The No Bull Newsletter is written by a group of attorneys in Australia. You may learn more about them by googling the name "No Bull Newsletter". This article does give you a great deal to think about!
I have been having a nagging intuition lately that something is not quite right about Barack Obama. I am not suggesting there is something wrong with the man, per se. Nor am I talking about the crazy, even dangerous, policies coming out of the White House.
No, lately, I have been wondering if Barack Obama is, in fact, the person who is actually functioning as President of the United States [POTUS] .
I mean, there's no doubt that he fills the position of POTUS but is he really the one in command? The man actually seems lost at times. He seems to be reacting to ideas about which he does not really have a clue. He has left the writing of this health care bill to Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives and she, in turn, has farmed the writing out to several fairly radical community action groups.
When questioned about health care, he seems not to know or understand the details and even with his silver-tongue seems unable to demonstrate any leadership on the issue.
With respect to Afghanistan and the rest of our foreign policy, he seems equally lost. Especially when it comes to dealing with other world leaders. He makes beautiful speeches but seems to be unable to cut deals which benefit our nation. He seems to be acting as a pawn of much more clever world leaders.
The more I watch the man, the more I see a person who appears to be the "face" of some other entity or group. He seems like a "front man". And it is becoming clear that his strings are being pulled by someone else. He does not appear to be the man in command of the ship of state. At least, he is not in the driver's seat.
You might recall that people said about Bush that he was a front man for the neo-cons and that it was really Dick Cheney that was running the show. It turns out that Dick Cheney was not as influential in Bush's second term as many thought but, perhaps it is true that the neo-cons, whoever they may be, were pulling some of Bush's strings.
On the other hand, with Obama, it does not appear that there is anyone who is visible to we the people, or the media, who is pulling the strings. If they are there, they are not in elected positions as Cheney was. They are better hidden than that.
We know that Obama has been, and remains, surrounded by life-long radicals, professed communists and anti-capitalists, some of whom he has even appointed as czars in his administration. Thirty six czars, to date.
But is it Obama who is picking the czars, or is it the czars who are running the show and propping up Obama as their front man?
I know all this may sound crazy but, really, when you look at the man without the idolatry and media worship, does he really look like he knows what he is doing? Does he seem to have a direction? Firm convictions? Something he deeply believes in? The more he talks now, the more his words seem empty of content. Platitudes about America and the American people which, when he says them, simply do not ring true. They are words being mouthed but not believed by him.
Okay, so maybe he is really clever, is firmly moving the ship to the left while mouthing the words of a centrist. But I don't think so.
What I used to think was that he was a really slick conman who was making us watch his left hand while he was manipulating us with his right. But, now I don't think that so much. I think the man is more plastic than real. Now I begin to see him as the "Great and Powerful Oz": a fearsome presence who is being manipulated by men behind the curtain. And while Obama does not have strong convictions, the men behind the curtain do. And they are moving this country down a dangerous path. All the while, we are being distracted by Obama and what he says and does.
Okay, maybe I am simply a mildly paranoid conspiracy theorist. Why, you might ask, have Obama up there? Why not have one of the actual people behind the curtain run for President. Well, being a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I can come up with an answer to that question. Those other people behind the curtain have backgrounds that are so radical that they would never have made it past the first few days of a campaign. Additionally, they are life-long community organizers and they know what kind of face can be effective if you wish to radically change the nation.
First, you need a black man to gain the support of the vast black minority. Second, you need a pale skinned black man so as not to be too much of a threat to white Americans. For the same reasons, you need a mixed race man who allies himself with the poor and down-trodden.
And you need someone who speaks well enough to co-opt the language of the right and appear to be a uniter, not a divider. Someone who sees, or at least can articulate, both sides of an issue.. This is the kind of man you would pick to be your front man so that while you move things drastically and dramatically left, the vast majority of Americans will not believe that was the intention of the moderate appearing front man.
Yes, Obama was a community organizer. Yes, he could be clever enough to have all this be his idea. But he really wasn't a community organizer for that long. And when he was, he didn't do anything truly radical.
It was more a time during which he was being trained than a time when he was driven by a personal sense of commitment to anything in particular.
There are people who are now in his government who have been community organizers and radical left wing activists for 20-30 years. These people have deeply ingrained commitments to changing the system and have been actively trying to do so for all that time. Obama is not one of them.
In my view, Obama has been trained and used as a puppet by others for a long time. His successes seem to have come too easily, as if they have been orchestrated. His life appears to have been pre-planned.
I mean, Harvard Law Review without publishing a single paper of note. That is unusual.
A community organizer for a short time. A State legislator for a short time. A freshman US Senator. (143 days) A convention key-note speaker. And then POTUS. How does that happen? A person with zero governmental administrative experience is running the entire government of the United States ....
How do 1100 page documents get developed and put out in such short order? Who is writing all these proposals? Does it not seem that something is just not quite right here? Forget about the specifics of the policies for the moment. Have you ever seen this level of activity in the first few months of any other administration in your lifetime?
Does Obama seem like the kind of person that could manage this level of activity in so short a time? Too much does not make sense here.
So, slowly but surely, I am becoming convinced that it is not Barack Obama who is running the show. The White House has been captured by a group of people who are using Barack Obama as their front man. He is nothing but an articulate but empty suit. We have to start looking behind the curtains to find out who is really ontrolling the "great and powerful Obama".
Most Americans don't believe that the way for Washington to address its gargantuan debt is to increase deficit spending and go deeper into debt.
Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman disagree. Stiglitz, for example, in an interview televised on Feb. 17, denigrated "deficit fetishism" and assured listeners that more "stimulus" spending now would augment American prosperity, both short-term and long-term.
There are several major defects in Professor Stiglitz' analysis.
1) Thralldom to the Keynesian macro-economic paradigm.
The Stiglitz/Krugman perspective is thoroughly Keynesian. They attribute today's economic sluggishness to insufficient aggregate demand; hence, government must compensate for this deficiency via increased deficit spending to stimulate the economy. The Keynesian diagnosis is spurious.
Sound economic analysis looks at the demand for specific goods and services, not at statistical abstracts like "aggregate demand." Falling demand for particular economic goods indicates that fewer people still value or want them anymore at that price.
In a free market, consumers communicate to producers through price signals whether to produce more or less. This generates the ongoing, healthy process Schumpeter dubbed "creative destruction," whereby new entrepreneurs supplying higher-valued goods supplant those supplying lower-valued goods.
Government policies, both monetary and fiscal, distort price signals, thereby stimulating overproduction of lower-valued goods while shifting inputs away from the production of higher-valued goods (destruction without Schumpeter's creative component). Government stimulus spending, by prolonging and propping up unwanted, uneconomic production, is inherently counterproductive, delaying the necessary realignment of misallocated resources to the rational (i.e., wealth-creating instead of wealth-extinguishing) production that produces an economic recovery.
2) Blindness to history.
The Keynesians' faith in deficit spending as the key to economic recovery represents a triumph of hope over experience.
Exhibit A: The massive deficit spending of Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s didn't stop the Great Depression. In fact, despite FDR spending more money in his first five years in office than all 31 prior presidents combined, his Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau stated in 1939 that "[w]e are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... I say after eight [sic] years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"
Exhibit B: The massive deficit spending of Japan's government over the past two decades has led to protracted economic sluggishness. Japan still limps along, but now the nation suffers from the largest debt-to-GDP ratio of the developed world at almost 200%.
Exhibit C: Last year's so-called stimulus plan has produced the same results as FDR's stimulus-stagnant employment and mushrooming debt.
The Keynesian economists have a huge blind spot when it comes to history. That is because they tend to view economic history as divided into two eras: the years since the Keynesian revelation (Dec., 1935, when the master, John Maynard Keynes, enlightened the world with his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, and pre-1935 when all was supposedly darkness. They seem oblivious to the historical fact that, before Hoover and Roosevelt, Uncle Sam didn't ramp up spending during recessions /depressions, and those downturns were of shorter duration.
The most instructive example is the Depression of 1920-21, which featured the most rapid fall in production, employment and GDP in our history. Rather than trying to stimulate the economy, Presidents Harding and Coolidge slashed government spending in half. Markets made the necessary adjustments, the depression lasted for approximately a year, and employment and production made rapid, robust recoveries.
3) An enormous faith in government competence.
In his Feb. 17 interview, Stiglitz asserted, "All we need to make sure that our long-run national debt is lower" is for government to increase spending on investments that would produce an "easy ... 5 or 6%" return.
This is a breathtakingly glib assertion. If making profits of 5% or 6% is so easy, why are so many experienced businesspersons and entrepreneurs losing money these days? Stiglitz's comment reminds me of the facile assumption made by Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Union, that running businesses was a piece of cake. After he assigned the management of state-owned enterprises to political allies and then saw how quickly production declined, Lenin humbly conceded that managing enterprises efficiently is much harder than it looks.
The Keynesian faith in government macroeconomic planning is eerily similar to socialists' master plans. Both involve centralized decision-making by political elites. Both regard markets as inherently defective and unreliable, so government must intervene. Thus, Stiglitz apparently believes that federal bureaucrats or Obama-appointed czars can make profits where private firms cannot. He also overlooks an inconvenient fact of life: Government programs (notoriously inefficient to begin with) operate outside the profit-and-loss marketplace, so there is no way to measure profitability and prove Stiglitz' claim of 5%-6% returns.
4) Dangerous assumptions about the capital markets.
"Run up more debt," the Keynesians urge, apparently regarding the world's capital markets as a bottomless well.
Besides the trillion and a half dollars that Uncle Sam will need to borrow to finance this year's expenditures, European countries will require more than $2 trillion. Japan's budget calls for a record-high debt issuance of 44.3 trillion yen. According to Forbes.com Senior Editor Daniel Fisher, "National governments will issue an estimated $4.5 trillion in debt this year, almost triple the average of mature economies over the preceding five years." Asian countries may be booming, but they can't produce enough capital for both themselves and all the first world's needs.
Furthermore, there are limits to how much debt a country's government can incur. The Greenspan-Guidotti rule (formulated in 1999 by Alan Greenspan and Pablo Guidotti) states that a government needs liquid reserves sufficient to cover 100% of its short-term external debt. If a country lacks such reserves, foreign creditors will realize that the debtor government is essentially broke. In consequence, the country's currency will plunge on foreign exchange markets, triggering massive upheavals throughout the economy.
As reckoned by investment analyst Porter Stansberry, the U.S. government has approximately $500 billion of ready reserves, comprised of foreign currencies, gold, and oil. It also has current-year funding needs of over $4 trillion ($1.5 trillion budget deficit, $2 trillion of Treasury bills coming due in fiscal year 2010, and at least another trillion dollars of longer-term debt instruments maturing). That would imply a crackup this year. Perhaps, if existing creditors roll over their Treasury holdings and banks continue to borrow dirt-cheap from the Fed and purchase Treasury debt instead of making business loans, the day of reckoning can be delayed. Clearly, though, Uncle Sam is perilously close to insolvency and a consequent inflationary monetization of the debt by the Fed, to be followed by a massive depreciation, if not total destruction, of the paper dollar and concomitant economic and social disruptions.
For all of the above reasons, the Stiglitz-Krugman-Keynesian pleas for more stimulus and more deficits are reckless and irresponsible. Stimulus plans haven't worked, won't work, and we can't afford them. We are already in great economic danger from deficit spending. A policy to plunge us even deeper into the debt abyss is kamikaze economics. We should take a pass on that course of action.
A little over a year into Barack Obama’s presidency, his top advisers are already laying the groundwork for the 2012 re-election campaign.
The president’s approval numbers have been steadily plunging, but sources tell Politico.com that Obama is giving signs indicating he is planning to run again and wants the next campaign to be patterned after the highly successful 2008 effort.
The planning is low-key for now, with aides “indulging occasionally in closed-door 2012 discussions while focusing ferociously on the midterm elections and healthcare reform,” the Web site disclosed.
The re-election campaign is likely to be managed by Jim Messina, White House deputy chief of staff, and to include David Plouffe, the Obama for America campaign manager; David Axelrod, White House senior adviser; Anita Dunn, former White House communications director; and key figures with the Democratic National Committee.
“The DNC sees Republican challengers ramping up earlier than ever and has decided to begin defining potential opponents early,” Politico reported.
“Operatives are already assembling research and drafting unflattering narratives to push about the leading possible 2012 candidates.”
I'm not exactly a fan of the PC police, but it looks like Gunga Dan should have been a tad more thoughtful here:
DAN RATHER: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama's leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. "Listen he just hasn't been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death." And a version of, "Listen he's a nice person, he's very articulate" this is what's been used against him, "but he couldn't sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic."
For the record, I don't think that remark was racially charged so much as just another one of Rather's annoyingly affected Texas aphorisms run amok. Lucky for Dan he's not Republican or conservative or else people would really be sharpening their pitchforks about now. In Rather's case he might just get off the hook with a beer summit. That kind of exposure would really help his career.
Former CBS anchor Dan Rather stepped into a racial minefield when he mentioned watermelons in a reference to President Obama.
Appearing on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show” on March 7, Rather, who now hosts a show on HDNet, discussed the expected GOP strategy for the November elections.
“Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership,” he said.
“And the Republicans will make a case, and a lot of independents will buy this argument: ‘Look at the healthcare bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.’
“And a version of, ‘Listen, he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate . . . but he couldn’t sell watermelons if you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.’”
Geoffrey Dickens of the Media Research Center observed: “While Rather may not have been intentionally racist, one has to wonder what the reaction would be if a conservative had used similar language on the show.”
The mayor of Los Alamitos, Calif., sparked an uproar a year ago for sending an e-mail depicting watermelons in front of the White House. The mayor apologized and resigned, claiming he was unaware of the stereotype that blacks like watermelon.
Another Newsmax.com story.
quote
We Heard . . .
THAT some Republicans in Nevada are crying foul over Jon Scott Ashjian, who filed as a tea party candidate to oppose Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.
The charge: The Reid camp put him in the race to siphon conservative votes from the Republican candidate, CNN reported.
And the Las Vegas Sun reported: “Republicans, long accustomed to the Reid tentacles reaching into every crevice of Nevada politics, have publicly floated the idea — repeated frequently in conservative media outlets — that Ashjian is a sham fashioned by the Reid campaign to save the senator’s flagging political fortunes.”
“Nobody in the tea party knows who he is,” Danny Tarkanian, one of the GOP senate candidates vying for the nomination, told CNN.
A Rasmussen poll shows Reid trailing all three Republican candidates by double digits in head-to-head races. But a Las Vegas Review-Journal poll found that, with a tea party candidate on the ballot, Reid would win the three-way race by a narrow margin.
Both Reid and Ashjian have denied the allegation.
THAT the previously unidentified speechwriter of Obama’s controversial address to the Muslim and Arab world in Cairo on June 4, 2009, finally has been named.
Claiming credit for the speech is Stephen P. Cohen, founder of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development and a visiting professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Princeton and other institutions.
Obama “chose a Jew to write the most important address by an American president — in the middle of a war against Islamic terrorists — to the Muslim world,” observed the JStreetJive Web site, which tracks Israel’s Jewish defamers.
Jews criticized Obama’s speech in Cairo widely, with human rights activist Anne Bayefsky calling it “a distortion of history, an insult to the Jewish people, and an abandonment of very real human-rights victims in the Arab and Muslim worlds.”
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-15-2010).]
When House Speaker Pelosi said that ObamaCare will allow Americans to realize their dream of being an artist, photographer, or writer without having to work a day job to have health insurance, some of us wondered whether ObamaCare also will cover other expenses, such as for housing and food, that force people to work a job they may not like while they pursue their dreams. Now we know the answer: yes it will.
Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said that ObamaCare will reduce health insurancepremiums by "3,000 percent." Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we'd be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we'd be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.
If your current health insurance policy costs $5,000 a year, insurance companies will pay you $145,000 a year (2,900 percent multiplied by $5,000). If you're fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year. There's no word whether you can purchase a more expensive health insurance policy to increase the amount of money that insurers pay you each year.
Just think, America: These are the people telling us that they know best how to run 1/6 of our economy.
Don't you just love it when a young student hammers the arrogant professor in a debate? That was the distinct feel of last night's "Special Report" program, where Bret Baier interviewed President Obama. In case you have not figured it out, Baier is the victorious young student in this analogy.
Certainly this was not what the White House had in mind when President Obama agreed to sit down and chat with the heretofore-nondescript Fox anchor. Where is Anita Dunn and her war on Fox News when you need her?
With all due respect to Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer, who didn't acknowledge on air that their colleague bested the president, Baier clearly had Obama fumbling around and stuttering and totally flustered. Like other young and studious-looking white guys Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, Baier used annoying and inconvenient facts to unveil the childish and petulant Obama that a fawning Jurassic media has never bothered to investigate.
The best example of this was when Obama tried to play an unseemly game of "top this" with Baier over concerned Americans' e-mails:
BAIER: Let me insert this. We asked our viewers to e-mail in suggested questions. More than 18,000 people took time to e-mail us questions. These are regular people from all over the country. Lee Johnson, from Spring Valley, California: "If the bill is so good for all of us, why all the intimidation, arm twisting, seedy deals, and parliamentary trickery necessary to pass a bill, when you have an overwhelming majority in both houses and the presidency?"
Sandy Moody in Chesterfield, Missouri: "If the health care bill is so wonderful, why do you have to bribe Congress to pass it?"
OBAMA: Bret, I get 40,000 letters or e-mails a day.
BAIER: I know.
OBAMA: I could read the exact same e-mail --
BAIER: These are people. It's not just Washington punditry.
OBAMA: I've got the exact same e-mails, that I could show you, that talk about why haven't we done something to make sure that I, a small businessperson, am getting as good a deal as members of Congress are getting, and don't have my insurance rates jacked up 40 percent? Why is it that I, a mother with a child with a preexisting condition, still can't get insurance?
So the issue that I'm concerned about is whether not we're fixing a broken system.
The funny part is that Baier was coming at Obama with a variation of the favored tactic that the president and other Democrats continue to use ad nauseum: quoting e-mail anecdotes as a way to make a point. It clearly got under Obama's skin. The "I get forty thousand letters or e-mails a day" retort from the president was sensationally sophomoric in tone. Like a number-one seed in the NCAA's playing a number sixteen, Obama was clearly caught off-guard by the high level of the competition in this interview.
Evidence that he was off balance could be found in the fact that he avoided answering almost all of Baier's questions and resorted to burying himself in the worn-out clichés of this entire debate, as this early exchange demonstrates:
BAIER: You have said at least four times in the past two weeks: "the United States Congress owes the American people a final up-or-down vote on health care." So do you support the use of this Slaughter rule? The deem and pass rule, so that Democrats avoid a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill?
OBAMA: Here's what I think is going to happen and what should happen. You now have a proposal from me that will be in legislation, that has the toughest insurance reforms in history, makes sure that people are able to get insurance even if they've got preexisting conditions, makes sure that we are reducing costs for families and small businesses, by allowing them to buy into a pool, the same kind of pool that members of Congress have.
We know that this is going to reduce the deficit by over a trillion dollars. So you've got a good package, in terms of substance. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.
(BAIER TRIES TO REDIRECT-- CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform. And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.
(AGAIN, BAIER TRIES TO GET OBAMA BACK TO THE QUESTION, LEADING TO CROSS TALK)
OBAMA: Bret, let me finish. If they don't, if they vote against, then they're going to be voting against health care reform and they're going to be voting in favor of the status quo. So Washington gets very concerned about these procedural issues in Congress. This is always an issue that's -- whether Republicans are in charge or Democrats in charge -- when Republicans are in charge, Democrats constantly complain that the majority was not giving them an opportunity, et cetera. What the American people care about is the fact that their premiums are going up 25, 40, 60 percent, and I'm going to do something about it.
The "Bret, let me finish" statement had the same feel as the "John [McCain], the campaign's over" moment of the health care summit. It was a juvenile, "I'm going to take my ball and go home" remark.
Another key moment was when Baier pressed the president with an "in your face" question on the Slaughter Rule and the president's call for "courage." In this case, the president's answer had nothing to do with the question.
BAIER: Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in the health care debate. At the same time, House Speaker Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the deem and pass rule: "I like it, this scenario, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." Is that the kind of courage that you're talking about?
OBAMA: Well, here's what's taking place - we both know what's going on. You've got a Senate bill that was passed, that had provisions that needed to be changed. Right? People were concerned about, for example, the fix that only fixed Nebraska, and didn't fix the rest of the states.\ Now, a lot of the members of the House legitimately say, we want to vote on a package, as the president has proposed, that has those fixes embedded in it. Now that may mean they have to sequence the votes. But the ultimate vote they're taking is on whether or not they believe in the proposal that I put forward, to make sure that insurance reform is fixed, to make sure the deficits are reduced, and premiums go down, and small businesses are helped. That's what they're concerned about.
Frankly, I'm not sure what the president was stammering about in that answer, but since he brought up the provisions that singles states out, Baier pushed for clarifications on which fixes were still in and which ones were out -- and Obama could not give clear answers on those. This snippet is illustrative:
OBAMA: ... this notion that this has been not transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill. I sat for seven hours with --
BAIER: Mr. President, you couldn't tell me what the special deals are that are in or not today.
OBAMA: I just told you what was in and what was not in.
BAIER: Is Connecticut in?
OBAMA: Connecticut -- what are you specifically referring to?
BAIER: The $100 million for the hospital? Is Montana in for the asbestos program? Is -- you know, listen, there are people -- this is real money, people are worried about this stuff.
OBAMA: And as I said before, this -- the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes, but --
BAIER: Let me get to some of the specifics on substance, not process.
OBAMA: The only thing --
(BAIER, TRYING TO REDIRECT, LEADING TO CROSSTALK)
BAIER: (INAUDIBLE)
OBAMA: -- the only thing I want to say, just to close up, is that when you talk about one-sixth of the economy, this is one-sixth of the economy that right now is a huge drag on the economy.
Overall, I submit that Fox Contributor A.B. Stoddard was correct when she said that Baier "had the president off-guard" and that "he [Obama] was at his worst" in the interview. While I am not sure exactly what interview Hume and Krauthammer -- two pundits nearing the end of brilliant careers -- were talking about, the one I saw was a clear defeat for President Obama and his health care plan. The fact that he agreed to appear on Fox News likely means that his party is in trouble on the vote count. It also means that he thought Baier, a man lost in the deep shadows of Fox's other stars, would be easy fodder.
As it turns out, Baier was anything but easy fodder. This was was easy to score. Baier: 1; Obama: 0.
Obama Stalling on Iran Sanctions Bill From Newsmax
quote
Obama Stalling on Iran Sanctions Bill
Legislation passed by Congress imposing harsh sanctions on Iran has languished for months without President Barack Obama’s signature as the Islamic Republic moves forward with its nuclear program.
In December, the House passed the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act by a 412-12 vote. The bill would increase the White House’s power to sanction any company or individual aiding Iran in importing gasoline or refining petroleum.
Iran must import up to 40 percent of its gasoline due to a lack of refining capacity.
The Senate passed a similar bill by a unanimous voice vote in January.
Citing Iran’s human rights abuses, funding of terrorists and pursuit of its nuclear program, Sen. Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said: “With passage of this bill, we make it clear that there will be appropriate consequences if these actions continue.”
Pro-Israel groups strongly support the legislation.
All that remained was for the Democratic leadership to reconcile slight differences in the House and Senate bills.
Instead, they have “bottled up the measure and refused to allow a blending of the bills,” Michael M. Rosen, a Republican activist and attorney in San Diego, writes in the Jerusalem Post.
“Why? Because the Obama administration asked them to.”
A State Department spokesman said the White House is trying to “make sure the president has sufficient flexibility to be able to work with other countries effectively for our shared goal of finding ways to put appropriate pressure on Iran to change course.”
The administration is reportedly not expected to seek a reconciliation of the bills until the United Nations pursues a new resolution on Iran.
China opposes another round of U.N.-sponsored sanctions, and the White House has urged congressional leaders to call China a “cooperating country” and exempt Chinese companies from sanctions for doing business with Iran, according to The Washington Post.
“In light of the Obama administration’s recent pummeling of the Israeli government for building homes in Jerusalem, the White House’s reluctance to punish Tehran and its willingness to coddle Beijing begin to make sense,” Rosen writes.
“Obama and his foreign policy advisers have consistently shown themselves to be more solicitous of America’s enemies than its allies, more willing to provoke our friends than to challenge our foes. And so far, this approach has succeeded only in emboldening opponents of the United States while alienating its trusted partners.”
*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits... - Obama Sr. on socialism (Link) - Overview of the paper (Link) *Harvard educated economist *Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes *Demonized corporations *Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)
Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)
*Communist sympathizer *Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism) *Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud *Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan *Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies *Left Barack Obama Jr.
Mentor
*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link) *Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents
College & Church
*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (Link) *Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link) *Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)
Career
*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link) *Voted for TARP (Link) *$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill *Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth' *Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link) *President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler *President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG *President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare *President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man' *President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs *Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich' *Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division." *Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC *Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link) *Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link) *Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (Link)
Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration
*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” *Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate *Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist *Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market *John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth *Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan *Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao *Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar' *Carol Browner, socialist *Robert Creamer, socialist
*Communist who saw nothing wrong with government 'taxing 100%' so long as the people got benefits... - Obama Sr. on socialism (Link) - Overview of the paper (Link) *Harvard educated economist *Nairobi bureaucrat who advised government to 'redistribute' income through higher taxes *Demonized corporations *Abandoned Barack Obama Jr. when he was 2 years old to continue at Harvard (teaching son that ideology is more important than family)
Stanley Ann Dunham (Mom)
*Communist sympathizer *Practiced 'critical theory' (aka Marxism) *Influenced by Nietzsche and Freud *Left Hawaii for Indonesia, Pakistan *Attended a leftist church nicknamed the 'little red church' because of its Communist sympathies *Left Barack Obama Jr.
Mentor
*Barack's grandparents introduced Barack Obama Jr. to poet and communist Frank Marshall Davis (Link) *Davis becomes a mentor as young Barack struggled with abandonment by parents
College & Church
*Admittedly sought out 'Marxist' professors (Link) *Admittedly attended 'socialist conferences' (Link) *Began attending a Marxist church - led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)
Career
*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change (Link) *Voted for TARP (Link) *$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill *Healthcare bill admittedly about 'redistributing the wealth' *Single Payer Healthcare proponent (Link) *President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler *President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG *President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare *President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to 'cut out middle man' *President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs *Repeatedly vilifies 'the rich' *Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth... he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division." *Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC *Forces mortgage co's to cover people who aren't paying mortgage (Link) *Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks (Link) *Told Joe the plumber 'it's better when you spread things around' (Link)
Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration
*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” *Jim Wallis, Obama's spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate *Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist *Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market *John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth *Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan *Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao *Mark Lloyd, FCC 'Diversity Czar' *Carol Browner, socialist *Robert Creamer, socialist
A scholar and bestselling author says it will be very difficult to reverse the socialist policies of Barack Obama, even if Republicans take over control of Congress next year.
Dr. Jerome Corsi is author of the 2008 New York Times bestseller The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions, August 2008), which was recently released in paperback. He says since taking office, Obama has taken the American government in an ideologically left direction, as he warned about in the book.
Corsi says the president is determined to transform the United States into a European-style social welfare state. But he believes Obama's agenda has proven to be enormously unpopular and will cost the Democrats dearly in the upcoming midterm elections.
"Democrats could well lose control of the House of Representatives [and] control could be challenged in the Senate," he says. "And Republican governors could be put into place where's there's Democrats now, holding the statehouses for the 2012 election.
"[But] I don't think Barack Obama cares. Barack Obama's intent is to get socialism fully in place."
Even with a Republican-controlled Congress, Corsi believes it would be tough to undo all the damage. "I'm not sure what it will take to reverse the United States back into a market economy after we're got this much entitlement programs," notes the author. "The social welfare state here is beginning to look like the social welfare state in Greece -- and they're very difficult to reverse."
As he puts it, when that happens "people riot in the streets if you try to take away their benefits -- even when the government can't pay for it."
"As he puts it, when that happens "people riot in the streets if you try to take away their benefits -- even when the government can't pay for it."
The thing is, once they've run out of other people's money to spend, those people can riot all they want. There still won't be any money to spend. Or, the money they'll be spending will be increasingly inflationary. It will be an upward spiral of inflation, and a downward spiral of the government's ability to keep up with demand.
Or the government will find new ways to get at our money, like taking over our 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, and investment accounts. All it will take is a stroke of the pen to make this law and the will manage all our money for us, given us only a stipend.
Or the government will find new ways to get at our money, like taking over our 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, and investment accounts. All it will take is a stroke of the pen to make this law and the will manage all our money for us, given us only a stipend.
It's still a matter of diminishing returns. The Laffer Curve plus hyperinflation equals diminishing returns. In other words, the government sucks the well dry.
President Obama seems to believe that most of his sweeping agenda to transform the country can be accomplished without even a vote of Congress
Obama has a pattern of sidestepping Congress that will only get worse in the aftermath of the health care fight and the pending financial “reform” legislation. For a full explanation of all of these threats as well as action items on how to stop them, please check out the interactive version of the chart on www.ObamaChart.com.
Hey, Obama...you'll have to bow lower to kiss his ass
"President Barack Obama greets Chinese President Hu Jintao during the official arrivals for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Monday April 12, 2010"
Obama Slanders, Abandons Israel Monday, 12 Apr 2010 04:12 PM Article Font Size By: Edward Koch
I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.
For me, the situation today recalls what occurred in 70 A.D. when the Roman emperor Vespasian launched a military campaign against the Jewish nation and its ancient capital of Jerusalem.
Ultimately, Masada, a rock plateau in the Judean desert, became the last refuge of the Jewish people against the Roman onslaught. I have been to Jerusalem and Masada. From the top of Masada, you can still see the remains of the Roman fortifications and garrisons, and the stones and earth of the Roman siege ramp that was used to reach Masada.
The Jews of Masada committed suicide rather than let the Romans take them captive.
In Rome itself, I have seen the Arch of Titus with the sculpture showing enslaved Jews and the treasures of the Jewish temple with the menorah, the symbol of the Jewish state, being carted away as booty during the sacking of Jerusalem.
Oh, you may say, that is a far-fetched analogy. Please hear me out.
The most recent sacking of the old city of Jerusalem — its Jewish quarter — took place under the Jordanians in 1948 in the first war between the Jews and the Arabs, with at least five Muslim states — Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq — seeking to destroy the Jewish state.
At that time, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and the West Bank and expelled every Jew living in the Jewish quarter of the old city, destroying every building, including the synagogues in the old quarter and expelling from every part of Judea and Samaria every Jew living there so that for the first time in thousands of years, the old walled city of Jerusalem and the adjacent West Bank were "Judenrein," a term used by the Nazis to indicate the forced removal or murder of all Jews.
Jews had lived for centuries in Hebron, the city where Abraham, the first Jew, pitched his tent and where he now lies buried, it is believed, in a tomb with his wife, Sarah, as well as other ancient Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs.
I have visited that tomb and at the time asked an Israeli soldier guarding it (so that it was open to all pilgrims, Christians, Muslims, and Jews) “where is the seventh step leading to the tomb of Abraham and Sarah,” which was the furthest entry for Jews when the Muslims were the authority controlling the holy place?
He replied, “When we retook and reunited the whole city of Jerusalem and conquered the West Bank in 1967, we removed the steps, so now everyone can enter,” whereas when Muslims were in charge of the tomb, no Jew could enter it.
And I did.
I am not a religious person. I am comfortable in a synagogue, but generally attend only twice a year, on the high holidays.
When I entered the tomb of Abraham and Sarah, as I recall, I felt connected with my past and the traditions of my people. One is a Jew first by birth and then by religion.
Those who leave their religion, remain Jews forever by virtue of their birth. If they don’t think so, let them ask their neighbors, who will remind them.
I recall the words of the columnist Robert Novak, who was for most of his life hostile to the Jewish state of Israel, in an interview with a reporter stating that, although he had converted to Catholicism, he was still a cultural Jew.
I remain with pride a Jew both by religion and culture.
My support for the Jewish state has been long and steadfast. Never have I thought that I would leave the U.S. to go and live in Israel.
My loyalty and love is first to the U.S. which has given me, the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, so much. But, I have also long been cognizant of the fact that every night when I went to sleep in peace and safety, there were Jewish communities around the world in danger. And there was one country, Israel, that would give them sanctuary and would send its soldiers to fight for them and deliver them from evil, as Israel did at Entebbe in 1976.
I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the U.S. and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust on both sides.
The contrast between how the president and his administration deals with Israel and how it has decided to deal with the Karzai administration in Afghanistan is striking.
The Karzai administration, which operates a corrupt and opium-producing state, refuses to change its corrupt ways — the president’s own brother is believed by many to run the drug traffic taking place in Afghanistan — and shows the utmost contempt for the U.S., is being hailed by the Obama administration as an ally and publicly treated with dignity.
Karzai recently even threatened to join the Taliban if we don’t stop making demands on him.
Nevertheless, Karzai is receiving a gracious thank-you letter from President Obama. The New York Times on April 10 reported, "Mr. Obama had sent Mr. Karzai a thank-you note expressing gratitude to the Afghan leader for dinner in Kabul. ‘It was a respectful letter,’ General Jones said.”
On the other hand, our closest ally, the one with the special relationship with the U.S., has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible by the administration for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The plan, I suspect, is to so weaken the resolve of the Jewish state and its leaders that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel’s needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch.
I believe President Obama’s policy is to create a whole new relationship with the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, and Iraq as a counter to Iran, the Tyrannosaurus Rex of the Muslim world, which we are now prepared to see in possession of a nuclear weapon.
If throwing Israel under the bus is needed to accomplish this alliance, so be it.
I am shocked by the lack of outrage on the part of Israel’s most ardent supporters. The members of AIPAC, the chief pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a standing ovation after she had carried out the instructions of President Obama and, in a 43-minute telephone call, angrily hectored Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Members of Congress in both the House and Senate have made pitifully weak statements against Obama’s mistreatment of Israel, if they made any at all. The Democratic members, in particular, are weak.
They are simply afraid to criticize President Obama.
What bothers me most of all is the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders — Jew and Christian. Where are they?
If this were a civil rights matter, the Jews would be in the mall in Washington protesting with and on behalf of our fellow American citizens.
I asked one prominent Jewish leader why no one is preparing a march on Washington similar to the one in 1963 at which I was present and Martin Luther King’s memorable speech was given.
His reply was, “Fifty people might come.” Remember the 1930s? Few stood up. They were silent.
Remember the most insightful statement of one of our greatest teachers, Rabbi Hillel: “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”
We have indeed stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters living in the Jewish state of Israel?
If Obama is seeking to build a siege ramp around Israel, the Jews of modern Israel will not commit suicide. They are willing to negotiate a settlement with the Palestinians, but they will not allow themselves to be bullied into following self-destructive policies.
To those who call me an alarmist, I reply that I’ll be happy to apologize if I am proved wrong. But those who stand silently by and watch the Obama administration abandon Israel, to whom will they apologize?
Be sure to read all the way to the end. He is for real. Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our new president. Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.
Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people.
The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."
Barack Obama is a narcissist.
Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).
Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.
When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."
He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention.
If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.
Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?
Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.
This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple.
The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.
Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.
America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.
Interesting! From what I have read from people who have visited the White House that there are hundreds of pictures of Obama that get revolved around the house on a weekly basis. Can you see explaining what you do for a job to a Tax Payer " I rotate pictures of our President " What a joke, maybe he is a narcissist.
Hey, Obama...you'll have to bow lower to kiss his ass
"President Barack Obama greets Chinese President Hu Jintao during the official arrivals for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Monday April 12, 2010"
You would think with all of the computer savvy in the White House someone would Google the proper way to greet a Chinese person. I was schooled before I went over there by a Chinese guy who was raised there. I watched Hu's body language in a video, and he only gave BO a motionless stare. He has little respect for the "Bower".
You would think with all of the computer savvy in the White House someone would Google the proper way to greet a Chinese person. I was schooled before I went over there by a Chinese guy who was raised there. I watched Hu's body language in a video, and he only gave BO a motionless stare. He has little respect for the "Bower".
" GREETINGS: When meeting for the first time, a handshake is the most common greeting. But even a handshake can be a different experience in China. First of all it may be held for a longer time than Americans are used to and sometimes it may be in a flimsy manner. In order to show special respect, such as to elderly people or government officials, a slight bow might be given." gee that took 30 seconds
President Barack Obama says America's superpower status is a burden -- a remark that is beginning to draw fire from Republicans.
At the close of the two-day nuclear weapons summit in Washington, D.C., Obama was asked Tuesday how the summit would affect peace efforts in the Middle East.
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower,” he responded.
“When conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
The comments received little attention in the mainstream media, but several conservative bloggers blasted the president for putting America's superpower status in negative terms.
I guess he doesn't realize the advantage of being a superpower and wants us to be a third world nation. It certainly seems he is doing everything to get this accomplished.
Hello yes change is here now. The new Dollar coin (change) has no mention of "in God we trust" were are our values now, is this really the change people voted for. Im not a super christian person, but if in a foxhole and getting shot at Im praying.
Sarah Palin criticized President Barack Obama on Saturday for saying America is a military superpower "whether we like it or not," saying she was taken aback by his comment.
"I would hope that our leaders in Washington, D.C., understand we like to be a dominant superpower," the former Alaska governor said. "I don't understand a world view where we have to question whether we like it or not that America is powerful."
Obama said earlier this week that the United States must do its best to resolve conflicts around the world before they grow too serious.
"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."
Palin's remarks came in a question-and-answer session after a speech at an event in the central Illinois town of Washington to raise money for scholarships and a community center. She spoke to a crowd of about 1,100.
The Republican criticized Obama throughout her speech — for a healthcare overhaul that she says won't work, for the increase in the national deficit and for disagreeing with Israeli policies.
Palin said she hopes the November elections will produce winners who believe in limited government and encouraging free enterprise.
She also poked fun at the controversy over the requirements listed in a contract for her speech at a California university. Palin thanked the organizers of Saturday's event for providing a straw for her water bottle — "the bent kind, which I just read in the media that I supposedly insist upon."
No matter what your PARTY, you can have fun with this!!! Print one for a sample and make others with the phrases in different blocks and just wait for the next televised speech. The whole family can play.
Here is something to help make Obama's speeches almost tolerable. Just print out this page, distribute it to friends, and listen.. (be sure to read directions at the bottom)
Rules for Bullshit Bingo: 1. Before Barrack Obama's next televised speech, print your "Bullshit Bingo" 2. Check off the appropriate block when you hear one of those words/phrases. 3. When you get five blocks horizontally, vertically, or diagonally, stand up and shout "BULLSHIT!" [or Shout out “PELOSI” (means the same thing)]
Testimonials from past satisfied "Bullshit Bingo" players:
"I had been listening to the speech for only five minutes when I won." - Jack W., Boston
"My attention span during speeches has improved dramatically." - David D., Florida
"What a gas! Speeches will never be the same for me after my first win." - Bill R., New York City
“The atmosphere was tense in the last speech as 14 of us waited for the fifth box." - Ben G., Denver
"The speaker was stunned as eight of us screamed "BULLSHIT!" for the third time in two hours."
In his book entitled Satan in Goray, Isaac Bashevis Singer recounts the tragedy of a town whose hopes had been abysmally dashed when they discovered that the man they deemed messiah was, in fact, a fraud. The novel begins with gruesome descriptions of massacres, the gory details which Singer drew almost word for word from records of the infamous 1648 pogroms by Chmelnicki where tens of thousands of Jews were brutally murdered. It was a precursor to the evils of Hitler.
The real focus in Satan in Goray, however, is on the recovery of the remote town of Goray. After fifteen years, the traumatized survivors begin to return to their village. A demoralized people, these Jews had been only too ready to embrace a messiah. Enter Shabbetai Zvi born in 1626, a Talmudic scholar who engaged in mysticism. He was given to messianic fantasies and was soon declared to be the messiah by his followers. He began to act the part and messianic fervor took hold of communities that had not personally experienced bloodshed as well as those who had experienced the lash. Jews began to repent; they were filled with incredible joy and enthusiasm and many leaders of the Jewish community acknowledged Zvi as the Messiah. From small villages to cosmopolitan centers, leading rabbis and their adherents were caught up in the joy of finally being delivered. Then reality set in. Zvi was brought before the Sultan of Turkey and given the choice of death or apostasy; he decided to convert to Islam.
The news rocked the Jewish world. The treason was more than they could bear. It is Singer's portrayal of the aftermath of the moral destruction by this false belief in Zvi which is so stunning in the novel. The decay of the community is even worse than the physical destructions which had preceded it. The people lost their moral compass; they succumbed to all forms of evil. They allowed themselves to be mesmerized by the promise of a new age, out of hope for a better world. Their downfall is pitiful to behold.
As I read this book, I am constantly reminded of what I predict will be the end game for so many blacks who ardently believe in the promise of Barak Obama. They see in him a vindication of the bitterness of slavery, and of the denial of their civil rights up until recently. They see him as a natural result of the incredible work of Martin Luther King but it is not so. King was a unifier; Obama is divisive. But it is not only the many Black Americans who view Obama as the messiah. It is the many progressives who cannot see past his gibberish and, instead, deign him to be a gifted orator. Oprah Winfrey referred to Obama as "the One." Acknowledged anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan also sees Obama as the deliverer. In a 2008 Washington Post interview, Joel Stein stated that "the messiah would make an excellent president."
I have my own personal experience with this misguided notion of Obama's powers. During the time that he was campaigning, I expressed my deep concerns to a black friend of many years. Although she had always contacted me a few times a year in the past just to catch up, it suddenly became very quiet. Thinking that she had fallen ill, I tried to contact her but still no response. Then in September of 2009, she wrote me expressing her warm feelings towards me but clearly upset with my vocalizing my genuine worries with Obama's connections to Reverend Wright, and Ayers, his unsustainable tax demands and his anti-Israel stance. I wrote an impassioned letter to her; in fact, I even asked her to refute my concerns. I never heard from her again.
So what is the point of these musings? Like the Jews of Goray, those people who voted for Obama are going to have their world turn over 180 degrees. I fear for their faith in Obama. He is not an honest broker. He misleads and uses the ancient Roman trick of "bread and circuses." Interesting is the fact that this allegedly transparent leader has not held a press conference in months. Obama's angry and contemptible behavior against allies is revealing. His mercurial nature has Americans spinning; it takes incredible energy to keep up with his poisonous prevarications.
How will these Obama supporters lose their moorings? Daily, more factual information emerges that shows what a fraud Obama is. What will they ever be able to believe in again? Jeremy Dauber has written that Isaac Bashevis Singer saw how weak men of goodwill are easily pushed aside by brutes if they refuse to fight back. So to my friend of many years, to those Jews who thought Obama would be the messiah, I issue a call to seek the truth and not be blinded by a charismatic figure whose change is only about power and glory and not about your well being. Remember Goray!
