Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 23, 2018, 08:54:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
107481 Posts in 2404 Topics by 1095 Members
Latest Member: dannysamuel
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 39 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 531776 times)
« Reply #500 on: January 20, 2010, 01:48:16 PM »

Why the Great and Growing Backlash?
What Scott Brown’s election portends for the Obama agenda.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Dream up a gargantuan backlash against Barack Obama’s left-wing gospel, and you still could not invent the notion of a relatively unknown, conservative Scott Brown knocking off an Obama-endorsed, liberal, female attorney in liberal Massachusetts — in a race to fill the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.

If a liberal senatorial candidate can be defeated in Massachusetts, eleven months after the Obama hope-and-change blitzkrieg, it is hard to believe that any liberal seat is necessarily safe anywhere.

So the real story is not a populist backlash, but a growing populist backlash, whose ultimate nature and magnitude are as yet unknown. What’s going on?

Voters are sick and tired of a terrible year of big spending and big deficits — especially the sight of Obama and his congressional allies almost daily talking breezily about spending what we do not have.

Voters went for the hope-and-change Obama in part because he promised fiscal sobriety after the Bush $500 billion deficit. Instead, in utterly cynical fashion, Obama trumped that red ink four times over. In the process, he developed a terrible habit of promising favored constituencies a hundred billion here, a hundred billion there as if it were all paper money — rather than real borrowed currency that will have to be confiscated in the future from the beleaguered taxpayer. It only makes it worse that the more the administration borrowed, printed, and spent, the higher unemployment rose and the lower economic activity plummeted.

Most have had enough of pie-in-the-sky talk of massive new health-care entitlements, cap-and-trade taxes and regulation, more stimulus, and more takeovers of private enterprise. The country is broke and the people want to pay off, not incur more, crushing debt. What got us into the mess was too much borrowing, skyrocketing debt, and reckless spending — not too many balanced budgets and too much lean government.

No politician quite gets a pass for deception and prevarication. Obama in his narcissism thought his sonorous rhetoric made him exempt from a “read my lips” or “I didn’t have sex with that woman” moment. It didn’t.

People heard his serial promises about airing the health-care debate on C-SPAN, his new-transparency/no-lobbyist vows, and his monotonous boasts to close down Guantanamo within a year. All that is now “inoperative.” The problem was not just that Obama made promises that he broke, but that he made them so frequently and so vehemently — and so cavalierly broke them. That brazen campaign deception is problematic for a politician, but proves fatal for a self-appointed messiah.

We went from a Republican “culture of corruption” to a liberal cesspool of corruption. Sen. Chris Dodd lectures Wall Street while he gets sweetheart loans and vacation-home deals. Few could make up a story that the nation’s top tax lawmaker, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, is a tax dodger, and the nation’s top tax enforcer, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, is an even more egregious tax dodger. When the Democratic Senate leadership started buying health-care votes at $300 million a clip, our Congress became little more than the praetorian guard, auctioning off its support to any wannabe late Roman emperor. The idea of a muckraking Obama nominating Tom Daschle as his Health Secretary — the liberal populist who skips out of thousands of dollars in taxes on his free corporate limousine service — was the stuff of satire.

No one likes a serial whiner. It has been a year now — and Obama still blames George W. Bush ad nauseam. He did it in Massachusetts again — and on the eve of the election, no less. Blaming the past for the mistakes of the present gets old quickly. And when one adds in the constant What’s the Matter With Kansas? brand of condescension about naïve yokels not knowing what’s good for them, it gets even worse.

Yet Obama still pontificates that angry deluded voters will “suddenly” come to appreciate how he rammed health care down their otherwise ignorant throats: “The American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like and doesn’t do things that people have been trying to say it does. . . . The worst fears will prove groundless. And the American people’s hope for a fair shake from their insurance companies — for quality, affordable health care they need — will finally be realized.”

Good luck with that, O philosopher king!

Elite liberals are not good class warriors. Factor in multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi’s government mega-jet or Barack Obama’s various overseas junkets or the big Wall Street money that went into Obama’s near billion-dollar campaign coffers, and it is hard to take seriously Obama’s constant war against “them.” The voters have figured out that their president likes the elite plutocracy and the lower middle classes, but not so much the wannabe rich who aspire to cross his hated $250,000 income threshold — at which point suddenly they become unpatriotic, unwilling to pay their fair shares, and reluctant to spread the wealth around.

It is not particularly smart to constantly demonize the entrepreneurial classes, promise to raise income, payroll, health-care, and inheritance taxes on them, and expand government regulations — and then wonder why they are not creating more jobs.

Devotees turn on false prophets with a special vengeance. Obama is beginning to grate. His flip-the-switch-on, evangelical cadences at rallies sound more like a Harvard nerd doing blues imitations than Martin Luther King Jr. Purple-state presidents don’t appoint Van Joneses and Anita Dunns, or turn the NEA into a quid pro quo Ministry of Approved Culture. A healer doesn’t start in on the “rich,” “Wall Street,” the “big” oil companies, drug companies, insurance companies, or “fat-cat bankers” — especially when he has done his best to shake them all down for campaign money, hire as many of them as he can in his own administration, and arrange cut-rate loans, insider deals, bailouts, and guarantees for all of them.

Obama’s populism is beginning to sound more like a bought boxer who belatedly has second thoughts about throwing the fight he previously contracted. In short, Obama’s ideological presidency hinged on his post-racial, post-national mesmerizing presence that reassured reluctant Democrats to vote against their local constituencies.

If cap-and-trade or health care reform polled below 50 percent, a worried congressional supporter could always call in Him to charm bolting voters. But now? We have in a blink gone from Obama as the bankable 10 percent edge, to Obama as a non-factor, to Obama as a real liability. In short, why vote for an agenda as unpopular as its albatross author?

Obama thought the antidote to “smoke ’em out,” “dead or alive,” and “bring ’em on” braggadocio was bowing to the Saudis, promulgating new and undiscovered great moments in Islamic history, and reaching out to Ahmadinejad as he rounded up and beat down reformers in the streets of Tehran.

It’s one thing to accuse Bush of shredding the Constitution, quite another to adopt his anti-terrorism protocols like tribunals, renditions, Predators, intercepts, and wiretaps. Somehow Obama offended his base by such duplicity, and then his opposition by his tokenism of trashing Bush, promising the architect of 9/11 a show trial a few blocks from the former World Trade Center, and using touchy-feely euphemisms to suggest we are not in a war against terrorism emanating from the radical Islamic world.

Ahmadinejad, Assad, Chávez, the Castro Brothers, Putin, and others for the first six months liked us as much as they had little respect for our sycophancy; now they openly show contempt. We accept that obsequiousness cannot earn respect, but it apparently cannot earn affection either.

The best thing that could happen to Barack Obama is more Democratic losses in hodgepodge elections that might yank away our young transfixed Narcissus from his mesmerizing reflecting pool.

Almost immediately after Obama showed his ideological cards last spring, I suggested in the first weeks of his presidency that the bait-and-switch president would soon face a Carter/Clinton moment in which he could either press on with his polarizing ideology, damage his party for a generation, and eventually end up churlish and sneering at the electorate, who did not appreciate his exalted morality and genius — or triangulate and follow the Dick Morris/Bill Clinton model of talking and acting sort of centrist. 

Who knows after Obama’s Scott Brown moment? We now may hear once again the old “no more Red State/Blue State” tropes, the stale campaign promises of presidential vetoes, claims of financial sobriety, the return of a “war on terror,” and smaller government

We’re either down to all that — or Obama’s more principled road to perdition.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the editor of Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, and the author of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

National Review Online -
« Reply #501 on: January 22, 2010, 12:28:06 AM »

The Meaning of Brown
Hey, Dems: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

By Charles Krauthammer

On January 14, five days before the Massachusetts special election, President Obama was in full bring-it-on mode as he rallied House Democrats behind his health-care reform. “If Republicans want to campaign against what we’ve done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.”

The bravado lasted three days. When Obama campaigned in Boston on January 17 for Obamacare supporter Martha Coakley, not once did he mention the health-care bill. When your candidate is sinking, you don’t throw her a millstone.

After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not against Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.

Bull’s-eye. An astonishing 56 percent of Massachusetts voters, according to Rasmussen, called health care their top issue. In a Fabrizio, McLaughlin, & Associates poll, 78 percent of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop Obamacare. Only a quarter of all voters in the Rasmussen poll cited the economy as their top issue, nicely refuting the Democratic view that Massachusetts was just the usual anti-incumbent resentment you expect in bad economic times.

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

These deals — the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback — had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff — in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a (“Cadillac”) health-insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable: Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”

I say: Let them sleep.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #502 on: January 23, 2010, 09:46:21 AM »

Did anyone else see clips of Obama literally ranting and raving against the banks and the phrase for the ages, "we want our money back"?

I am no defender of banks who certainly do rip us off.  That said all I could think of during this ridiculous rant was, why YOU (Obama) were the idiot who gave them the money!  You were the one who gave the money with apparently little oversight!

If the fact that our future, our economy was not hanging on a cliff I would say his rant had me laughing out loud.  Here is the guy using banks to score political favor with voters - and he is the same clown who was the one who couldn't give them enough money.  It is still possible for him to turn things around like Clinton.  I remember agreeing with the incredulity of Rush who was amazed that Clinton could make a SINGLE state of the union address and literally overnight improve his poll ratings by double digits.
So it is certaily possible. But this guy will obviously throw anyone under the bus to save his own hide has no record of being Clinton.

Time will tell.   I am not optomistic about the future of this country.  I won't post it here but I do agree with a guy with the initials PB who wrote one recent article that the collapse or bankruptcy of the US *may* be inevitable.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #503 on: January 24, 2010, 03:33:55 PM »

The good news is drudgereport already highlights OBama/Dem proposal to have "deficit reducing task force".
And Bama may put caps on spending.
The bad news is the same.  History has already proven a sudden reversal in course could completly let Bama off the hook ala Clinton.
It appears moderates are happy to forgive and forget baseed on what the politician says THAT day.
We will know on Jan 27th.

One SOTU speech was all it took to bring Clinton right back into the game.
Apparently enough of the voters can be fooled enough of the time for the rest of us to be duped again.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #504 on: January 25, 2010, 10:36:18 AM »

Well reading drudge this am leads me to believe Bama will not "triangulate" ala Clinton.
As noted the populist bent:  its the banks stupid.
                                        its the corporations stupid
                                        middle class tax "cuts" for child care and elderly care - if one believes this.
A "bipartisan commission to study the deficit - this certainly reminds me of Jimmy the Carter who was overwhelmed with the job and would ceaselessly study details without being able to move in the right direction.  Of course this could just be a smoke screen for inaction.  Like we'll "study" legal reform in the health industry when in reality he really has NO intention of doing any of it.

This guy is not as wise as Clinton.  Clinton thus remains the best manipulator of his generation - some call this the best politician though I still feel honesty is necessary.

The drudgereprots could be just trial balloons but if they are correct and this guy takes this course the Dems are really screwed.

What was the name of the captain of the Titanic?  Captain Bama?
« Reply #505 on: January 27, 2010, 04:26:34 PM »

Obama On Brink Of Crackup: His presidency is teetering and only Obama can pull it to safety
The Weekly Standard | January 25, 2010 | Fred Barnes

In the new movie The Young Victoria, the mother of Victoria and her chief overseer meet with the prime minister, Lord Melbourne, to discuss what role they’ll play now that Victoria has become queen of England. They’ve waged a fierce struggle to retain control over Victoria. Suddenly Melbourne cuts off the chatter and bluntly explains the situation. “You lost,” he says.

That’s the situation that faces President Obama and his White House advisers. Months of polls on the president and his policies, the Virginia and New Jersey governor’s elections, then last week’s momentous Massachusetts Senate race – all have sent the blunt message to Obama that, for now, he’s lost. But Obama and his team insist on pretending it’s not true.

This is a bad sign. One of the important tests of a president, especially a relatively new one like Obama, is how he deals with a serious setback. Does he respond rationally and realistically? In Obama’s case, the answer is no.

The president’s first response was to claim voters who elected Republican Scott Brown to fill the Senate seat held for decades by Teddy Kennedy were in some mysterious way actually backing Obama. “The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.

“People are angry and they’re frustrated,” Obama said. “Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” He didn’t explain why, if the Brown voters were his people, why he’d campaigned for Democrat Martha Coakley, Brown’s opponent.

The next day, Obama lost his cool bearing. He resorted to crude populism, which he’d carefully avoided in his campaign and first year in office. In response to the Supreme Court ruling, on First Amendment grounds, in favor of the use of corporate funds in election contests, he didn’t offer a substantive critique, but called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

The populism continued the next day in a speech in Ohio. “We want our money back,” he said, regarding banks that received bailout funds. “We want our money back! And we’re going to get your money back – every dime, each and every dime.”

This was the language of a rattled president in search of enemies to scapegoat. Obama didn’t mention that all but one of the major banks have paid back the bailout money with interest. There’s a word for this kind of rhetoric: Unpresidential.

Obama’s aides have been no help. They claimed it’s full speed ahead on the Obama agenda. And they stuck with the president’s insistence that Massachusetts voters were on his side.

On “Fox News Sunday,” Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said a Washington Post poll showed “more people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him.” The poll found voters like the idea of health care reform and a bipartisan approach to it.

But supporting health care reform in general and ObamaCare in particular are two different things. Republicans and independents favor reform, just not Obama’s version.

And oppposing ObamaCare was Brown’s chief issue, and in every poll that asked specifically about it, voters were overwhelmingly against it. Arguing otherwise, as Gibbs did, was specious and disingenuous.

At least Obama’s aides had their stories straight, though not credible, on Brown’s victory. They didn’t in citing the discredited White House claims of jobs created and saved in 2009. Valerie Jarrett said Obama has “saved thousands and thousands,” Gibbs said the president has “saved or created 1.5 million jobs,” and political counselor David Axelrod said Obama has “created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.”

Meanwhile, the story broke on Sunday that Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe would return to the president’s inner circle to help plot strategy against Republicans in the midterm election and to help push the Obama agenda. The same day he offered his political advice in a Washington Post op-ed. His first recommendation was pass ObamaCare, the same measure that a solid (and still growing) majority of Americans oppose.

If he relies on advice like that, Obama will never recover. But maybe cooler heads will prevail at the White House and the president will deal more rationally in his State of the Union address on Wednesday with what Charles Krauthammer calls “empirical reality.” He’d better. His presidency is teetering on the edge of a crackup and only Obama can pull it to safety.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #506 on: January 27, 2010, 05:06:44 PM »

Sotu Drinking Game?   [Jonah Goldberg]

Lots of readers keep asking when we'll come up with our version. I'm not sure there's room to be too original here. His usual phrases are familiar enough: "Let me be clear," "make no mistake," "this will not be easy" etc. There's nothing wrong with that sort of thing. One different way to go is conceptual or thematic. Every time Obama suggests there's a consensus among experts about a proposal when there isn't, drink. Every time he claims to be aligned with the populist backlash he created, drink. Every time he suggests that History with a capital H demands that we do whatever it is he's talking about, drink. Every time he says that he's being  "pragmatic" or "bipartisan" when he's actually being wildly ideological or partisan, drink. And so on.

My own preference is to drink every time he says something that will obviously cost me money. If that seems like an invitation to alcohol poisoning, you could narrow it down slightly by drinking only when something will cost you money and make the economy worse at the same time.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #507 on: January 28, 2010, 02:44:09 PM »

Bama stands there and talks about time to end partisanship during the same speech he stands atop the mountain looking down at Supreme Court Justices and literally insults/embarrasses them with Dems applauding in front of the entire nation.

Yeah right - he is bipartisan.

Even Toobin who is no conservative has to grimmace at the shameful moment: 

Jeffrey Toobin
 Alito's reaction to Obama was fairBy Jeffrey Toobin, CNN Senior Legal Analyst
January 28, 2010 2:38 p.m. EST

Jeffrey Toobin says a comment by President Obama led to an awkward moment
He says Justice Samuel Alito seemed to disagree on Obama's take on campaign finance ruling
Toobin says Obama was mostly right on the result of recent court decision
He says Alito also was right to express his view; justices are human beings
Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior legal analyst and a staff writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is the author of several critically acclaimed best-sellers, including "The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."

New York (CNN) -- It was the most vivid, and unexpected, confrontation of Wednesday's State of the Union address.

It happened when President Obama said this: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections."

In the audience, Justice Samuel Alito, President Bush's second appointee to the Supreme Court, could be seen shaking his head and saying, it appeared, "Not true, not true."

Who's right? As for what the court decided in Citizens United v. FEC, Obama seems to be right -- mostly. In a 5-4 decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Alito, the court held that corporations, labor unions and other organizations had the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcomes of elections.

Video: Dissenting justice?
Barack Obama
Samuel Alito
U.S. Supreme Court
If a corporation now wants to saturate the airwaves for or against any candidate for office, including on the eve of the election, it now has the Supreme Court's say-so to do it.

Obama was on shakier ground when he said foreign companies now had the same unlimited rights to participate in our elections. The court's opinion very carefully said it was not deciding the issue with regard to foreign entities. So the court may yet give the green light to these foreign companies -- but it hasn't done so yet.

On the larger question of whether Alito should have expressed himself in this restrained but unmistakable way, I'm with the justice. Attending the State of the Union has always been an awkward duty for the justices -- sitting through these political addresses and wondering when it's appropriate to applaud or react.

Gloves come off after Obama rips ruling

When the president is paying tribute to the armed forces, or making an otherwise uncontroversial point, the justices usually join in the clapping; when the point is more political -- like the one Obama made about Citizens United on Wednesday -- the tradition is for the justices not to react.

But it's wise to remember that the justices are human beings, with strong views on many subjects, including their own decisions. When Obama was criticizing the court's work (as was his right), Alito had the right to react the way anyone would who had taken a shot in a high-profile setting.

In my book, even a Supreme Court justice -- even at the State of the Union -- is entitled to grimace and mutter. (It is worth noting that Alito does seem to have an ax to grind with Obama. As a senator, Obama voted against Alito's confirmation, which the justice does not seem to have forgotten. When the President-elect Obama made a courtesy call on the justices shortly before his inauguration last year, Alito was the only member of the court not to attend.)

Still, it's worth remembering who is likely to have the last word in this confrontation. In his speech, Obama went on to say about the court's opinion, "Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The president and the Congress can try -- but it is the court that will have the last word on evaluating whether any new law is constitutional. And Alito, who is 59 years old with life tenure, will likely be passing on the validity of laws long after Obama has left office.

As Justice Robert Jackson said of the court many years ago, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey Toobin.
« Reply #508 on: January 28, 2010, 11:39:51 PM »

Obama thinks we’ve lost confidence in America when we’ve just lost confidence in him.

In 1960, Fidel Castro addressed the U.N. General Assembly for four and a half hours. President Obama didn’t hit that target last night — it only felt like it. The president had some things to get off this chest — and if it took 70-plus minutes, well, lucky us, we got to listen.

The speech answered the question that began to form when Republicans took the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey and came into sharp focus after Scott Brown delivered his haymaker on January 21: Would Obama pivot like Clinton in 1994 or not?

He will not.

This isn’t surprising. Obama is a conviction politician. Raised in a left-wing cocoon, he has never given evidence of being anything other than a true-believing left-liberal. Describing his college experience in The Audacity of Hope, he writes: “I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.” Sounds like a list of his czars.

So no, President Obama is not going to reassure voters that he has gotten their message. He is not going to tack to the political center. He is not going to acknowledge overreaching on the matter of nationalizing health care. These are moral issues for him. Promoting his health-care reform to religious leaders last August, he said, “It is a core ethical and moral obligation that we look after each other. In the wealthiest nation on earth, we are neglecting to live up to that call.” We embarrass him.

Though he shot to political stardom as a supposed “post-partisan,” he has presided over the most ideologically dogged administration in memory. Bill Clinton might triangulate to please the electorate. Barack Obama is more inclined to search for villains.

In this, he begins to resemble Jimmy Carter. When the country was reeling from his catastrophic mismanagement, President Carter diagnosed “a crisis of confidence . . . a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.” Um, no. The nation’s soul and spirit and will were just fine. Carter was the problem.

Last night, endeavoring to explain (to himself?) the peculiar failure of the people to adopt his social-democrat agenda, President Obama too found fault with them:

Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions — our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government — still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are [sic] full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people’s doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away. No wonder there’s so much cynicism out there. No wonder there’s so much disappointment.

That could be it. Alternatively, people may be dismayed to find that they elected a left-wing ideologue who wasted most of his first year pushing health-care reform when something like 17 percent of the nation is unemployed or underemployed; who reads terrorists their Miranda rights and gives them lawyers; who apologizes to the world for America’s manifold sins; who increases the national debt by $1.6 trillion in his first year; who elects to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in Manhattan; who promises transparency and then presides over shameless backroom deals; who clings to cap-and-trade even in the midst of economic misery; who extends more conciliation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than to Republicans; who has nearly the entire press in his back pocket but nonetheless attempts to punish Fox News; who disdains all Republican proposals as “the failed ideas of the past”; and whose vanity (a presidential podium and teleprompter in a sixth-grade classroom?) is verging on the pathetic.

President Obama has signaled that he will not change course. It’s an affront that it took him 70-plus platitudinous and self-indulgent minutes to say so.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #509 on: January 29, 2010, 10:10:25 AM »

Agreed with the previous article.  And again I add, takes a very cheap shot at Supreme Court Justices in front of the world, and while they have no opportunity to defend themselves.
CNN can debate whether he is JC or not but one thing is for sure - he isn't Abe Lincoln.
Never did Lincoln stoop so low.
« Reply #510 on: January 30, 2010, 04:50:30 PM »

About (Saving) Face
Eight reasons why KSM will be tried by military commission.
The end is near for the Obama administration’s plan to try KSM and four other 9/11 conspirators in federal court in downtown Manhattan. The handwriting was on the wall for weeks as the extraordinary costs of the trial — as much as $1 billion in security expenses alone over four or five years — became apparent and the Underwear Bomber reintroduced the American public to domestic terrorism. Then, Mayor Bloomberg told the administration that it should find someplace else to hold the trial. Now, me-toos have come from New York senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of whom had previously supported the NYC trial.

It is a remarkable turn of events for Attorney General Eric Holder, who, the White House has said for months, made the decision alone and was running the show. The White House tired, far more quickly than many expected, of the AG’s bungled plan and realized that public opinion had turned decisively against the trial. Maybe the White House grew frustrated with the AG’s mistakes on national-security matters, from releasing the CIA interrogation memoranda last spring over the vociferous protests of former CIA directors who served under Presidents Bush and Clinton, to commencing a criminal investigation of CIA interrogators who had previously been informed by career prosecutors that they would not be subject to prosecution, to deciding to Mirandize the Underwear Bomber without consulting the intelligence services and charge him as a criminal defendant with all the rights of an American citizen.

The attorney general assured the White House that releasing the CIA memoranda would result in popular condemnation of Bush-era interrogation practices; instead, the American public met the memos with a collective shrug. Polls show that a majority of Americans support even the most aggressive enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA uses. Investigating the interrogators thoroughly undermined the intelligence services’ trust in the administration, being as it was a betrayal of the president’s promise to our intelligence professionals to look forward, not backward. The decision exposed the new Justice Department leadership as nakedly partisan and more than willing to overrule the prosecutorial decisions of career prosecutors as a sop to the Far Left.

The White House realized it was staring another self-created disaster in the face and decided to pull the plug on the KSM trial before it was too late. The Justice Department is now scrambling to find an “alternative” venue; the administration continues to say that the president supports a civilian, not military, trial.

But the “alternative” venue won’t be in the United States. It will be Guantanamo Bay. And the trial will be by military commission, not civilian trial. After the jump are the top eight reasons for this, in no particular order:

1. Attorney General Holder, not President Obama, will take the fall. The White House hid behind the attorney general when the KSM trial was announced last November. The president said the decision was the attorney general’s alone, and the attorney general asserted he didn’t even consult the president before making it. It was hard to imagine the White House playing virtually no role in such an important policy (and political) decision, but it’s more plausible in light of the Justice Department’s unilateral decision to Mirandize the Underwear Bomber and charge him as a criminal defendant.

Now, President Obama can simply overrule the Attorney General and leave it to the media to chatter about the president’s displeasure with Holder. Remember that, according to press accounts, Greg Craig was pressured to resign as White House counsel in large part because he took the blame for misjudging the difficulty of closing Guatanamo. Is it worse to misjudge the bipartisan opposition to trying KSM by civilian trial?

2. The Martha Stewart Factor. Many observers noted that a civilian trial would provide KSM a platform on which to spout his views and justify his acts. Shortly after the decision was announced, the media reported that KSM and his co-conspirators were planning to plead not guilty and use the trial as a forum in which to attack U.S. foreign policy. The decision’s defenders pooh-poohed these concerns, mentioning among other things that there are no cameras in federal courtrooms. Any lawyer who has tried a case in a New York federal court, and anyone who has read a New York tabloid, knows that the absence of cameras in the courtroom will not do much to tamp down intense media coverage of the trial.

Look no farther than the trial of Martha Stewart, in which one of us participated as a prosecutor. Remember the spectacle of reporters running out of the courtroom waving red scarves to TV cameras as signals that Ms. Stewart had been convicted. The media scrutinized every aspect of that trial, which dominated the news for its entire six weeks. The KSM trial would dwarf all prior trials held in New York, in terms of not just the seriousness of the charges but also the size of the media circus that would accompany it. And the KSM trial would last months and maybe even years — it would almost certainly run right into the 2012 presidential campaign.

By contrast, at Guantanamo, it is not even clear there would be a trial, as KSM and his cohorts were previously willing to plead guilty and receive the death penalty rather than go through such a proceeding. In the event of a trial, the press would have access, but we doubt that Anderson Cooper would take up residence outside the base’s front gates.

3. KSM is more likely to be convicted and sentenced to death in a military commission. The attorney general and the president have confidently stated that KSM will be convicted. They are probably right, but civilian juries are notoriously unpredictable — Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, escaped the death penalty because one juror out of 12 voted against it. Add to this that Holder himself has testified to Congress that, in his view, KSM was tortured by the CIA, an admission that defense lawyers will put front and center — both before the jury and in efforts to get the judge to exclude evidence. Evidence obtained by torture is not admissible in a military commission, either, but the government has greater flexibility in that forum as compared to a civilian trial.

This greater flexibility has ramifications beyond torture. Certain types of hearsay evidence would be admissible in a military commission but not in a civilian trial. The Obama administration very much appreciates the benefits to the prosecution of using a military commission — after all, they are using military commissions, not civilian trials, to try the terrorists against whom they believe they have weaker evidence, such as the men who plotted the attack on the USS Cole.

4. Guantanamo Bay is not closing any time soon. KSM’s civilian trial was always meant to be paired with the closure of Guantanamo Bay. The administration’s self-imposed one-year deadline was abandoned as unrealistic, but the wisdom of setting any time frame at all has been thrown into doubt by revelations that Abdulmutallab was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen. Yemeni nationals make up the largest group of detainees still held at Guantanamo, and the Obama administration, at least for the time being, has ruled out repatriating them given the high risk that many of them would return to the fight. Bringing the most notorious terrorists to the U.S. for trial while the facility remains open is a lose-lose proposition for the administration. The American public will wonder why we are incurring the enormous costs and risks to public safety of trying KSM and the other 9/11 plotters in the U.S., when Guantanamo remains open for business and is indisputably a less expensive and far more secure location.

5. “Not In My Backyard.” The country is in full NIMBY mode. New York was the most logical place to hold a civilian trial because it is where most of the victims were murdered. With every major politician in the state now opposed to the idea, however, the administration is faced with the prospect of convincing political leaders in another state to host the trial. The options are further limited because the law requires that the crimes have some direct connection to the venue in which the trial would occur. Of course, there are isolated opportunists who would volunteer, but good luck getting a consensus from the entire political leadership of another state.

6. Congress will give the administration cover. Republicans in Congress have introduced bills that would bar the use of federal funds to try KSM and other terrorist detainees in federal civilian courts. These bills are getting significant bipartisan traction from Sens. Jim Webb and Joe Lieberman, among others. The administration will publicly oppose these bills, but will privately welcome them because their passage, or even the prospect of their passage, provides a ready excuse for them to throw up their hands and blame Congress for forcing it to backtrack on trying KSM in civilian court.

We’ve already seen this strategy in action with Guantanamo. The administration has conveniently pinned the blame for the abandonment of its goal to close Guantanamo by the end of January on Congress’s threats to block funds for the alternative holding facility in rural Illinois. Very little mention is made of the real causes of this failure — the administration’s miscalculations about the willingness or ability of other countries to take the detainees, and the opposition by most Americans to bringing terrorists to the United States for indefinite detention and possible release.

7. Trying some terrorists detained at Guantanamo in military commissions and others in civilian trials never made any sense. The attorney general sowed the seeds of the civilian trial’s demise by creating a two-track system in which terrorists who targeted civilians in the United States would receive more constitutional protections and rights than terrorists who targeted our troops overseas in active battle zones. This was the principal reason Holder gave for sending KSM to civilian court while the men who plotted the USS Cole attack went to a military commission. This distinction made no sense, created incentives for terrorists to attack civilians rather than troops, and now has proved too clever by half.

It is impossible for the Obama administration to provide a coherent explanation as to why KSM needs to be tried in civilian court. They can’t say they believe civilian courts are more legitimate than military commissions, because that would undermine military commissions. They can hint, through unnamed sources, that they are sending the “slam dunk” cases to civilian court and the weaker ones to military commissions with their more flexible evidentiary standards, but they can’t say that in the open without appearing to acknowledge what many critics have charged — the civilian trials will serve little purpose other than as show trials of the obviously guilty, while the real work of determining guilt or innocence will happen in the military commissions. If they had the courage of their purported convictions that terrorists who wage war on the United States are entitled to the same protections as common criminals, the administration would abandon military commissions altogether, rather than channel the more difficult cases to them. Unwilling to take this step, and in the face of bipartisan opposition to civilian trials, the administration will be left with no choice but to fully embrace military commissions for all Guantanamo detainees whom they wish to put on trial, including KSM.

8. Trying KSM in a military commission will kill the story before the midterm elections. The election of Scott Brown, who made his advocacy of enhanced interrogation techniques and opposition to trying KSM in civilian court central parts of his campaign, was a wake-up call that national security remains an important issue, particularly after Abdulmutallab’s failed attack, and one that does not favor the Democrats. The administration has begun to backtrack by signaling that the trial will not be held in New York City. Their next step will be to kill the controversy entirely by announcing that charges against KSM and his co-conspirators will be reinstated before a military commission. These charges were recently dismissed, but without prejudice, meaning the charges can be reinstated by the military more or less whenever it wants to.

Voila! Face saved.

— Dana M. Perino is former press secretary to Pres. George W. Bush. Bill Burck is a former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to President Bush.
« Reply #511 on: February 03, 2010, 06:49:46 AM »

FEBRUARY 3, 2010 4:00 A.M.
Mr. President, Words Matter
Obama, the rhetorician, forgot that people might actually take seriously what he said.
What is Barack Obama’s real problem? Too many people here and abroad took him at his word, and he now seems quite angry at that.

For two years Obama serially damned the entrepreneurial classes. They should “spread the wealth,” be “patriotic,” and pay “their fair share.” They should be paying more income, payroll, and inheritance taxes. They could not be trusted with health care, student loans, high finance, or auto manufacturing. Their lifestyles of private jets and Super Bowl junkets came at the expense of the downtrodden. The would-be rich who made just over $200,000 were indiscriminately lumped together with the elite rich on Wall Street — who ironically contributed inordinately to Barack Obama’s non–publicly financed campaign coffers.

Apparently, the small-business classes took Obama’s writs seriously, and for the foreseeable future they have shut down — they have quit hiring and buying, and are riding out the “recovery.” In response, a frantic Obama suddenly began talking about balanced budgets, tax cuts, and tax credits, and praising the private sector. Too late: Too many entrepreneurs took him at his original word.

Then there was the constant partisanship, the “never let a crisis go to waste” Chicago hardball. Never has a president talked so much about reaching across the aisle and done so little of it. During the campaign, the Senate’s most partisan member claimed he was its least. That same deception characterized most of his first year in the White House. He promised C-SPAN coverage of bipartisan give-and-take, while actually holding the health-care debate behind Democratic congressional doors to offer bribes and insider deals in exchange for votes. “Let’s end the bickering” was usually the preface to “Bush did it, not me.” Absolute Democratic control of Washington — both Congress and the White House — meant that Republicans had “played Washington politics” to stop grass-roots governance.

Then Scott Brown won the Senate seat long occupied by the late liberal lion Ted Kennedy, and Obama’s polls dived below 50 percent. Soon even New York Times columnists began listing all sorts of reservations about Obama that they had long entertained but mysteriously only now voiced. In response, a frantic Obama is suddenly talking about reaching out, meeting with Republicans, and drafting bipartisan legislation. Too late: Too many Republicans took him at his original word.

In his dealings abroad, remember “hope and change,” the “reset button,” and all the grandiose promises of a year ago? Barack Obama assured our critics that he would have the dreadful Bush Guantanamo Bay detention center closed by now. But then the reality that most of the detainees were cold-blooded killers who would revert to terrorism upon release — and many were Yemenis eager to join up with al-Qaeda at home — made those repeated boasts inoperative. I will be surprised if Obama ever closes Guantanamo.

The architect of 9/11 and self-confessed beheader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was supposed to be accorded a big public civilian trial a couple of thousand yards away from the scene of his mass-murdering. There, his attorneys could plead that the Bush-Cheney nexus had waterboarded him, as he voiced to the world all his grievances against a purported neo-imperialist, colonialist, and racist Bush America — hoping that at least one sympathetic juror might fall for his “America made me do it” defense.

That too seems now to be history. Sometime around Christmas, Obama discovered that al-Qaeda both still wishes to kill us and does not appreciate that we give Miranda rights to our would-be killers. I would be surprised if KSM is ever tried in a civilian court in the United States.

Iran was to be wowed and charmed by Barack Hussein Obama, who would distance himself from America’s past sins, dating all the way back to the coup against Mossadegh in 1953. Ahmadinejad would faint in ecstasy like the 2008 campaign crowds, as he gave up his nuclear-weapon plans and fell in love with the new postnational America. And now? Iran does the same old, same old — “Israel must be destroyed,” and no one dare tell us to stop our nuclear program. The latest theocratic communiqué promised the “end of American civilization” — as we rush anti-missile batteries to the Gulf. I would not be surprised to see Iran set off a bomb this year or next.

This scenario has been replayed all over the globe. Thousands of Japanese hit the streets, echoing Obama’s signature “Change!” — but as in “Change U.S.-Japanese Relations.” And why not, if we are to take on another $9 trillion in debt during this administration, much of it from Japan and China? And how dare we base our troops on Japanese soil — especially in a postnational age, when alliances, and a world divided into good guys and bad guys, are, well, so passé?

Russia still bullies its neighbors and tries to embarrass the United States. China still threatens to take over Taiwan. North Korea still tries to shake us down for cash by stirring up trouble with Seoul. Chávez is as buffoonish as ever, and has only been empowered by our recent “outreach.”

In short, throughout the campaign and during the first months of his presidency, Obama globally made the argument that George Bush’s America had done wrong and was part of the world’s problem rather than its solution. But the world garbled Obama’s message, and instead came away with the distinct impression that America itself — whether Bush’s or Obama’s — was the problem. One cannot spend two years blaming America under Bush, and then suddenly claim, “That was then, this is now,” and expect the world to rally to the godhead of Barack Obama and his new, improved America.

How odd that Obama, the rhetorician, forgot that words matter — and that the truth is not a trifle, a mere construct predicated on the particular situation at the moment it is voiced.

Too many people, here and abroad, took Barack Obama at his word. And right now  — drifting amid high unemployment, mounting domestic opposition, and energized enemies abroad — he sorely wishes that they had not.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, the editor of Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, and the author of The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #512 on: February 03, 2010, 11:32:24 AM »

Well the cans have time to get it on with the Chosen serial liar.
But if their idiotic perfornance with the One last week is any indication they still are too stupid to call him on his deception.
They need to study every word, every response and instead of LETTING him turn everything around on them just turn it right back on him.
Don't let him get away with "you are the party of no" and "I am reaching out to you" and "you need to stop the paritisanship" when in fact he comes with a total radical agenda and then states anyone who disagrees with him is keeping the country from moving forward. 

The cans still do not have a trained studied mouthpiece that can go up against him except on the radio waves.
They must learn to highlight his lies and deception.  Not let him get away with BS.
So far they can't do it.  Till the RNC studies BOs MO and finds way to verbally dance around, through and over this guy we look like children being lectured by the prof.
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #513 on: February 03, 2010, 11:38:32 AM »

Newt Gingrich.

Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #514 on: February 04, 2010, 09:42:22 AM »

Possibly Newt could call him on his lies like:

"I am not an idealogue".
« Reply #515 on: February 04, 2010, 02:01:07 PM »

Obama Commands the Impossible

Posted by Patrick J. Michaels

Today’s New York Times reports that President Obama has “ordered the rapid development of technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal,” as well as mandating the production of more corn-based ethanol and financing farmers to produce “cellulosic” ethanol from waste fiber.

You’ve got to like the president’s moxie.  Faced with his inability to pass health care reform and cap-and-trade, he now chooses to command the impossible and the inefficient.

Most power plants are simply not designed for carbon capture.  There isn’t any infrastructure to transport large amounts of carbon dioxide, and no one has agreed on where to put all of it.  Corn-based ethanol produces more carbon dioxide in its life cycle than it eliminates, and cellulosic ethanol has been “just around the corner” since I’ve been just around the corner.

However, doing what doesn’t make any economic sense makes a lot of political sense in Washington, because inefficient technologies require subsidies–in this case to farmers, ethanol processors, utilities, engineering and construction conglomerates, and a whole host of others.  Has the president forgotten that his unpopular predecessor started the ethanol boondogle (his response to global warming) and drove up the price of corn to the point of worldwide food riots? Hasn’t he read that cellulosic ethanol is outrageously expensive? Has he ever heard of the “not-in-my-backyard” phenomenon when it comes to storing something people don’t especially like?

Yeah, he probably has.  But the political gains certainly are worth the economic costs.  Think about it.  In the case of carbon capture, it’s so wildly inefficient that it can easily double the amount of fuel necessary to produce carbon-based energy.  What’s not to like if you’re a coal company, now required to load twice as many hopper cars?  What’s not to like if you’re a utility, guaranteed a profit and an incentive to build a snazzy, expensive new plant?  And what’s not to like if you’re a farmer, gaining yet another subsidy?
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #516 on: February 09, 2010, 09:43:28 AM »

What I find truly remarkeble is the notion that it is always someone else's fault other then the ONE.
No fingers pointed at the ONE.  Only Emanuel.

The wagons are circling tighter and tighter to protect the ONE from all party loyal starting from the ONE himself down to the loyal academics, the msm, other crats, unions, womens groups, and the rest.

That is amazing to me.

*****Congressional Democrats point finger of blame at Rahm Emanuel
By Alexander Bolton - 02/09/10 06:00 AM ET
Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for his part in the collapse of healthcare reform.

The emerging consensus among critics in both chambers is that Emanuel’s lack of Senate experience slowed President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor. Last week he had to apologize after a report surfaced that he called liberal groups “retarded” in a private meeting.

While Emanuel has quelled that controversy by meeting with advocates for people with disabilities, on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate.

"I think Rahm ran the play his boss called; once Obama called the play, Rahm did everything he could to pass it, scorched-earth and all that,” said a senior lawmaker, who added that Emanuel didn’t seek a broader base of Senate Republicans. “I think he did miscalculate the Senate. He did what he thought he had to do to win."

Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan.

While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.

No Democrat is calling for Emanuel’s resignation, even privately, and they acknowledge his hard work and straightforward approach in a very tough job.

They also say there’s plenty of blame on healthcare to go around.

But centrists and liberal Democrats both take issue — albeit in different ways — with how he approached the Senate.

“I like Rahm; he's always been a straight shooter with me," said a Democratic centrist senator who was closely involved in the healthcare debate.

The lawmaker said Emanuel misjudged the Senate by focusing on only a few Republicans, citing Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as too narrow a pool.

“In the Senate, you have to anchor in the middle and build out," said the lawmaker.

“They just wanted to win," the source said of Emanuel and other White House strategists. "Their plan was to keep all the Democrats together and work like hell to get Snowe and Collins. The Senate doesn't work that way. You need a radius of 10 to 12 from the other side if you're going to have a shot."

But liberals take a different view. They argue Emanuel made a mistake by allowing Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to spend months negotiating with Republicans on his committee, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa).

“I’m most critical of the fact that the Senate [Democratic] leadership and, I assume, the White House tried to get a deal with people like Grassley, which was impossible and wasted a huge amount of time,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a liberal advocacy group.

One senior Democratic senator said Emanuel was initially reluctant to push healthcare reform so early in Obama’s first term, counseling instead for the president to focus on jobs and the economy

But the president decided healthcare had to pass when he had a strong political mandate and the party controlled large majorities in both chambers.

Obama was convinced overhauling the nation’s healthcare system would boost the struggling economy by curbing costs and reducing the long-term federal deficit, say Democratic sources.

An administration official, however, disputed the notion that Emanuel disagreed with the president’s timeline on healthcare.

Emanuel declined to be interviewed for this article.

Once Obama decided to make healthcare the top priority, Emanuel approached it with his signature hard-charging style. That did not sit well in the Senate, according to Democratic senators and House members.

A liberal House Democrat who served with Emanuel during his entire career in Congress said: "I don't think the skills that are attributed to him — muscling things through — are well-suited to the Senate.

"The House is like an Australian-rules rugby match,” the lawmaker added. “The Senate is like a march at a men’s club in imperial Britain. They're a bunch of barons over there."

Emanuel constantly pressed Senate negotiators to stay on a timeline for passing healthcare reform. Centrist Democrats and Republicans alike complained about “arbitrary” deadlines.

Snowe complained about a rushed process when she announced she would vote against the Senate healthcare bill, even after she supported the Democratic healthcare bill in the Finance Committee.

One liberal Democratic senator said Emanuel has a much better relationship with House Democrats.

The senator said that Emanuel allowed White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who had worked 15 years for Baucus, to take more of a lead in the upper chamber. The lawmaker said that was a mistake that allowed Baucus more time than necessary to negotiate with Republicans.

Baucus scoffed at the notion that Messina could pressure him.

“He’s not going to put pressure on me,” Baucus told The Washington Post last year during an interview for a profile of Messina.

A liberal healthcare advocate said this management strategy wasted months of time.

It’s true that Messina was the person the White House relied on to quarterback the Senate strategy. He agreed with the Baucus strategy of going ahead to make this deal [with Republicans] and it did go on too long,” said the advocate.

Some Democrats in Congress also question whether Emanuel scheduled enough time for the president to travel the country to stump for healthcare reform.

“For a guy who talked a lot about not liking the culture of Washington, he spent a lot of time in Washington,” said a Democratic leadership aide.

The aide noted that former President George W. Bush traveled to states and congressional districts he carried on Election Day to pressure Democratic lawmakers to support his agenda. The aide said Obama did not put similar pressure on centrist Republicans.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Obama’s advisers lost touch with the county’s populist sentiment as he became consumed by the challenges of his agenda.

"As a group, overall, I would give them a good grade, but there's something missing there and that's an overall strategy of ‘What are the things we're going to get done and how are we going to work with Congress?’ ” Harkin said of Obama’s circle of advisers.

Harkin said they lacked “a feeling for what’s going on around the country, the populist sentiment.”

Obama’s advisers have since realized this mistake. The president has sounded more populist tones in recent weeks, such as proposing a hefty tax on the bonuses of Wall Street bankers.

The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
Comments (117)PAGE |1|2| ... |6|7|>That time was wasted negotiating with Senate republicans and conservative democrats should underscore how weak this administration is and how dysfunctional the senate is. The senate is more concerned with it's clubby atmosphere and good ol' boy network than it is in doing the people's business. Just once democrats need to find a pair and battle it out. Even if they lose it would be a good thing to show that they are at least fighting for their constituents. As it is, they roll over for republicans at the first sign of opposition. Dems will lose big in November ad not have a clue as to why.
BY AJ on 02/09/2010 at 06:19
It is arrogant to believe that the bill failed because of Emanuel's failures to 'work' the system. Both bills were/are bad and the sooner the libs admit that the sooner work can proceed on a pragmatic bill that most will be able to swallow. All the talk about Obama's inability to cram legislation through focuses on procedure and deal making, not on sincere statesmanlike objectives. If he truly believed his healthcare bill would bring costs down then he is delusional. I think he is intentionally lying. It is all about power. Witness the growth of government jobs at the rate of 10,000 per month since he came into office and the increase in their salaries. Public Unions are drooling at the thought of the money pooled by thousands of paying union members (Hence Andy Stern's regular visits to the WH.) Obama relied on public unions to get the presidency. He will do anything to keep them including this sham bill that will raise taxes and keep his union buddies happy with well padded healthcare and retirement benefits from the time they retire in their fifties until they die in their eighties. If he succeeds in pushing this garbage through you can bet the healthcare system will be top heavy with unionized medical workers. Just wait until you need oxygen at home and your in home health provider decides to go on strike. Nurses? Doctors? Med Techs? Think it can't happen? Think again.
BY cooper52 on 02/09/2010 at 06:41
AJ you are correct. The Dems will loose big in November, but not for your reasoning. They will loose because this Bill is bad and the strong arm Obama admin. is trying to ram it down our throats with special back room deals and without things like TORT reform. They need to start over with a clean sheet of paper in a bipartisan manner. By the way, We needs JOBS a lot more than we need free healthcare for Illegals.
BY Larry on 02/09/2010 at 06:58
"One senior Democratic senator said Emanuel was initially reluctant to push healthcare reform so early in Obama’s first term, counseling instead for the president to focus on jobs and the economy" I think if this had been the strategy, we'd see a far different landscape right now. Of, course, the line I've taken from the text here is contradicted in another part of the story, "One senior Democratic senator said Emanuel was initially reluctant to push health care reform so early in Obama’s first term, counseling instead for the president to focus on jobs and the economy." So, we really don't get any concrete answers in this article, since Rahm declined the interview. We're left to wonder which side of this story is correct? Did he agree that the time was now (don't let a crisis go to waste) or did he think the economy should be addressed (don't let a crisis spiral into an uncontrollable situation).
BY Chip on 02/09/2010 at 07:04
Members of Congress are experts at deflecting blame away from where it belongs— on themselves. If it weren't so tragic, I thought their blaming Wall Street for the collapse was hilarious, given that it was Congress that fostered the collapse by its polices. The failure of HC follows the same pattern. Congress denies any responsibility. What a joke. Hopefully, it will be held accountable in November.
BY Steve851 on 02/09/2010 at 07:36
I don't believe that any 1 individual is 'to blame' for health insurance/care reform not being passed.I do believe that far too many elected officials forget WHO they are in Washington to serve - the people of the United States and not just their own State's concerns.Also because it costs so much for elected officials to 'keep' their jobs, which is why campaign finance reform is such an important issue and being hyper-partisan is a cheap way of insuring re-election.However, none of the above gets the 'work of the country' done.Like AJ, what this story most clearly demonstrates is how the Senate as a legislative branch is no longer serving this country.The archaic rules, such as 'holds' to extort pork for your state (witness Sens. Bond Shelby) and the filibuster/cloture super majority are assuring that the vitally needed solutions for our country are NOT being legislated or enacted.
BY Dari on 02/09/2010 at 07:43
Businesses cannot make future plans because government interference is out of control. Washington only looks out for its friends, and takes from the little guys.My husband and I each owned a small business. I closed mine as of Dec. 31. We will close the other after this year. The new American dream is to retire early and live simply. I'm looking forward to less stress.You can't blame this on Bush.
BY CONUNDRUM on 02/09/2010 at 07:45
I, too, have chosen to opt out of this mess and live more simply. And I hope the government sorely misses my annual "contribution" in taxes of more than $100K. I hope my state misses my annual "contribution" in real estate taxes on two properties of more than $25K. All of my life, I've worked hard, struggled to raise my kids and put them through college, paid taxes, etc. I never once took a handout from anyone. There is no more reward for those who are responsible and work hard, as we're taxed to death at every turn, but watch our government take more and more of what we earn and give it to others, or it just goes down some black hole. The "rewards" all go elsewhere and, pardon me, not to those who necessarily desere it…so, why bother?
BY MamaD on 02/09/2010 at 08:08
What the Democrats fail repeatedly to realize is that, had they crafted a good bill, the American people would have been behind them. Then Rahm wouldn't have had to try "scorched earth" tactics. Also, the people wouldn't be getting ready to vote them out of office. It's not any strategist's fault, it is the fault of the party as a whole for producing a confusing, overreaching, overly instrusive and, lastly, hugely expensive boondoggle of a bill. The American people want something simple, cost effective and understandable. 2044 pages? Give me a break.
BY Tom on 02/09/2010 at 08:09
ObamaCare failed because it was bad legislation and the American people didn't want it. They could see the disaster for what it was and rejected it. Its failure can't be blamed on Rahm as far as his behavior, except that he promoted this disastrous bill.
BY Wise Cherokee on 02/09/2010 at 08:16PAGE |1|2| ... |6|7|>Add Comment
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #517 on: February 23, 2010, 11:15:00 AM »

Of course the Dems are going nuts trying to capitalize on the Toyota thing and make it a political issue - which it certainly is not.
The Bama is looking out for us.  What a joke.

"Toyota vows quality shake-up, faces criminal probe
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, begins the hearing on the "Response By Toyota and NUTS (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to incidents of "sudden unintended acceleration" on Capitol Hill in Washington February 23, 2010. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
On Tuesday February 23, 2010, 11:53 am
By Nobuhiro Kubo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Toyota Motor Corp U.S. executive promised a quality shake-up on Tuesday as the Obama administration said it would hold the carmaker's chief to a pledge to address safety issues after massive recalls.

Congressional hearings over the next two days are critical for the world's largest automaker as it seeks to repair damage over unintended acceleration problems and braking issues that have led to the recall of more than 8.5 million vehicles around the world.

Criminal investigations are now being hinted at by subpoenas from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and a federal grand jury in New York.

Toyota's top-ranking American executive, Jim Lentz, will testify on Tuesday before a panel of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce committee in proceedings scheduled to start at 1100 EST.

Company President Akio Toyoda, grandson of Toyota's founder, will testify on Wednesday before a panel of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.

In a statement prepared ahead of the hearings, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would hold Toyoda to his assurance that the carmaker is working to address all safety issues.

In addition to Toyota executives, U.S. safety regulators will also be grilled on the question of why red flags were missed.

"The mood of the investigative committees going into these hearings is looking increasingly hostile toward Toyota," said Aaron Bragman, analyst at IHS Global Insight.

Adding to the Japanese automaker's deepening crisis on Monday, new documents surfaced which detailed how Toyota beat back U.S. safety regulators' efforts for a wider probe in 2007.

"From a public relations standpoint, this has been an unmitigated disaster from the start for Toyota, handled poorly by a team unfamiliar with major public relations catastrophes," Bragman said.

"The situation looks likely to get worse this week for Toyota, as now the company's advertising and public relations teams' attempts to win over the public and media seem disingenuous at best."

In testimony prepared for his appearance on Capitol Hill, Toyota's Lentz said: "We now understand that we must think differently when investigating complaints and communicate faster, better and more effectively with our customers and our regulators."

Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation Inc, was one of several hundred Toyota dealers and workers who came to Washington on Tuesday as part of a campaign organized by the automaker to help win back popular and political support.

"I'm certain that once the vehicles have been repaired and production has resumed that going into March and April, that (Toyota's) sales will recover," Jackson told Reuters Insider.

In the wake of Toyota's massive recall, Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, issued a call on Tuesday for urgent changes to strengthen U.S. auto safety regulation.

It said that the U.S. safety regulatory system should be reformed to become more transparent and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should have more funding and the ability to impose tougher sanctions.


In a preview of the line Toyota's president could take in his testimony, Toyoda said in a statement published in The Wall Street Journal he was committed to making sure Toyota learns from the crisis and changes its ways.

"It is clear to me that in recent years we didn't listen as carefully as we should -- or respond as quickly as we must -- to our customers' concerns," Toyoda said.

The extended apology from Toyoda came hours after Toyota said it had received a federal grand jury subpoena from the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan on February 8.

The automaker also said the SEC had asked for documents related to unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles and the company's disclosure policies. Toyota said it would cooperate with the investigations.

Toyota's U.S. shares were down 0.8 percent at $72.35 on the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday morning, down more than 21 percent from their 12-month high reached last month.

(Additional reporting by Chang-Ran Kim and Kevin Krolicki; writing by Matthew Lewis, editing by Hugh Lawson, David Holmes and Dave Zimmerman)"

Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #518 on: March 01, 2010, 02:11:25 PM »

I saw part of this on Fareed Zakaria another leftist from the MSM.  I think it sums up the denial of the left over the peopel's rejection of their agenda. It is never the policy per se that is criticized.  It is always that they didn't do well delivering the message.
It isn't their Rx for the US is not wrong it is just that Obama or people around him, or Congress etc just didn't educate the people about the truth.  Their followers in the MSM keep pounding the same message across their media outlets such as Jonathan Alter, Howard Fineman and the NYT crew and the rest of the liberals.

I can only hope the Dems get reamed good in the next two elections once and for all.

****George Soros tells CNN: I’m not satisfied with Barack Obama, but he saved country from recession
CNN — posted by halboedeker on February, 28 2010 11:04 AM Discuss This: Comments(343) | Add to | Digg it
CNN’s Fareed Zakaria introduced George Soros as “the billionaire investor, financier, speculator, philanthropist and thinker.”

[A note: A lot of people have weighed in on this blog post about Soros and his life. If you want to know more, you can read his biography here.]

Zakaria on his “Fareed Zakaria GPS” this morning also noted that Soros was one of Barack Obama’s biggest supporters. Zakaria asked, “Are you satisfied with the job Barack Obama has done?”

Soros said he wasn’t. Soros wanted the banks nationalized, but added that Obama “made the political decision that that is un-American, will not be accepted.”

Yet Soros had praise for Obama’s overall leadership.

“He is paying a very heavy price for actually saving the country from going into a very deep recession or a depression, because people don’t — haven’t experienced it,” Soros said.

“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it.  So it takes two to tango.  So that approach has failed.”

But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.

“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama's] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction.  So he’s sort of taking a tough stance.  And that may be the turning point.  It depends on how he follows it up.”

So what do you say to that?

Add a comment
File under: Barack Obama,CNN,Fareed Zakaria,George Soros
Ads by Google
New Obama Approved Bill

Requirements For Loan Modification Changed. See If Your Home Qualifies

We Found George Soros

Current Phone, Address, Age & More. Instant & Accurate George Soros


Mr. Soros is the epitomy of the huge financiers of the world who cannot step away from their own elite ego and will stop at nothing to dominate the world via economic and financial manipulation. For the largest donr to be critical of his minion means something major is in tthe works and his comments are just a rue to further cloud thebigger picture of world financial control. Let Americans use common sense and American values to steer us away from the reef of disater that is upon us. Shame on you Progressives for selling your souls.

Reply Posted by: Mark Thatcher | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:13 PM

A most excellent comment!

Reply Posted by: Ed R | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:15 PM

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are broke, broken, unfair, unstable, full of fraud as is congress and the presidency. They are all train wrecks, they have all come off the tracks, it’s up to us to vote them all out of office. I would not let these people wash my car. It’s been said that random picks from any phone book would make better representative’s, throw the bums out – all of them!!!

Reply Posted by: LawFinder | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Is this the same George Soros who is placing hedge bets on Greece ?

Why isn’t he considered an evil rich guy by the left ?

Reply Posted by: tankfixer | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:18 PM

Michigan out of work…..while I am sorry for your unfortunate circumstance, and wish you all the best in getting back to work, I don’t see how the government taking over 17% of the economy (health care) is going to do anything except give them another stick to beat us with.

Obama and all of his cronies, Reid, Pelosi, et al, and especially Soros are very dangerous people. Soros wants to destroy the United States as a constitutional republic. By buying dishonest politicians like obama, and with the influence of his massive financial empire, he hopes to continue duping the public into thinking that this is good for them.

We,as a nation, are at a turning point. I will tell you this, though. There are many who will not accept the socialist views of Soros and his puppets. They (the leftists) tell you, and you believe, that the health care mess is the fault of the eeeeeeevil insurance companies! Just like the same bs you have heard about big oil, big auto, big banks….

Ingenuity and the free market can bring us out of this mess. It will take hard work and good ideas.

The obama/soros syncophants believe that the government can “give” it to them, it’s free, we’re all equal, utopia is here, bla, bla, ad nauseum!

They’re going to “give” it to us all right!

The old cliche “There ain’t no free lunch” seems appropriate here. Trust me, YOU WILL PAY FOR IT, one way or another, you will pay for it.
It’s a giant lobster kettle. Before you know it, the water will be boiling and it’s too late. You cannot jump out. They own you.

Again, good luck with your situation. Please look long and hard at what the leftists propose. Read your history. Don’t fall into the trap.

Reply Posted by: tucasfacious | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Sure, nationalizing the banks might be “un-American,” but most likely Obama didn’t let it happen because he “knows those guys.”
How about bailing out the banks at taxpayer expense? Un-American? Nooo…
The only banks that need to be “nationalized” are the Federal Reserve banks. To NOT do so is “un-American.”

Reply Posted by: Sophia | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:22 PM

Soros is an evil man.

Reply Posted by: Lee Grikschat | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Mark, ya I am jealous of him to!

Reply Posted by: Scott | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Soros thinks of himself as a Robin Hood. He steals from the rich and spends the money the way he thinks it ought to be spent. He ignores the reality that people are lazy, selfish, and greedy. They take without giving. They are poor because they are stupid, not because they don’t have money.

Reply Posted by: JimmyDaGeek | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:35 PM

The Federal Reserve has been a problem since its inception. The Federal Reserve needs to ba abolished. It has nothing to do with the government and has been hijacking the economic system of the US since its beginning in 1910.

Reply Posted by: tucasfacious | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Oh I guess Obama took Soros the greedy creep’s money and didn’t do as Soros told him. Soros needs to be brought down to earth; the man is the picture of arrogance, greed and total megalomania. The man is as dangerous as they come.

Reply Posted by: Beli | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:43 PM

“Is this the same George Soros who is placing hedge bets on Greece ?
Why isn’t he considered an evil rich guy by the left ?”

Because the left have different standards for their own – especially the rich&famous ones. How do Hollywood’s elite liberals get away with the crap they do and still be held up as role models?

Fame and fortune seem to erase all blots if you’re on the left.

Reply Posted by: Dave in Dallas | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:44 PM

Soros is an absolutely DISGUSTING, marxist piece of garbage! He only wants to nationalize the banks because he ALREADY pulls the strings. He would have never pushed for it BEFORE he was ready to do so. When you hold the strings to the very institution that would run the banks, then you don’t have to worry about the institution getting in the way of your further gains in the federally hijacked banking system. He should be put on trial for attempted treason.

Reply Posted by: Susan Harkins | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

George Soros, you are such a hypocrite. Obama is doing exactly what you paid him to do and that is to create chaos for the United States. That’s why your puppet smiles so much. He doesn’t care if any of his proposed changes come to fruition. He’s just here to cause problems.

Reply Posted by: Gerri Larsen | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I used to be the economic developer in a small town in Texas when a women from California asked to meet me and the mayor of our town. She lectured us for 20 minutes telling us what a wonderful town we had and why. Then, she spoke for 30 minutes about all the things we should change. At the end I told her, “If we made all the changes you just suggested all the good things you first talked about would no longer be here”. That is Soro’s, he made billions in a system he now despises and I guess his philosophy now is “I got mine, screw You!

Reply Posted by: Larry | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:49 PM


Reply Posted by: TheLonePatriot | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM

\Thanks in part to funding from benefactors such as billionaire George Soros, the Center for American Progress has become in just five years an intellectual wellspring for Democratic policy proposals, including many that are shaping the agenda of the new Obama administration.\

Edwin Chen
November 18, 2008

Reply Posted by: DANTE | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Soros is the epitome of a dangerous, evil man. He hates our country and is out to destroy it.

Reply Posted by: GodBlessAmerica | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM

I have no doubt he will be betting against the dollar soon and making a ton of money. Obama will have done what he paid him to do… without even knowing…

Reply Posted by: Thomass | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:14 PM

My question is this. Why can’t these rich liberals come out of the closet and “shell out” their money for free health care. I am more than happy with my health care insurance the company gave us…

Reply Posted by: Jon | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Soros is the master behind the stooge that now occupies “our” White House. The American people are waking up to the agenda of the “progressives”…who by the way, dominate the strings in the so-called “mainstream” media. Can’t wait until next November! Revenge of the American people and the death of the Democratic Party!

Reply Posted by: RJ | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:19 PM

I’ve read and listen to Mr. Soros for years and years now, I have concluded he uses interviews as an opportunity to spin the future to confuse the people and set up the investment public to be flat footed for his future trades. He always knows the topics to be discussed, he always goes to a trusted interviewer, ie CFR global citizen Zakaria. Hes a trader- hes like the rest of us, he really just wants to make a hugh pile of money, like the rest of the sociopath investment banks, who think they operate in a vacum, George just sees the weakness and corruption in the left is where he sees the real easy money. Working in politics and when he makes foolish statements, amounts to playing his hand. Entities, Big G’s, and traders like Soros are all the same.

Reply Posted by: jake D. | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

I am assuming you are a student of “Secrets of the Temple”….. Quite a fascinating book!!!!!

Reply Posted by: HOTHEAD | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Ahhhhh, poor old Georgie. Little Rahmbo and Obama didn’t deliver for him….well, other than the billions plus drilling venture off of Brazil. Soros is extraordinarily dangerous as is Warren Buffet. Both of these men are doing their very best to manipulate the US and break the nation into three segmented populations for personal control and influence. Presidents need to be vetted for past and present contacts. The last look at the White House roster for visitors, had Soros listed with four visits. The guy is throwing up a facade for something else he wants.

Reply Posted by: tom adams | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Obama must be doing something right if Robert Soros doesn’t like him.
Soros is pushing for a one-world-governemnt

Reply Posted by: bonniwheeler | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Soros has funded Obama and his ilk for quite some time. This man is one pathetic human being.

The picture is telling.

Reply Posted by: Neal N. Lichmee | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

B.O. Stinks … from the get go, I spotted him as an empty suit … a smiling bull$hitter. NO EXPERIENCE … NO BACKGROUND … NO GRADES TO JUDGE HIM BY (To say nothing about saying nothing about his birth certificate) … LIE AFTER LIE documented on video … total disregard for our troops (Bush met EVERY family who lost a loved one). And since I mentioned Dubya, the peace & love people did everything they could to vilify the man, but conveniently forget B.O.’s ADMITTED drug use. Yes, folks America needs a secret society of socialists in the White House. BTW, ever notice how B.O. cocks his head … look up Mussolini for a comparison. God Bless America … we need it ASAP!

Reply Posted by: Rod | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:25 PM

George Soros should pack his bags and move back to Europe and take his socialist ideas with him. Who needs a billionaire who makes his money on sleazy deals that steal money from the middle class.

Reply Posted by: Richard | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:26 PM

Tom Adams, You’re half right. B.O. is pushing for a one world government as well. These remarks by Soros are just for public consumption, i.e. they are NOT to be trusted.

Reply Posted by: John Smith | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:45 PM

Wouldn’t it be good if there was a way to measure the intelligence and education of the posters on comment sections like these?

80 years of gradually lowered educational standards and the dumbing down the working class have led us to the position we are in…. a population who is easily manipulated by emotional buzzwords and trigger phrases.

Reply Posted by: davidius | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I”m sick of hearing about soros and buffet and what thier “opinions”are.Neither one gives a damn what happens to america,just as long as they get to manipulate behind the scenes and make thier precious dollars.I’m all for free markets,have none of the lefts disdain for business,however there’s always been something rotten in denmark with soros and buffet.We need to bounce these fools or take em out.

Reply Posted by: solgreatman | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:55 PM

There is a no more despicable, evil human being slithering upon this earth than George Sorros (not his real name). The great “money changer” who almost bankrupted the British pound and threw the Malaysian economy and currency system into chaos to staisfy his own greed and maniacal lust for wealth.

To call this narcistic progressive elite or his Marxist socio-political orthadoxy, which cares absolutely nothing about the human condition “philanthropic” is the equivalent of calling Dracula a saint.

Reply Posted by: Lightning Jack | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:56 PM

“a student of “Secrets of the Temple”….. ” HOTHEAD

HOTHEAD…..Yes, has been a while since I read it. Probably 10 years.
Greider lays it out quite succinctly. Now, I must re-read it. Not a political book, very centered. No bull$h1t Just tells it like it is. Another is “The Creature from Jekyll Island” by G. Edward Griffin.

The whole Fed is smoke and mirrors. It’s a scam, a parlor trick, and most people fall for it as they do not see the rabbit is already in the hat. It always has been. Once people study it and really see the way the Federal Reserve works and who is working it, it’s true. You will never trust a politician again. The Fed needs to go, but how? It would probably take more than most are willing to do to get rid of it. I believe some have tried. Many of those are not with us anymore.

Remember-In a hyper-inflated environment, the last one holding Federal Reserve notes loses.


Reply Posted by: tucasfacious | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 1:57 PM

All of the programs cited as broke have been pillaged by politicians similar to benefit bank accounts belonging to employees when the company is purchased. This is not the only area of durress as the same symptoms appear throughout all departments of the government.

Every time a decent program is started, no management, and no one to hold accountable seems to be SOP and the downfall of the program starts the day the program goes into effect.

Realizing the problem is a good start towards solving the problem, but then ongoing duedilligence MUST be adhered to in order to prevent backsliders re-emerging.

Reply Posted by: Bob | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:00 PM

Is George want his money back? Like from the off shore credit card transactions that flooded Obama’s campaign to avoid reporting limits?
Poor George, talks down gold then doubles down on his investment as the news hits the market? Ya, I am really concerned about the Leftist promoter, Mr. Soros. Oh, that we could trust this man in any legal endevor that was not anti-Capitalist. But, most of us judge on past performance not promises.

Reply Posted by: BlueSpringsMo | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:01 PM

George Soros is getting what he paid for. He wanted the left wing to run the country. He just did not bank on the fact that Obama would forget who was telling him what do everyday. It’s Soros and the Unions.Soros has one wish and that is to have total control of the world and its money. If Cap Trade come about, he will reap trillions in the markets and you can bet your bottom dollar that he is going to start pushing for it. Money runs the world not good intentions. Obama has left us Hopless and with very little Change in our pocket.

Reply Posted by: gabbie | Monday, March 1, 2010 at 2:08 PM

George Soros is a Marxist loving creep that takes advantage of our capitalist system by betting against it by supporting fellow Marxists like Obama. Soros is betting against the dollar doing all he can to make sure the dollar falls as well as the Euro so he can make another trillion $$. If America fails I wonder where Soros will find another safe haven that he can destroy to make more $$?***

« Reply #519 on: March 01, 2010, 05:01:32 PM »


Moving this to the US Foreign Policy thread.

« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 07:28:18 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
« Reply #520 on: March 03, 2010, 05:50:27 AM »

Moved as requested below:
« Last Edit: March 03, 2010, 10:01:21 AM by Body-by-Guinness » Logged
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #521 on: March 03, 2010, 08:24:31 AM »

I'm not entirely clear here-- is VDH being sarcastic when he uses the term "assasination" here?  Why would targetting and killing an enemy in a war be an "assassination"? 

Anyway, I'd like to suggest that this interesting post would better belong in the "Legal Issues created by the War on Islamic Fascism". 
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #522 on: March 04, 2010, 09:27:07 AM »

I didn't get to hear the whole interview but Marc Levin had a professor from the Univ of Chicago on last PM.
He knew "Barack".
This professor is of gun ownership.  He pointed out that Bama was clearly *to the left* of a "left" academic culture.
He said he had no illusions that other professors were against his stand on guns but Bama was clearly the ONLY one who would come out clear as day and state he was against anyone owning guns.

Indeed he said his impression was that Bama shunned him as he shunned anyone he did not agree with.

He was NOT a conciliator like he was falsely portrayed in his campaign and as the lefist supporters make him out to be now.

He was/is a strict ideologue.  This professor made it clear that his experience with Bama was that he was very rigid, uncompromising, set in his beliefs, and would surround himself only with those he agreed with.

He saw no evidence that the Bama would like to surround himself with those he disagreed with like has been stated and advertised.

Additionally he only came to Univ. of Chicago as a stepping stone for politics.  He was not an academic, he was not interested in research and he only was hired as a selling point for running for the Senate.

To me this just corraborates the obvious - this guy, because of his gift of the gab, is chosen to lead the far left radical agenda.

There is NO doubt in my mind the people have somehow been hoodwinked into thinking this guy is a conciliator, compromiser, just left of center, patriot.  All the circumstantial evidence all but proves that this guy is exactly what Beck, and others warn.

He is some sort of socialist, communist or whatever.  He is radical to everything this country was founded on, was built on, was meant to be and it is a total CON game to say otherwise.

Very interesting radio program on Levin's show last night.  I am sorry I missed some of it.  Usually he gets the usual average call in but this one was quite interesting.

I don't know if it is possible to somehow get this into the msm which continues to protect and cover the true nature of their ideologue.  WE always hear from the MSM that anyone who says anything akin to this is some sort of way out there loon when the only way out loon is Bama.

Also one defense is "well his policies are not radical", or some mirror Bush etc.

My response is that is only a cover.  His real agenda, his real dream is clearly some sort of communism or some iteration or manifastation of a socialist country and eventually the entire world.

I don't know how we can get the mainstream America to wake up.  It appears some independents have but the polls are incredibly stable.  I guess even worse is that apparantly many people in America (not real Americans) seem to be happy to have socialism of some sort.   
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #523 on: March 04, 2010, 10:28:47 PM »

Q: What’s the difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler wrote his own book.

Q: What’s another difference between Obama and Hitler?
A: Hitler got the Olympics to come to his country.

Q: What’s the main problem with Barack Obama jokes?
A: His followers don’t think they’re funny and everyone else doesn’t think they’re jokes.

Q: Why does Barack Obama oppose the Second Amendment?
A: It stands between him and the First.

Q: What’s the difference between Rahm Emanuel and a carp?
A: One is a scum sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.

Q: What does Barack Obama call lunch with a convicted felon?
A: A fund raiser.

Q: What’s the difference between Obama’s cabinet and a penitentiary?
A: One’s full of tax evaders, blackmailers and threats to society. The other is for prisoners.

Q: What do you call the US after four years of Obama and the Liberal congress?
A: An Obama-nation.

Q: Why doesn’t Obama pray?
A: It’s impossible to read the teleprompter with your eyes closed.
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #524 on: March 10, 2010, 10:40:04 PM »
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #525 on: April 13, 2010, 02:13:04 PM »

Psalms 109 verse 8   New King James version.

8 Let his days be few,
         And let another take his office.
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #526 on: April 13, 2010, 06:25:12 PM »

OFV (Oy Fg Vey)
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #527 on: April 13, 2010, 07:40:51 PM »

Guess who - taxpayers
This is a great summary of drudge today of the mess the Phoney One has planned for us - already understood by posters here but is a nice summary one can send to non believers:

Tuesday, April 13, 2010
 America Becomes a Two-Class Society
by Phyllis Schlafly
Income tax day, April 15, 2010, now divides Americans into two almost equal classes: those who pay for the services provided by government and the freeloaders. The percentage of Americans who will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009 has risen to 47 percent.

That isn't the worst of it. The bottom 40 percent not only pay no income tax, but the government sends them cash or benefits financed by the taxes dutifully paid by those who do pay income tax.

The outright cash handouts include the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which can amount to as much as $5,657 a year to low-income families. Other financial benefits can include child tax credits, welfare, food stamps, WIC (Women, Infants, Children), housing subsidies, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, S-CHIP and other programs.

This is both a massive transfer of wealth and a soak-the-rich racket. The top 10 percent pay 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has become the congressional leader in explaining details of the recently passed Health Control Law. He says that, based on Congressional Budget Office figures, taxes to pay for Obamacare will have to skyrocket to an 88 percent income tax rate within 30 years.

Although all wage-earners help fund their own Social Security and Medicare benefits, only federal income taxpayers pay the costs of running the federal government, and are responsible for paying off our $12.8 trillion national debt and for bailing out Social Security, Medicare, and Fannie and Freddie when they collapse.

Even the recently passed Health Control Law contains financial subsidies to unmarried couples that are denied to married couples. This rewards the unmarried women who were the second largest demographic constituency that voted for Barack Obama for president in 2008.

When Obama told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth around," Obama wasn't kidding. That's exactly what he is now doing: taking money from taxpayers and spreading it around to non-taxpayers.

Nor was Obama kidding when, on the eve of his election, he threatened, "We are going to fundamentally transform the United States of America." Converting the earnings of American workers into handouts for those who voted for Obama in 2008 is certainly a fundamental transformation.

Obama's promise not to raise taxes on middle-Americans is already down the drain. Obama brought former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker out of obscurity to serve as chairman of an Economic Recovery Advisory Board and announce that we need to raise taxes.

Volcker was blunt in predicting that the new tax increase will be a Value-Added Tax (VAT). That's the tax European socialists love because its rates can be hidden and frequently raised, while producing rivers of revenue for the bureaucrats.

Volcker claimed that a VAT is "not a toxic idea." It really is -- Charles Krauthammer called it "the ultimate cash cow" because it transfers so much money from individuals to the government.

Having already co-opted the executive and legislative branches of government for his fundamental transformation, Obama now wants to use the judiciary, too. The retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens gives him this opportunity.

On Jan. 18, 2001m on Public Radio WBEZ-FM, Chicago, Obama complained that the Earl Warren Court "wasn't that radical" because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. ... The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and serve more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

Calling for the Supreme Court to participate in the "redistribution of wealth" is shockingly revolutionary. Any judicial nominee who agrees with Obama's theory should be rejected.

Obama's game plan to "fundamentally transform" America is based on both Saul Alinsky's modus operandi for community organizing and on the Cloward-Piven spending strategy. Saul Alinsky was a famous Chicago radical, and Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were less-well-known Columbia University sociologists.

The goal of all three of these agitators was the overthrow of the private enterprise system. The Alinsky strategy is to use community organizing and mass demonstrations by those he labeled the "Have Nots," and the Cloward-Piven strategy is to overload the bureaucracy with enormous demands for entitlements, thereby causing a financial crisis.

Obama used Alinsky methods by taxpayer financing of ACORN and subprime mortgages. Obama used Cloward-Piven methods by massive deficit spending for entitlements for more and more millions of people.

Fortunately, hardworking, taxpaying Americans are beginning to understand how they are being ripped off and rushed into bankruptcy. The one way to save ourselves and our country is to elect a Congress in November pledged to stop the spending.
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #528 on: April 22, 2010, 03:58:36 PM »

And why wouldn't they want to celebrate and offer a toast to the one who wants to give it all away to our competitors and enemies?   
We are so screwed (at least half the country is).

****Party animal? Obama nightclub opens next week in China
By: Nikki Schwab and Tara Palmeri
Washington Examiner
04/21/10 6:00 PM EDT
Screen shot of the Obama club's logo. Don't they know the administration is known for its bare arms and not legs?
While his poll numbers in the states aren't what they used to be, some Chinese entrepreneurs must be hoping the "Obama brand" holds strong internationally.

A nightclub named after the American president, the Obama Entertainment Club, opens Monday in Shanghai, China. Details about how exactly the club is Obama-themed still are scarce, though promotional materials found by the blog Shanghaiist tout that the club "will bring international glamour, excitement and refined luxury to the Shanghai entertainment scene."****

Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #529 on: May 01, 2010, 09:38:35 AM »

Hopefully she saved the dress (or night gown or panties):


Photo by: splash news online Reports out of Washington, DC:  PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, reports reveal that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit. 

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds.  Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

Analyzing the reports, a top DC insider said the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

On-site hotel surveillance video camera footage may provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided. 

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."
Power User
Posts: 42522

« Reply #530 on: May 01, 2010, 10:41:08 AM »

URL?  Source?
Power User
Posts: 9481

« Reply #531 on: May 05, 2010, 12:20:07 PM »

Peter Wehner - 05.04.2010 - Commentary Magazine

This weekend President Obama delivered the University of Michigan commencement address and returned to a favorite theme of his: the need for civility and respect in public discourse. In the president’s words:

    The… way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate…. we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down. You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it. You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism. Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

    … The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning — since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right-wing nut?” It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out. It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation. It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

    So what can we do about this?

    As I’ve found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn’t easy. And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect.

These are wise words that should be taken seriously. Especially by the president himself.

I say that because President Obama’s party and his chief defenders — including the DNC, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Reid — have routinely engaged in the kind of vilification the president condemns. Think of the assault on the Tea Party Movement and those who attended town-hall meetings last summer; they were accused of being racists and bigots, “an angry mob,” practitioners of “un-American tactics,” “astroturfers” and Nazi-like, and potential Timothy McVeighs. Harry Reid referred to people who showed up at town-hall meetings as “evil-mongers.” Representative Alay Grayson, in characterizing the GOP health-care plans, said that “the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick…. This is what the Republicans want you to do.”

On and on it goes, issue after issue, slander after slander. Yet President Obama has done nothing to call off the attack dogs in his own party, despite his enormous influence with them.

In fact, Obama himself has engaged in ad hominem attacks to a degree that is unusual for a president. He constantly impugns the motives of those who have policy disagreements with him. His critics are greedy, venal, irresponsible, demagogic, cynical, bought and paid for, spreaders of misinformation, distorters of truth. “More than any President in memory,” the Wall Street Journal recently editorialized, “Mr. Obama has a tendency to vilify his opponents in personal terms and assail their arguments as dishonest, illegitimate or motivated by bad faith.”

So President Obama lacerates his critics for engaging in the very activity he denounces. And he does so in the haughtiest way imaginable, always attempting to portray himself as hovering above us mere mortals, exasperated at the childish and petty quality of the political debate, weary of the name-calling. How hard it must be to be the embodiment of Socratic discourse, Solomonic wisdom, and Niebuhrian nuance in this fallen and broken world.

Here is the rather unpleasant reality, though: our president fancies himself a public intellectual of the highest order — think Walter Lippmann as chief executive — even as he and his team are accomplished practitioners of the Chicago Way. They relish targeting those on their enemies list. The president himself pretends to engage his critics’ arguments even as his words are used like a flamethrower in a field of straw men. It’s hard to tell if we’re watching a man engaged in an elaborate political shell game or a victim of an extraordinary, and nearly clinical, case of self-delusion. Perhaps there is some of both at play. Regardless, President Obama’s act became tiresome long ago.

I am reminded of the line from Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #532 on: May 22, 2010, 11:07:49 AM »

He continues to hasten our decline.

By Michael D. Shear
Saturday, May 22, 2010; 11:45 AM

WEST POINT, N.Y. -- President Obama on Saturday pledged to shape a new "international order" as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting Democratic values around the world.

Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point -- the ninth wartime commencement in a row, he said -- the commander in chief who is leading two foreign wars expressed his faith in cooperation and partnerships to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.

"The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds."

The administration is set to officially release the president's first national security strategy next week, and Obama's preview on Saturday suggests it will be far different than the first one offered by his predecessor in 2002. In that prior document, President George W. Bush formally called for a policy of preemptive war and a "distinctly American internationalism."

Obama has spoken frequently about shaping new alliances with the world, and of attempts to repair the U.S. image abroad after nearly a decade in which Bush's approach was viewed with suspicion in many quarters. In his commencement speech to the graduates, the president emphasized his beliefs in those alliances.

"Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation," he said. "We have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice -- so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities, and face consequences when they don't."

 Obama said the United States will pursue a strategy of "national renewal and global leadership."

And yet, even as he calls for global cooperation, Obama has intensified America's own war in Afghanistan. And his administration has repeatedly confronted the dangers of Islamic terrorism on U.S. soil, including unsuccessful attempts to down a Detroit-bound airliner and to explode a car bomb in New York's Times Square.

To the men and women in the hall, many of whom are headed to Afghanistan because of the expansion of the war he announced here six months ago, Obama pledged "the full support of a proud and grateful nation."

The president expressed confidence in the military's ability to succeed in Afghanistan, but warned of a "tough fight" ahead as the United States helps the Afghan people to rebuild its civil institutions and its security system so they can battle the Taliban and other extremists on their own.

"We have brought hope to the Afghan people; now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies," he said. "There will be difficult days ahead. But we will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan."

In Iraq, he said, the United States is "poised" to end its combat operations this summer, leaving behind "an Iraq that provides no safe haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable and self-reliant."

"You, and all who wear America's uniform, remain the cornerstone of our national defense and the anchor of global security," he said. "And through a period when too many of our institutions have acted irresponsibly, the American military has set a standard of service and sacrifice that is as great as any in this nation's history."

But he said civilians must answer the call of service as well, by securing America's economic future, educating its children and confronting the challenges of poverty and climate change. He said the country must always pursue what he called the "universal rights" rooted in the Constitution.

"We will promote these values above all by living them -- through our fidelity to the rule of law and our Constitution, even when it's hard; and through our commitment to forever pursue a more perfect union," he said.

To the cadets themselves, he praised their pursuit of being "soldier-scholars" and lauded the records of academic excellence the Class of 2010 has set. He also took note of the fact that the class's top two graduates this year are both women, reflecting, he said, the "indispensable role" that women play in the modern military.

As they become commissioned officers in the Army, Obama told the graduates of West Point that the country owes them a debt of gratitude.

"Here in the quiet of these hills, you have come together to prepare for the most difficult tests of our time'" Obama said. "You signed up knowing your service would send you into harm's way, and did so long after the first drums of war were sounded. In you we see the commitment of our country, and timeless virtues that have served our nation well."
Power User
Posts: 9481

« Reply #533 on: May 24, 2010, 01:31:51 PM »

Mark Steyn (May 22, 2010) has the outrage that President Obama lacks.
One of Those Moments
The president has become the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole.

Barack Obama’s remarkable powers of oratory are well known: In support of Chicago’s Olympic bid, he flew into Copenhagen to give a heartwarming speech about himself, and they gave the games to Rio. He flew into Boston to support Martha Coakley’s bid for the U.S. Senate, and Massachusetts voters gave Ted Kennedy’s seat to a Republican. In the first year of his presidency, he gave a gazillion speeches on health-care “reform” and drove support for his proposals to basement level, leaving Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to ram it down the throats of the American people through sheer parliamentary muscle.

Like a lot of guys who’ve been told they’re brilliant one time too often, President Obama gets a little lazy, and doesn’t always choose his words with care. And so it was that he came to say a few words about Daniel Pearl, upon signing the “Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act.”

Pearl was decapitated on video by jihadist Muslims in Karachi on Feb. 1, 2002. That’s how I’d put it.

This is what the president of the United States said: “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Now Obama’s off the prompter, when his silver-tongued rhetoric invariably turns to sludge. But he’s talking about a dead man here, a guy murdered in public for all the world to see. Furthermore, the deceased’s family is standing all around him. And, even for a busy president, it’s the work of moments to come up with a sentence that would be respectful, moving, and true. Indeed, for Obama, it’s the work of seconds, because he has a taxpayer-funded staff sitting around all day with nothing to do but provide him with that sentence.

Instead, he delivered the one above. Which, in its clumsiness and insipidness, is most revealing. First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none.

Even if Americans don’t get the message, the rest of the world does. This week’s pictures of the leaders of Brazil and Turkey clasping hands with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are also monuments to American passivity.

But what did the “loss” of Daniel Pearl mean? Well, says the president, it was “one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination.” Really? Evidently it never captured Obama’s imagination, because, if it had, he could never have uttered anything so fatuous. He seems literally unable to imagine Pearl’s fate, and so, cruising on autopilot, he reaches for the all-purpose bromides of therapeutic sedation: “one of those moments” — you know, like Princess Di’s wedding, Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction, whatever — “that captured the world’s imagination.”

Notice how reflexively Obama lapses into sentimental one-worldism: Despite our many zip codes, we are one people, with a single imagination. In fact, the murder of Daniel Pearl teaches just the opposite — that we are many worlds, and worlds within worlds. Some of them don’t even need an “imagination.” Across the planet, the video of an American getting his head sawed off did brisk business in the bazaars and madrassas and Internet downloads. Excited young men e-mailed it to friends, from cell phone to cell phone, from Karachi to Jakarta to Khartoum to London to Toronto to Falls Church, Va. In the old days, you needed an “imagination” to conjure the juicy bits of a distant victory over the Great Satan. But in an age of high-tech barbarism, the sight of Pearl’s severed head is a mere click away.

And the rest of “the world”? Most gave a shrug of indifference. And far too many found the reality of Pearl’s death too uncomfortable and chose to take refuge in the same kind of delusional pap as Obama. The president is only the latest Western liberal to try to hammer Daniel Pearl’s box into a round hole. Before him, it was Michael Winterbottom in his film A Mighty Heart: As Pearl’s longtime colleague Asra Nomani wrote, “Danny himself had been cut from his own story.” Or, as Paramount’s promotional department put it, “Nominate the most inspiring ordinary hero. Win a trip to the Bahamas!” Where you’re highly unlikely to be kidnapped and beheaded! (Although, in the event that you are, please check the liability-waiver box at the foot of the entry form.)

The latest appropriation is that his “loss” “reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” It was nothing to do with “freedom of the press.” By the standards of the Muslim world, Pakistan has a free-ish and very lively press. The problem is that some 80 percent of its people wish to live under the most extreme form of Sharia, and many of its youth are exported around the world in advance of that aim. The man convicted of Pearl’s murder was Omar Sheikh, a British subject, a London School of Economics student, and, like many jihadists from Osama to the Pantybomber, a monument to the peculiar burdens of a non-deprived childhood in the Muslim world. The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: “I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.” But Obama’s not the kind to take “guilty” for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway.

Listen to his killer’s words: “The American Jew Daniel Pearl.” We hit the jackpot! And then we cut his head off. Before the body was found, The Independent’s Robert Fisk offered a familiar argument to Pearl’s kidnappers: Killing him would be “a major blunder . . . the best way of ensuring that the suffering” — of Kashmiris, Afghans, Palestinians — “goes unrecorded.” Other journalists peddled a similar line: If you release Danny, he’ll be able to tell your story, get your message out, “bridge the misconceptions.” But the story did get out; the severed head is the message; the only misconception is that that’s a misconception.

Daniel Pearl was the prototype for a new kind of terror. In his wake came other victims from Kenneth Bigley, whose last words were that “Tony Blair has not done enough for me,” to Fabrizzio Quattrocchi, who yanked off his hood, yelled “I will show you how an Italian dies!” and ruined the movie for his jihadist videographers. By that time, both men understood what it meant to be in a windowless room with a camera and a man holding a scimitar. But Daniel Pearl was the first, and in his calm, coherent final words understood why he was there:

“My name is Daniel Pearl. I am a Jewish American from Encino, California, U.S.A.”

He didn’t have a prompter. But he spoke the truth. That’s all President Obama owed him — to do the same.

I mentioned last week the attorney general’s peculiar insistence that “radical Islam” was nothing to do with the Times Square bomber, the Pantybomber, the Fort Hood killer. Just a lot of moments “capturing the world’s imagination.” For now, the jihadists seem to have ceased cutting our heads off. Listening to Obama and Eric Holder, perhaps they’ve figured out there’s nothing much up there anyway.
Power User
Posts: 9481

« Reply #534 on: May 28, 2010, 09:30:25 AM »

Wonder if Letterman will replay this one:

March 31, 2010  President Obama:
"today we’re announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration...  Under the leadership of Secretary Salazar, we’ll employ new technologies that reduce the impact of oil exploration.  We’ll protect areas that are vital to tourism... consider potential areas for development in the...Gulf of Mexico"
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #535 on: May 28, 2010, 02:49:34 PM »

"anonymous sources"

or better yet, trial balloon?

Here we go again.  "It is only over a job" (not a blow job this time).  "Everyone does it".  "It depends what the word "job" means". It depends what the word "offer" means.

***By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 05.28.2010 The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute.

But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel’s request, he was Rahm’s agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still “something of value” within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote.

And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter’s vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate — all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place.

In a previous column (read it at Dick and Fox News Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano suggest that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, now the Republican nominee for Governor, should empanel a grand jury to get to the bottom of this affair. Today’s revelation makes this ever more urgent.***

Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #536 on: May 29, 2010, 09:22:22 AM »

I think it happens all the time; on both sides of the aisle. 

Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the U.S. House, said in an interview: "It's horse trading. It's what happens in politics. Presidents appoint people sometimes to get them out of the way, sometimes in reward for good service."
Power User
Posts: 7837

« Reply #537 on: May 29, 2010, 10:32:52 AM »

Well yes, but that isn't a defense.
Of course our politicians like everyone else are for sale.
Perhaps it is about time to put a (try at least) stop to this.
I dont' need Stanley Brand to state the obvious.

But this,"sometimes in reward for good service" is not a crime (I don't think).  Trying to offer a job (maybe Clinton did offer a blow job) to get  a person out of a Senate race is a crime.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #538 on: May 29, 2010, 01:17:39 PM »

Obama will miss out on the ceremonies at Arlington this year, but will be on hand for the wreath laying at the tomb of the unknown bagman in Chicago.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #539 on: May 29, 2010, 02:01:20 PM »

I think it happens all the time; on both sides of the aisle. 

Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the U.S. House, said in an interview: "It's horse trading. It's what happens in politics. Presidents appoint people sometimes to get them out of the way, sometimes in reward for good service."

There are multiple federal laws potentially violated here.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #540 on: May 29, 2010, 03:57:31 PM »

Paniced lying.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #541 on: May 29, 2010, 04:20:51 PM »

Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.), the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's ranking member:

“After more than ten weeks of outstanding questions, the White House has offered a version of events that has important differences from what Congressman Sestak has been saying for months – that he was offered a ‘job’ by ‘someone in the White House’ in exchange for leaving the Pennsylvania Senate race.

“I’m very concerned that in the rush to put together this report, the White House has done everything but explain its own actions and has instead worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved.  The White House has admitted today to coordinating an arrangement that would represent an illegal quid-pro-quo as federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any position or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election.

“President Clinton and Congressman Sestak now need to answer questions about what the White House has released today – that at the behest of the White House Chief of staff, they dispatched a former President to get Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate Primary.  Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, it is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his Administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #542 on: May 29, 2010, 11:26:21 PM »

  rolleyes    You've got to know absolutely NOTHING is going to come out of this.... Just a lot of hot air.......
Republican or Democrat;  horse trading has been going on since Washington was President....

As for CCP; I do agree it's unfortunate that it is business as usual.  Further, CCP,
if either Clinton "offered a blow job", well.... Now THAT would be serious crime!    grin
« Reply #543 on: May 30, 2010, 08:12:52 AM »

I'd say something has come of it already as to this point the generally obsequious press actually appears to be giving this one a hard look. The hard left of the Democratic party--you know the ones that show up at the primaries and often drive the party's agenda--are all bearing witness to presidential efforts to derail a candidate they favor for a Republican turncoat moderate, and if you don't think that's been noticed you need to take a trip over to the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.

Though still not being held to the same standard as Bush, where I imagine a similar effort would be taken as a sign of the apocalypse or something, what has occurred doesn't portend well for Obama. Where he is not impotent he is hamfisted; his fellow travelers are taking note.
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #544 on: May 30, 2010, 09:10:55 AM »

**You think the "everyone does it" defense will fly?**§ 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Power User
Posts: 2004

« Reply #545 on: May 30, 2010, 09:23:51 AM »

I'll repeat what Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the U.S. House, said in an interview: "It's horse trading. It's what happens in politics. Presidents appoint people sometimes to get them out of the way, sometimes in reward for good service."

But let's see how it all plays out.  I still bet "nothing will come out of this" of any substance; just the opposite aisle (it happens on both sides) bellyaching. 
Power User
Posts: 15533

« Reply #546 on: May 30, 2010, 09:35:27 AM »

It needs to be investigated.
« Reply #547 on: May 30, 2010, 09:53:04 AM »

JDN recapitulates:

I'll repeat what Stanley Brand, former general counsel to the U.S. House, said in an interview: "It's horse trading. It's what happens in politics. Presidents appoint people sometimes to get them out of the way, sometimes in reward for good service."

Wow, reiterate your point and ignore mine. What was I calling that before . . . oh yes, the Inanity Hammer. My how times have changed. Guess it's time to email Crafty about what a big meany I am.
« Reply #548 on: May 30, 2010, 03:33:53 PM »

Note: the original piece is heavily illustrated.

Obama, ACORN and Stealth Socialism

As an ex-ACORN insider and ex-radical who used Democrat donor lists to raise money for ACORN alter-ego Project Vote and designed the ACORN 2005, 2006 and 2007 Political Operations Year End PowerPoint presentations, I know that President Obama (for whom I now regretfully admit I proudly voted) was an ACORN guy for many years and realize that he became the instrument for the implementation of its stealth socialism agenda.

National Journal rated Obama the most “liberal” United States Senator, even more “liberal” than avowed socialist Bernard Sanders of Vermont (for whom then Senator Obama campaigned), because he earned it.

In her sensational New York Times no. 1 bestseller, “Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies,” published in 2009, intrepid Michelle Malkin generously gave me “special thanks” for daring to expose ACORN corruption and wrote about it and the New York Times cover up of the Obama/ACORN relationship in detail at pages 244-49. (Since that material was added after the manuscript had been sent to the printer, I did not make the index.)

Stealth socialism in vogue
It’s not surprising that on May 3, 2010 Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliot released “The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists” and on May 15, 2010 former Speaker Newt Gingrich released a book titled “To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine.” Of course they are right about Obama’s radical ties and “secular socialist machine.” (I’m looking forward to Laura Ingraham’s “The Obama Diaries,” out on or about July 13, 2010, but I bet President Obama isn’t.)

Even though on October 21, 2008 The New York Times killed the Obama/ACORN expose on which I been reporter Stephanie Strom’s source and I decided to blow the whistle myself and appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show before the end of the month, Bill O’Reilly of Fox News apparently did not learn about it until March of 2009 (the month in which attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, for whom I voluntarily became a witness in the Pennsylvania ACORN, testified before a Congressional committee about ACORN voter registration fraud and the New York Times cover up), it was inevitable that the truth about Obama, ACORN and “stealth socialism” finally would become generally known as the socialist agenda was implemented. After all, the idea was for Obama to deliver as President on that “fundamental change” that he promised as a presidential hopeful.

After an appealing generality becomes an examinable specific and the cost calculations are done, putting lipstick on a pig doesn’t fool nearly as many people. For example, Obamacare is a massive wealth redistribution program and–no surprise–not long after it was enacted, an Obama Administration official acknowledged it and we learned that Obamacare would be much more expensive than it had been officially estimated before it was passed.

Defining stealth socialism
Graham L. Strachan explained the “stealth socialism” path this way:

“Why did the Western media persist in calling the social system in the Communist bloc ‘Communism’ instead of Socialism? They did it to manufacture a false reality: to protect the reputation of another form of Socialism which existed in the West….so-called ‘Democratic Socialism’, socialism by stealth, socialism achieved through the ‘permeation’ of existing political institutions by members of organisation such as the Fabian Society, in order to influence the policies adopted by those institutions towards socialism.

“Democratic Socialism itself was based on a lie: that Socialism could be implemented peacefully through the ballot box. The implication was that if the voters didn’t like it they could vote it out again. That was a hoax. Since Socialism does not permit private ownership of property, it cannot be ‘democratic’ in the sense of allowing a choice of political Parties. This is not a matter of ideology, but of logistics. It would be impossible to have a two Party system of genuine democracy, for example, under which the state nationalised all property including business when the Socialists were voted into power, then sold it all back to the people again when they were voted out. The intention of Democratic Socialism was (and still is) to be democratic just long enough to gain power. Then it will declare the ‘end of history’ and entrench itself forever, enforcing its politically correct speech and thought on everybody, and being just as tyrannical as its Marxist revolutionary counterparts.”

How to make a socialist the ACORN way
As an ACORN insider my indoctrination as a socialist was a slow but steady progression from radical liberalism to embracing the stealth socialist methods that had made ACORN a powerful force in American electoral politics. Two years ago, in the mist of a heated presidential election year, I noticed a Facebook page of Socialism 2008. The graffiti-like picture beckoned young Socialists to Chicago, Illinois on June 19th, 2008.  I RSVPed for the event on Facebook without fully understanding what had just taken place. The line between radical, liberal Democrat and socialist was almost invisible at this point.

Working for ACORN/Project Vote facilitated my crossing the “socialist”threshold and I had become what insiders termed “one of the true believers.” True believers were instrumental in the survival of ACORN and the process of making an employee a true believer began on the very first day.

Inside ACORN offices across the country, young, idealistic liberals were being ingrained with the Saul Alinsky style of Organizing. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals was never mentioned by name, but Alinsky’s tactics were used on employees and ACORN members.

ACORN’s strategy of stealth socialism was aimed at gaining power through duplicity and somewhat assimilating into society. Alinsky, the “father of community organizing,” taught that the path to power necessitated the use of people who would serve as pawns.

“Organizing for power was Alinsky’s political end, not political party influence. When he asked his new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with ’selfless bromides about wanting to help others,’ according to Ryan Lizza writing in The New Republic. Alinsky would then “scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!’”

Saul Alinsky almost single-handedly invented the modern art of community organizing…

He was a master teacher of others, and left a legion of trained disciples and organizations, including Obama and Clinton.”

Every ACORN employee was given a copy of the ACORN Organizing Model, bylaws and various information on running campaigns, but the real education was in how ACORN operated behind the scenes. Like Alinsky, ACORN openly organized to build power, but ACORN’s ace in the hole was the black community.

Community organizers became the “information police” for minorities in dozens of cities. As the official representative for its members, ACORN was able to frame the debate in ways that aligned with its People’s Platform.  The platform is based on the socialist idea of sharing the wealth. Members were asked, even coerced, to attend rallies and protests for issues ACORN had decided would lead to power.

As students exited schools with a “liberal arts” education and a desire to help, ACORN stood ready with the social justice flag in one hand and a cigarette lighter and American flag in the other. Attending such events like Socialism 2008 was the culmination of two years of looking the other way and accepting a little bad in order to save the “movement.” Some leave ACORN at this point but the ones who stay are trusted just a little more.

The Road from radical terrorists to professors and community organizers
With greater access comes greater understanding of the true subversive nature of ACORN. As stated last summer in my article “Liberal Fallout Zones“:

“Poverty is big business and a predicate for class warfare intended to perpetuate political power in the masters of that big business. In the current climate special interest groups are writing bills and influencing votes amid a huge liberal spending binge.”

That spending binge is more like a bender now because ACORN, recognizing the past mistakes of other radical groups like Weather Underground and Students for a Democratic Society decided the best way to gain power as was to pass unnoticed in mainstream America. Radicals like Frances Fox Piven and her husband Richard A. Cloward retreated into the world of Academia where they penned papers on Socialism peppered with Alinsky tactics and a new name:

The Cloward-Piven strategy

On May 2, 1966, Columbia’s Professor of Social Work Richard A. Cloward, and his then research associate Frances Fox Piven, wrote a pivotal article in The Nation, articulating “a strategy to end poverty.”

In what became known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, the article argued a revolutionary approach to mobilizing the poor in the form of class warfare against capitalist forces viewed as exploiting labor and oppressing the poor.

David Horowitz, a long-time student of leftist political movements in the United States, characterized the Cloward-Piven strategy as seeking “to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

Cloward and Piven argued a “guaranteed annual income” should be established as an entitlement for the poor, a right the poor could assert and demand to be paid.”

Other radicals like ACORN founder Wade Rathke and former Project Vote executive director, Zach Polett formed organizations and began implementing their socialist agenda while using the poor and minority communities as a defense if anyone dared question their actions. According to its website, ACORN planted its seed in American politics long ago and continues to play an “insider’s game” to maintain it.

« Reply #549 on: May 30, 2010, 03:34:16 PM »

“Finally, ACORN® began playing the insiders’ game in American politics. Congressional lobbying is practiced by ACORN® staff. Leaders and members became a central part of the insiders’ games, too. Members elected to office or serving on APACs acquired experience and skill applying power from the inside of the political process. Instead of confronting opponents in actions (something ACORN® will never stop doing), members could trade and negotiate from inside positions of power. ACORN®’s work on the savings and loan bailout provided effective means of developing and applying power for low- and moderate- income people. ACORN® members won appointment to the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) to help determine the management of the billions of dollars of assets the government seized. The payoff to these activities came, and still comes, when substantial numbers of ACORN® members developed the ability to move inside the political sphere that has for so long been closed to low- and moderate-income people.”

Wade Rathke and Zach Polett learned the path to power quickly and utilized their influence to pass the 1996 National Voter Registration Act  (the “Motor Voter” bill). Polett, seated below to the far left in a dark suit and tie, had officially brought the Arkansas based ACORN to Washington.

Interestingly, on the same page with their tales of insider dealing,  ACORN discusses how the network of unions, non-profits and corporations were created for the express purpose of pushing ACORN’s socialist agenda.

“The national lobbying arm of ACORN® is only one example of the diversification within ACORN® that was basic to its success. The ACORN® Housing Corporation worked to create affordable housing in conjunction with banks and state and local government. The United Labor Unions, now Locals 100 and 880 of the Service Employees International Union, became labor organizing arms of ACORN® which organize people where they work. ACORN® Services, Inc. and the canvassing operations enhanced ACORN®’s ability to create the financial resources needed to grow. The Arkansas Institute for Social Justice became the means for developing leadership skills and political talents among the ACORN® members. What was once a relatively simple organization of community groups has became a diversified system of institutions capable of applying specialized skills to solving the kinds of problems ACORN® encounters in its work.”

Along came a socialist
In late 2006 the atmosphere in the office changed and it appeared that the senior staff were energized. Efforts to function as a real office were implemented. Project Vote began using a donor database instead of a box and attempts were made to reconcile the accounting records. In anticipation of what ACORN began calling a “once in a generation opportunity.” John Podesta from the Center for American Progress gave a speech called “Preparing for Power: The Next Cycle?” in December of that year.

After two years with ACORN I understood how they operated and took the close relationship with the Democrat party for granted. The relationship between Democrats and ACORN was that the party needed ACORN to retain their seats and ACORN needed them to pass their agenda items. ACORN’s belief that indeed, all politics is local, allowed them to place people strategically in positions that would allow a run for higher office.

In 2007 when Zach Polett bragged about supervising Barack Obama and that “ACORN produces leaders,” his purpose was to energize the employees so that we would go out there and deliver. ACORN’s voter registration goals and budget were unmatched and the stakes were high.

When Obama’s campaign called the Project Vote offices in late 2007, I could barely contain my excitement as I relayed the information to my supervisors. After receiving the Obama 2007 2nd quarter donor list from Karyn Gillette, I had another look away moment. Were we violating FEC rules by targeting Obama’s maxed out donors? Did I really want Obama to win this way? Believing that the bigger goal was helping people by implementing the ACORN agenda, I put my doubts aside and worked on pulling donors from the list (which included ALL Obama donors, not just the bigger donors required to be reported to the Federal Elections Commission).

From October 2005 until 2008, I did fundraising work with ACORN and used political donor lists. All Democrat: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Democratic National Committee. When I appeared as a guest on “The O’Reilly Factor” last year, I said that ACORN had served for years as an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party, but Bill O’Reilly didn’t discuss that with me. Ignoring it is exactly what the stealth socialists want.

I once asked Marcel Reid, former ACORN national board member and President of DC ACORN, how it was possible for ACORN to push its agenda and she replied “We never use the word Socialism.” ACORN’s appeal was to simply implement a Socialist agenda without ever saying the word. When Wade Rathke was interviewed by Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Kelly asked Rathke whether he would describe himself as a socialist, and Wade answered no. Kelly proceeded to point out that the ACORN People’s Platform sounded socialism. Rathke weakly tried to defend ACORN against the Socialist label by pretending the “share the wealth” philosophy was not in the ACORN Platform. You can watch the video here.

Eventually Rathke conceded that the share the wealth language was indeed present, but cited some language about the right to be rich and free.

The People’s Platform (or ACORN’s socialist wish list)
ACORN People’s Platform can be found here and it defines what rich and free meant, and it certainly is not capitalism!

“Our riches shall be the blooming of our communities, the bounty of a sure livelihood, the beauty of homes for our families with sickness driven from the door, the benefit of our taxes rather than their burden, and the best of our energy, land, and natural resources for all people.

“Our freedom is the force of democracy, not the farce of federal fat and personal profit. In our freedom, only the people shall rule. Corporations shall have their role; producing jobs, providing products, paying taxes. No more, no less. They shall obey our wishes, respond to our needs, serve our communities. Our country shall be the citizens’ wealth and our wealth shall build our country.

“Government shall have its role: public servant to our good, fast follower to our sure steps. No more, no less. Our government shall shout with the public voice and no longer to a private whisper. In our government, the common concerns shall be the collective cause.”

Marcel Reid’s explanation described “stealth socialism.” Aggressive tactics like ACORN’s protests and rallies were to gain the credibility that would allow the acceptance of a radical socialist agenda. While Reid was president of DC ACORN they proposed a plan to redistribute wealth in the Washington, DC metro area. This plan was proudly presented to the organization at the 2006 ACORN Year End, Year Beginning meeting in New Orleans. The excerpt below is from page 191 of the 2006 ACORN YEYB Annual Report (click to enlarge).

DC ACORN readily admits that “this proposal would essentially be a redistribution of wealth across the board,” but stealth socialism is so effective that even conservative watchdogs have been fooled by the ever changing names of the ACORN empire.

Obama’s agenda mirrors the ACORN People’s Platform as evidenced by a review of the healthcare and energy sections of  the platform. On healthcare, the ACORN’s socialist people’s platform wants to “require the federal government to provide for the health care needs of recent immigrants. ACORN’s position on Energy shows shades of Cap and Trade with goals like:

Prevent any single corporation or conglomerate from owning major interest in more than one of the following resources: oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, and coal; or more than one of the following categories: source, refinery, shipping, or outlet.”

Pay no attention to the white liberal behind the curtain
The “Liberals” who elected Obama President may have a “tower of Babel” moment as gay rights, civil rights, immigration rights, environmental extremists, pro-choicers and all the other special interests that supported the Obama presidential campaign strive to push America further to the left and shed all inhibitions. As with ACORN itself, it seems impossible that the coalition that put Obama in the White House and gave Democrats huge majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives will continue to work smoothly together now that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are in control and America is learning what Obama really meant by the seductive-sounding “hope and change.” ACORN needed the cloak of stealth socialism to maintain its hold on the poor. ACORN’s image is synonymous with blacks and other minorities and the race card has become the last bastion of its “hope.”

During its greatest crisis, ACORN replaced its white leader with a black woman in order to hide behind Bertha Lewis’s skin color. What they didn’t want the public to see were the white liberal leaders behind the scenes who have been staying in Executive suites and partying in the mountains.

ACORN Political Operations Retreat November 2007 (among the pictured are senior staff Patrick Winogrond, Jessica Angus, Nathan Henderson-James, Kimberly Olson, Amy Busefink and Johanna Sharrard)

Restoring the balance
Stealth socialism allowed ACORN to set the stage for Obama’s “regime” as they called it internally. Wade Rathke was willing to fall on his sword in 2008 to protect Obama, and to attain what nearly 40 years organizing the country towards socialism promised. After the embezzlement scandal, ACORN board members and staff assembled at meetings across the country and as insiders revealed, and I testified about, “fighting Capitalism” was listed as one of the things “great about ACORN.”

Obama has shown himself to be unrelenting in his quest to pass healthcare, take over American industries and weaken our national security. America can’t afford to be fooled by increasingly obvious tactics of the Far Left. It’s time for the great majority of Americans to turn the tables back on the Far Left by getting involved and organized and voting out incumbents who vote against the traditional American way. We need a morning in America, but it’s always darkest before the dawn.

You can follow Anita on her blog or on Twitter.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 39 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!