Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 02, 2014, 03:55:49 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
81433 Posts in 2243 Topics by 1046 Members
Latest Member: MikeT
* 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness  (Read 164498 times)
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1000 on: September 26, 2011, 09:36:09 AM »

eom
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1001 on: September 28, 2011, 11:11:18 AM »


Here illegally, in public housing ahead of citizens, collected welfare, collected $51,000 in disability,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHoAuk76fT8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=cSavIWCJiUo

The mind boggles , , ,
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1002 on: September 28, 2011, 06:35:50 PM »

I wonder if health food fanitic Brock likes Brockly...anyway -

Hat tip to Michael Savage radio today for this:

****Crony Socialism: Obama Gives $737 Million to Solar Firm Linked to the Pelosi Clan
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 12:14 PM
 
It’s as if Solyndra never happened. The Obama Administration is giving $737 million to a Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve. PCG is an investment partner with SolarReserve. Nancy Pelosi’s brother-in-law happens to be the number two man at PCG.

Team Obama is spending $737 million to create 45 permanent jobs.
The Hill reported, via Free Republic:

The Energy Department announced Wednesday that is has finalized a $737 million loan guarantee for a Nevada solar project.

The decision comes several weeks after a California-based solar manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee from the Obama administration in 2009 filed for bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers, setting off a firestorm in Washington.

The $737 million loan guarantee will help finance construction of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, a 110-megawatt solar-power-generating facility in Nye County, Nev. The project is sponsored by Tonopah Solar, a subsidiary of California-based SolarReserve.

Crescent Dunes is the latest solar project to receive a loan guarantee from the Energy Department in recent weeks. The department announced a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Abengoa Solar for a solar generation project in California and a $150 million loan guarantee to 1366 Technologies for a Massachusetts solar manufacturing project earlier this month.

The Energy Department says the project will result in 600 construction jobs and 45 permanent jobs.

It looks like Rep. Allen West was right.
Obama IS trying to destroy the economy.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1003 on: September 28, 2011, 10:06:36 PM »

"Disapproval among Jewish voters exceeded approval of Obama's presidency for the first time during the current administration. Jewish approval of Obama’s performance as president declined to 45%, with another 48% disapproving and 7% undecided."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4128190,00.html

Black support dropped from 98% at election time to 58% approval today.  Washington Post/ABC News poll: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/28/blacks_leave_obama_111503.html

"With only 26 percent of Americans approving of Obama's handling of the economy..."
   - Who are these 26%?  Can we give them a lie detector test?

Dick Morris speculates Obama may not stand for reelection.  Join the club.  I was saying that when approvals were in the 70s.  Stranger things have happened.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1004 on: September 30, 2011, 02:46:51 PM »

What are we stupid?  The first broad "quietly" shops at Target.  It is so quiet the pictures get out all over the internet.  Check it out.  She shops at Target just like you and me.  She IS so down to Earth. rolleyes wink

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/first-lady-steps-out-quietly-does-some-shopping-at-target/
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1005 on: September 30, 2011, 04:24:13 PM »

"I mean, there are a lot of things we can do," Obama said. "The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track."

Recall I pointed out how a narcissistic personality disorder is totally incapable of accepting any blame, will twist all logic to blame everyone else, will never admit to anything, continue to lie and deceive and play the same con game till death do us part.

He blames the country on going soft.  He blames blacks for whining.  He blames the tea party.  The racists.  And so on.

What is totally mind boggling about his above statement that if one agrees the country has gone soft in the "last couple of decades" one can ask why that would be.  The answer is obvious.   What has happened in the last couple of decades?

Well remember we have had the great society, more welfare, more liberal benefits to government employees, the endless entitlement increases, the demographic wave of senior citizens reaching sit on their ass and collect time, more people letting the immigrants take many of the jobs they won't do.  It is all this entitled mentality which Brock himself has done more to promote and expand upon!

True to form a personality disorder is unable to be objective.  The fault is always someone or something else.
Unfortunately he brings all of us down in his delusional crazy thinking.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1006 on: October 02, 2011, 11:09:58 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576597781965791022.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

More of the Same Old Change
Obama's latest economic proposals are just like the earlier ones, only worse.

By PETE DU PONT

In the last few years, as promised, the Obama administration has fundamentally transformed America. Our country is now in serious decline. Income is lower, unemployment is higher, jobs are fewer, government is much larger. Federal spending is way up, and America's economic status is way down, as is the global view of our country and our economy. Hardly anyone sees any sign of economic recovery or improvement.

A look at long-term unemployment shows just how bad our economy is. Look at the Labor Department data on the number of Americans 16 and older unemployed for 52 weeks or more during the five most recent recessions:

1976   750,000
1982 1,600,000
1994 1,200,000
2004 1,100,000
2010 4,300,000

Total government spending averaged about 19% of gross domestic product from 1996 to 2007 and rose to about 21% in 2008. In the three years of the Obama administration, it has soared to 25%.

The administration is focused on its increasing control of health care, propping up labor unions, increasing taxes, and expanding the scope and size of government. In the first 70 years of the 20th century, American and European economic growth increased together, but then the Europeans shifted toward socialism, and their growth lagged. But with America is rapidly moving toward the European model, we are starting to see its detrimental impact.

President Obama's recent spending and tax policy proposals would only make things worse. He wants to increase the federal deficit by increasing spending and providing some targeted, but short term, payroll tax cuts. At a time when we need to bring the federal deficit down, his plan would actually increase it by $447 billion over the next year or two. But Mr. Obama has promised this increase will be "paid for," and has proposed a series of permanent tax increases to do that.

But our economy is already facing significant increases in taxes. First will be the end of the Bush tax cuts in December 2012. And because of ObamaCare, starting in 2013 taxpayers making more than $200,000 will pay an additional 3.8% on investment and interest income, another substantial tax increase.

We face other increases as well. The new Obama proposals include reduced itemized deductions allowed for any individuals earning more than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples). In addition to what lower mortgage deductions might mean for our economy, think of the inevitable impact on charitable giving. What a reduction in deductions for charitable giving implies is a government plan that takes some of the money that would go to charity and instead funnels it to federal government spending--a serious step backwards.

The president also has proposed what he calls the "Buffett rule." He hasn't specified how it would work, but its purpose is to make sure millionaires pay higher income taxes. It would likely increase taxes on investment income, but in our current poor economy the last thing our economy needs is higher taxes on business investment.

And tax rate increases often bring in reduced tax dollars. The Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds showed in his recent Wall Street Journal piece that the 28% tax rate on long-term capital gains brought in $36.9 billion a year from 1987 to 1997, while the current 15% rate in 2004 to 2007 brought in $96.8 billion per year. Which once again shows that lower tax rates can get higher government tax revenues.

Add in higher taxes on the oil industry ($40 billion), jet plane owners ($3 billion), and hedge fund managers with carried interest ($18 billion), and you can see the basic effort of the Obama administration against people and industries. Last December when the president extended the Bush tax cuts, he acknowledged that tax hikes both slow economic growth and deter job creation, something he seems to have forgotten.

The higher taxes on energy producers are particularly discouraging, given the importance of energy to our economic recovery and the administration's continued clampdown on energy production. In another measure that is counterproductive to economic growth, the Obama plan includes extending benefits for the long-term unemployed, even though studies show that long term employment benefits raise the unemployment rate from 0.5 to 1.5 percentage points.

President Obama has said that "everything in [his new] bill will be paid for--everything," and that it "will not add to the deficit." But it will be paid for in the future, and the president is saying we should add some more to the deficit now in return for promises of future spending.

All these programs do not look good for the future of America or its people, for as American Enterprise Institute's Director of economic policy Kevin Hassett said earlier this month, the Obama administration's position "throughout this recovery has been that the U.S. can have the highest corporate tax on earth, a big regulatory crackdown, and a vast expansion of labor-union power and still expect a positive jobs story because of cash-for-clunkers and green jobs. This jobs report indicates how much damage that view has done."

In the end, the newest Obama proposals are proof that his recent centrist posturing was just that, posturing. The new proposals are a continuation of the old Obama policies, policies that sadly have extended the recession, stifled economic growth, and will, for some years, have weakened America.

Author is chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis and former Governor of Delaware
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1007 on: October 02, 2011, 11:36:17 AM »

Pete DuPont has been thinking and writing about these issues for years and it shows in his ability to make his point buttressed by simple, powerful, bottom-line data.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1008 on: October 03, 2011, 09:22:20 AM »

Obama goes in to Bank of America

President Obama walks into the Bank of America to cash a check. As he
approaches the cashier he says "Good morning Ma'am, could you please
cash this check for me"?

Cashier: "It would be my pleasure sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

Obama: "Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think
there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the President of
the United States of America!"

Cashier: "Yes sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations,
monitoring, of the banks because of imposters and forgers, etc I must
insist on seeing ID."

Obama: "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell
you. Everybody knows who I am."

Cashier: "I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I
must follow them."

Obama: "I am urging you please to cash this check."

Cashier: "Look Mr. President this is what we can do: One day Tiger
Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he
pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank
into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed
his check. Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled
out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot whereby the tennis
ball landed in my cup. With that spectacular shot we cashed his check.

So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only
you, as the President of the United States?"

Obama stood there thinking, and thinking and finally says: "Honestly,
there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single
thing I can do."

Cashier: "Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?"
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1009 on: October 03, 2011, 09:42:37 AM »

Please refer back to five posts ago by ccp.  The time has come for the politicians to stop staging and manipulating the media and us.

She is no more than the first broad.  No respect from me.

Obviously it was staged yet the lame stream media reports that the first broad "quietly" slipped out to Target to shop.
No more likely when she shops on Rodeo (sp?) Drive in LA, or Madison Ave in NYC she quietly slips out.
No end to the deceit from this WH:
 
***Figures. White House Tipped Off AP Reporter Ahead of Michelle Obama’s Target Photo-Op
Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, October 1, 2011, 11:35 PM
 
Another staged moment in the lives of Barack and Michelle Obama.
Michelle Obama just had to get out to Target to do a little shopping last week. But, before the shopping run the White House tipped off AP photographer Charles Dharapak so that he would be at the store to memorialize the moment.

Michelle Obama checks out at Target. That’s her assistant behind her carrying the bags. (AP)

At least she wore a shirt that is reportedly from Old Navy(?) and not a designer T-shirt like she wears out when she paints community centers.***

 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1010 on: October 04, 2011, 08:18:10 PM »



Nixon was tricky. Ford was clumsy. Carter was dour. Reagan was sunny. Bush 41 was prudent. Clinton felt your pain. Bush 43 was stubborn. And Barack Obama is . . .

Early in America's acquaintance with the man who would become the 44th president, the word that typically sprang from media lips to describe him was "cool."

Cool as a matter of fashion sense—"Who does he think he is, George Clooney?" burbled the blogger Wonkette in April 2008. Cool as a matter of political temperament—"Maybe after eight years of George W. Bush stubbornness, on the heels of eight years of Clinton emotiveness, we need to send out for ice," approved USA Today's Ruben Navarrette that October. Cool as a matter of upbringing—Indonesia, apparently, is "where Barack learned to be cool," according to a family friend quoted in a biography of his mother.

The Obama cool made for a reassuring contrast with his campaign's warm-and-fuzzy appeals to hope, change and being the ones we've been waiting for. But as the American writer Minna Antrim observed long ago, "between flattery and admiration there often flows a river of contempt." When it comes to Mr. Obama, boy does it ever.

We caught flashes of the contempt during the campaign. There were those small-town Midwesterners who, as he put it at a San Francisco fund-raiser, "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them." There were those racist Republicans who, as he put it at a Jacksonville fund-raiser, would campaign against him by asking, "Did I mention he's black?" There was the "you're likable enough, Hillary," line during a New Hampshire debate. But these were unscripted digressions and could be written off as such.

Enlarge Image

CloseBloomberg
 .Only after Mr. Obama came to office did it start to become clear that contempt would be both a style and method of his governance. Take the "mess we have inherited" line, which became the administration's ring tone for its first two years.

"I have never seen anything like the mess we have inherited," said the late Richard Holbrooke—a man with memories of what Nixon inherited in Vietnam from Johnson—about Afghanistan in February 2009. "We are cleaning up something that is—quite simply—a mess," said the president the following month about Guantanamo. "Let's face it, we inherited a mess," said Valerie Jarrett about the economy in March 2010.

For presidential candidates to rail against incumbents from an opposing party is normal; for a president to rail for years against a predecessor of any party is crass—and something to which neither Reagan nor Lincoln, each of them inheritors of much bigger messes, stooped.

Then again, the contempt Mr. Obama felt for the Bush administration was merely of a piece with the broader ambit of his disdain. Examples? Here's a quick list:

The gratuitous return of the Churchill bust to Britain. The slam of the Boston police officer who arrested Henry Louis Gates. The high-profile rebuke of the members of the Supreme Court at his 2010 State of the Union speech. The diplomatic snubs, petty as well as serious, of Gordon Brown, Benjamin Netanyahu and Nicolas Sarkozy. The verbal assaults on Wall Street "fat cats" who "caused the problem" of "10% unemployment." The never-ending baiting of millionaires and billionaires and jet owners and everyone else who, as Black Entertainment Television's Robert Johnson memorably put it on Sunday, "tried rich and tried poor and like rich better."

Now we come to the last few days, in which Mr. Obama first admonished the Congressional Black Caucus to "stop complainin', stop grumblin', stop cryin'," and later told a Florida TV station that America was losing its competitive edge because it "had gotten a little soft." The first comment earned a rebuke from none other than Rep. Maxine Waters, while the second elicited instant comparisons to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" speech. They tell us something about the president's political IQ. They tell us more about his world view.

What is it that Mr. Obama doesn't like about the United States—a country that sent him hurtling like an American Idol contestant from the obscurity of an Illinois Senate seat to the presidency in a mere four years?

I suspect it's the same thing that so many run-of-the-mill liberals dislike: Americans typically believe that happiness is an individual pursuit; we bridle at other people setting limits on what's "enough"; we enjoy wealth and want to keep as much of it as we can; we don't like trading in our own freedom for someone else's idea of virtue, much less a fabricated concept of the collective good.

When a good history of anti-Americanism is someday written, it will note that it's mainly a story of disenchantment—of the obdurate and sometimes vulgar reality of the country falling short of the lover's ideal. Listening to Mr. Obama, especially now as the country turns against him, one senses in him a similar disenchantment: America is lovable exactly in proportion to the love it gives him in return.

Hence his increasingly ill-concealed expressions of contempt. Hence the increasingly widespread counter-contempt.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1011 on: October 04, 2011, 11:07:54 PM »

I have wanted to hear someone coherently explain the motive of the scandal so that we might understand what they were trying to do and what they are now hiding.

Please correct if this is wrong.  Rush L the all time home run leader of political commentary (aka biased blogger) took a stab at it today while I was listening briefly.  It went something like this:

The Obamites were sending guns across the border so that they would be found in violent acts  and then they could use that information to argue for greater cutailment of gun sales in the U.S.

Far fetched or was that obvious to everyone but me?  Someone else have a better explanation?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1012 on: October 04, 2011, 11:37:30 PM »

That is the pink elephant in the room most are afraid to say out loud.  If true, tis truly heinious what they have done.   Lets continue this on the Gun thread.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1013 on: October 06, 2011, 05:38:16 PM »

I don't think I need to go into detail on Brick Brock's political diabtribe this AM.

He continues to demonstrate why he is far of a worse President than Jimmy Carter ever was - not only totally in over his head but continuues to deceive, lie and mislead.  At least Carter was honest if not competent.

Can anyone tell me we need to emulate China by wasting government money on solar?

We should to the exact opposite.  Let the Chinese waste their money and we copy and steal any scientific gains THEY get from it.  Just like they do to us. 

"F" (I mean "forget")  solar.  For God's sake why can't we use our oil, gas coal?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1014 on: October 07, 2011, 10:07:13 AM »

CCP: "I don't think I need to go into detail on Brick Brock's political diatribe this AM."

Besides bad policies, he suffers from over-exposure.  For the last couple of big policy speeches he got zero bump in the polls.  He was the lyricist who could put out words that people could fill with their own meaning.  Amazing that it worked once or worked twice.  He outwitted and outlasted Richardson, Biden and Kucinich to inherit the anti-Hillary vote and outwitted and outlasted McCain to ride the anti-Bush vote in.  But it was all meaningless blather.  His claim to fame was to be the most consistent anti-Iraq-war candidate.  We are still in Iraq.  Then the strongest on anti-Guantanamo and the base is still open.  The one who could get healthcare done but it is now further from done facing the Courts, the polls and new elections than it was before it passed.  We are lazy or cowards if we yawn at Stimulus Seven yet they have not found even an economist who could explain a plausible economic theory behind robbing job creators to pay interest groups in an election.

 CCP: " "F" (I mean "forget")  solar."

That's very funny!  What he doesn't get is that if solar is 15 times the cost of coal, then a little push here and little pull there doesn't take it to the front of the line and shut down all the coal and nuclear with energy to burn.  In a prosperous society, people can CHOOSE little clean wind and solar supplements installed with pride on their abode without caring how that compares with current electric billing rate.  When you have lost your job and are losing your house, that is not so.

Has he visited the Bakken fields in North Dakota, the state with zero structural unemployment to see what is working?  Not even curious about surging state revenues and surpluses that has the looking at repeal of the state income tax.  These are red states.  He didn't even make it to the "Midwest Katrina of 2011".  http://www.allamericanblogger.com/tag/flood-of-2011/

Natural gas use has carbon emissions but is far cleaner than clean coal.  The Obama brain trust fights it and uses its dupes in the media to bring up new objections.  Nuclear is 100% carbon free and now we can learn how to survive an earthquake with 100 times stronger force than the Loma Prieta quake that brought down the Bay Bridge and World Series in San Francisco 1989.  We know where the fault line are and we have made amazing advances in transmission technology.  The Obama plan: fill your tires and eat your peas.  Rob Peter, pay Paul. 

If we aren't going to fix anything that is wrong under his watch, why should we tune in? 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1015 on: October 07, 2011, 11:05:50 AM »

From Doug:

"He was the lyricist who could put out words that people could fill with their own meaning.  Amazing that it worked once or worked twice."

From another genius:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
[Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)]

The some of the people all of the time are apparantly the 42% or so who still would vote for Brock.  Despite the disaster we are witnessing in the White House there are still that many in our country - virtually all who want payouts - who still believe in this con artist. 

The all of the people some of the time where the other 10 or 15 % who voted for him to begin with who hav since realized they were wrong to do so.  Brock is no longer fooling that group.  There were people like me and most on this board who were never taken in by the con in chief.

And of those 15 or 20% who have changed their minds many of them have done so because he is not liberal enough in his policies although he certainly would be if he could get away with it.

Mark Levin is finally calling it a political civil war.  Others including me have been stating this for a decade now.

Michael Savage has pointed out that in history their will not be blood in the streets till people are starving.

I don't know.  But threatening entitlements may be enough in our society.  I do agree with Brock that we are soft.  I don't agree with the reasons or what we do about it.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1016 on: October 17, 2011, 08:35:08 AM »

Did 2008 Come True?
October 16, 2011 - 11:15 am - by Victor Davis Hanson

The Right-Wing Complaint of 2008

In 2008, the following was the general right-wing argument against Obama’s candidacy:

a) The self-professed “uniter” Obama had, in truth, little record of uniting disparate groups. From community organizing to politics, his preferred modus operandi was rather to praise moderation, but politick more as a radical, and sometimes go after opponents as unreasonable or illiberal. Thus the most partisan voting senator in the Congress, who talked grandly of “working across the aisle,” also urged supporters to “get in their faces” and “take a gun to a knife fight.” Acorn, Project Vote, and SEIU were not ecumenical organizations.

b) Obama knew very little about foreign affairs, or perhaps even raw human nature as it plays out in power politics abroad. At times, he seemed naive about the singular role of the U.S. in the world, especially his sense that problems with Iran, the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, and others were somehow predicated on American arrogance and unilateralism (and neither predating nor postdating George Bush) — to be remedied by Obama’s post-racial, post-national diplomacy.

c) In truth, Obama, for all his rhetorical skills and soft-spoken charisma, had little experience in the private sector outside of politics, academia, foundations, and subsidized organizing. Consequently, he did not seem to understand the nature of profit and loss, payrolls, how businesses worked and planned, or much of anything in the private sector.

d) Obama at times seemed to lack common sense, and perhaps even common knowledge. He appeared confused about everything from the number of U.S. states to the idea that air pressure and “tune-ups” might substitute for new oil exploration. He seemed assured when reading a teleprompted script, and yet lost much of his eloquence when it came to repartee and question and answer.

e) Obama saw race as essential to his persona and his success, rarely incidental. Collate the writings and rantings of his triad of pastors and friends — Rev. Wright, Rev. Pfleger, and Rev. Meeks — and one sees a common theme of racism (sometimes overt), anti-Semitism, and class warfare. It was considered irrelevant to remind voters in 2008 that Michelle Obama had alleged that the U.S. was a downright mean country, or that she had confessed to never heretofore being very proud of her country until it gave consideration to her husband as a presidential candidate — though both sentiments would seem rare for a potential first lady.

f) Obama, it was also felt, counted on a sense of entitlement. His admissions to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard were alleged not to have been based on the usual competitive test scores or grades — and such charges were not refuted, but considered ancient history. As Harvard Law Review editor, he seemed to assume, quite rightly, that he did not have to publish an article. As a University of Chicago Law School lecturer he also rightly assumed that Chicago — and later Harvard as well — would, if he had wished, granted him tenure, again, despite nonexistent publication. Sen. Clinton argued, without much refutation, that as a state legislator Obama had both authored very little legislation and voted present on any vote that might be considered problematic for a higher political office — a charge that later disappointed supporters would come to echo, along with admissions of prior inexperience on Obama’s apart.

g) Obama, like many on the elite left, had an ambiguous attitude about affluence and its dividends. The more, as a community organizer, he had railed about bankers and unfairness, the more he had enjoyed a mini-mansion and dealt with the soon-to-be criminal Tony Rezko. The current Wall Street protests take their cue not just from presidential anger at “millionaires and billionaires,” but also from the idea that affluent young people are exempt from their own rhetorical charges.

Yet in 2008, to suggest “spread the wealth” meant anything important was to be either racist or a rank partisan. But Obama in 2001 in a Chicago public radio interview could not have been clearer about the need for government to redistribute income and his unhappiness that the Constitution seemed to prohibit that. Here is a telling excerpt in all its half-baked Foucauldian vocabulary:

    But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in the society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. … I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

Again, to refer to all of the above in 2008 was considered not so much unfair as improper.

The Proving Ground

Then came the election, and a perfect storm of events. The general unhappiness with Bush over deficits and Iraq, the recession that had started in December 2007, the absence of any incumbent vice president or president in the race for the first time since 1952, an unusually unenergetic McCain campaign, and a nakedly partisan media — all that by early September still had not given Obama the lead. But the mid-September 2008 financial crash did. And so what in the last fifty years was usually considered improbable — the election of a northern Democratic liberal — soon seemed foreordained.

The Reality of 2011

We are now nearing the third year of the Obama administration. Were those worries of 2008 at all justified? Let us briefly review them in the same order:

a) Uniter? The country is divided, perhaps more so than in 2006 — except to the extent of gradually unifying around opposition to Obama, who now polls around 40% approval and is heading to Bush levels in three rather than seven years. “Get in their faces”transmogrified into “punish our enemies,” a lawsuit against Arizona, “stop the smears”/ JournoList/AttackWatch.com, and a shellacking in 2010 that led the president to abandon any pretense of “bipartisanship” in favor of revving up the base with them/us rhetoric. Let me juxtapose these two quotes that sum up the current weird Obama atmosphere:

    * “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” — Hillary Clinton in 2003 objecting to the Bush administration.

    * “These are not patriots, people who love this country want to see jobs created. They don’t love this country. … I don’t think they love this country. They’re not concerned about the economic well being of the country as a whole.” — Rep. Linda Sanchez, in 2011, in response to congressional opposition to President Obama’s job’s bill.

Could now-Secretary Clinton address Rep. Sanchez’s charges?

b) Abroad? Obama soon began treating allies and enemies alike as near neutrals: outreach to Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba, while petty slights and sometimes serious rebuke to Israel, the UK, and eastern Europe. Once the most vocal of Bush’s critics, Obama ended up copycatting all of his predecessor’s anti-terrorism protocols – but without a gesture of gratitude. As Predator in chief, Obama quintupled the number of targeted assassinations, on the apparent theory that dead suspected terrorists would cause fewer problems than incarcerated confessed terrorists. Reset and outreach faded and are now terms of yesteryear: China is as anti-American as ever, more so Pakistan. Iran allegedly now tries to kill inside Washington. Putin is still Putin. “Leading from behind” proved that a thug like Gaddafi could resist NATO’s big three for eight months. The Arab Spring may become a winter of anti-Semitism, anti-Christianism,  and anti-Americanism. The Arab Spring also suggests so far two tragic truths: the Middle East changes only when the U.S. removes a psychopath, and then spends lots of blood and treasure fostering a new government — something that has zero political support after Iraq; and two, Middle East dictators are sometimes more liberal than the masses to whom they deny freedoms. In general, we still have Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya and now a small force in Africa. Israel, Cyprus, Taiwan, North Korea, and the former Soviet republics are more volatile, not less.

c) Economy? Obama’s EU-like economic plan is in shambles. Prior to Obama, Keynesians had argued that no one had given them a fair shot since the Depression. But borrowing nearly five trillion in less than three years, near zero interest rates, vastly expanding food stamps and unemployment benefits, absorbing private companies, and issuing vast new financial and environmental regulations turned an anticipated recovery into another near recession. In any case, Obama’s economic architects of such policies — Goolsbee, Orszag, Romer, Summers — mysteriously did not last three years.

d) Common sense? 2008 campaign “slips” prefaced things like “corpse-man” and speaking Austrian — perhaps understandable, but not in the media climate of zero media tolerance for “nucular.” Presidents I suppose in the future will have to be taught by handlers not to bow to emperors and kings. Going to our ally Germany to commemorate the fall of the Berlin Wall was apparently less important than jetting to Copenhagen to lobby for a Chicago Olympics. The 2009 Cairo speech was one of the most factually incorrect speeches in recent presidential history, as almost every assertion was demonstrably false. Well before Solyndra, the secretary of energy quipped that gas prices should reach European levels, that California farms would some day blow away, and that Americans, in essence, could not be trusted to buy the right light bulbs. From “man-made disasters” to “overseas contingency operations” to “my people” and “cowards” to videos assuring that immigration laws will not be enforced, the Obama cabinet is about what one could have predicted back in 2008.

e) Racial healing? All these earlier bothersome tidbits like “typical white person” reappeared with an entire litany of them/us calumnies, none of them in isolation of any importance, but in toto quite disturbing. Do we remember them all — from the beer summit and Eric Holder’s “my people” and “cowards” to “wise Latina,” “punish our enemies,” “moats and alligators,” the faux-southern black preacher cadences and condescending addresses to “bedroom slippers” African-American audiences, or the video appealing to constituents by racial categories? Few imagined in 2008 that the Congressional Black Caucus in 2011, in the new period of post-racialism, would be accusing opponents of wanting a return to lynching and Jim Crow laws.

f) Political savvy? Why federalize health care in the midst of a recession with 10% plus unemployment? Obama promised the public in November 2010 not to raise taxes in a recession, in 2011 to raise them a lot. Solyndra seems far worse than Enron, but Fast and Furious perhaps as bad as Iran Contra — except that Americans died in the former and not the latter. In 2010, potential Republican opponents and the Democratic base were worried that Obama would triangulate as Clinton had in 1995; in 2011, most observers are exasperated that he thinks more of what failed in 2010 is the remedy in 2011.

g) Hate or love of the elite? The hints of the 2008 attraction and distrust of wealth only magnified by 2011. In the midst of “at some point” we have made enough money, of not the time for profits on Wall Street, of “millionaires and billionaires,” of “corporate jets,” of going after everyone from guitar factories to Boeing — in the midst of all that, where do all the all elite vacation spots and golf resorts fit in — along with massive donations from Goldman Sachs and BP? How strange that the more one demonizes the good life that unimaginable riches provide, the more one seems comfortable with the good life that unlimited government subsidizes?

The skeptics of 2008 proved prescient; those who demonized them should be embarrassed. And we should remember that candidates, of both parties, will govern mostly as they campaign. Slips are not indiscretions, but often will prove in hindsight windows of the soul.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/did-2008-come-true/?singlepage=true
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1017 on: October 23, 2011, 07:09:22 PM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/280986/biden-s-fourth-grade-economics-mark-steyn?pg=1

Biden’s Fourth-Grade Economics     Mark Steyn    October 22, 2011
How to justify unaffordable and inefficient stimulus

In one of those inspired innovations designed to keep American classrooms on the cutting edge of educational excellence, the administration has been sending Joe Biden out to talk to schoolchildren. Last week, it was the fourth grade at Alexander B. Goode Elementary School in York, Pa., that found itself on the receiving end of the vice president’s wisdom:

    Here in this school, your school, you’ve had a lot of teachers who used to work here, but because there’s no money for them in the city, they’re not working. And so what happens is, when that occurs, each of the teachers that stays have more kids to teach. And they don’t get to spend as much time with you as they did when your classes were smaller. We think the federal government in Washington, D.C., should say to the cities and states, look, we’re going to give you some money so that you can hire back all those people. And the way we’re going to do it, we’re going to ask people who have a lot of money to pay just a little bit more in taxes.

Who knew it was that easy?

So let’s see if I follow the vice president’s thinking:

The school laid off these teachers because “there’s no money for them in the city.” That’s true. York City School District is broke. It has a $14 million budget deficit.

So instead Washington, D.C., is going to “give you some money” to hire these teachers back.

So, unlike York, Pa., presumably Washington, D.C., has “money for them”?

No, not technically. Washington, D.C., is also broke — way broker than York City School District. In fact, the government of the United States is broker than any entity has ever been in the history of the planet. Officially, Washington has to return 15,000,000,000,000 dollars just to get back to having nothing at all. And that 15,000,000,000,000 dollars is a very lowball figure that conveniently ignores another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that the government, unlike private businesses, is able to keep off the books.

So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to “give you some money” to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?

No problem, says the vice president. We’re going to “ask” people who have “a lot of money” to “pay just a little bit more” in taxes.

Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pa. But they’re out there somewhere. Who has “a lot of money”? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have “a lot of money.” Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year.

Okay, okay, maybe that 250K definition of “bloated plutocrat” is a bit off. After all, the quarter-mil-a-year category includes not only bankers and other mustache-twirling robber barons, but also at least 50 school superintendents in the State of New York and many other mustache-twirling selfless public servants.

So how about people earning a million dollars a year? That’s “a lot of money” by anybody’s definition. As Kevin Williamson also pointed out, to balance the budget of the United States on the backs of millionaires you would have to increase the taxes of those earning more than 1 million a year by 6 million a year.

Not only is there “no money in the city” of York, Pa., and no money in Washington, D.C., there’s no money anywhere else in America — not for spending on the Obama/Biden scale. Come to that, there’s no money anywhere on the planet: Last year, John Kitchen of the U.S. Treasury and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin published a study called “Financing U.S. Debt: Is There Enough Money in the World — and At What Cost?”

Don’t worry, it’s a book with a happy ending! U.S.-government spending is sustainable as long as by 2020 the rest of the planet is willing to sink 19 percent of its GDP into U.S. Treasury debt. And why wouldn’t they? After all, if you’re a Chinese politburo member or a Saudi prince or a Russian kleptocrat or a Somali pirate and you switched on CNN International and chanced to catch Joe Biden’s Fourth Grade Economics class, why wouldn’t you cheerily dump a fifth of your GDP into a business model with such a bright future?

Since 1970, public-school employment has increased ten times faster than public-school enrollment. In 2008, the United States spent more per student on K–12 education than any other developed nation except Switzerland — and at least the Swiss have something to show for it. In 2008, York City School District spent $12,691 per pupil — or about a third more than the Swiss. Slovakia’s total per-student cost is less than York City’s current per-student deficit — and the Slovak kids beat the United States at mathematics, which may explain why their budget arithmetic still has a passing acquaintanceship with reality. As in so many other areas of American life, the problem is not the lack of money but the fact that so much of the money is utterly wasted.

But that’s no reason not to waste even more! So the president spent last week touring around in his weaponized Canadian bus telling Americans that Republicans were blocking plans to “put teachers back in the classroom.” Well, where are they now? Not every schoolmarm is down at the Occupy Wall Street drum circle, is she? No, indeed. And in that respect York City is a most instructive example: Five years ago (the most recent breakdown I have), the district had 440 teachers but 295 administrative and support staff. If you’re thinking that sounds a little out of whack, that just shows what a dummy you are: For every three teachers we “put back in the classroom,” we need to hire two bureaucrats to put back in the bureaucracy to fill in the paperwork to access the federal funds to put teachers back in the classroom. One day it will be three educrats for every two teachers, and the system will operate even more effectively.

It’s just about possible to foresee, say, Iceland or Ireland getting its spending under control. But, when a nation of 300 million people presumes to determine grade-school hiring and almost everything else through an ever more centralized bureaucracy, you’re setting yourself up for waste on a scale unknown to history. For example, under the Obama “stimulus,” U.S. taxpayers gave a $529 million loan guarantee to the company Fisker to build their Karma electric car. At a factory in Finland.

If you’re wondering how giving half a billion dollars to a Finnish factory stimulates the U.S. economy, well, what’s a lousy half-bil in a multi-trillion-dollar sinkhole? Besides, in the 2009 global rankings, Finnish schoolkids placed sixth in math, third in reading, and second in science, while suffering under the burden of a per-student budget half that of York City. By comparison, America placed 17th in reading, 23rd in science, and 31st in math. So the good news is that, by using U.S.-government money to fund a factory in Finland, Fisker may be able to hire workers smart enough to figure out how to build an unwanted electric car that doesn’t lose its entire U.S.-taxpayer investment.

In a sane world, Joe Biden’s remarks would be greeted by derisive laughter, even by fourth graders. Certainly by Finnish fourth graders.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2787


« Reply #1018 on: November 03, 2011, 12:05:50 PM »

http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/02/file-not-found
Reason Magazine

File Not Found

Why does the most open and transparent administration in history prefer to lie about government records?

Jacob Sullum | November 2, 2011

When he took office, Barack Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government." As a major part of that commitment, he pledged fidelity to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which he called "the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government."

It is hard to reconcile these lofty memos with the Justice Department's proposed rule instructing federal agencies to falsely deny the existence of records sought under FOIA. But at least the Obama administration is open about its desire to mislead us.

Enacted in 1966, FOIA "encourages accountability through transparency," as Obama put it in his 2009 memo. The law created a general assumption that Americans have a right to information about their government unless there is a good reason to withhold it, such as when disclosure would violate people's privacy, undermine a criminal investigation, or threaten national security.

Congress amended FOIA in 1986, adding Section 552(c), which addresses situations where confirming the existence of records would tip off the target of a criminal investigation, compromise a confidential informant, or reveal classified information. In such cases, agencies "may treat the records as not subject to the requirements of" FOIA, which the courts and leading members of Congress have long understood to mean issuing a response that neither confirms nor denies the records' existence.

But the Obama administration prefers to lie. Under the rule proposed by the Justice Department, an agency with records believed to be exempt under Section 552(c) "will respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

As the American Civil Liberties Union, OpenTheGovernment.org, and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington note in their comments on the rule, it would "dramatically undermine government integrity by allowing a law designed to provide public access to government information to be twisted to permit federal law enforcement agencies to actively lie to the American people." The rule also would impede judicial review of agencies' decisions to withhold records, since requesters would be led to believe that no records were being withheld.

Since requesters cannot demand a justification for withholding records they do not know exist, agencies would not have to convince a court that the information they believe qualifies for a FOIA exemption actually does. And while the lies supposedly would be limited to the three situations described in Section 552(c), agencies would be sorely tempted to deny the existence of any records they would rather not reveal.

Obama himself suggested where such unbridled discretion can lead. "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," he declared in 2009. But who can say whether that is happening if agencies can evade oversight by lying?

The ACLU suggests a FOIA response that avoids disclosing information shielded by Section 552(c) but is nevertheless accurate and preserves the possibility of judicial review: "We interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request." In an October 28 letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, demands to know why that option is unsatisfactory and threatens to block the Obama administration's mendacious alternative.

It may be too late for that. Last spring U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney rebuked the government for falsely denying the existence of records sought under FOIA, not only to the requesters but to him. Carney noted that "it is impossible for the court to determine compliance with the law and to protect the public from Government misconduct if the Government misleads the Court." The Justice Department says its new rule merely codifies a practice dating to the Reagan administration, which means they've been lying to us all along.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1019 on: November 07, 2011, 11:45:07 AM »



http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/11/07/seal-commander-whose-team-killed-bin-laden-slams-obama?cmpid=NL_FiredUpFoxNation_20111107#ixzz1d2XnKJMy
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1020 on: November 08, 2011, 11:41:58 AM »

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
----

FYI to the C in C: The microphones are NEVER off.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1021 on: November 08, 2011, 11:44:13 AM »

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4145266,00.html

According to a Monday report in the French website “Arret sur Images,” after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington’s strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: “I cannot stand him. He is a liar.” According to the report, Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”
----

FYI to the C in C: The microphones are NEVER off.

He's used to them shutting off when the teleprompter stops feeding him words.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1022 on: November 09, 2011, 01:17:33 AM »

Staff changes show direction.  Chief of Staff Bill Daley was the bipartisan big tent attempt. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439.html That is done.  Daley was a Fannie Mae Director for years, also JP Morgan - a Wall Street Bank.  Now the administration is anti-Wall Street, pro-Occupy Wall Street.  Daley downgraded, no longer in charge of day to day affairs.  In other words - out of that job.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/05/giuliani-obama-owns-occupy-wall-street-movement/

Meanwhile Giuliani says OWS will be Obama's ending.  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/05/giuliani-obama-owns-occupy-wall-street-movement/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1023 on: November 16, 2011, 08:44:55 AM »

From Media Issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFz_Rm4YnPU&feature=player_embedded

Similar disorientations destroyed the futures of people like Palin, Bachmann, Cain and Perry.  Do you think he still has a shot at his nomination?  Why are slips like this okay, asked and answered in the post: he is a Democrat.  My question, why is the double standard so widely accepted?

My take, innocent slip with no attempt at correction - just a glimpse into his mind. He is not new to Hawaii nor was he confused about where he was standing and speaking.  He just never thought of himself as being from America.  Like Superman, he is from somewhere else.  Not Kenyan, Indonesian, Honolulan, Chicagoan or anywhere that specific, certainly not from Kansas, just somewhere else.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1024 on: November 16, 2011, 08:51:19 AM »

From Media Issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFz_Rm4YnPU&feature=player_embedded

Similar disorientations destroyed the futures of people like Palin, Bachmann, Cain and Perry.  Do you think he still has a shot at his nomination?  Why are slips like this okay, asked and answered in the post: he is a Democrat.  My question, why is the double standard so widely accepted?

My take, innocent slip with no attempt at correction - just a glimpse into his mind. He is not new to Hawaii nor was he confused about where he was standing and speaking.  He just never thought of himself as being from America.  Like Superman, he is from somewhere else.  Not Kenyan, Indonesian, Honolulan, Chicagoan or anywhere that specific, certainly not from Kansas, just somewhere else.

The key difference being that Superman loved America.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1025 on: November 16, 2011, 04:58:34 PM »

#Invalid YouTube Link#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rSokGrpCoWA

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1026 on: November 18, 2011, 11:57:51 AM »

The piece by Peggy Noonan makes a strong case about why Herman Cain is not a serious candidate with his lack of attention to important foreign matters.  I was corresponding with a centrist friend and reminded that in other circles, just saying the name Palin, Bachmann, Cain and others - these are one word punch lines in their world.  In most cases they forgot to tell us why the joke is funny.  On the conservative side, same goes for Pelosi, Reid and especially Pres, Obama.  Maybe Newt can do it but he carries his own contradictions, but the candidate and certainly the VP candidate will need to be able to articulate persuasively the case that this incumbent is not a serious candidate for President in 2012.  VDH does it quite well IMO right here:

http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-imaginarium-of-barack-obama/?singlepage=true

The Imaginarium of Barack Obama
November 16, 2011 - by Victor Davis Hanson

The presidency of Barack Obama is full of funny things that need not follow any sort of logic. Images and ideas just pop in and out, without worry of inconsistency, contradiction, or hypocrisy. It’s a fascinating mish-mash of strange heroes and bogeymen, this imaginarium of our president.

In the imaginarium there are no revolving doors, earmarks, or lobbyists. So Peter Orszag did not go from being OMB director to a Citigroup fat-cat. Once chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel did not make $16 million for his well-known banking expertise. The more you damn the pernicious role of lobbyists and the polluting role of big money, the more you must hire and seek out both. Public financing of campaigns is wonderful for everyone else who lacks the integrity of Barack Obama who understandably must renounce such unfair impositions.

Those who now vote against raising the large Obama debt ceiling are political hucksters and opportunists; those who not long ago voted against raising the smaller Bush debt ceiling were principled statesmen. “Unpatriotic” presidents borrow $4 trillion in eight years; patriotic ones we’ve been waiting for can trump that in three.

Catching known terrorists and putting them in Guantanamo is very bad; killing suspected ones by drone assassinations — and anyone unlucky enough to be in their general vicinity — is exceptionally good. Tribunals, renditions, preventative detention, and all that were bad ideas under Bush-Cheney, but could become good ideas under Barack Obama, the law professor who often sees no need to follow the law when an immigration or marriage statute is deemed regressive.

A million Iranians protesting a soon-to-be-nuclear theocracy is false revolutionary consciousness and to be left alone; a few thousand Israelis wanting to buy apartments in the Jerusalem suburbs is subversive and worthy of presidential condemnation. And when atoning for supposed American lapses, what better place to begin apologizing than in Turkey, the incubator of the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish mass killings? We need to deny history to make the case that America is not exceptional, and to invent it to persuade us that the Muslim world is extraordinary.

Twenty-four months of a Democratic Congress, and over $4 trillion in spending, resulted in 9.1% unemployment and near nonexistent growth. Yet the culprit for the current situation is ten months of a Republican-controlled House that has yet to approve another $500 billion of borrowing. In the imaginarium, just a little more of the massive amount that has failed will not fail. But if the Republicans are to be blamed for not wanting to waste the last half-trillion, are the Democrats to be praised for borrowing the first wasted $4 trillion?

In the imaginarium, all sorts of demons and devils can unite to derail the brilliance of Barack Obama’s economic recovery plan. ATMs have for the first time after 2009 begun to eliminate jobs. But then so did the Japanese tsunami and the EU meltdown. The DC earthquake did its part, but then so did climbing oil prices and the Arab Spring. Of course, the ghost of George Bush floats over all the present mess. Economic gurus like Austan Goolsbee, Peter Orszag, Christina Romer, and Larry Summers used to write brilliant essays of what would work if they were to be in charge, and now write brilliant essays about why it did not work when they were in charge.

There are lots of ways to bring Americans together across class and racial lines. One in the imaginarium is to focus on the “teabag, anti-government people.” Another is to encourage Hispanics to “punish our enemies” — or have the attorney general lambaste Americans as racial “cowards” and to defend “my people.” Joining foreign governments to sue a fellow American state is no more red/no more blue state unity. Still another is to divide up the people between the suspect who make over $200,000 and the noble who make less, or yet again target the dubious “1%” at “the very top” who do not pay “their fair share,” a mere 40% of the aggregate income tax.

Inside the imaginarium, the way to demonize the “1%” is to vacation among them — whether at Martha’s Vineyard or Costa del Sol. Buying a corporate jet is a waste of the people’s money — unlike daily flying on a much bigger private jet paid by the people.

To encourage energy self-sufficiency, the administration lent a half-billion dollars to campaign donor insiders and got unsellable solar panels in return — as it prevents a huge pipeline from Canada that will bring “shovel-ready” jobs and fuel to the United States far more cheaply than from the volatile Middle East. We have a brilliantly obtuse energy secretary who is a Nobel laureate but who thinks California farms — a record $15 billion in exports this year — will soon blow away and that gas should climb to European levels of about $9 a gallon. In the imaginarium, the purpose of Dr. Chu’s Department of Energy is not to encourage energy production and lower prices, but to find ways to prevent its development in search of raising its cost. The attorney general must be entirely conversant in small matters like a Black Panther voting intimidation case, but was completely ignorant of large ones like Fast and Furious that saw his subordinates sell automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

The president regrets that we are not innovative any more, and have gone “soft” and “lazy.” You see, his efforts at ensuring cradle-to-grave health care entitlements, of granting 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, and of extending food stamps to nearly 50 million are apparently incentives that should have led to a “hard” and “industrious” populace that was more self-reliant and willing to take risks on their own. “Spread the wealth” is a time-honored way of galvanizing people to become more self-disciplined and sufficient.

Business has failed us as well. And the way to get Las Vegas and Super Bowl junketeering CEOs profitable enough again to fund the growing redistributive state, is for them to take risks that result in the sort of massive projects that used to be an American trademark — things like the Hoover Dam, which changed the environmental landscape far more than would the apparently cancelled gargantuan pipeline from Canada to Texas. Business can be encouraged not to be lazy by a prod now and then — either by trying to shut down a big aircraft plant or a small guitar factory. And in the imaginarium, the way to gently chide the private sector is with words of encouragement like “millionaires and billionaires,” and “corporate jet owners,” along with grandfatherly advice to clueless capitalists about realizing the point at which they should cease making money.

In the imaginarium of Barack Obama there is no contradiction between smearing and shaking down Wall Street, a bunch that needs both to be told when and when not to profit, and to whom and to whom not to give tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Barney Frank, who helped pressure Wall Street and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue billions in unsound loans, and Chris Dodd, who shook down fat cats for below-market interest rates for his vacation home, logically are the eponymous heroes of the Dodd-Frank fiscal reform act to ensure others do not do as did they. Former liberal governor, senator, and Goldman Sachs CEO Jon Corzine, who both wrecked MF Global and can’t account for $600 million in lost investments, is, in George Soros-like fashion, the best emblem of the contradictory desire to be the worst pirate on Wall Street in order to make the most money in order to be its most liberal critic. In the imaginarium we receive advice about the need for higher income taxes from multibillionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates who have always sought to avoid them. Big government and big inheritance taxes, both magnates swear are good, and therefore the administration of their own postmortem fortunes will forever avoid both.

In the imaginarium, community organizer Barack Obama never lived in a small mansion. John “two Americas” Edwards never lived in a big one. “Earth in the balance” Al Gore never lived in a few of them, and yacht owning John Kerry never lived in lots of them. You see in the imaginarium of Barack Obama you can be whatever you wish to be. Just wishing and saying something can wonderfully make it so.

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1027 on: November 18, 2011, 12:30:30 PM »

Why oh why cannot we not have more like VDH, Rush, Levin, Klein, Grant,  who can articulate running for office.  Yes the names I mention may not be politically savvy but at least they can speak in complete sentences, string sentences together to bespeak a coherent logical thought, idea, or ideology.

We do have some coming up in the ranks who are learning but just aren't world class yet. 

Such as Rubio, hopefully Bachman, and a few others.

WE may have to stop worrying about the candidates personal baggage as well.  It is rare enough finding someone with the political skills needed to run a country.  It is quite a bit rarer to find one with those skills and who has lived their life like a saint.

There is truly only one Abe Lincoln.

The Dems have already demonstrated they made that deal with the devil a long time ago. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1028 on: November 20, 2011, 11:11:01 PM »

Very good piece by VDH.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1029 on: November 29, 2011, 02:27:12 PM »

What is sad for Obama is that this disapproval is happening while everything is going according to plan.  He got the debt limit increase he wanted, the spending, the stimuli, the QE, the economy is growing, we got bin Laden, won the war in Libya, other wars are ending, and unemployment is in line with what you expect for welfare state social democracies, actually below Greece, France and the EU overall.

Gallup didn't find any President with a lower approval at this point in the Presidency:

-- Barack Obama: 43 percent.

-- James Carter: 51 percent.

-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.

-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.

-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.

-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.

-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.

-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.

-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.

-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116677/presidential-approval-ratings-gallup-historical-statistics-trends.aspx
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1030 on: November 30, 2011, 01:31:09 PM »


White House won’t say if attorney general should resign for ‘lack of oversight,’ as Obama advocated in 2007
 

Published: 11:47 PM 11/29/2011 | Updated: 1:11 PM 11/30/2011


By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller
 

Spokespeople for President Barack Obama have refused to answer a series of questions from The Daily Caller about whether the president thinks criticisms he made about former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also apply to Attorney General Eric Holder.
 
In 2007 Obama called for Gonzales’ resignation during an appearance on CNN’s Larry King Live and said he believed it’s the Attorney General’s responsibility to constrain the power of the president.
 
In addition to politically-motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys, Obama said Gonzales needed to resign because of a “lack of oversight” during one particular law enforcement program.
 
“You’ve got a situation in terms of the FBI where the procedures used for issuing national security letters seemed to have been completely sloppy and based on erroneous fact — there doesn’t seem to be any oversight there,” Obama said.
 
During that FBI scandal, it was alleged that investigators had misused “national security letters.” National security letters are administration documents that allow certain government officials to obtain information without probable cause or judicial oversight.
 
White House senior communications staffer Eric Schultz refused comment when TheDC asked if Obama thought calls for Holder’s resignation over Operation Fast and Furious are warranted, given Obama’s call for Gonzales’ resignation over a “lack of oversight.” (RELATED: Holder lashes out at Daily Caller while refusing to address growing calls for his resignation [AUDIO])
 
Obama also criticized Gonzales’ loyalty to President George W. Bush. “What you get a sense of is an Attorney General who saw himself as an enabler of the administration as opposed to somebody who was actually trying to look out for the American people’s interests,” Obama said of Gonzales.
 

When TheDC asked if Obama thinks Holder’s continued refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa makes Holder an “enabler,” Schultz also wouldn’t comment.
 
Holder has withheld 11 of 12 subpoenaed witnesses and won’t provide subpoenaed documents and communications relating to the drafting a February 4, 2011 Justice Department letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley. That letter contained statements Holder and his Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, the head of the DOJ’s criminal division, have admitted were false and inaccurate.
 
During his call for Gonzales to resign, Obama added that Gonzales “seemed to be a capable attorney” but wasn’t acting as the “people’s attorney.”
 
When TheDC asked if Holder’s actions during the Fast and Furious congressional investigation, and the “lack of oversight” of a program that claimed the lives of at least 300 people in Mexico and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry counted as acting as the “people’s attorney” in Obama’s mind, Schultz refused to comment as well.
 
There are currently 52 congressmen, three presidential candidates and two sitting governors demanding Holder’s immediate resignation — and, on Tuesday, Georgia Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson became the first U.S. senator to call for Holder’s immediate resignation.
 
Obama isn’t defending Holder, nor are congressional Democrats. In a Tuesday afternoon outburst at the White House, Holder accused TheDC of being “behind” calls for his resignation. “Stop this,” he said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/29/white-house-wont-say-if-attorney-general-should-resign-for-lack-of-oversight-as-obama-advocated-in-2007/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1031 on: December 01, 2011, 12:42:22 PM »

Obama is visiting the 0.001%, the 0.0001%, and the 1% respectively, as he begins his evening at a private gathering in Manhattan with "25 to 30 people, each of whom paid $10,000"  Next the president travels to Gotham Bar and Grill for a fundraiser with 45 supporters who contributed $35,800 apiece, including "Caroline Kennedy, Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Seinfeld and Susan Sarandon.  (Source: Fair and Balanced)


Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1032 on: December 19, 2011, 10:46:01 AM »

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow..."  (in fact it did!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=D77Vv3U8ofU

The Ghosts of Obama's Past - and Present and Future
Ad for US Senate candidate - running against Obama's governance.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1033 on: December 19, 2011, 10:56:42 AM »

Hard to let this one go by.  Axelrod regarding Gingrich.  Isn't it Barack Obama who climbed the highest up the pole exposing his other side.  Imagine if the leading GOP strategist said this about the President!

"At briefing for reporters, Chicagoan (Obama campaign manager David Axelrod) says of the Georgian (Newt Gingrich): "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt."

http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/13/axelrod-sets-sights-on-gingrich/#ixzz1h05iF7PT
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1034 on: December 19, 2011, 01:00:22 PM »

She gets the free ride on Air Force One and I don't because she is the wife of the President and deserves to be WITH him.  That makes sense.  Other than that, why do unelected millionaires get paid vacations??

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/with-more-vacation-days-and-separate-travel-price-of-obama%E2%80%99s-annual-hawaiian-holiday-rises/123

With More Vacation Days and Separate Travel, Price of Obama’s Annual Hawaiian Holiday Rises

BY MALIA ZIMMERMAN - KAILUA, OAHU - The U.S. Secret Service has arrived, street barricades are in place, and the U.S. Coast Guard has stationed itself in the waters surrounding Kailua, Oahu. That is a sure sign President Barack Obama’s security team is preparing for the first family to arrive in the small beachside community as early as Friday night for what is expected to be a 17-day vacation.

The President and his family are traveling separately to Hawaii because he wants resolve the payroll tax cut issue before leaving Washington – and his wife does not want to wait.

But the advanced trip and the cost that comes with it – as much as $100,000 (flight and security) – adds to an already expensive vacation for the taxpayers.
------------
This $4 million figure [taxpayer cost of the vacation, up from 1.5 million for last year's trip] is nearly 100 times the average annual salary of an American worker
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100124892/barack-obama%E2%80%99s-big-government-vacation-the-president-adds-nearly-4-million-to-the-national-debt-with-his-lavish-hawaiian-holiday/
« Last Edit: December 19, 2011, 01:07:00 PM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1035 on: December 19, 2011, 01:06:38 PM »

"At a certain point, I think you've had enough vacations".  rolleyes

I believe the whole vacation will cost the American taxpayer about 4 million, but it makes Michelle feel better about America, so it's worth it.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1036 on: December 19, 2011, 06:19:26 PM »

Its worth it to the country just to have them NOT at work.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1037 on: December 19, 2011, 10:59:05 PM »

Very funny.  We should offer $8 million to stay away all winter. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1038 on: December 20, 2011, 12:30:43 PM »

Blogs bash Obama's historic claim
 
NewsBusters calls Obama's statements made during his '60 Minutes' interview 'laughable.'

By MJ LEE | 12/20/11 9:35 AM EST Updated: 12/20/11 12:26 PM EST
 
Newt Gingrich isn’t the only one on the campaign trail who sees himself as a towering historical figure. President Barack Obama has just joined the club.
 
Obama’s comments in a recent “60 Minutes” interview that his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments top all but three former presidents has sparked fierce blowback among right-leaning blogs.

 
The president’s claim didn’t air in the show’s Dec. 11 television broadcast but was included in the full interview video that CBS posted on its website that day.
 
The “60 Minutes Overtime” video shows Obama telling correspondent Steve Kroft:
 
“The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do.”
 
NewsBusters pounced on the comments with a story under the headline: “60 Minutes broadcast edits out laughable Obama claim as 4th best president.”
 
“Eh! No big deal. Barack Obama is better…at least in his own mind. Such was the laughably absurd claim of President Obama on 60 Minutes last Sunday. What? You didn’t see it? That was because 60 Minutes conveniently left it out of its broadcast,” P.J. Gladnick wrote.
 
He continued, “So kneel, all you presidential peons, before the greatness that is Obama. His radiance shines so bright that it dazzled Steve Kroft to the extent that he didn’t even bother to ask an obvious follow-up question.”
 
Big Journalism headlined its story: “Selective Editing: CBS News Omits Embarrassing Obama Boast from TV Interview.”
 
And the Blaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern also berated the president’s remarks, writing that he “essentially declared himself the fourth best president in terms of his accomplishments.”
 
While the president didn’t quite go that far, Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft also joined the tune of the other bloggers on Monday.
 
“You have got to be kidding. … After destroying the American economy, tripling the national deficit, blowing a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus plan and nearly doubling the unemployment rate, Barack Obama told “60 Minutes” last week that he considered himself the 4th best president in US history. Unbelievable. (Is this guy out to lunch or what?),” Hoft wrote.
 
Scott Paulson, the Examiner’s “conservative examiner,” concluded that Obama has “a much higher opinion of his accomplishments than most Americans have of him.”
 
Gingrich has received his share of criticism for tooting his own horn on the campaign trail, once crediting himself for having “helped lead the effort to defeat communism.”
 
Kevin Tedesco, executive director of “60 Minutes,” told POLITICO in an email: “We don’t discuss our editorial process but we made the entire interview available to all on our webcast, 60Minutes, Overtime, Where it has been for nine days.”
 
Dylan Byers contributed to this story.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70684.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1039 on: December 21, 2011, 10:13:19 AM »

On 'Constitutional Issues', a liberal Dean of a public law school took what I called selective outrage at the rhetoric coming out of the Republican side of the presidential debate, at one point declaring "I don't recall prominent candidates for presidential nominations — Democratic or Republican — ever talking in such tones."

What President would ever sit down the members of the Supreme Court of the United States and berate them over a decision he or she did not like in front of a formal Joint Session of Congress??

That hasn't happened ever? or at least not since ...  President Obama did it January 27, 2010 in his second State of the Union!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1PWQtCDaYY

American elections in effect turned over to foreign enemies by this Supreme Court, he said in so many words, to their face, in front of Congress, on national television broadcast worldwide.  Is that not calling the Court "anti-American" and "grotesquely dictatorial"?!  He received his instant gratification political reward for his slander - a standing ovation of what would appear to be all Democrats in the room.

Or as the Dean said about Gingrich and Santorum: "I don't recall prominent candidates for presidential nominations — Democratic or Republican — ever talking in such tones."
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1040 on: December 22, 2011, 10:07:00 AM »

Biden's gaffe's would have gotten him laughed out of the GOP debates.  In fact his inaccuracies debating Palin were unforgivable - and ignored.

The story of dropping has lingered beneath the newsprint for nearly four years waiting for someone notable to quote on it.  Doug Wilder is the former Gov of Virginia, Virginia's first African American Governor.  Harsh criticism with the ultimate penalty: drop him.  Besides the VP issue, Biden will not be a young man or electable in 2016, win or lose this year.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/20/fmr_dem_gov_doug_wilder_to_obama_drop_biden_from_2012_ticket.html

"You go back to the reasons that Joe Biden was put on the ticket in the very first instance. It was supposedly because he had the great experience. He had been there for years. He had been Foreign Relations chair. He had been chairman of the Judiciary and supposedly knew the workings of the Senate. Now, has that worked to the president's better interest or has it taken away from the president? And the gaffe is not just a question of will Joe Biden make a gaffe and incidentally I like him. Personally, I think he is a fine fellow," Former Gov. Douglas Wilder (D-VA) said on FOX News.

"But, Is he the person you want in place? You know, you always hear that thing. Suppose something would happen to the president, who would be in charge? The Vice President. Joe Biden? You have got to be kidding today when you say the Taliban's not our enemy," Wilder told Neal Cavuto.

"I fought in Korea, front line. I knew who the enemy were. The enemy were the people who were firing at me. And shooting at me. And so for some guy to come back and today, incidentally, to meet with the returning veterans and their families and I don't believe he would tell them 'Oh, look, the Taliban is not your enemy.' Just like they would have told us in Korea, 'Well, you know, the Chinese are not really your enemy, they're just helping out the North Koreans.' Get ahold of yourself, Joe," he said.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1041 on: December 23, 2011, 12:14:21 PM »

Blogs bash Obama's historic claim

 
The president’s claim didn’t air in the show’s Dec. 11 television broadcast but was included in the full interview video that CBS posted on its website that day.
 
The “60 Minutes Overtime” video shows Obama telling correspondent Steve Kroft:
 
“The issue here is not going be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history. But, you know, but when it comes to the economy, we’ve got a lot more work to do.”
 
NewsBusters pounced on the comments with a story under the headline: “60 Minutes broadcast edits out laughable Obama claim as 4th best president.”
 
“Eh! No big deal. Barack Obama is better…at least in his own mind. Such was the laughably absurd claim of President Obama on 60 Minutes last Sunday. What? You didn’t see it? That was because 60 Minutes conveniently left it out of its broadcast,” P.J. Gladnick wrote.
 
He continued, “So kneel, all you presidential peons, before the greatness that is Obama. His radiance shines so bright that it dazzled Steve Kroft to the extent that he didn’t even bother to ask an obvious follow-up question.”
 
Big Journalism headlined its story: “Selective Editing: CBS News Omits Embarrassing Obama Boast from TV Interview.”
 
And the Blaze’s Madeleine Morgenstern also berated the president’s remarks, writing that he “essentially declared himself the fourth best president in terms of his accomplishments.”
 

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 3981


« Reply #1042 on: December 23, 2011, 12:46:36 PM »

Consistent with his pathological narcisstic personality disorder.  That is why he is in the personality *disorder* class.  A lot of people are narcisstic but he is incapable of seeing it any other way and would be indignant at anyone else who doesn't see him in the same light.  "They are stupid, they are "inferior", they are "wrong", they ae "ignorant".

This guy has to be discarded into the waste bin of history in the next election.  Unfortunately there is no shortage of people happy to be bought off with other people's money who will go and vote for him.

In his eyes he will always be the ONE.   
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5828


« Reply #1043 on: December 27, 2011, 10:46:22 AM »

One of the Republicans landed a punch recently in the campaign about the attack on Christmas, and like clockwork the Obama family was off to church, first time in a long time, on what is typically a golf day.

In support of African American heritage, the Obamas are now honoring Kwanzaa this holiday season. Good grief.  My experience in the black inner city and with successful African Americans I know through sports, friendships and business is that the holiday most are celebrating this season is ... Christmas.  African Americans as a group are more religious and more likely Christian than the population as a whole.  (http://www.christianpost.com/news/african-americans-most-religiously-devout-group-36736/)

http://news.investors.com/Article/595902/201112261944/kwanzaa-barack-obama-michelle-obama.htm

The Obamas mark Kwanzaa in the spirit of umoja

"Michelle and I send our warmest wishes to all those celebrating Kwanzaa this holiday season.

Today marks the beginning of the week-long celebration honoring African American heritage and culture through the seven principles of Kwanzaa -- unity, self determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative economics, purpose, creativity, and faith.

We celebrate Kwanzaa at a time when many African Americans and all Americans reflect on our many blessings and memories over the past year and our aspirations for the year to come.

And even as there is much to be thankful for, we know that there are still too many Americans going through enormous challenges and trying to make ends meet. But we also know that in the spirit of unity, or Umoja, we can overcome those challenges together.

As families across America and around the world light the red, black, and green candles of the Kinara this week, our family sends our well wishes and blessings for a happy and healthy new year."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1044 on: December 27, 2011, 11:12:23 AM »

Working from memory here, but pretty sure I have it right:  Kwanza was "created" in 1966 by a black studies prof.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2145


« Reply #1045 on: December 27, 2011, 11:16:14 AM »

Kwanza is not religious based, so there is no contradiction in celebrating it and Christmas.  30 million people worldwide, in a report I read recently, observe Kwanza.  It is based on values, culture and family... something I would think we can agree is valuable. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1046 on: December 27, 2011, 11:22:55 AM »

A different impression than I have entirely;  I see it as a racialist-racist progressive creation celebrated for real by pretty much no one.  To mention it as an analog to or in some way comparable to Christmas or Hanukah irks me not a little.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2145


« Reply #1047 on: December 27, 2011, 11:29:17 AM »

I certainly meant no offense to you, Guro.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 30680


« Reply #1048 on: December 27, 2011, 11:36:59 AM »

Nor none taken!

It is just a pet peeve of mine to have my children come up from school with this progressive racist claptrap (I find the idea that blacks need "their own" holiday as racist) and my wife getting irked with me when I set them straight for fear that they will be portrayed as racist if they question it when they go back to school.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 11852


« Reply #1049 on: December 27, 2011, 12:06:39 PM »

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20535

Happy Kwanzaa

By: Paul Mulshine
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, December 26, 2002




On December 24, 1971, the New York Times ran one of the first of many articles on a new holiday designed to foster unity among African Americans. The holiday, called Kwanzaa, was applauded by a certain sixteen-year-old minister who explained that the feast would perform the valuable service of "de-whitizing" Christmas. The minister was a nobody at the time but he would later go on to become perhaps the premier race-baiter of the twentieth century. His name was Al Sharpton and he would later spawn the Tawana Brawley hoax and then incite anti-Jewish tensions in a 1995 incident that ended with the arson deaths of seven people.
 
Great minds think alike. The inventor of the holiday was one of the few black "leaders" in America even worse than Sharpton. But there was no mention in the Times article of this man or of the fact that at that very moment he was sitting in a California prison. And there was no mention of the curious fact that this purported benefactor of the black people had founded an organization that in its short history tortured and murdered blacks in ways of which the Ku Klux Klan could only fantasize.
 
It was in newspaper articles like that, repeated in papers all over the country, that the tradition of Kwanzaa began. It is a tradition not out of Africa but out of Orwell. Both history and language have been bent to serve a political goal. When that New York Times article appeared, Ron Karenga's crimes were still recent events. If the reporter had bothered to do any research into the background of the Kwanzaa founder, he might have learned about Karenga's trial earlier that year on charges of torturing two women who were members of US (United Slaves), a black nationalist cult he had founded.
 
A May 14, 1971, article in the Los Angeles Times described the testimony of one of them: "Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said."
 
Back then, it was relatively easy to get information on the trial. Now it's almost impossible. It took me two days' work to find articles about it. The Los Angeles Times seems to have been the only major newspaper that reported it and the stories were buried deep in the paper, which now is available only on microfilm. And the microfilm index doesn't start until 1972, so it is almost impossible to find the three small articles that cover Karenga's trial and conviction on charges of torture. That is fortunate for Karenga. The trial showed him to be not just brutal, but deranged. He and three members of his cult had tortured the women in an attempt to find some nonexistent "crystals" of poison. Karenga thought his enemies were out to get him.
 
And in another lucky break for Karenga, the trial transcript no longer exists. I filed a request for it with the Superior Court of Los Angeles. After a search, the court clerk could find no record of the trial. So the exact words of the black woman who had a hot soldering iron pressed against her face by the man who founded Kwanzaa are now lost to history. The only document the court clerk did find was particularly revealing, however. It was a transcript of Karenga's sentencing hearing on Sept. 17, 1971.
 
A key issue was whether Karenga was sane. Judge Arthur L. Alarcon read from a psychiatrist's report: "Since his admission here he has been isolated and has been exhibiting bizarre behavior, such as staring at the wall, talking to imaginary persons, claiming that he was attacked by dive-bombers and that his attorney was in the next cell. … During part of the interview he would look around as if reacting to hallucination and when the examiner walked away for a moment he began a conversation with a blanket located on his bed, stating that there was someone there and implying indirectly that the 'someone' was a woman imprisoned with him for some offense. This man now presents a picture which can be considered both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and elusions, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment."
 
The founder of Kwanzaa paranoid? It seems so. But as the old saying goes, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.
 
ACCORDING TO COURT DOCUMENTS, Karenga's real name is Ron N. Everett. In the '60s, he awarded himself the title "maulana," Swahili for "master teacher." He was born on a poultry farm in Maryland, the fourteenth child of a Baptist minister. He came to California in the late 1950s to attend Los Angeles Community College. He moved on to UCLA, where he got a Master's degree in political science and African Studies. By the mid-1960s, he had established himself as a leading "cultural nationalist." That is a term that had some meaning in the '60s, mainly as a way of distinguishing Karenga's followers from the Black Panthers, who were conventional Marxists.
 
Another way of distinguishing might be to think of Karenga's gang as the Crips and the Panthers as the bloods. Despite all their rhetoric about white people, they reserved their most vicious violence for each other. In 1969, the two groups squared off over the question of who would control the new Afro-American Studies Center at UCLA. According to a Los Angeles Times article, Karenga and his adherents backed one candidate, the Panthers another. Both groups took to carrying guns on campus, a situation that, remarkably, did not seem to bother the university administration. The Black Student Union, however, set up a coalition to try and bring peace between the Panthers and the group headed by the man whom the Times labeled "Ron Ndabezitha Everett-Karenga."
 
On Jan. 17, 1969, about 150 students gathered in a lunchroom to discuss the situation. Two Panthers—admitted to UCLA like many of the black students as part of a federal program that put high-school dropouts into the school—apparently spent a good part of the meeting in verbal attacks against Karenga. This did not sit well with Karenga's followers, many of whom had adopted the look of their leader, pseudo-African clothing and a shaved head.
 
In modern gang parlance, you might say Karenga was "dissed" by John Jerome Huggins, 23, and Alprentice "Bunchy" Carter, 26. After the meeting, the two Panthers were met in the hallway by two brothers who were members of US, George P. and Larry Joseph Stiner. The Stiners pulled pistols and shot the two Panthers dead. One of the Stiners took a bullet in the shoulder, apparently from a Panther's gun.
 
There were other beatings and shooting in Los Angeles involving US, but by then the tradition of African nationalism had already taken hold—among whites. That tradition calls for any white person, whether a journalist, a college official, or a politician, to ignore the obvious flaws of the concept that blacks should have a separate culture. "The students here have handled themselves in an absolutely impeccable manner," UCLA chancellor Charles E. Young told the L.A. Times. "They have been concerned. They haven't argued who the director should be; they have been saying what kind of person he should be." Young made those remarks after the shooting. And the university went ahead with its Afro-American Studies Program. Karenga, meanwhile, continued to build and strengthen US, a unique group that seems to have combined the elements of a street gang with those of a California cult. The members performed assaults and robberies but they also strictly followed the rules laid down in The Quotable Karenga, a book that laid out "The Path of Blackness." "The sevenfold path of blackness is think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black," the book states.
 
In retrospect, it may be fortunate that the cult fell apart over the torture charges. Left to his own devices, Karenga might have orchestrated the type of mass suicide later pioneered by the People's Temple and copied by the Heaven's Gate cult. Instead, he apparently fell into deep paranoia shortly after the killings at UCLA. He began fearing that his followers were trying to have him killed. On May 9, 1970 he initiated the torture session that led to his imprisonment. Karenga himself will not comment on that incident and the victims cannot be located, so the sole remaining account is in the brief passage from the L.A. Times describing tortures inflicted by Karenga and his fellow defendants, Louis Smith and Luz Maria Tamayo:
 
"The victims said they were living at Karenga's home when Karenga accused them of trying to kill him by placing 'crystals' in his food and water and in various areas of his house. When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in Miss Davis' mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of Miss Jones' toes was placed in a small vise which then allegedly was tightened by one of the defendants. The following day Karenga allegedly told the women that 'Vietnamese torture is nothing compared to what I know.' Miss Tamayo reportedly put detergent in their mouths, Smith turned a water hose full force on their faces, and Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them."
 
Karenga was convicted of two counts of felonious assault and one count of false imprisonment. He was sentenced on Sept. 17, 1971, to serve one to ten years in prison. A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day. That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga's unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa.
 
LOOK AT ANY MAP OF THE WORLD and you will see that Ghana and Kenya are on opposite sides of the continent. This brings up an obvious question about Kwanzaa: Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast? American blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania—where Swahili is spoken—are several thousand miles away, about as far from Ghana as Los Angeles is from New York. Yet in celebrating Kwanzaa, African-Americans are supposed to employ a vocabulary of such Swahili words as "kujichagulia" and "kuumba." This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day by speaking Polish. One possible explanation is that Karenga was simply ignorant of African geography and history when he came up with Kwanzaa in 1966. That might explain why he would schedule a harvest festival near the solstice, a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere. But a better explanation is that he simply has contempt for black people.
 
That does not seem a farfetched hypothesis. Despite all his rhetoric about white racism, I could find no record that he or his followers ever raised a hand in anger against a white person. In fact, Karenga had an excellent relationship with Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty in the '60s and also met with then-Governor Ronald Reagan and other white politicians. But he and his gang were hell on blacks. And Karenga certainly seems to have had a low opinion of his fellow African-Americans. "People think it's African, but it's not," he said about his holiday in an interview quoted in the Washington Post. "I came up with Kwanzaa because black people in this country wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of bloods would be partying." "Bloods" is a '60s California slang term for black people.
 
That Post article appeared in 1978. Like other news articles from that era, it makes no mention of Karenga's criminal past, which seems to have been forgotten the minute he got out of prison in 1975. Profiting from the absence of memory, he remade himself as Maulana Ron Karenga, went into academics, and by 1979 he was running the Black Studies Department at California State University in Long Beach.
 
This raises a question: Karenga had just ten years earlier proven himself capable of employing guns and bullets in his efforts to control hiring in the Black Studies Department at UCLA. So how did this ex-con, fresh out jail, get the job at Long Beach? Did he just send a résumé and wait by the phone? The officials at Long Beach State don't like that type of question. I called the university and got a spokeswoman by the name of Toni Barone. She listened to my questions and put me on hold. Christmas music was playing, a nice touch under the circumstances. She told me to fax her my questions. I sent a list of questions that included the matter of whether Karenga had employed threats to get his job. I also asked just what sort of crimes would preclude a person from serving on the faculty there in Long Beach. And whether the university takes any security measures to ensure that Karenga doesn't shoot any students. Barone faxed me back a reply stating that the university is pleased with Karenga's performance and has no record of the procedures that led to his hiring. She ignored the question about how they protect students.
 
Actually, there is clear evidence that Karenga has reformed. In 1975, he dropped his cultural nationalist views and converted to Marxism. For anyone else, this would have been seen as an endorsement of radicalism, but for Karenga it was considered a sign that he had moderated his outlook. The ultimate irony is that now that Karenga is a Marxist, the capitalists have taken over his holiday. The seven principles of Kwanzaa include "collective work" and "cooperative economics," but Kwanzaa is turning out to be as commercial as Christmas, generating millions in greeting-card sales alone. The purists are whining. "It's clear that a number of major corporations have started to take notice and try to profit from Kwanzaa," said a San Francisco State black studies professor named "Oba T'Shaka" in one news account. "That's not good, with money comes corruption." No, he's wrong. With money comes kitsch. The L.A. Times reported a group was planning an "African Village Faire," the pseudo-archaic spelling of "faire" nicely combining kitsch Africana with kitsch Americana.
 
With money also comes forgetfulness. As those warm Kwanzaa feelings are generated in a spirit of holiday cheer, those who celebrate this holiday do so in blissful ignorance of the sordid violence, paranoia, and mayhem that helped generate its birth some three decades ago in a section of America that has vanished down the memory hole.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 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!