Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 25, 2014, 07:46:33 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83029 Posts in 2258 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* 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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 187480 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #600 on: July 24, 2010, 03:47:11 PM »

They even make lousy lawyers.  (opposing views welcome!)

Good lawyers know the best course in most cases is not all-out war; there is finesse involved. Clients have weaknesses, vulnerabilities and public relations interests as well, not just the need to win.  All this crowd could come up with was sue-the-bastards, stop consent of the governed, even if it is a popular policy, addressing real harm, in a swing state.  

The least they could do before choosing the most adversarial course was ask themselves,  are we sure we will win, before suing your own family, screw the consequences.

Besides bad PR and unnecessary conflict, the plan is logically brain-dead.  How is Arizona "interfering"?  Where is the over-reach?  What damage is Arizona doing to the Republic if they hand over people guilty of federal crime to the Federal government?  It makes no sense.

Any sober look at this shows case is exactly upside down and backwards; the truth is exactly the opposite of what they allege.  Arizona is not interfering with the Feds doing their job.  The Feds were not doing their job, intentionally, and Arizona was being harmed, along with the other states. Arizona should be suing the Feds, for malfeasance, neglect and damages.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2010, 12:38:24 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #601 on: July 25, 2010, 10:54:17 AM »

This post would be better in the Immigration thread.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #602 on: July 25, 2010, 02:12:53 PM »

"This post would be better in the Immigration thread."

Okay, I moved the immigration case news portion over to that thread.  My main point, poorly expressed, was how it relates to the other areas of governance - this crowd can't shoot straight.  The example was immigration but the observation was intended to build on the questions posed by CCP regarding personality disorder, arrogance or competence. 

They have no experience starting a business, running a business, selling a business, expanding a business, hiring a private sector employee, or meeting a private sector payroll.

They have no experience governing, balancing a budget, pulling two sides together to get something done or accomplishing something real even in the public sector.

They have no military experience and barely know anyone who served.  They don't even admit knowing why we are in Iraq or Afghanistan even thought they are now presiding over it and haven't brought anyone home. 

They have never run a border patrol, designed a security system, or built a fence.

They have no training or expertise in economics.  The President, to anyone's knowledge, has never read a book about our economic system that didn't oppose it.

The only area of expertise they have, presumably, is law.  Obama is credentialed from one of the finest law schools in the land.  He was the law review editor.  He was a lecturer at another top institution.  Wouldn't we expect at least competence in this one area??

Eric Holder, same thing.  Background is law, law, law and usually on the wrong side of it, see Heller.  His law degree is from Columbia University, among the very best.  No experience I know of with FBI, ATF, DEA, or prisons, etc. yet he now oversees all of these.

Would not the Attorney General need to check with his boss, the Commander in Chief, before he sues one of the several states - over a federal function that the feds voted not-present on?  And wouldn't they at least want to be perfectly correct on the law before taking such a risky and divisive action?

No.  The pattern emerging from the incidents with cop Crowley of beer summit fame and the USDA official with the racial chip on her shoulder to the haphazard stimulus spending in the trillions is to shoot first, ask questions later.

Hope this makes it more clear I was intending a hit piece on an inept administration, justified and specific, not a single issue follow up.   smiley
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #603 on: July 26, 2010, 12:35:28 PM »

It turns out the administration was not as surprised as they said, as the British leak documents. Previously posted by CCP on WTF, my question: Why are we not dispatching our Minister of Health Czar and advisers to Libya to find out how this terminal patient was cured?  No one is even curious.

Revealed: US double-talk on Lockerbie, The Sunday Times of London, Monday July 26, 2010

The Obama administration told Scottish officials last August that, although it opposed any release of the Lockerbie bomber, it would rather see him released in Scotland than transferred to a Libyan prison, according to a secret memo obtained by The Sunday Times in London.

The publication of the memo's contents comes just days after President Obama, at a press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, said "all of us ... were surprised, disappointed and angry" by the Scottish government's decision to free Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article353568.ece
http://www.timesplus.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article353568.ece
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/25/obama-administration-reportedly-backed-lockerbie-release-transfer-libyan-prison/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #604 on: August 03, 2010, 01:23:27 PM »

Nice piece with a long table in it showing how well BHO is doing living up to his commitment to post bills for 5 days before signing them. Currently he's at about 25%, up from the 1% that was the norm before people started pointing the failure out.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/08/03/sunlight-before-signing-simplified/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #605 on: August 13, 2010, 12:00:57 PM »

Putting a Partisan Legal Advocate in Charge of White House Transparency

Matt Welch | August 13, 2010

Do click on the link that Jesse Walker highlighted below about President Obama re-assigning his ethics czar to Shirley Temple Black's old job as U.S. ambassador to Prague. It's a Timothy P. Carney column, and as such it will make you want to throw a brick through an opaque window:

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

Obama transferred "ethics czar" Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen's duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer.

Bauer is renowned as a "lawyer's lawyer" and a legal expert. His resume, however, reads more "partisan advocate" than "good-government crusader." Bauer came to the White House from the law firm Perkins Coie, where he represented John Kerry in 2004 and Obama during his campaign.

Bauer has served as the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, which is the most prolific fundraising entity in the country. Then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the caricature of a cutthroat Chicago political fixer, hired Bauer to represent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. [...]

Bauer's own words -- gathered by the diligent folks at the Sunlight Foundation -- show disdain for openness and far greater belief in the good intentions of those in power than of those trying to check the powerful.

And so on and so forth.

Obama, who came into office promising the bestest ever transparency (including signing the Reason Foundation's Oath of Presidential Transparency [PDF]) has been a disappointment on that front. A partial sampling of Reason linkage detailing how:

* "Obama Punts His First State Secrets Case," Radley Balko, February 2009

* "What Is a Day in Obama's Eyes?" Jacob Sullum, March 2009

* "Obama Whiffs on Transparency," Radley Balko, April 2009

* "Seeing Is Believing," Veronique de Rugy and Eileen Norcross, May 2009

* "Putting the 'Spare' in Transparency," Matt Welch, May 2009

* "Transparency 0, Terrible Burdens of Wielding Enormous Power 1," Matt Welch, May 2009

* "Obama Keeping Promises That Grow Government; Abandoning Promises That Hold It Accountable," Radley Balko, June 2009

* "Obama Blocks Access to White House Logs," Radley Balko, June 2009

* "Transparency Failure," Katherine Mangu-Ward, July 2009

* "Transparency Not Needed for TARP Funds After All," Amanda Carey, July 2009

* "Government Openness Meeting: Closed to the Media and Public," Brian Doherty, December 2009

* "Supreme Court Extends Obama Administration's Prisoner-Abuse Secrecy," Matt Welch, December 2009

* "Live C-SPAN Coverage vs. Pass Now, Explain Later," Jacob Sullum, January 2010

* "The New Transparency," Jacob Sullum, January 2010

* "Government Backslides on Agriculture-Subsidies Transparency," Matt Welch, May 2010

http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/13/putting-a-partisan-legal-advoc
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #606 on: August 15, 2010, 05:34:20 PM »

The dictionary defines "top" as a singular entity: "the part of anything that is first or foremost."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013622-503544.html

August 13, 2010 3:34 PM
How Many "Top Priority" Issues Does Obama Have?
Posted by Mark Knoller

After the Senate passed that $600 million Border Security Bill yesterday, President Obama issued a statement asserting that securing the southwest border has been "a top priority" since he took office.

But if you think Mr. Obama can have but a single "top priority," you'd be wrong. He's got a load of them.

In an Address to the Nation two months ago, Mr. Obama declared "our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American."

More than any other issue, he has used the phrase "top priority" about digging the economy out of the recession and creating jobs. And on this issue, he drew a distinction between "a" top priority and "the" top priority.

"Creating jobs in the United States and ensuring a return to sustainable economic growth is the top priority for my Administration," he said in an Executive Order last March on his National Export Initiative.

Early in his administration, Mr. Obama also assigned the "top priority" label to his campaign promise to overhaul America's health care system. But a check of his speeches since taking office, reflect a bevy of other "top priorities:"

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS: "...that's something that's going to be a top priority." (4/27/10)

ENERGY SECURITY: "And that's why my energy security plan has been one of the top priorities of my Administration since the day I took office." (4/28/10)

EDUCATION REFORM: "To train our workers for the jobs of tomorrow, we've made education reform a top priority in this Administration." (2/24/10)

STUDENT LOAN REFORM: "This is something that I've made a top priority." (2/1/10)

EXPORTS BY SMALL BUSINESSES: "This is going to be a top priority." (12/3/09)

HEALTH ASSISTANCE TO 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS: "I'm not just talking the talk, we've been budgeting this as a top priority for this Administration." (2/3/10)

END HOMELESSNESS AMONG VETERANS: "I've also directed (Veterans Affairs) Secretary Shinseki to focus on a top priority: reducing homeless among veterans." (8/17/09)

HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS: "Our top priority is ensuring the public safety. That means appropriate sheltering in place or if necessary, getting as many people as possible out of harm's way prior to landfall." (5/29/09)

H1N1 FLU VACCINATIONS: "And throughout this process, my top priority has been the health and the safety of the American people." (5/1/09)

SUPPORT FOR MILITARY FAMILIES: "These military families are heroes too. And they are a top priority of Michelle and me. And they will always have our support." (5/30/09)

STRENTHENING TIES WITH CANADA AND MEXICO: "We're going to make this a top priority..." (10/16/09)

CONSUMER PROTECTION: "During these challenging times, the needs of American consumers are a top priority of my Administration." (2/11/09)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION: "So this is going to be a top priority generally improving our environmental quality." (11/5/09)

The dictionary defines "top" as a singular entity: "the part of anything that is first or foremost."

By designating a multitude of "top priorities," Mr. Obama can be seen trying to score political points with the constituencies for all of these issues.

Mark Knoller is a CBS News White House correspondent.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #607 on: August 16, 2010, 10:47:30 AM »

Perhaps all these priorities can thus be summarized as:

to redistribute wealth around the world and in his mind settle old scores.

International Marxism, one world government etc.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #608 on: August 20, 2010, 08:31:25 AM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/07/18/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #609 on: August 20, 2010, 12:07:51 PM »

BO ws certainly born a Muslim.  I guess his middle name is Hussain because he is a closet Jew.

In any case I have never heard him as passionate about any issue as he was when he gave the speech to Muslims at the Ramadan dinner a week ago defending the rights of Muslims to build their mosque at ground zero.

I have never heard him as passionate about Israel's right to exist - ever.  I have never heard him so passionate about Christianity.  Indeed Beck was reading excerpts from his diary on radio this AM wherein he professes to be less of a Christain and more of something else though the explanation as to what that is was unclear; obviously in a political attempt to try to appeal to everyone and not to be honest about what he believes or who he is.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #610 on: August 22, 2010, 08:49:27 PM »

Back from the 2008 presidential campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PAfFm0om-M&feature=player_embedded

Hat tip to David Gordon for his witty phrase which I use for the subject line.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #611 on: August 29, 2010, 12:26:22 PM »


 
 
 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp
 
 



WAYNE ALLYN  ROOT: Obama's classmate at ColumbiaUniversity

Overwhelm the system
Barrack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S.economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

Barack Obama is my college classmate ( ColumbiaUniversity, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at ColumbiaUniversity. They outlined a plan to socialize Americaby overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. Â It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kickback hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

-- Make Puerto Ricoa state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?  Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme --
all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #612 on: September 01, 2010, 09:59:24 PM »

The ever uneven Ann Colter in rather good form:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38812
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #613 on: September 02, 2010, 12:24:34 PM »

I expected the Iraq speech to contain the big gaffe. but it was more of a 'one the one hand - on the other hand' type of hypocrisy (http://www.slate.com/id/2265656/) where he really just did a clumsy job of trying to be a little bit diplomatic in an impossible situation. 

The big gaffe of the moment is our self reporting of the U.S to the U.N. Human Rights commission where it is presumed they are the good guys and we are the perps.  Fellow members of the commission include Castro and Mau - or Hu-ever has his job right now.  Nice part of that gaffe is that Hillary's fingerprints are all over it, so opponents can point back at both of them as they start to split.

Continuing dissonance, Christina Romer in her administration exit offers the economic wisdom that we need to spend more and tax less. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100901/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_economist_1   Unbleeping believable.  Is that not precisely the Bush economic plan??  Ed Morrissey at Hotair called it before she said it: "How can Dems extend Bush tax cuts while running against Bush?"  http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/30/how-can-dems-extend-bush-tax-cuts-while-running-against-bush/

So if they don't extend tax cuts the economy will tank or at least continue stagnation with permanent equilibrium at European levels of unemployment *. They need to make tax cuts permanent - all the way up the income chart.

  * That is of course partly unfair to Europe where German unemployment has dropped below ours to 7.6%:  http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2010/09/02/stories/2010090254110400.htm
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #614 on: September 07, 2010, 02:57:10 PM »

I have not had a chance to snopes these yet, so caveat lector.

Both the Saudis and George Soros are supporting Barack Obama, it is 'payback-time'.
 
 
Barack Obama and George Soros Connection information.
http://www.earstohear.net/soros.html 
 
 
Barack Obama and Saudi Connection information.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/pages/obama/obama-saudi-muslim-undercover-operative.htm
 
 
As early as 1988, BEFORE he entered Harvard, Barack Obama was beholding the Saudi Royal Family and
has had his WAY made easy for him. Here is a Faustian Deal that is now being paid back. The Saudis have
 long wanted a Muslim in the White House and now they have it. Please share this widely.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/percy-sutton-reveals-association-between-khalid-al-mansour-and-obama/
 
Barack Obama and Bill Ayers Connection (SDS Weatherman Underground domestic terrorists)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g
caption from video:
*Update: Newest and most concerning connection: Hatem El-hady. Had his phony charity organization closed and assets
 frozen by the US government for raising money for Hamas in 2006. Under investigation by the FBI for connections to Al-Qaeda
 and terrorist attacks in London. He's been funding Obama's campaign lately and just recently had his page removed from my.barackobama.com
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article...
 
 
Barack Obama/Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi Connection
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/172641/obama-ayers-khalidi-connection/andy-mccarthy
 
Through the Woods Fund, Obama funds the Islamist Terrorist Organization, the PLO
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3602
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #615 on: September 08, 2010, 03:26:46 PM »

This just came over the transom. I can not speak to its veracity nor have I ever heard of Wayne Madsen. At the same time the concept is quite believable.

WAYNE MADSEN REPORT
August 27-29, 2010 -- Obama put on notice by Democratic money moguls

Informed sources in Washington, DC have told WMR that President Obama has been personally told by a delegation of top Democratic Party financiers that unless he radically changes his economic policies they will bolt from him for another Democratic candidate in 2012. The Democratic money moguls conveyed the warning to Obama in Martha's Vineyard, where the president and his family are spending their vacation.

 

There are various factions within the Democratic Party that see different scenarios to bail out what many Democrats see as an administration in deep trouble with the electorate. One would have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton move up to replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Senator John Kerry becoming Secretary of State. However, WMR has been told that Clinton personally loathes Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and may not want to be part of the 2012 president ticket playing second fiddle to Obama.

WMR has also learned that Obama's reported "severe narcissism" has a number of his cabinet officials and top Democratic fundraisers perplexed. Obama's refusal to change course because of his ego was discussed at the recent annual Bohemian Grove conclave in northern California, which brings together influential businessmen and politicians from both parties. Top U.S. business leaders openly complained about Obama's economic policies, with some stating that Obama is, for the business community, the worst president in anyone's lifetime.

 

They also complained about White House gatekeepers like Emanuel and policy advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod who are preventing access to the Oval Office.

Although such complaints could be expected from Republican businessmen, we have learned that top Democratic businessmen at the Bohemian Grove have told Jarrett, Obama's chief liaison to them, that all she does is  shake them down" for campaign contributions and that the uncertainty on the costs for Obama programs on health care and taxes has prevented the hiring of workers.

 

WMR has also learned that rather than change course, the White House staff, who are keenly reading anything that is critical of the president, are more interested in exacting revenge for criticism than in changing course. "The White House staff are voracious readers who are obsessed with favorable coverage," one source said.

The Obama administration's interest in a favorable public image over all other interests has a number of Democrats running for re-election privately miffed. One change many Democratic politicians and fundraisers would like to see is the replacement of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner with someone with more gravitas and a better handle on fixes for the plummeting economy.

 

Some senior Democrats are also livid about Emanuel's constant selling out of Democratic Party interests for narrow political objectives. WMR has been told by a reliable source that Emanuel has privately conveyed to Florida independent Senate candidate Governor Charlie Crist that the White House will quietly support him if he caucuses with Senate Democrats. Crist has apparently cut a deal with the White House that would see lukewarm White House support for Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, who recently won the Democratic nomination.

 

There are dark clouds on the horizon for Obama regardless of a sudden course correction, which some Democrats do not see coming. Certain Democrats see Obama as a liability and there has been a reported understanding reached with the U.S. Attorney for northern Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, that in the second trial of ex-Illinois Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich, Obama and his aides, particularly Emanuel, Jarrett, and Axelrod, will no longer enjoy protection from being called as witnesses.

 

The sudden dropping of federal corruption charges against Rob Blagojevich, the brother of the former governor, may be part of a deal worked out that would focus the trial more keenly on Blagojevich's dealings with Obama and his top aides, including the appointment of Obama's successor in the Senate and financial deals involving Tony Rezko, Stuart Levine, dubious property development in the north Chicago Fifth Congressional District formerly represented by Emanuel, real estate ventures involving the proposed 2016 Summer Olympics in Chicago, and Obama's mortgage with the failed Broadway Bank and his relationship with Rezko and U.S. Democratic Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias, who was the vice president for loans at the bank at the time the mortgage loan was made.

 

If the scope of the investigation of corruption in Chicago expands beyond Blagojevich to the White House, we are told the word "impeachment" would begin to be on the lips of a number of Washington politicos.
 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #616 on: September 08, 2010, 03:41:25 PM »

It does sound plausible, but a quick glance at his site seems to show he's a truther and anti-semite conspiracy loon.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #617 on: September 09, 2010, 10:22:53 AM »

This Forbes piece today by Dinesh D'Souza that was helpful to me in understand the guy.  My own leftist/Marxist view of him doesn't explain all of his bizarre thoughts and decisions.  This piece does that the best I have read.  5 internet pages, too long to post so just a link and an excerpt here.  2 strikes against piece when I started, I remember not liking this author on something else and I hate pieces about how conservatives think written by non-conservatives.  Usually no insight is gained.

Key points, his father was tribesman, a polygamist, a drunk and a socialist, but he was also a Harvard educated economist.  Barack Jr. spent his formative years off of the mainland of the US in Hawaii but also Indonesia, Pakistan with roots from Kenya.  The main theme is anti-colonialism.  (This gets diluted in policy and speech I think because Obama's advisers are mostly run-of-the-mill-leftists.)  We see anti-Americanism, but he sees the world a better place if America had less exceptionalism.  US funding of off-shore drilling for Brazil to keep oil in Brazil while banning it here makes sense for example with this view.

He named his book 'Dreams from my Father', not dreams of my father.  Excerpt quoting D'Souza:

"Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa. For Obama Sr. this was an issue of national autonomy. "Is it the African who owns this country? If he does, then why should he not control the economic means of growth in this country?"

As he put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House."

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #618 on: September 09, 2010, 10:41:06 AM »

Good find!
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #619 on: September 20, 2010, 10:36:01 AM »

Just wanted to re-visit a Forbes piece by Dinesh D'Souzaa I posted recently with a contrary opinion.  These authors have competing books coming out.  I think both are partly right but this author seems to have his facts better documented.

Jack Cashill (link below from American Thinker) thinks D'Souza takes too much from Obama's book without acknowledging that it was largely written by Bill Ayers with Obama's notes and memoirs.  So Obama Sr. was an anti-colonialist and our Obama picked up some of that but really never knew his abandoning father from Kenya, likely didn't meet him the first 10 years, never grew up with him and skipped his funeral.  More likely Obama took his foundations of American leftism from his abandoning mother from Kansas and the characters like Ayers he would meet along the way.

Cashill takes several examples of overlap between Obama's book 'Dreams' and Ayers other writings to conclude that the storyline of the father he never knew growing up wasn't the writing of young Barack's in the first place.  Barack the future President set out to write a book about race relations, it stalled out as his bills mounted and then he asked Ayers for help (handed the project over to him).

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_dsouza_doesnt_get_quite_r.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #620 on: September 20, 2010, 06:18:54 PM »


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-mix-video-top-20-pro-socialism-sound-bites-of-obama-advisors-allies/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #621 on: September 22, 2010, 12:03:57 PM »

I keep seeing Bama's "call to arms" on the cabel news but cannot tell if this was an official phrase or the media's label.

Doe anyone know if he or his keepers are using this phrase?

If yes this has got to be the dictionary example of what Levin means when he says a "soft tyranny".

BO calling for his followers to rise up and fight to keep his power intact.

He has been a fabulous uniter of Americans?  No?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #622 on: September 22, 2010, 06:34:52 PM »

I am in West Virginia at the moment on a hotel business center connection i.e. I do not have my usual time and resources available.  I just watched today's Brett Baier Report and I gather that Woodward has a new book out called "Obama's Wars" and in it the President is quoted directly as demanding a two year exit strategy from the generals lest he "lose the Democratic Party".  In other words the Dems yowls against Bush in 2004, and BO's martial cries that Iraq was the wrong war and Afg the right and good war were an utter crock of excrement. 

Of course this comes as no surprise to readers and players in this forum, but BO has now been caught in his own words that all his declarations that Afg is an essential war of national defense are either a lie to get him elected or that he is willing to lose this essential war of national defense in order to keep the support of the Democratic Party.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #623 on: September 23, 2010, 01:18:29 PM »

I watched the beginning of Bama's *lecture* to the UN.  After a few minutes I just couldn't stand it.  His line that he saved the American economy from catastrophy told me it was time to turn him off.   This was more or less the lead headline on drudge today as well.

His new nick name should be "Dah?Bama".

He is clueless.

The only question is will Hillary run in 12 or 16?

I notice in Woodward's book Alexrod supposedly question bamster about the wisdom of hiring Hill for Sec of St. 

Rod man  was right.  Instead of her fading into the distance she appears (I don't know why) to have enamored the public with the appearance that she is doing such a great job.  She is a threat to bamster in 12 imho.  As he fades watch for the lame stream media and her polical war machine to rev the engines.  The motor is already turned off idol and she has shifted from neutral to drive.





 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #624 on: September 23, 2010, 01:27:38 PM »

http://www.examiner.com/manhattan-conservative-in-new-york/new-book-by-bob-woodward-likely-to-damage-obama-presidency

Mindful that cutting and running could embolden the Taliban and other terrorist entities, Obama confided to Woodward in a one-on-one interview that the United States "can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger."
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #625 on: September 23, 2010, 01:48:56 PM »

Agreed.  Keith Oberman of MSLSD of course had a guest on last night who spins it thus:

Obama et. al. should pay Woodward for writing the book because it shows him to be such a strong commander in chief who is able to stand up to the generals.

This brings to mind paintings of Custer's last stand.  Obama is Custer with a few remaining bluecoats trying to fend off the inevitable.

Was it on Savage or Levin (I listen to both) who stated we have debt obligations that are equivalent to 2.5 the entire net worth of the planet.

And Barack thinks spending more is the answer?

In France they are demonstrating because they will have to retire at 62 rather than 60.  Just wait till people here start to wake up to that same realization.

The country is in denial.   

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #626 on: September 24, 2010, 09:51:26 PM »

http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/09/24/which-malik-shabazz-visited-white-house-in-july-2009-mr-president/

Which Malik Shabazz Visited White House in July 2009, Mr. President?
by Andrew Breitbart

In May 2009, the Obama/Holder Justice Department dropped charges in a voter intimidation case against Malik Shabazz, a leader of the New Black Panther Party, despite having already won a summary judgment against him, and his New Black Panther Party colleagues King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson who were video-taped outside polling place in Philadelphia intimidating voters as they arrived on election day, 2008.  In July 2009, when Congress began looking into the matter, someone named Malik Shabazz visited the private residence at the White House.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #627 on: September 25, 2010, 07:57:14 PM »

http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2010/09/dysfunctional.html

 Dysfunctional

Thanks to Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, we know the Obama Administration was seriously divided (some would say dysfunctional) in developing their strategy for the Afghan War. According to Mr. Woodward, the President avoided mention of "victory" in crafting a plan for prosecuting the conflict, focusing instead on getting out of the conflict and handing it over to the Afghans.

To be fair, there are always sharp disagreements in policy formulation at the highest levels of American government. Put a collection of massive egos in the White House Situation Room, and sparks are bound to fly. And that can be a good thing, giving the Commander-in-Chief access to alternate points of view and policy options that may not immediately come to mind. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was Attorney General Robert Kennedy who first suggested a naval quarantine, while members of the Joint Chiefs urged military action. Ultimately, the quarantine convinced Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev to back down, and the showdown ended without a nuclear conflict.

But the environment described by Mr. Woodward goes well beyond a healthy debate. President Obama dismissed the military's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, telling Defense Secretary Bob Gates (and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) "I'm not doing 10 years"..."I'm not doing long-term nation-building"..."I am not spending a trillion dollars."

Worse yet, Mr. Obama appears to view the conflict only in political terms. In a meeting that included Republican lawmakers, Obama told South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham "I can't let this be a war without end and I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

Let that sink in for a moment, and consider it's impact on the War on Terror, or whatever the administration is calling it these days. No wonder that so many officials were glad to talk to Bob Woodward; while the White House claims that Mr. Obama appears decisive and analytical in the book, it's equally clear that members of his team can't stand one another, and are attempting to distance themselves from a likely policy failure, with enormous implications for our long-term national security.

But the bad news doesn't end there. Mr. Woodward's latest volume also raises serious questions about the administration's ability to deal with terrorism here at home. From the Washington Post preview of the book:

A classified exercise in May showed that the government was woefully unprepared to deal with a nuclear terrorist attack in the United States. The scenario involved the detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon in Indianapolis and the simultaneous threat of a second blast in Los Angeles. Obama, in the interview with Woodward, called a nuclear attack here "a potential game changer." He said: "When I go down the list of things I have to worry about all the time, that is at the top, because that's one where you can't afford any mistakes."

Yet, in his same conversation with the journalist, President Obama bragged about our ability to "absorb" terrorist attacks here at home, claiming they make us stronger. We haven't read the Woodward book, but the comment does beg an interesting, two-part question: What does Mr. Obama view as the most important element of his strategy, and doesn't his rush to get out of Afghanistan increase our threat here at home?

With the departure of our troops from that region, Al Qaida will have greater opportunities to plot and train, dispatching more terrorists to carry out attacks on U.S. soil. President Bush understood the nexus between Afghanistan and potential strikes on our homeland, but Mr. Obama's position is stunning short-sighted. In the name of party unity, he's willing to make a short-term exit from Afghanistan, even if means a greater risk here at home.

There's also the matter of formulating (and executing) a coherent, domestic counter-terrorism strategy. It's hardly reassuring that many of the same officials battling over Afghanistan are also in charge of keeping the homeland safe.

And, their dysfunctionality couldn't come at a worse time; testifying before Congress today, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Counter-terrorism Chief Michael Leiter said the recent spike in "home-grown" terrorist attacks is indicative of an evolving threat. In fact, Mr. Leiter described them as the "most significant developments in the terror threat to our homeland since 9-11." From the ABC News report on today's testimony:

"Groups affiliated with al Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures," Mueller said. "It appears domestic extremism and radicalization appears to have become more pronounced based on the number of disruptions and incidents."

[snip]

Leiter told the committee. "The attack threats are now more complex, and the diverse array of threats tests our ability to respond, and makes it difficult to predict where the next attack may come.

For those brave enough to connect the dots, the narrative goes something like this: our national security "team" is badly dysfunctional, and pursuing a strategy in Afghanistan (at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief) that is likely to fail. Our rapid exit from that conflict will give Al Qaida more opportunities to plan new attacks, recruiting Americans--and other westerners--who are more difficult to identify and apprehend before they strike. Meanwhile, the menace from these terrorists is growing, and senior officials charged with keeping us safe are the same ones leading our policy in Afghanistan.

Sleep well, America.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31517


« Reply #628 on: September 27, 2010, 08:06:08 AM »

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2010/08/26/
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #629 on: September 27, 2010, 01:54:15 PM »

Obama meeting hangs ally's flag upside down; No big deal though, it's only the Philippines
September 27, 2010 |  2:02 am


Yes, yes, the Philippines is a close American ally. A practicing democracy in Asia with nearly 100 million people. And a whole bunch more living -- and voting -- abroad in places like the United States.

And, yes, the island nation's president, Benigno Aquino III, was sitting at President Obama's left elbow at their ASEAN meeting in New York City last week. And directly behind Aquino the American staff placed the Philippines' flag, well, kind of upside down. (That's it second from the right in the photo above, the one with all the blue at the bottom, which should be at the top.)

In the Philippines displaying the flag like that means the nation is at war. Which, of course, it isn't. Not yet anyway. And the country's laws provide for a fine and up to one year in prison for disrespecting the flag.

President Aquino kindly didn't make a big deal out of such modern-day diplomatic ignorance by its World War II liberator.

When you think about such an international gaffe by American hosts, it's really pretty much the Filipinos' fault for choosing a national flag with no clear top or bottom to American eyes.

Look at the savvier Canadian allies next door, for Pierre's sake. They were smart enough to pick a lone leaf that has an obvious stem so even Americans would know which side goes down.

A couple of days after the embarrassment, a U.S. spokeswoman followed the Obama administration's Geithner Apology Protocol, admitting it was "unfortunate" but quickly adding that it was something called "an honest mistake." As opposed to a dishonest mistake like, say, not paying taxes.

With so many larger guns, a nuclear arsenal and a Harvard-educated president who knows they speak Austrian in Austria, the U.S. really shouldn't need to apologize anyway. Such a superpower can't be expected to keep track of the globe's gazillion funny-looking flags that don't have a big blue box of stars to show top vs. bottom.

Obama's meeting with the ASEAN nations was designed to bolster both economic and cultural ties with the region's increasingly powerful nations. Maybe starting with a staff class on flag recognition.

-- Andrew Malcolm

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/obama-philippine-flag-gaffe.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #630 on: September 27, 2010, 03:50:08 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR61uTGTFoM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, endowed ?? with certain inalienable rights, Life and Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

FYI Mr. President, the original text went more like this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unfortunately the Declaration of Independence is inked and engrossed in parchment, not subject to amendment or line item rescission by a later executive.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #631 on: September 27, 2010, 04:37:03 PM »

Obama is only comfortable with the invocation of god's name when his pastor attaches it to "damn America!".
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #632 on: September 29, 2010, 05:02:58 PM »


 
Reps. Bachmann, King allege fraud in black farmers settlement
By Kevin Bogardus    - 09/29/10 02:16 PM ET
House Republicans on Wednesday charged that a multibillion-dollar settlement with black farmers supported by the Obama administration was rife with fraud.

At a press conference in the Capitol Visitor Center, Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Steve King (R-Iowa) alleged that a $1.25 billion Agriculture Department (USDA) settlement to resolve discrimination claims included individuals who were never farmers.

Bachmann said the discrimination claim process was subject to "massive and widespread fraud and abuse." King also said he believes the Obama administration has ignored the fraud allegations surrounding the settlement.

"I think they have turned a blind eye to the fraud and corruption here," King said.

The GOP lawmakers called on Attorney General Eric Holder to start an investigation into the settlement's claimants to ensure that they are genuine. In addition, they asked congressional leaders not to sign off on new appropriations for the settlement.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack "should put the brakes on this. He should not be asking the Congress to sweep money into this," Goodlatte said.

The lawmakers shared a list with reporters of three unnamed “whistleblowers” — one black farmer and two USDA employees — who would be willing to testify before a congressional hearing regarding the settlement process. They said their testimony would detail allegations of fraud and corruption in the settlement.

At the press conference, Bachmann read from a letter from Ed Schafer, the last Agriculture secretary of the George W. Bush administration.

“I urge that our government step back and institute a procedure to properly investigate each claim to see if it is appropriate or not. The allegations of fraud and abuse must be addressed if we are going to assure our citizens that their government is pursuing equal justice for all,” Schafer said in the letter.

King said he would push for a congressional investigation into the settlement if the House flips to Republican control after the midterm elections.

Congress has to appropriate the funds to pay the settlement claims. The House passed a measure to do so this past summer, but it has hit gridlock in the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has tried several times to secure a vote on the settlement funds — the last time being before the August recess — only to be blocked by Republicans who cited concerns over adding to the national deficit, as well as procedural complaints.

At issue is a longstanding lawsuit, known as Pigford I, brought by black farmers against USDA. The class-action suit said USDA discriminated against black farmers by not providing them with loans and grants that were given to white applicants.

USDA settled that case in 1999. The department reached a new settlement in 2010, known as Pigford II, to resolve claims by late filers to the original settlement.

John Boyd Jr., president of the National Black Farmers Association, has been driving his tractor to the Capitol this month to protest the delay in the settlement. He has called on the Senate to approve the funds.

“A lot of the things they are raising just don't stand up,” Boyd said about the GOP lawmakers’ charges. “I don't think Mr. King and the crew have their facts straight here.”

In calling for the probe, the GOP lawmakers said there were 94,000 claims filed under the settlement even though Census data shows there are only 33,000 black farmers in the United States.

Boyd said that was a misunderstanding of the settlement. The agreement is set up to resolve discrimination claims of those who farmed as well as those who attempted to farm between 1981 and 1997.

“The census has nothing to do with that,” Boyd said.

In addition, he said Pigford II is a “not a blanket settlement” and every claim has to go through a court-appointed arbitrator to determine if it is valid.

The black farmers’ advocate noted that the settlement has support from GOP lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa). Boyd also cited legislation introduced on the issue by former Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio).

Vilsack on Wednesday urged Congress to pass the settlement funding before adjourning, saying the black farmers “should not need to wait a day longer” to be compensated.

“Black farmers throughout the country unfortunately faced discrimination in past decades when trying to obtain services from USDA. This discrimination is well-documented, the courts have affirmed this discrimination and Congress has twice acknowledged the need to settle with those who have suffered from this discrimination,” Vilsack said in a statement.

“While members of Congress have noted the bipartisan support for this legislation, it is time for Congress to turn their support into action and fund the settlement agreement once and for all,” Vilsack said.

President Obama has also called on Congress to take action on the funding request, and USDA has been working to have the money appropriated.

“It is a fair settlement. It is a just settlement. We think it’s important for Congress to fund that settlement. We’re going to continue to make it a priority,” Obama said on Sept. 10.

This article was updated at 4:51 p.m.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/121637-reps-bachmann-king-allege-fraud-in-usdas-settlement-with-black-farmers
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #633 on: October 01, 2010, 09:59:20 AM »

***Obama says people are inpatient but "now's not the time to quit...it took time to free the slaves...ultimately we'll make progress."***

When we hear a President comparing his agenda of dismantling the USA as we know it with freeing slaves we have a problem.

I guess enslaving one half of the country to pay taxes to support the other half that doesn't is ok. 

But as long as humans can be easily bribed we fight an uphill battle. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #634 on: October 07, 2010, 07:49:49 PM »

If the Repubs. win Congress the One will not have vast majorities to make him look like HE is accomplishing anything other than reading speeches.  I still feel he will fold like a lawn chair. This guy is so delusionally narcisstic it is scary.  Forshadowing exactly what I mean is his talking of "hand to hand combat".  And rallying people based on age or race.
I don't recall anything like it in my lifetime. A sitting President using phrases pitting one race against another, that calls for Americans to fight against one another in "hand to hand combat".  Folks, this guy is really F..g crazy!!!!  Is it any wonder he has 36% approval amongst whites and 91% with Blacks?  I can only hope that more and more people see his colors before he destroys our country.

****Reporting from Washington — A Republican majority in Congress would mean "hand-to-hand combat" on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy, President Obama warned Wednesday.

Speaking on Michael Baisden's syndicated radio show, Obama also made a direct appeal to African Americans about the importance of the November vote, even though he's not on the ballot himself.

"The reason we won [in 2008] is because young people, African Americans, Latinos -- people who traditionally don't vote in high numbers -- voted in record numbers. We've got to have that same kind of turnout in this election," he said. "If we think that we can just vote one time, then we have a nice party at Obama's inauguration, and then we can kind of sit back and suddenly everything's going to change – that's just not how it works."
Obama called into Baisden's show, syndicated to 71 radio stations in 21 states, as part of his effort to rally core Democratic constituencies with less than four weeks before the election. Although his campaign itinerary is limited by sagging approval ratings in key states, Obama is making a more-targeted effort focused on supportive venues like Baisden's show.

"Everybody in the barbershops, the beauty shops, and at work -- everybody's got to understand: This is a huge election," he said. "If we turn out in strong numbers, then we will do fine. If we do not, if we are depressed and decide, well, you know, Barack's not running right now, so I'm just going to stay home, then I'm going to have my hands full up here on Capitol Hill."

Days before the release of a key jobs report, Obama said most of the job losses his administration gets blamed for occurred before "any of my economic plans were put into place," and that the country is still "experiencing the hangover from the misguided policies" of the last decade.

Obama said a big voter turnout was vital, both to counter millions of dollars being spent by outside groups and the enthusiasm Republicans have demonstrated.

"They are fired up. They are mobilized. They see an opportunity to take back the House, maybe take back the Senate," he said. "If they're successful in doing that, they've already said they're going to go back to the same policies that were in place during the Bush administration. That means that we are going to have just hand-to-hand combat up here on Capitol Hill."

Obama is returning to the campaign trail Thursday, with an appearance just outside Washington in support of Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's reelection campaign. Later, he'll travel to Chicago for events to raise money for Illinois Democrats, including Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias and Gov. Pat Quinn.

Illinois Republican Party Chairman Pat Brady said Thursday that Obama has "no coattails," even in his home state.

"In fact, both the appearance of the president and Rahm Emanuel popping his head up has done a lot to motivate our base," he said.****
Logged
michael
Frequent Poster
**
Posts: 63


« Reply #635 on: October 07, 2010, 10:09:18 PM »

I am hoping for some major conservative movement in the House and Senate in November, and hopeful this will be the first step in making His Glibness a one-term POTUS.
Logged

***Look at a man in the midst of doubt and danger, and you will determine in his hour of adversity what he really is***
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #636 on: October 08, 2010, 10:38:34 AM »

Dinesh was on radio and asked the obvious question:
How could anyone claim Bamster could possibly be a spinnoff of a man he never met?
His answer was that Obama learned all about his father from his mother who idolized and agreed with the father's agenda.  Indeed she revered the father who abandoned them more than the second Muslim man she married.  As Dinesh points out just look at the title of Bamster's book, "Dreams of my Father".  Doesn't that say it all??  The left will of course laywerly pick apart some of the facts or theories but I agree with Dinesh his theory certianly does explain Bmaster's deep rroted antipathy to the West and not just the US. 
Couple that with the lessons he learned from Alinsky - pretend you are one of them and then you can change them - it is really undeniable to an *objective* observer.

http://dineshdsouza.com/

"We are today living out the script for America and the world that was dreamt up not by Obama but by Obama's father. How do I know this? Because Obama says so himself. Reflect for a moment on the title of his book: it's not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. In other words, Obama is not writing a book about his father's dreams; he is writing a book about the dreams that he got from his father.
Think about what this means. The most powerful country in the world is being governed according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s — a polygamist who abandoned his wives, drank himself into stupors, and bounced around on two iron legs (after his real legs had to be amputated because of a car crash caused by his drunk driving). This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anti-colonial ambitions, is now setting the nation's agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son is the one who is making it happen, but the son is, as he candidly admits, only living out his father's dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is being governed by a ghost."

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #637 on: October 08, 2010, 10:42:32 AM »

All the screams from the left indicate just how accurate D'souza really is in his analysis.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #638 on: October 08, 2010, 11:06:35 AM »

Hmm, this is indicative of serious dissonance. A resignation announced and enacted on the same day?

Jones to step down as national security adviser
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 8, 2010; 11:06 AM

National Security Adviser James L. Jones will resign his post and be replaced by his deputy, Thomas E. Donilon, effective immediately, senior administration officials said Friday.

Although Jones's departure has been expected, it comes at a delicate time for President Obama as he prepares for an important review of his Afghanistan strategy in December. Obama is scheduled to announce the decision at 1 p.m. EDT in the White House Rose Garden.

A retired Marine general, Jones brought decades of national security experience to the post and military credibility to an administration whose senior civilian members had never served in uniform. He expanded the National Security Council to include agencies responsible for American energy, economic and environmental policy, believing that those issues would play a far larger role in shaping U.S. defense and diplomatic strategy in the decades to come.

But Jones, a towering if aloof figure, often had trouble fitting into a National Security Council culture dominated by several hard-charging veterans of Obama's campaign who have known the president for years. His condition for initially taking the job - that he would be the last one to see Obama on the most pressing national security issues of the day - was often unmet.

During the Afghanistan strategy review last fall, Jones challenged military leaders to justify their troop requests, drawing on his experience as the former supreme allied commander in Europe to do so. Jones often expressed the position that additional troops would not make much difference in Afghanistan until neighboring Pakistan closed down the sanctuaries used by al-Qaeda operatives and Taliban fighters.

Donilon, a longtime adviser to now Vice President Biden with long experience in Washington politics, has played a central role in designing and running the mechanics of Obama's national security policy team.

He manages the "deputies meetings" that gather the No. 2 ranking officials from across the national security bureaucracy, turning it into an even more important and influential venue for initial policy decisions and strategy.

During the Afghanistan strategy review last fall, Donilon was credited with overseeing the complicated process, which often pitted the uniformed military against White House civilian advisers over the value of sending additional troops to an increasingly unpopular war that just entered its 10th year.

He also questioned the need for additional forces in the region - a position Obama eventually rejected by sending 30,000 additional U.S. troops in a "surge" that will begin to draw down in July 2011.

Donilon is personally and professionally close to Biden, who argued most forcefully for a strategy in Afghanistan that would rely on fewer troops and more targeted counter-terrorist operations against al-Qaeda. Donilon's wife, Cathy Russell, serves as chief of staff to Biden's wife, Jill Biden.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100802953.html?hpid=topnews
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #639 on: October 08, 2010, 11:14:22 AM »

Jones wants out before he's forever tainted by us handing a big win to the global jihad in Afghanistan.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #640 on: October 08, 2010, 11:39:31 AM »

"Couple that with the lessons he learned from Alinsky..."

CCP,  I came to the same conclusion you did, that both theories are partly true.  He grew up largely off the mainland, maybe idolized his absent father, learned an anti-colonial view, opposite of so-called American exceptionalism.  His absent mother was plenty leftist too.  Then mixed with left- extremists like Alinsky..

My belief at this point is that Alinsky wrote that Obama book.  It was with Obama's notes, but Alinsky tied his storyline through it.  Same to differing extents with (nearly) all books by big shots, so that is not new; it just means take anything too literally. 

Now BO is tied to his own policies so the key forward is to expose those, sell the alternative like individual economic liberties and defeat him with his policies.

The inner brain workings of another President from a dysfunctional family don't interest me that much except in how to understand him enough to defeat him.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #641 on: October 08, 2010, 12:04:44 PM »

Ayers, not Alinsky. Right?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #642 on: October 08, 2010, 12:30:07 PM »

Doug writes,

"The inner brain workings of another President from a dysfunctional family don't interest me that much except in how to understand him enough to defeat him."

I agree and would add it also explains what in tarnation he is *really* up to.  He is decietful, disnonest in his real plans for us by design and strategy.  He knows if he came out and said what he really felt what he really wants to accomplish he would never have been elected.  IF we don't know where he came from, and where he gets his inspirations from then we don't even know his real intentions AND how dangerous to the survival of this country they are.

He is absolutely exposed.  But... As the *real great one* said, "you can fool some of the people some of the time and fool some all the time...."

As a victim of probably hundreds of con jobs while Katherine got robbed for probably 20 years I can guarantee this guy is conning us.
AS always when suspecting a con:

Watch what he/she does and where they came from and how they lived their life for the best (but definitely no guarantee either) *chance* to know the truth.

*Never* go by what they say.  It is totally meaningless particularly from a guy who has proved to be a world class liar.

And I correct what I posted above.. Dinesh I am sorry I meant Dreams **from** my Father - not **of** - excellent point of distinction on his part.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #643 on: October 08, 2010, 12:50:36 PM »

Whoops. Thank you GM.  Getting sloppy with my leftists.
Ayers wrote Obama's book.  Alinsky wrote the book they govern by.
I'm reading Agassi's book, also by a ghost writer. At least he openly acknowledges it.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #644 on: October 08, 2010, 01:23:54 PM »

It's easy to confuse one A-hole with another.....  wink
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6009


« Reply #645 on: October 11, 2010, 12:54:46 PM »

As Commander in Chief he has time and inkling to weigh in on the phony Chamber of Commerce doantion question of which he knows nothing.  As candidate, he had no time to look after his own lack of controls against foreign donations. Flashback to October 2008:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_KkfGjfrru8G04iZCnsBr7K

"Della Ware" contacted The New York Times to report her experience contributing under a fictitious name and address ("12345 No Way") to the Obama campaign, while her contribution was rejected by the McCain campaign. Times reporter Michael Luo verified "Della Ware's" account and reported it online at the Times' campaign blog. But Luo missed the story's point... The Obama campaign is running a system that complicates the discovery of "something wrong." It has chosen to operate an online contribution system that facilitates illegal falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits...

According to journalist Kenneth Timmerman, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently - in contrast not just with McCain but also with Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign required US citizens living abroad to fax copies of their passports before it would accept donations. By contrast, foreign donors to Obama can just use credit cards and false addresses. - NY Post 10/27/2008

The author of that story just before the election wrote (on Powerline) he assumed it would be looked into after the election - but it wasn't.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2010, 01:01:16 PM by DougMacG » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #646 on: October 15, 2010, 12:20:17 PM »

His "tribalism" comment is just so classic condescending "dah"bamster.  Here is the guy that talks about "hand to hand" combat, pleading with Latinos and Blacks to come out and support him labelling the rest of us as just a bunch of tribilists.

Just another example of a person with a personality "disorder" who is quick to blame others without any ability to objectively assess himself.  He is right and everyone else is beneath him:

 President Obama addresses a town hall audience of young Americans, October 14, 2010.
(Credit: AP) Asked about what the questioner saw as an increase in racial tension Thursday, President Obama said a "tribal attitude" can come as a result of economic hardship.


"Historically, when you look at how America has evolved, typically we make progress on race relations in fits and starts," he said at a town hall event with young Americans.


He then suggested that the recession has played a part in driving racial antagonism while he has been in office.


"Often times misunderstandings and antagonisms surface most strongly when times are tough. And that's not surprising," Mr. Obama said, arguing that Americans are less worried when things are going well.


He added that anxiety over not being able to pay bills - or having lost a job or a home - sometimes "organizes itself around kind of a tribal attitude, and issues of race become more prominent."


He also said, however, that "I think the trend lines are actually good."


"This audience just didn't exist 20 years ago," Mr. Obama said, surveying the multiracial room of young people to whom he was speaking. He said the interaction between races among young people today is "unprecedented."


"We've got a little bit of everybody in this country," the president said, arguing that "our strength comes from unity, not division."


The president, referencing his own experience, added that "as you get older, your mind gets a little more set." He said that's why the tolerance of young people is so important. "You guys are going to be the messengers," said the president.

Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2790


« Reply #647 on: October 20, 2010, 07:55:42 AM »

That Strange Summer of 2008
How our first postracial, postnational, bipartisan president has revealed himself to be a condescending doctrinaire ideologue.

Historians will look back at the 2008 campaign in the light of the 2010 midterm elections. Almost everything the president has done in the last two years is simply a continuance of that now strangely distant summer.

The only disconnects are (1) that the media are now embarrassed by Obama’s rapid decline in the polls and so suddenly, in catch-up fashion, have chosen to highlight his inexperience and hypocrisy in a way they did not in 2008. And (2) that governance requires concrete action in a way campaign rhetoric does not, and thus the American public can evaluate the consequences of deeds rather than the implications of mellifluent hope-and-change rhetoric.

Remember the 2008 claims of bipartisanship and an end to the old style of politics? Yet there was nothing in Obama’s prior career to substantiate those idealistic claims. In his first race, for the Illinois state senate in 1996, he sued to remove opponents from the ballot, and in his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2004, the divorce records of both his primary- and general-election opponents were mysteriously leaked. Subsequently, Obama compiled the most partisan record in the entire Senate, proving that he was the least willing senator to veer from a doctrinaire ideology. So if we are surprised that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox News, John Roberts, the tea parties, John Boehner, the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove, and Ed Gillespie have later become bogeymen of the week, we must remember that this is merely the logical continuance of Obama’s earlier hardball modus operandi.

Remember Obama’s praise for public campaign financing, with its attendant restrictions? Yet Obama was the first candidate in the history of publicly financed presidential campaigns to renounce such funding (after promising that he would accept it). His renunciation of the Carter-era program has probably wrecked the idea that presidential candidates will ever again be bound by public-financing protocols. In fact, Obama raised the largest pile of campaign cash in history, much of it from Wall Street, some of it from unnamed donors. So if we are surprised that he is now ritually attacking Wall Street financiers and alleging that his opponents are raising funds from unnamed sources, it is simply because he knows such landscapes firsthand only too well.

Remember the serial attacks on the Bush anti-terrorism protocols — questioning intercepts, wiretaps, and the Patriot Act, and decrying predator attacks in Afghanistan/Pakistan — and the promises to exit Iraq, close down Guantanamo, and end renditions and tribunals? Other than introducing some creative euphemisms (e.g., “man-made disasters,” “overseas contingency operations”), Obama either kept or vastly expanded the Bush protocols, apparently on the assumptions that (a) they were always needed and his prior opposition was simply acceptable campaign demagoguery, and (b) the Left’s opposition to the anti-terrorism efforts was always disingenuous and aimed only at sullying Bush, and therefore it would dissipate once Obama took them over intact.

Remember the condescending Pennsylvania clingers speech, and the psychoanalysis of his own grandmother’s purported “typical white person” sort of racism? Such professorial tsk-tsking has simply now been channeled into deprecations of a new cast of yokels, whose denseness and emotionalism ensured that they also could not appreciate all that Obama had done for them.

Indeed, the supposedly limbic-brained voters of Pennsylvania would easily recognize some of Obama’s later analyses: “So I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.” And, “At a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then, you know, fears can surface — suspicions, divisions can surface in a society. And so I think that plays a role in it.” And, “Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does [sic] not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country is scared.” And (of his own disenchanted supporters), “If people now want to take their ball and go home that tells me folks weren’t serious in the first place. If you’re serious, now’s exactly the time that people have to step up.”

Remember all the right-wing furor over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Father Pfleger, Rashid Khalidi, and a host of other Obama associates that suggested in 2008 he was well out of the American mainstream? In that context, the appointment of a Van Jones or an Anita Dunn made perfect sense. Sonia Sotomayor’s “wise Latina,” Eric Holder’s “cowards, ” and Van Jones’s white students engaging in mass murder and “white polluters . . . steering poison into the people of color’s communities”; the president’s own putdowns of the police, the Arizona law, and the opponents of the Ground Zero mosque; the apology tour, the bowing abroad, the snubbing of the British, and on and on were only elaborations of the same Chicago/Ivy League view of America as a largely racist, unfair, and deeply flawed society.

One could continue with numerous other examples from the summer of 2008 that have been reified during the first 21 months of Obama’s governance, but the picture is clear enough. Almost all the current style and substance of President Obama were clear enough in the 2008 campaign. But in that long-ago, dreamy summer of mass hypnosis, the excitement about our first African-American president, a biased media, Bush/Iraq, the September 15 meltdown, the lackluster McCain candidacy, and an orphaned election with no incumbent running all conspired to convince voters that what they heard and saw was not so disturbing — or at least that it would end once Obama became president.

So the 2008 campaign, as brilliantly as it was waged in Machiavellian fashion by Obama, will be reinterpreted in the context of the 2010 setback.

The voters are rebelling because they believe they have been had. They now think that they were deceived in 2008 into voting for someone who never had any intention of governing in the bipartisan manner on which he had campaigned.

Conservative and moderate pundits and elite commentators who went for Obama then are rebelling now because they foolishly assured the country that the assumed intellectualism of the charismatic Obama — so in contrast to the twangy, evangelical Bush — far outweighed any Neanderthal right-wing worries that Obama had a long record of hard-Left associations and dubious proclamations.

The media are rebelling because they have wakened up to the current polls and concluded that Obama in 2008 had charmed them into sacrificing their reputations for disinterested reportage. Then once elected, he cynically counted on their continued subservience to destroy any shred of credibility that they had left.

The Democratic establishment is rebelling because it fell for the hard-left agenda of a charming pied piper who promised them that he could disguise and package extremism to ensure years of Democratic majorities and an FDR-like omnipresence — only to destroy thousands of their careers at the local, state, and national levels.

The left wing is rebelling because a postracial, postnational Obama deceived them into thinking that his non-traditional heritage, his glibness, and his own godhead would carry through their ultra-liberal agenda that historically the American people did not want — only to discover that it was impossible, and that he would now sermonize to them that it was in fact impossible.

Yet they were all warned — in that strange summer of 2008.

— 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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/250357/strange-summer-2008-victor-davis-hanson?page=1
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4150


« Reply #648 on: October 20, 2010, 09:44:02 AM »

I like VDH and agree with a lot.

However, I strongly disagree with this,

"The media are rebelling because they have wakened up to the current polls and concluded that Obama in 2008 had charmed them into sacrificing their reputations for disinterested reportage."

Frankly I haven't seen any great exodus or rebellion amongst MSM.  Indeed to me they continue to cover for him.  Indeed some feel he wasn't leftist enough and they continue to defend his policies tooth and nail from what I see.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12075


« Reply #649 on: October 20, 2010, 09:55:00 AM »

Good point.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!