. Then I got very sick, but I refused to be taken to the hospital for fear of being made sicker.
Each morning, a shabbily dressed population reemerged on the streets, crouching against the cold, beaten down by hardship, hunger, untreated disease, and the extinction of all human dreams. Walking the streets of a Communist city in late December, with the unshoveled snow packed down into a treacherous sheet of ice, shivering because no matter where one went, inside or out, one would still be cold -- this was the reality of a Communist Christmas.
But it was not just the bleak physical conditions that ground people down and caused them to die in their forties and fifties. For generations under Communist rule, life passed with nothing more wondrous or resplendent than the material facts of work, consumption, and reproduction. During the Communist era, most people in Eastern Europe grew up as confirmed atheists, smug in the certainty that nothing really mattered except getting along in life and securing as much of society's meager production of goods and services as possible. From this there was no reprieve except cheap alcohol and foul, locally produced cigarettes. For decades, the dismal sight of middle-aged men slumped over smoky barroom tables was ubiquitous in Belgrade and Sofia.
That hopeless future seemed to await many of my bright and curious students. Even at a young age, I felt, they were already cynical and defeated. This, of course, was not their fault, for they had been instilled with the firm belief that the noise spewing from a new boom box or television set was more precious than the words relating the birth of Christ and all of the other elements of their traditional faith. They seemed to accept this materialist view with little hesitation or questioning. They even considered themselves lucky since they were more up to date -- more cosmopolitan than their ancestors, who had huddled in cold churches in the expectations of the mysterious recitation of a miracle.
I will never forget the awful reality of Communism or believe that it can ever be anything other than the hell it was. The facts of the last century should be enough to put an end to that vicious ideology forever, but now I find that many in our own government support something similar. Barack Obama has lost no time at pointing the country toward socialism during his first year in office. Given the chance, he will soon transform our dear country into a socialist state in which liberty will be restricted and private property much reduced. Unless he is stopped in the elections of 2010 and 2012, Obama, with the support of a compliant Congress, will extend control and regulation to every part of our lives, from prenatal care to the seizure of half of our estates -- and often more than half -- after death. With the assistance of a subservient media, he will create a propaganda machine designed to control the outcome of future elections.
I have tried to describe my experience of communism, but soon it may not be necessary to journey back in time and outside our borders to know what a Communist Christmas is like. If the electorate does not rid Washington of the leftist politicians now controlling our affairs, we will be celebrating a Communist Christmas here in the United States.
Why did Chinese premier Wen Jiabao choose to publicly humiliate Barack Obama at Copenhagen? In their eyes, and in those of much of the world, he has lost face, and with it, power and influence. While getting widespread play overseas, this story has been kept very quiet by our disinterested, nonpartisan media (I haven't seen it mentioned in any major U.S. outlet).
After promising to meet the Messiah at 7:00 p.m., Premier Wen stood him up in favor of a meeting with the leaders of India, South Africa, and Brazil. Rather than wait, a no-doubt infuriated Obama stalked into the room in question and demanded, "Are you ready to see me, Premier Wen?" No word on Wen's reaction, though he did submit to a discussion on the spot that evidently sealed the release of the immortal and glorious Copenhagen Quasi-Agreement on Climate Change.
So with Barack Obama, we've reached the point where the leader of record of the most powerful state in history has become a man you can casually stand up. But the question remains: Why?
There are a number of reasons why the Chinese might take a cavalier attitude toward an American leader. China is the chief foreign holder of American debt, which may well have created an impression of the U.S. as a beggar nation on the level of a failed African republic. (I strongly suspect that words were exchanged on this topic during Obama's recent visit to China, though we're unlikely ever to learn about them in detail.)
There's also the matter of race. As is true of most Asians, the Chinese sense of racial superiority is cultural and innate. This is a people who refer to Caucasians as "ghost shadows"; what they think of American blacks is probably best not dwelt upon.
Then there's the deep aura of unseriousness that Obama has generated around himself. Though essentially incalculable, this factor is undeniable and will grow in importance and impact as time passes.
But there's one event in particular that very likely played a part -- the fact that only a few weeks before, Obama publicly and notoriously bowed to the emperor of Japan.
Japan and China have a lengthy history, very little of which can be termed benign. They have always been rivals, often acting at cross purposes and usually at swordpoint. But the past century of Sino-Japanese relations has been little short of horrendous.
Japan's militarist government occupied Manchuria in 1931 and proceeded to menace the Republic of China for several years afterward. In June 1937, as a result of a contrived confrontation known as the "Marco Polo Bridge Incident," Japan escalated to open conquest. Occupying Nanking in December of that year, the Japanese army carried out a citywide massacre that in little more than a month resulted in over 250,000 deaths. So brutal were Japanese actions that they could not, in a pre-Auschwitz world, be referred to directly in news accounts. Sixty years passed before the story was completely told in Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking. (Chang, a less than stable personality in the first place, was so deeply affected that she later committed suicide after telling friends that she could not get the images of the killings out of her mind.)
For nearly a decade, Japan occupied vast areas of China, a period marked by further massacres, atrocities, and casual violations of the human spirit. It's safe to say that but for the even viler activities of the Nazis, the Japanese occupation would stand as one of the peak moments of human cruelty in the modern era. (It's undeniable that Japanese human experiments in their Chinese and Manchurian prison camps were fully as loathsome as those of the Nazis.)
Though the Chinese don't discuss the matter, their attitude toward Japan and the Japanese can easily be imagined. This is particularly likely since Japan, unlike Germany, has only in recent years reached the point of admitting to "irregularities" in its occupation, much less issuing an apology or offering reparations.
So here comes Obama, as ignorant of all this as a little lamb.
Many will recall the uproar that surrounded Ronald Reagan's 1985 visit to a German cemetery at Bitburg, instigated by the existence of SS graves within line of sight of the ceremony. The attitude of the Chinese to Obama's bow must be similar. From that point of view, Wen's behavior should be taken as a rebuke not to the United States so much as to Obama personally.
This only goes to underline the reason why diplomatic protocol exists in the first place -- to exclude through ritual actions all possibilities that error, misunderstanding, or personal pique might interfere with matters of state. Obama has yet to learn this. His insistence on winging it, on reinventing established practice on his own terms, is potentially far more than simply embarrassing. It could be actively dangerous. His refusal to go by the rules may well have cost him the opportunity to pose as Savior of Gaia in Copenhagen. It may cost him -- and the country -- far more at some future time.
I had said before the Chinese view is he has no clue. Called my friend in China last week and he asked me to call back in a half hour. He was watching a show that was ripping Obama called "The three gifts that Obama has given the Chinese". Will post what they are later, off to work knowing my taxes will be going through the roof soon. Am trying to front load like they are doing with the Health, I mean Wel-Care. Yea I know, it is Bush's fault.
Clearly, if the media had done the job the First Amendment envisioned for the press, Obama would not be president today. Belatedly, we now see the media beginning to atone for what can only be described as a shameful coverup during the campaign.
By J.C. Arenas Yesterday, Barack Obama was called to task by the Washington Post for his lack of availability to answer questions following the Christmas Day terrorist attack of Northwest Flight 253.
While the president has read from a number of prepared statements regarding the incident over the past two weeks, he hasn't bothered to hold a forum in which the media could pose direct questions about it to him.
The Post is rightfully dismayed and calls his cowardice towards the matter, "unfortunate". It is unfortunate and unfortunately, this isn't the first time the president has acted like he was on the set of a Southwest Airlines commercial.
In September, while tens of thousands marched on the streets of Washington D.C. to demonstrate their opposition towards the president's domestic agenda, Obama hopped on a plane and escaped from the nation's capital. Apparently, it was more important to deliver a speech at a health-care rally in front of a mere 15,000 adoring supporters in the friendlier confines of Minneapolis's Target Center than it was to attempt to win the support of some of his naysayers.
Nearly two months later, just days following Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist attack on Fort Hood, Obama hit the tarmac--fresh off an embarrassing display of insensitivity concerning the issue--for a little "much-needed" R&R at Camp David, while his predecessor quietly went to the grief-stricken army base to console the victims.
And most recently, in the aftermath of the aforementioned Northwest Flight 253, Obama displayed immediate interest in the well-being of a friend's child involved in a beach accident, but made the entire nation, which was searching for some leadership from its commander-in-chief, wait 72 hours before he reluctantly interrupted his vacation to deliver a statement.
The problem is, more often than not Obama is the guy who wants to get away when he has to deal with the difficult tasks that come with the territory of being President of the United States. It is further unfortunate that a media organization like the Post is just now realizing it.
There would be laughs abound if the president was instead the guy from the commercial who stupidly threw the video game controller at the television, but there's nothing funny about watching Obama's performance thus far which has been unbecoming of the president of the most powerful nation in the world. Now its citizens want to get away, but instead of catching a flight, we'll cast a ballot.
When are they going to learn that throwing good money after bad will not make a difference? I guess their logic is if spending Billions isn't making a difference let's try Trillions, we can always print more money. Are these people that dense?
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 12% of voters believe Congress is doing a good or excellent job, the lowest total since the first of February last year."
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 01-11-2010).]
By Reid Wilson A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the '12 elections were held today, according to a new survey. The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so. Obama's first year in office has been marked by an unemployment rate that surged to 10%, an increased commitment of troops to Afghanistan and a health care battle that has taken a serious political toll on the WH. Obama's approval rating is down to 47%, the poll showed, a 14-point drop since the April survey. 45% disapprove, up 17 points from April. Only 41% say they trust Obama more than Congressional GOPers, while 33% pick the GOP over the WH. That 8-point gap is down from a 21-point edge Obama sported as recently as Sept. Just 34% say the country is moving in the right direction, down 13 points since April, and 55% say it is off on the wrong track, up 13 points over the same period. But as GOPers focus on taxes and spending, that message seems to be causing Obama the most harm. Among those who believe Obama's policies have moved the country in the wrong direction, 45% cite spending and government regulation as a top cause for their opposition. Meanwhile, those who think Obama's policies are moving the country down the right track largely cite long-term benefits of his initiatives. In the meantime, health care legislation is by no means popular, but a majority of Americans don't oppose the legislation yet. 44% said they support the legislation under consideration, down 5 points from the last poll in Sept., while 46% oppose it. The poll, conducted by Financial Dynamics, surveyed 1,200 adults between Jan. 3-7 for a margin of error of +/- 2.8%. For more on the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll, see Ron Brownstein's take on a distrustful America and the withering green shoots after a year under the Obama admin. Full poll results are available here [pdf].
The “New Socialism” – as columnist Charles Krauthammer adroitly calls the global governmental power grab and wealth redistribution schemes lurking beneath the “green economy” – has kicked into high gear in Washington, D.C. already this year. Struggling to respond to a surprisingly bad December jobs report – and struggling to explain the clear failure of President Barack Obama’s massive bureaucratic bailout to stimulate the economy – U.S. government officials are turning to a familiar refrain, “green jobs.” Of course, this familiar song and dance ignores the fact that a huge chunk of the failed “stimulus” went to fund these jobs in the first place. Undeterred by this lack of stimulation – as well as the ongoing unraveling of the climate change myth – Obama’s “solution” to this crisis is apparently to continue doing what hasn’t worked. In fact, the red ink had yet to dry on the Department of Labor’s latest disappointing employment data before Obama was in front of a Teleprompter announcing that the U.S. government was going to spend another $2.3 billion on tax credits for “green jobs.” He also challenged the U.S. Congress to approve $5 billion worth of additional “green manufacturing” tax credits. Obama is clearly seeking to move beyond picking winners and losers in the marketplace (another proven non-starter), as these sorts of policies represent government manipulation of the marketplace at a very macroeconomic level. In the case of “green jobs,” government is mandating (and subsidizing) the creation of inefficient, unreliable and in some cases totally nonexistent sources of energy – all of which in turn creates a net cost to the economy that isn’t being recouped. Exacerbating the problem would be the Obama administration’s proposed “cap and trade” energy tax hike and a series of sweeping new EPA carbon regulations. Not surprisingly, these new EPA mandates are likely to become even more sweeping in the event Congress doesn’t give Obama the carbon tax revenue he desperately needs to continue funding his unprecedented government expansionism. In spite of all this, Obama maintains that “cap and trade” is all about creating jobs, even as it would dramatically increase energy costs on families and small businesses across the country while putting dozens – if not hundreds – of larger companies out of business. Take the example of Spain, which Obama has repeatedly cited as a blueprint for America’s “green jobs” effort. According to a recent study from Juan Carlos University in Madrid, the only “green jobs” in the Spanish economy are vanishing ones – specifically the 2.2 jobs that the country has lost for each “green job” that has been created. “Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” the study’s author Dr. Gabriel Calzada concluded. 1 In other words, “green jobs” are adding to the pile of pink slips in more ways than one. Not surprisingly, Obama is pushing these positions as another form of payback to the union bosses who supported his 2008 presidential campaign. For example in Maryland this month, a $4.6 million “stimulus” grant was presented to a Service Employees International Union (SEIU) partnership to fund “new and emerging green jobs in the healthcare industry.” That same week, the Department of Labor doled out $100 million in grants to “support green job training programs to help dislocated workers and others, including veterans, women, African Americans and Latinos, find jobs in expanding green industries and related occupations.” Among the recipients of this money? Unions like SEIU, UAW, United Steelworkers and Communications Workers of America, just to name a few. So while “green jobs” may be replenishing union bank accounts, they’re only drowning this country deeper in red ink while showering pink slips on workers who simply want government to get out of the way so they can get back to doing their jobs. Only in Washington, D.C. is that called that a “stimulus.”
President Obama’s first year should concern all Americans. Whether liberal or conservative, our president has demonstrated through policy and attitude that he is what many of said he was, a radical leftist.
quote
Now, you may support our President’s agenda, but if you truly believe that it is good for America, please explain why; give examples. If not, then you realize why all Americans should be concerned.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-18-2010).]
Commentator Jack Cafferty — who has been outspoken in his praise of Obama in the past — launched a blistering attack on Obama and the Democrats over the closed-door negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.
“How dare they!” he began on a recent edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room.”
“President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two healthcare bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal — that’s another word for secret — negotiations meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.
“What a far cry from the election, when candidate Obama pledged to ‘broadcast healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the choices are.’
“President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.”
C-SPAN Chief Executive Brian Lamb sent a letter to House and Senate leaders on Jan. 5 asking that the negotiations be televised, saying healthcare reform “will affect the lives of every single American.” The request was rebuffed.
“The Democrats insist this is all on the up and up,” Cafferty continued, “with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying ‘there’s never been a more open process for any legislation.’ Really?
“This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have the ‘most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.’
“Here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.”
The blast was a sharp turnaround for Cafferty, who in March rhapsodized about the “bright” and “terrific” Barack Obama in an interview with Media Bistro.
Asked whether he thought the president could turn things around, Cafferty described himself as "hopeful" and gushed, "I like him a lot. I think he's a bright guy.”
Then in a statement that now appears strikingly ironic, he added: “I like the fact that he's visible and that, you know, he's attempting to bring some transparency and some legitimacy and honesty to the office, which has been missing for a while."
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-18-2010).]
Fewer Americans believe the presidency of Barack Obama, the first African American elected to the White House, has helped advance race relations compared with a year ago, a Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests.
The poll, published on the U.S. holiday commemorating civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., found 41 percent now say Obama's presidency has helped race relations, compared with 58 percent on the eve of Obama's inauguration a year ago who said his presidency would help race relations.
Republicans need to follow the example of Martin Luther King Jr. and return to their basic principles if they plan to win big in this year’s midterm elections, says Lt. Col Allen West, a retired Iraq and Afghanistan veteran who is challenging Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida’s 22nd congressional district.
West used King’s birthday as an opportunity to emphasize the importance of the slain civil rights leader’s belief in the importance of character and to critique the mentality that many black leaders have instilled.
“I think we need to be very careful about losing the sense of individualism, and when you look at this collective progressive mentality that has turned the black community into victims and dependent upon the government,” West, who himself is black, told Newsmax TV’s Kathleen Wolter and Ashley Martella.
quote
The GOP pioneered civil rights for blacks through the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. constitution.
“The first congressmen of this country that were black congressmen were congressmen of the Republican Party,” West said. “Then you contrast that with the segregation laws, the Jim Crow laws and the founding of the Ku Klux Klan, which was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”
He said it took Republicans such as late Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act in spite of Southern Democrats such as Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., who tried killing it.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-19-2010).]
It's been a few years since the release of the film The Thirteenth Warrior. It was a rarity: an intelligent actioner. Directed by Michael Crichton and based on his novel Eaters of the Dead, it was a retelling and rationalization of the ancient Beowulf legend.
In Crichton's version, the monsters of legend comprise a tribe of human cannibals preying on Viking settlements. The story is told through the eyes of an educated Arab visitor who has traveled to the far north out of curiosity and wanderlust. He witnesses an attack by the cannibals in which the Vikings panic and run for it, sustaining heavy casualties in the process. But then, with the assistance of their Arab visitor, the Vikings begin to analyze the behavior of their enemy, piercing through the supernatural aura to the actuality within, learning their weaknesses and the means of capitalizing on them. The Viking defense improves and becomes formidable. At last they assault the cannibal stronghold itself, where Beowulf confronts and destroys their unsavory queen-goddess, losing his life in the process.
The film is an examination of the power of intellectual analysis. Utilizing their brains along with their swords, the Vikings pierce the mystique of the cannibals, seeing them no longer as demons erupted from Hell, but merely as men whose mother-goddess dresses them funny. From that point on, it's only a matter of time, effort, and tactics.
The same process has occurred many times in history. In 1814, somebody -- it's unclear who -- persuaded the Allies that the smart move was to stop chasing Napoleon from battlefield to battlefield, but to march directly on Paris and deprive him of his power base. That did the trick -- with his mystique as the Unconquered Conqueror punctured, Napoleon was soon without an army. Within weeks, he found himself on Elba, playing solitaire and planning his big comeback.
To read the war reports and commentary of 1942 is to step into an alternate universe. People really expected the Japanese Navy to sail over the horizon any minute. Predictions were made for the loss of Alaska, attacks on the West Coast, an invasion of the Pacific Northwest, and the utter destruction of the Panama Canal. None of it happened, of course, and the legend of the Japanese superman died at last at Midway and Guadalcanal.
We saw it again this Tuesday in Massachusetts: a seat that "belonged" to the Democrats in a state "owned" by extreme liberals. Of course, it's impossible to see the long-term results as of yet.
But one thing is clear: Brown didn't just overcome an unworthy, machine-produced opponent, or even provide the crucial vote to prevent the further socialization of the United States. He destroyed a legend -- the legend of Obama the Omnipotent.
The end of O's invulnerability
His mystique: Supernatural -- greeted by his followers as a demigod, openly called a messiah and a godlike entity.
Opposition view: Unbeatable -- slick, slippery, a chameleon reflecting exactly what the viewer wishes to see.
Add on the fact that he is black, which limited the tactics that can be used against him, and there appeared no way of combating him. Not even the Clintons, the past masters of exploiting human weakness, could get a firm hold on Barack Obama.
Some of us had doubts. Seen too much hype. Obama was the pol for the Age of Britney -- an epoch in which people became superstars for wearing their pants low. He was not going to produce an FDR or even a Lyndon B. Johnson. Anyone who has seen the real pols of old, schooled in backwoods elections and steeled by experience, was not going to be impressed by the community activist.
The tired, near-shabby figure forced out of the Oval Office at emergency speed to mouth a pro forma endorsement of an unworthy, incompetent hack was not the Obama of last year. Not a godling, not a New Man, not a higher step in evolution.
The end of conservative defeatism
Frightened into paralysis, out chasing wills o' the wisp, or far worse, even turning their coats (or in the case of David Brooks, I guess you'd have say pants). This is the first true rent in Obama's armor.
There is still plenty of work to do -- a long road ahead. We're still at Midway. But as was said at the time, "it is the end of beginning." Let us go amongst them.
I've seen 13 Warrior several times. I believe the writer above saw a completely different movie--and more importantly--a completely different Obama.
The Arab was not struck with wanderlust--he was banished from the greatest city in the world- his family home by his father and the caliph--to prove himslef and to become a man. Nor, did he join the Viking crew, he was picked by the old Oracle (the 13th warrior must be a no northman) I do not remember the vikings in a panic and running either. But, I thought much of their strategy.
quote
Have we anything resembling a plan ?
Uh-huh. Ride till we find them, kill them all.
It's infallible and applicable even today--tho seldom if ever used--except by our enemies. political correctness comes with a high price.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-21-2010).]
The Obama regime had all the power: the White House and a majority in the House and the Senate. Team Obama owns the liberal media. Because the media selected him, they have a vested interest in protecting his presidency. Obama also had the American people in his corner; youths considered him a rock star, blacks saw him as their Great Black Hope, and naïve whites thought that casting their vote for a black guy would finally put an end to them being called racist.
Our master of deception president accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his government-run health care plan. In reality, the Republicans do not have enough votes to stop any item on Obama's unprecedented, far-left, radical agenda. Obama believed that he could silence all dissent from "we the people" by playing the race card. Yes, Obama the all-powerful seemed unstoppable. Who could have ever predicted that the weight of Obama's own arrogance would trigger his demise? Ego is Obama's Achilles' heel.
Almost from day one, Obama began unconstitutionally usurping power by nationalizing banks and the auto industry. While deceitfully preaching unity, Obama was like the guy in cowboy movies who stands on the steps of the jailhouse. He masterfully works the crowd into a frenzy and demands that they drag out the accused prisoner and hang him. This is what Obama figuratively did to corporate executives, CEOs and anyone who opposed his agenda. It is not unfair to suggest that the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) thugs who beat up a black conservative at a town hall meeting -- in other words, Obama's posse -- were inspired by Obama's orders for his supporters to attack his opposition by "hitting back harder."
In President Obama, I see a bully. During his State of the Union address, Obama used his (pardon the pun) "bully pulpit" to bully the free market, banks, insurance companies, Republicans, and even the Supreme Court. Obama governs the Chicago way: no compromise -- simply destroy your opponent. Mr. Clout Goes to Washington would be the perfect title of a movie about his reign.
Leadership emanates from the top down. Mary Kay of MK Cosmetics said, "The speed of the leader is the speed of the gang." Obama's number one and two enforcers, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, equal (if not surpass) his unbelievable arrogance. At town hall meetings across America, "we the people" passionately said "no" to government-run health care. As an exclamation point to our national "no," hundreds of thousands of protesters showed up in Washington, D.C. Unbelievably, the Reid/Pelosi tag-team are still conniving and scheming to force Obamacare down our throats. Remarkably arrogant.
While the Obama regime appeared powerful, unstoppable, and spreading "like a green bay tree," a change was happening across America. Americans were awakening from their Night of the Living Dead Obama zombie trance. His speeches are no longer heard by many as the voice of a messiah.
Republican Scott Brown's shocking win in Massachusetts confirmed that Obama's spell has been broken. Even after Obama's emergency visit, the Senate seat owned by Democrats for almost half a century was lost -- a devastating affirmation of Obama's declining power.
But who is responsible for the fall of the "chosen one"? Not the Republicans. While the Tea Party movement has played an extremely vital role, Obama's biggest problem has been his arrogance and his ego. Contemptuously, Obama believes he can use America's ignorance of history and the facts, his superior intellect, and his amazing oratorical skills to ignore the Constitution and the will of the American people. Obama arrogantly remains relentless in his quest to implement his rejected overreaching agenda.
I have received gloom-and-doom e-mails saying, "Lloyd, you tea party folks are just wasting your time. Our government is corrupt and nothing will change it." My response: "So, your solution is we sit on our hands and do nothing. Thanks for sharing."
Despite our big bad president's continued huffing and puffing and threats to blow America's house down, his power is rapidly declining. This is why when confronting evil, one should never give up. Keep moving forward, fighting the good fight, and doing what makes sense and feels right to do. You never know what tomorrow may bring. In politics, as in life, things can change on a dime.
A month ago, freedom and liberty were on life support. Obama's government-run health care, cap-and-trade, and the rest of his socialistic agenda appeared to be unstoppable "done deals."
Today, Obama's promise to "fundamentally transform America" appears to be down for the count. This makes me feel like singing, "The sun will come out tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be sun..."
The Bible says, "I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree" (Psalms 37:35). A classic scenario is evil appearing to be all-powerful only to be defeated. Wow, what an accurate description of the collapsing Obama administration.
-Lloyd Marcus, (black) Unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot
And he continues to irritate his own party as well:
quote
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd criticized the White House on Tuesday for complicating the effort to overhaul financial-market rules, saying its late addition of a proposal to corral banks' risky behavior had threatened the process.
Mr. Dodd, who is trying to shepherd a bill through the Senate, said he strongly supported the proposal to restrict large commercial banks from engaging in significant proprietary trading and owning hedge funds or private-equity arms.
.But he said last month's White House announcement "seemed to many to be transparently political," suggesting it could be seen as an effort to woo voters upset with Wall Street just days after Democrats lost a key Senate seat. The proposal and its timing have drawn criticism from Republicans as Mr. Dodd struggles to enlist their support for an already-complicated legislative package.
The unusual tongue-lashing from Mr. Dodd, aimed at Treasury Department Deputy Secretary Neal Wolin, showed the strain the retiring Connecticut Democrat is under to craft a bipartisan deal.
The Democrats now control just 59 Senate seats, one shy of the number needed to press ahead with legislation, and Mr. Dodd indicated Tuesday that he wasn't willing to act without Republican support for a financial-overhaul bill. "I don't want to go to the floor of the United States Senate begging for a 60th vote," he said.
Mr. Dodd also appeared slightly annoyed that President Barack Obama threatened during his State of the Union speech last week to veto the legislation if administration officials weren't satisfied with it. Mr. Dodd called it "somewhat interesting" that the White House would threaten a veto when Mr. Dodd's bill was the only major piece of legislation in the Senate that had a chance of attracting Republican support. White House officials didn't respond to questions about Mr. Dodd's comments on the veto threat.
.Mr. Dodd also slammed the White House for not having answers to technical questions about the proposals, saying he was calling the administration and "not getting good answers."
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.) the top Republican on the panel, said he was open to any proposal that would strengthen the regulatory framework.
But, he said, the White House "air-dropped" its proposal unannounced into the ongoing deliberations on overhauling financial regulations. Several Republicans on the panel said the White House's proposal appeared either politically motivated or unnecessary.
View Full Image
Associated Press
Paul Volcker testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. .Mr. Wolin said the proposal complemented other efforts the administration had proposed and vowed to help Mr. Dodd move the legislation through the Senate.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who backs the proposal which has been dubbed the "Volcker Rule," said the timing of the announcement was "sheer coincidence."
Congressional aides said Sen. Dodd could begin holding votes in his committee later this month on a financial-overhaul plan that included the Volcker rule. It remained unclear, however, whether any Republicans would support it. Without any Republican support, it will be difficult for Democrats to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote.
The proposal is designed to prevent banks that rely on federal guarantees from certain trading activities, in particular making bets with their own funds, a practice known as proprietary trading. That includes commercial banks, whose customer deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and which have access to the Federal Reserve's emergency borrowing facilities.
Also at Tuesday's hearing, several Republicans accused the White House of regulatory overreach. "What we're doing here is we're taking this financial reform, and we're expanding it beyond where we should be," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R., Neb.). "I just question the wisdom of that."
Mr. Volcker told the committee his proposal was designed to prevent the next financial crisis. "I tell you sure as I am sitting here, that if banking institutions are protected by the taxpayer and they are given free rein to speculate, I may not live long enough to see the crisis, but my soul is going to come back and haunt you," Mr. Volcker said.
During his testimony, Mr. Volcker said the White House plan could force up to five U.S. banks to shed their proprietary-trading divisions. He said Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. would have to decide whether they wanted to have proprietary trading divisions or own commercial banks, because the rule wouldn't allow them to do both.
Treasury Deputy Secretary Mr. Wolin said a separate proposal to limit the size of financial companies wouldn't force banks to sell or divest certain divisions. Rather, the goal would be to "serve as a constraint on future excessive consolidation among our major financial firms," he said.
The Obama administration still hasn't specified what limits it wants to place on bank growth in addition to existing curbs on the amount of deposits a bank can hold.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-03-2010).]
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20. For President Obama, the Approval Index has been lower only once.
Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That matches the lowest level of total approval yet measured for this President. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Barack Obama is still struggling to kick smoking, according to his first medical examination since becoming president.
Obama is sensitive about his cigarette habit and tetchy with reporters who raise it. But after his 90-minute medical at the Navy hospital outside Washington yesterday morning, his doctors confirmed he had not yet managed to conquer the habit and suggested he "continue smoking cessation efforts".
The doctors said the president used medication to try to ease the pangs, they described it as "nicotine replacement therapy, self-use".
Obama promised Michelle when he embarked on his campaign to become president he would quit, at the time he said he was smoking about eight a day.
He told reporters last year he had quit but still had an occasional cigarette, without specifying how many.
His health was described as excellent and he does not have to return for another medical until 2012. Obama, who is 48, has 20-20 vision, weighs 179 llbs in his shoes and clothes, and requires little medication. Apart from the nicotine replacement, he uses a non-steroid anti-inflammatory medication associated with physical activity: he regularly plays basketball at the White House.
The doctors also recommended "moderation of alcohol intake".
Sure, but it won't be covered under Obamacare. You have to pay for it yourself. Except there's a waiting list to get one. And you can't get on the waiting list.
Public opinion pollster Scott Rasmussen tells Newsmax that Congress’ disapproval rating is at an all-time low because Democrats have been growing increasingly “disenchanted” with elected officials in Washington.
Rasmussen also disclosed that Americans remain firmly opposed to the Democrats’ healthcare reform plan, said Republicans have momentum going into the midterm elections, and declared that President Obama’s low approval rating will cause problems for his agenda.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-03-2010).]
That is right – I will say it THANK GOD FOR BARAK OBAMA
He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine – Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary’s Presidential aspirations – something no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you!
He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty – No more Kennedy’s trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight!
He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race – quit Evan Bayh had never lost a race – quit Byron Dorgan – had never lost a race – quit Harry Reid – bid for re-election doesn’t look good These are just a handful of the Democrats that whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be! In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans.
He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well! Liberals tax, borrow and spend – check Liberals won’t bring themselves to protect America – check Liberals want to take over the economy – check Liberals think they know what is best for everyone – check Liberals aren’t happy till they are running YOUR life - check
He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan In One year he rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!
In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat out wrong.
When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barak Obama woke up these Great Americans
Unfortunately, the mild swing toward toward conservatism is not a full-fledged return to principles. The republicans still don't get it, as far as I can see. They seem content to dwell on the anger without building on it with plans.
The problem with Barry and Co. is they just don't get it. Take for example the health care debacle. He has told his party members to throw their support behind his proposed reform, even if it means losing their seat come next election. Hello? Earth to Barry! If the person risks not getting re-elected, doesn't this mean that the majority of people don't want his broken health care proposal?
The problem with Barry and Co. is they just don't get it. Take for example the health care debacle. He has told his party members to throw their support behind his proposed reform, even if it means losing their seat come next election. Hello? Earth to Barry! If the person risks not getting re-elected, doesn't this mean that the majority of people don't want his broken health care proposal?
The man's ego is just unreal.
I'm not so sure that they "don't get it." It's one possibility, but despite the fact that these people still believe communism can work, they're not dumb. I figure it's one of 3 possibilities...
1. They really don't get it. They don't have a clue that the American people don't want this, and they just can't understand why.
2. They know we don't want it, but they're going to pass it anyway because they think we're too stupid to know what's best for us (and they are the "elites". Or the so called "smart kids" as Neptune likes to say).
3. They know we don't want it and they don't care because it's not about health care, it's about growing government, growing their power base, growing their voter base, getting people more * dependent* on government, and creating millions of potential union jobs. Don't forget, Obama owes SEIU, the healthcare workers union, for the $60,000,000 for his campaign, all the support, and for sending union thugs out to beat up tea party protesters.
THE LIBERAL WRITTEN MEDIA IS BEGINNING TO FLIP ON OBAMA. FROM THEIR LIPS AND PENS TO GOD'S EARS!!!
Mortimer Zuckerman is the Editor in Chief of the U S News and World Report and was a supporter of Barack Obama during his run for the Presidency. This is a staggering appraisal of the President's first year in office- coming from someone who supported President Obama.
In a January 20, 2010 editorial, the Editor in Chief of U.S. News & World Report, Mortimer Zuckerman, had this to say: “Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office.
He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him… He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other public figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things… I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster.” And that’s what his friends are saying about him. As the boy president occupied the White House on January 20, 2009 it was predictable that his presidency would last a year, at most, because the things he promised and the things he stood for were so uniquely un-American. Looking back over his year in office, any reasonably precocious fourth grader could make a cogent argument in opposition to nearly everything he’s done. In fact, his policies have been so extreme and so far outside the mainstream that he was destined to achieve the most spectacular fall from grace of any American president in history. It was easy to see him serving out the final three years of his term as a virtual exile in the White House… afraid to venture out among any but the most rabid partisans. Seeing his most ambitious initiative, healthcare reform, die in the flames of the Massachusetts Massacre, Obama made a hastily-planned “sortie” to Ohio for yet another Bush-bashing, self-aggrandizing stump speech on job creation. It was vintage Obama… full of left wing hyperbole and planted questions from the Kool-Ade drinkers in the hand-picked audience… but there were just two things wrong with it: 1) Almost everything he said was either wrong or an outright lie, and 2) He is so overexposed that no one in the television audience really wanted to see him. Obama Kool-Ade drinkers in the media, and elsewhere, like to describe Obama as a “very bright man, a true intellectual (compared to George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, of course).” If that is the case, why has he demonstrated such a great inability to learn from his failures? The strident words and the in-your-face attitude of his Ohio speech were proof that he has totally misread the meaning of the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. Whatever hopes and dreams he had for his time in the White House, whatever grandiose plans he had for transforming the United States from a constitutional republic with a free market economy into a socialist dictatorship with a centrally planned economy, were all lost on Tuesday, January 19, 2010… one day short of a full year in office. Yet, he appears to have learned nothing from the experience. Comedian George Gobel once asked, rhetorically, “Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?” In the context of 21st century American politics, and assuming that he has any capacity at all for honest self-examination, Obama must be feeling today very much like a pair of brown shoes at a black tie soiree. When a politically naïve and totally inexperienced young black man, with a glib tongue and an exceptional ability to read words convincingly from a teleprompter, announced that he was ready to serve as President of the United States, liberals and Democrats saw it as a perfect opportunity to expiate whatever white guilt they may have felt… which was apparently considerable among those on the political left. It didn’t seem to bother them that, as one pundit has remarked, “every time he walks into a room he is the least experienced and the least qualified man in the room.” Nevertheless, his friends in the worldwide socialist movement and the international banking community figured out how to smuggle hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal campaign funds into the country, the black community rallied to his banner, and American liberals and the mainstream media jumped on board the bandwagon. Together, they made it happen for him. But now, just one year later, Obama appears destined to become the unhappiest man in American politics… unhappier than even former Senator John Edwards, who runs a close second, and former president Bill Clinton. Clinton will be the third unhappiest man because, after capturing the big prize, he frittered away whatever chance he had of ever being compared favorably with Franklin D. Roosevelt as one of the 20th century’s greatest Democratic presidents. Not only was he a politician of unusual skill and insight, he was widely known as a policy “wonk” among policy wonks and he had the drive and the personal charm to be loved and respected around the world. Unfortunately, he was never able to put the public trust at the top of his priority list. Instead, he surrounded himself with a large cadre of trusted enablers who allowed him to conduct himself as if he were, not the President of the United States, but the class stud on an extended spring break in Acapulco. Now that he’s been out of office for nearly a decade and he’s married to the current Secretary of State, he spends his days trying to find something useful to do without calling an undue amount of attention to himself. Having lied so shamelessly to the American people, having perjured himself in a court of law, having turned the Oval Office into a sexual playpen, and having suffered the humiliation of impeachment, he’s smart enough to know that he has little reputation left to protect. So in order to protect whatever legacy remains, he walks a tightrope every day… and he has many more years to walk it without falling off. Former Senator John Edwards is destined to be the second unhappiest man in American politics because he will be known forever as the most thoroughly despised scumbag in the political arena. A trial lawyer, Edwards amassed a $60 million fortune by winning large jury awards against doctors, hospitals, and corporations. His specialty was cases in which children were born with cerebral palsy, which he blamed on doctors who had waited too long to perform C-sections, a claim that doctors and medical researchers have described as “junk science.” Then, like Obama, he decided that his experience in the courtroom, his glib tongue, and his one term in the U.S. Senate qualified him to be President of the United States. He entered the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, raising an incredible amount of money for a newcomer to elective office… most of it raised illegally by “bundlers” in plaintiffs’ law firms across the country. He was unsuccessful in his quest for the Democratic nomination but was selected by his Senate colleague, John Kerry, as his running mate. Two years later, in 2006, Edwards met a young blonde film producer, Rielle Hunter, and embarked on a love affair with her. On February 27, 2008, Hunter gave birth to a daughter, for whom Edwards has consistently denied paternity… until now. Taking into account that all of this was happening while his wife was waging a long battle with breast cancer, Edwards now has the well-deserved reputation of being the sleaziest of the sleazy. He is so universally despised that, if he is on the lookout for a friend, he might as well resign himself to getting a dog… or moving in with O.J. Simpson. Terry Moran, host of ABC’s This Week, put it all in perspective. He said, “What’s interesting to note is that Edwards’ latest admission (that he is the father of Hunter’s child) came while he was in Haiti. As if the people of that sad place didn’t have enough problems.” Clearly, the one thing Clinton and Edwards share that places them near the top of our list is their sexual peccadilloes, a shortcoming that Obama does not appear to share with them… at least from what we know so far. What we do know about Obama is that, since his teen years, he has been mentored by, gravitated toward, and surrounded by the most dangerous sort of America-hating socialists, communists, and Marxists… from Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky to Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and countless radical left college professors. What destines Obama for the top spot on the list of unhappiest American politicians… aside from the failure of his economic recovery program, the failure of his radical cap-and-trade proposal, his failed attempt to give labor bosses unprecedented power to intimidate blue collar workers, and his ill-fated attempt at healthcare reform… is the fact that he carries on his shoulders the hopes and aspirations of every black child in America. It is unfortunate that, because he is so far outside the American mainstream, and because he carries so much hatred in his heart for the country he seeks to lead, his failures will be viewed by generations of black children, not as the failure of a black socialist attempting to bring down a constitutional republic, but simply as the failure of a black man. A man can fail in the eyes of his countrymen and still be dearly loved by those closest to him. But in Obama’s case, his wife and his two daughters will be there to suffer every agonizing step of his fall along with him. And for the rest of his life, each time he looks into their eyes, and into the eyes of black people everywhere, he will see the crushing disappointment that his ill-fated attempt at national transformation has caused them. He will be the country’s unhappiest man, living the rest of his life knowing that his daughters know that the whole world sees him as a failure. He is simply the wrong man, in the wrong job, in the wrong country, at the wrong time in history.
I guess their logic is if spending Billions isn't making a difference let's try Trillions, we can always print more money. Are these people that dense?
