An inscrutable phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama’s “spiritual mentor”; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama’s colleague and political sponsor.  It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass — held to a lower standard — because of the color of his skin.  Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) “non-threatening,” all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon — affirmative action.  Not in the legal sense, of course.  But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back.  Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.  Liberals don’t care if these minority students fail; liberals aren’t around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.  Yes, racist.  Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin — that’s affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn’t racism, then nothing is.  And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.  What could this breed if not the sort of empty  narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama’s oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.  Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed.  The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that’s when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.  Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — it’s all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character?  Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.  Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.  It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.  But really, what were we to expect?  The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.  When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while.  And really, isn’t that all that matters these days?

See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events

Update:

Author’s Note.  A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action.  Three reasons:

1)  As reported by The New York Sun: ”A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors…”  In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law.  Why?

2)  Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man.  As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:

“‘Obama’s book ‘Dreams from My Father,’….the president recalled a time in his life…when he started to drift away from the path of success. ’I had learned not to care,’ Obama wrote. ‘… Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.’ But his mother confronted him about his behavior. ’Don’t you think you’re being a little casual about your future?” she asked him, according to the book. ‘… One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven’t even started on your college applications.’”

3)  Most damning to me is the president’s unwillingness to make his transcripts public.  If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance?  To me it all adds up to affirmative action.

Mattpattersonline.com
Source: American Thinker

Related posts:

1. Obama: star and idol of the far left
2. Rush Limbaugh: Thank You Mr. President
3. Will Obama Dismantle America Before She Wakes Up?

What fight? Constitutional conservatives must join the fight now to unseat President Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. or his Democrat replacement.

I was hoping against hope Obama would win

During the last presidential election I was hoping against hope Obama would win. Yes, I was a constitutional-conservative Republican then, as I am now, and have been since soon after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As soon as it dawned on me that Lyndon Johnson would assume the presidency, I knew I could no longer be a Democrat.

The first and last time I voted for a Democrat

That election, which saw John F. Kennedy become our nation’s president, was the first election I was old enough to vote in and the last in which I voted for a Democrat. I was unable to vote in the last election; the one in which an unknown nobody, Barack Hussein Obama, become our president. The reason I was unable to vote is that I was living in the Philippines at the time and, even though I was properly registered in Orange County California as a Republican and had requested an absentee ballot in a timely manner, I did not receive a ballot for that election. And, no, it was not for lack of a good mailing address.

I used to think Georgia and some of the other states in the South—I was born and raised the South—were the best at working bureaucratic miracles. Not so. But that is a story for another time. Putting the best of all faces on the reason I did not receive an absentee ballot to vote in the last presidential election would be to say it was a California-style, bureaucratic miracle.

They took my right to vote away

In a way, I am glad someone in the Orange County election commission office saw fit not to send me a ballot for that election, because I fear I would have vote for McCain, even though I was sure that if he were elected, that would be the end of the Republican and, hence, conservative chances for national or state public office for many years to come, if not forever.

Looking back to that election and beyond, I am not so sure anymore that I want to see another Republican elected to public office.

Bill “I didn’t have sex with the girl” Clinton was the most conservative since Ronald Reagan

As disturbing and distasteful as the thought is, I believe Bill “I didn’t have sex with the girl” Clinton was the most conservative president we have had since Ronald Reagan, the all-time greatest constitutional-conservative Republican, and second greatest president ever, was in office. To simply call the other two Republicans, George “Read my lips” H. W. Bush and George “Dubya” W. Bush, economic liberals is to stretch the credulity to the breaking point. Ole “Read my lips” was an economic liberal, his son, “Dubya,” was an economic ultraliberal, and I don’t recall either of them vetoing many of the spending bills that came to their desks. Neither man cared much for constitutional niceties either, plus they were both entitlement enthusiasts. Put together, they gave us 12-years of economic liberal hell.

McCain would have been worse than the Bushes

No, the Bushes, as likeable, patriotic, and just in many of their decisions, as they were, they were not by any stretch constitutional conservatives. Sorry to say, I voted for both of them, because I saw them as the lesser of two evils.

Could John McCain be any worse than either of the Bushes? The answer is: yes. John McCain suffers from some of the same diseases that afflicts liberals. While he appears to be a cultural conservative, he appears insipid and a namby-pamby in the face of hard political and economic decisions and, like the Bushes, he is an F.D.R. New Deal-style spendthrift. And, to my knowledge, he, like Obama, has never run even the smallest business or had a job in the private sector.

Still Namby-Pamby McCain was and is a patriot

In his favor I will say John McCain service to his country as a naval aviator during the Vietnam War does recommend him and he certainly deserves our everlasting gratitude. His military service and heroism shows that at one time the man had a fire burning in his belly, but time has all but smothered that fire. Still, military service, of however much heroism, does not a president make, much less a constitutional-conservative president.

All of his experiences brought John McCain to a point in life that, had he been elected president, he might well have destroyed the Republican Party as the party of political conservatism.

We must stand up for what is right; we must join the fight now!

So where does that put us today? As I see it, unless the old guard Republicans in the House and Senate bow to the reality of the truths it has been shown by the modern-day Tea Party, the Republican Party will not win the coming presidential election. To counter that possibility, constitutional conservatives in the House and Senate must join with the Tea Party in supporting a common presidential candidate. Otherwise Obama will get his chance to finish bringing about the revolution his mentors: his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.; Saul Alinsky, the community organizer, author of Rules for Radicals; and Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s United Church of Christ pastor for 12-years; and his other Marxist-socialists associates like Van Jones, the avowed communist; and Bill Ayers, the radical of the Weather Underground Organization faction of the Students for a Democratic Society, and professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education, have been working to bring to fruition for many years.

The time is now to join the fight for freedom and the American way

It is time. Let us join the fight now: today. We must elect a true constitutional-conservative, God-fearing president this time around, as this may be our last chance to save our God-given inalienable rights, our freedom, and the American way.

Agree or disagree?

Please favor the rest of us with your considered thoughts on this matter in comments.

Related articles

• Ed Harris Cast As John McCain In ‘Game Change’ (huffingtonpost.com)
• National Journal: McCain Tops List of Most Conservative Senators (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
• McCain: U.S. should continue active role in Libya (thehill.com)
• So this is John McCain’s reward (salon.com)

Related posts:

1. The Right Change
2. Healthcare Bill Roll-Call Vote List

If you think Obama is destroying America, you have a lot of company

It is no longer a question of whether Obama is destroying the greatest nation the world has ever known. It has become abundantly clear that, since he has been our chief executive, he has been destroying everything America is and believes in; viz., her economy, her faith, her heritage, her culture, and her future.

Here is the question: is President Obama destroying America on purpose

I suspect he is, but I remain uncertain. Here is why. On the face of it, there are only two possibilities: either Obama is deliberately destroying America or he is a true believer in liberal progressivism. As many times as it has been discredited, to be a true believer in liberal progressivism, he would have to be a stupid fool to continue being a true believer. I think he is not stupid or a fool, so what is the answer?

I am convinced that, like Adlai Stevenson was many years ago, Mr. Obama is a very intelligent fellow.

I am not sure many of you remember Mr. Stevenson. Adlai Ewing Stevenson II (February 5, 1900 – July 14, 1965) was a politician, known for his intellectual manner, oratorical eloquence, and promotion of liberal causes of the Democrat Party. He served as the 31st Governor of Illinois. He was the Democrat Party’s presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956. He lost both those races to Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower.

While he was an eloquent orator, he was not a good extemporaneous speaker. When he spoke extemporaneously he hemmed and hawed constantly. I believe this hemming and hawing was the result of his acute intelligence, which would shower him with so many possibilities of how to deliver a given thought, as he was trying to do just that, that he was forced constantly to sift through them to find just the right words to precisely express the thought he wished to deliver.

Do you see the resemblance between Adlai Stevenson and Barack Obama? I do, I see them as very much alike.

I have been amaze over the years how often highly intelligent people arrive at very stupid conclusions. I think that may be what has lead Obama to so many absurd conclusions. His intelligence certainly lead Mr. Stevenson to many absurd conclusion.

President Obama is destroying America

My ‘Top 10 List’ of how the Obama is destroying America by over spending and under performing:

1. Debt, debt, and more debt. Unprecedented budget deficits into the foreseeable future.
2. European socialist-style spending. Spending like crazy across the board.
3. Spend, spend, spend. Billion for high-speed rail. Why? What is the ROI for the taxpayer.
4. Freezing past spending in place. Having presided over  vastly increased discretionary spending, he now wants to freeze those increases in place. This on top of the staggering discretionary spending increases of George Dubya.
5. Expanding government. He is expanding our federal government at an unprecedented pace.
6. More and higher taxes. Obama proposes $1.6 trillion in new taxes on families and businesses during the coming decade.
7. No entitlements will be reformed. Really? This despite the fact Social Security and Medicare are forecast to permanently be in the red.
8. Fake defense budget cuts. Some tiny Pentagon budget cuts actually amount to a small defense spending increases.
9. Rosy assumptions. ‘Nuff said.   Obama anticipates overly high economic growth and jobless rate.
10. Obamacare will need more money. Includes money to implement an alphabet soup of healthcare related changes and increases.

I have attenuated this list and its explanations as much as possible. Still, I think there is enough to enable you to see that President Obama is bent on destroying America as an economic powerhouse to bring us to our knees and ready us for the next step in establishing a socialist and, indeed, finally a communist America made up of 50 soviets rather than 50 sovereign states.

The other aspects of the character of the United States of America: her faith, her heritage, her culture, and her future, have been addressed and will be addressed over and over again as the fight continues to make Obama a one-term president.

Agree or disagree?

Please favor the rest of us with your considered thoughts on this matter in comments.

Related articles

• Medved: Stop Saying That Obama Wants to Destroy America (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Obama, RINOs, and the Media are Destroying America (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• OBAMA TO THE NEXT GENERATION: SCREW YOU, SUCKERS! Hard to argue with this take, but I’m surprised … (pajamasmedia.com)

Related posts:

1. Will Obama Dismantle America Before She Wakes Up?
2. Will the United States of America Become a Socialist Country in 2010?
3. November election results will vindicate or undercut Obama

First, About the Picture

The picture you see here depicts the way liberals, and especially liberal politicians, see the future. You can see from where the guy’s head is why liberals are forever telling us the future looks foreboding and there is no way we can survive it unless we elect them to save us from ourselves. If you stuck your head where his is, your view of the future would be pretty foreboding, too.

Perhaps you remember President Jimmie Carter and how he was convinced that we were in imminent danger of running out of  petroleum in a few short years. He was so sure that he made the 55 mph highway speed limit mandatory for states receiving federal highway funds. He also strongly suggested that we turn off the lights in our dwellings and turn down our thermostats at night to 55 F. To set an example he did as much at the White House. The man did everything he could to make us realize the future we faced was indeed foreboding. Just like the Global Warming scare promoted by VP Al Gore–the same man who also claimed to have invented the internet–Jimmie Carter’s dire predictions about the fast disappearing supply of petroleum were made without the benefit of any scientific evidence whatsoever.

And so the liberal beat goes on. Elect liberals, they say, or suffer the consequences. Truth is, the pleasant consequences of not electing liberals beats the heck out of suffering the mind-numbing consequences of electing them.

Jimmie was bad but Obama goes him one better.

Yeah, the Pack is Back and God is in His Heaven, But All is Not Well

Yes, the Pack is back and that is good as far as I am concerned. I have been a fan of the Green Bay Packers since before the advent of Vince Lombardi and the tremendous changes he wrought in the losing ways of the Packers.

It Only Takes One Obama to Ruin a Perfect Vision

Obama gives every appearance of being  intent on doing exactly the opposite for America of what Coach Vince Lombardi did for the Green Bay Packers. Why? I fear we may not get to the bottom of that question for sometime to come.  I, for one, certainly do not pretend to know the answer.

How did such a mystery man ever become our president?

Why is Obama our president? Does anyone know what all the people who voted for him were thinking when they elected Barack Obama as our president? If anyone thinks about it, which apparently no body did back then, the man’s only experience in government was as a community organizer for a thoroughly discredited, gangster-style organization called ACORN, eight years in the Illinois legislature, plus a few months as a U.S. Senator. Other than those credentials—most of which are highly suspect—he was without credentials. In his time as an Illinois Senator, he frequently chose not to take responsibility for his office by voting present. And as far as business experience is concerned, he had none whatsoever. Like someone once said, he never so much as ran a Kool-Aid stand on the side of the road, yet now  he is running the greatest and strongest nation on earth. How did that come to be? There are many answers to that question; too many to be looked at in this short article.

Not having any experience as political or business leader, all Obama had to fall back on when he became president were his unbridled ego; his elongated academic studies at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Columbia University in New York City, and Harvard Law School in Boston; and what he learned from his mentors and the books he read. We know from his actions and his thoughts, as expressed in the two versions of his published autobiography, that he learned a lot from his mentors and the books he read by choice. As for his academic studies, not only do they not help qualify him to be our president, experience would seem to indicate that academics are dimwits when it comes to navigating life’s twists and turns.

Verdict: The man is not qualified and any reporter worth his salt should have dug into Obama’s past and made those discoveries prior to his being nominated, much less elected president of the strongest and most influential nation the world has ever known. Let’s hope America still holds those titles when we defeat Obama in the coming presidential election. Woe be unto us if we fail.

We must redouble our efforts and make sure we not only defeat him, but that we have a constitutional conservative majority in all parts of the U.S. government in 2012.

Agree or disagree?

Let us know in comments. Be a patriot. Step up and  make your considered thoughts on the subject known. That will be a favor to all of us.

Related articles

• The Mystery of Barack Obama Continues (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Biographic Sketch of Barrack Hussein Obama (socyberty.com)
• “Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama; a matter of life and death” and related posts (bsimmons.wordpress.com)
• You: Just another day for Obama’s favorite professor (latimes.com)
• Vince Lombardi: Somewhere the Man Dressed in Hat and Overcoat is Smiling (bleacherreport.com)

No related posts.

The tragedy in Tucson that Saturday morning.

I have chosen to wait until now before weighing in on the massacre by Jared Lee Loughner of six innocent people last Saturday morning. He committed this massacre while trying to murder Rep. Gabrielle Giffords during her Congress On Your Corner meeting in the parking lot of a little mall in Tucson, Arizona. I think I have heard and seen enough now. This is how I see it.

Who caused it?

The leftist journalists: reporters and commentators: online, on air, and in print, would have you believe that it was all the fault of the rightist media. They were responsible for Mr. Loughner’s  massacring and wounding all those people  in Tucson that Saturday morning. The right, they would say, was both the “who caused it” and the “what caused it”;  linked together, as it were,  like the two horns on the head of a bull.

Jon Stewart, intelligent fellow that he is, disagreed with his brethren on the left.

So help me, the only vilification I heard after Saturday’s massacre came from commentators on the left who directed their comments at their counterparts on the right. Not a good show, that.

A nice departure from all that vitriol from the left was that by Jon Stewart, who thought all that vitriol a bad idea. That verifies what I have always thought about him. Jon Stewart is an intelligent man; wrong politically much of the time, maybe, but intelligent still.

What caused it?

As I said above, according to the leftist hate-mongers, it was the commentators on the right: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilley, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, and the rest of the Fox News crew and their contributors that stirred the anger of the people to a feverish pitch. Perhaps no other contributor on Fox News gets the dander of the left up more than does Sarah Palin, with her all-American frontier, plain-spoken style, and down-to-earth ways, and Christian view of life.

In the end though, Jared Lee Loughner was the real killer, and he alone is guilty of the massacre at Tucson. He alone pulled the trigger on all those innocent people.

The president said it well later in his well-written speech in Tucson

It is seldom I find a reason to praise President Obama, but this is one of those times. The president laid it out very well in his speech when he said it wasn’t political hate-speech that caused Jared Loughner to kill all those people while trying to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. During that speech was the first time I had ever felt Mr. Obama acted like the  president of all the American people.

I understand Mr. Obama was taken aback when the memorial service turned into more of a political rally than a memorial service.

Arizona's Chief Justice, U.S. District Judge John Roll also a massacre victim last Saturday.

It wasn’t Mr. Obama’s fault when the crowd began to look at the one-liners in his speech as if they were being uttered at a combined memorial for living heroes, and a political or high school pep rally. Once he saw what was happening, I think he would have done well had he held up his hand and simply said something like “Please,” or “Enough.” That would have stopped the rah-rah applause.

It is hard to blame the president for not doing that though. I will just stick with my thought that Mr. Obama was very presidential and the president of all Americans that night and I give him kudos for that.

And, mind you, the heroes of that shooting are to be lauded, but during that memorial for the reposed was not the time to do it. It was supposed to be a memorial service for the reposed, not the living. That all reminded me of the Sen. Paul Wellstone memorial that happened during the Bill Clinton era. It became an all out political pep rally, instead of a memorial service for Mr. Wellstone.

The memorial service for the reposed of the Tucson massacre was a secular statist event.

One other curious thing comes to mind about the memorial service in Tucson. It is of particular note that not one of the Christian or Jewish ministers of God for any of the reposed were allowed to read the Holy Scriptures or to speak a few words memorializing any of them. How sad. The reposed were simply forgotten, for the most part, during that service. The attendees showed that was the case  by their reactions to the various speakers.

Zach Osler on who Jared Lee Loughner is and what motivates him.

Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, said in an interview with ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield of the Good Morning America show that his friend wasn’t shooting at people. He said “[Loughner] was shooting at the world.” He also said Loughner did not listen to the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, he didn’t even watch the news; in fact, he did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right. Something I found interesting was that Mr. Olser said the website Zikegist added fuel to the fire for the hatred that exuded from Loughner in such abundance.

Did this website set Loughner off during the days preceding his action that fateful Saturday?

The closest thing to a website by a name resembling Zikegist that I could find was one called The Zeitgeist Movement. I think that probably is the website Mr. Olser had in mind. It appears to be composed of a political mishmash of hate and dislike for all kinds of things political and economic.

the mugshot of the murderer, Jared Loughnepolitical mishmash of hate and dislike for all kinds of things political and economic.

Loughner’s politics and motive for the massacre were his inborn madness.

Zack Olser told us what made Jared Loughner gun down all those people in the process of trying to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He said Loughner’s politics and his motive for the shooting were based entirely on the madness that gripped Loughner’s mind. Thankfully, Mr. Osler’s words helped to cleared the air of guilt the hate-mongering of left had been engendering toward the right.

Ban Guns? Is that the cure for such atrocious acts?

Surprise, surprise, I noticed the ban-the-guns crowd immediately jumped that bandwagon as the answer to how to stop such violent acts from occurring in the future. Well, guns are inanimate objects,  and as such, they can do only what a human or some other animate entity makes them do. If we were going to ban guns to stop such violent acts from occurring, we should also want to ban other implements that could be used to same purpose. Unfortunately, were we to carry that idea to its logical conclusion, we would have to start eating with our fingers, since table knives and forks can kill just as decisively as do guns.

No. Banning guns, large capacity clips,  and so-called assault weapons, will do nothing to stop people from killing other people. We need to keep our guns for various reasons, including self-protection. One of the entities we need protection from could be our own government some day, if and when the statist have their way and make America a truly socialist country run by a communist dictatorship of, by, and for the governors.

Now let us pray for the departed whom Jared Loughner wantonly slaughtered and maimed in the Tucson Massacre.

May God give rest to the souls of the recently reposed faithful who were massacred in Tucson. May He give them rest where the righteous repose: in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sighing and sorrow have fled away. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Let us pray for those whom Jared Loughner maimed that fateful morning, starting  with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. May God give all of them a good and full recovery, and the grace to live a good and useful life for their benefit and for that of their fellowman for the rest of their days until they “have shuffled off this mortal coil.”¹ Amen.

Related articles

• Neighbor: Alleged Shooter’s Parents Devastated (huffingtonpost.com)
• Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is communicating with family, doctors say (nj.com)
• Murdered Vegas Dancer’s Sister Curses Suspect (foxnews.com)
• Ex-girlfriend says Tucson shooting suspect changed (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

No related posts.

I am back! I was away for a while, but now it’s time to get started for the coming elections and on into the future.

~~~   ~~~   ~~~

They turned Obama into a star and an idol of the far left

Yessiree, the left and the far left, a.k.a., the Democrat Party, built Obama up and turned him into a star and an idol of the far left, and finally they got him elected to President of these United States.

Never mind that the man had never held a job or that he the most he ever made of himself was a simple community organizer in association with a criminal organization called ACORN. Never mind all of that. The folks in Chicago and the rest of Illinois wanted him. He looked tolerably well to both blacks and whites, and he spoke well enough to sound convincing to them when he promised the moon and the stars free of charge to the downtrodden masses.

Obama’s political family tree and training

The people who appear to have been most instrumental in Obama’s political training where his radical Moslem father, as outlined in Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance , and the teachings of the radical communist Saul Alinsky, a noted community organizer, and author of Obama’s bible, Rules for Radicals.

Another person who had a long-term and very strong influence on Obama was that paragon of Christian tolerance and forgiveness—even of all the mean “white men” who made blacks fail at (you name it)—his beloved pastor and mentor in life, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s south side.

There were others who influenced Obama’s thinking. A standout among them was Van Jones, a communist revolutionary. Don’t know who he is? You should find out who he is. He is a very scary man. His book, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems , will give you a good dose of his thinking. Next comes another dose of Van Jones and STORM. Now take a look at this on Van Jones and STORM, and finally, Glenn Beck’s Van Jones Battle.  That should be enough to stoke the fire in your belly.

After taking look at the sources I have outlined here, you will certainly have a better idea of Obama’s political family tree and of who he is now. There is a lot to loath about the man’s background and training.

The man remains a committed communist

Over the next few weeks and months, you may see Obama make a swing toward the right. Don’t be fooled by this rightward drift. He is and will remain a committed communist soldier, dedicated to the overthrow of the America we love and all of her exceptional ideals and strengths.

We are a Christian nation founded by Christians

We are a Christian nation founded by Christians, who believed (Yes, a few of them were deists but they, too, believed) that Christian morality was the genesis of all the good they had to offer us.  Obama hates that idea. To him Moslems are just as good, if not better, than are Christians.

The basis of my belief system

Allow me to take just moment to tell you the basis of my belief system concerning the things most important to a well-lived life in Christ.

My outlook in the world is strongly influenced by my belief in traditional Orthodox Catholic Church and the traditional One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. My political belief system is rooted in the political beliefs of the founding fathers and the constitutional conservative, federal, representative republic they gave us.

The overall premise of this blog is based on securing our God-given “unalienable Rights” . . . “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” against tyranny. The tyranny foremost in the minds of the founding fathers was that we should protect ourselves against was the tyranny of the majority. The U.S. Senate is the house of the legislative branch of our government most charged with protecting us from the tyranny of the majority.

Our people are the freest of the free

Our people are still the freest people of any nation on the planet earth; citizens of the freest nation in the history of man. We can become a far freer nation, like the nation we once were, if we will but muster the strength of character needed to return to the first principles of our very own Constitution of the United States, as interpreted in light of our Declaration of Independence and the many other writings of our founders. Obama loathes everything thought I have just written and will fight with all he’s got to avoid such a return to national sanity.

Every good thing—and there is a world of good things—about our America is exceptional in this world of nation states. Obama hates the concept of American exceptionalism. He has profited by it but he hates it still and will not admit it is reality in this surreal world we Christians are sojourning in for a time.

We are and must remain world that shining city upon a hill for the sake of the world

We are far from perfect neighbors to the world’s downtrodden, but we remain that shining city upon a hill to the world that Ronald Reagan spoke so eloquently of in his famous, The Shining City Upon A Hill speech,

Pope Pius XII, 'Pastor Angelicus'

delivered on January 25, 1974, as the clouds were gathering on the presidency of Richard Millhouse Nixon. Here it is in his words, “Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, ‘We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.’ Well, we have not dealt falsely with our God, even if He is temporarily suspended from the classroom.”

The last words of that speech are also apropos what I am writing about here. He ended that speech, saying: “We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago.… In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, ‘The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.’”

Obama hates to be reminded of the ideals expressed in that speech, just as he hates the idea that we are in anyway special in the eyes of the less free in the world. He hates it so bad that he cannot allow an opportunity go by to bow and scrape, and apologize as the president of America before our atheistic Moslem and other enemies¹ everywhere of freedom. And a big part of his plan for bringing us to see ourselves as he sees us, he is working day and night to break us economically, so he can bend us to his will. That is the kind of egomaniacal, perfidious bastard we have elected as our president. Shame on us.

Obama is a frightening character

Yip, Obama is a frightening character. I wonder that he fooled so many of us. It just goes to show how our turn from the ancient Christian way, plus the continuing slide of our educational system have affected i

We must repent of our hedonism and idolatry and work, as did our forefathers before us, to keep our light shining for all who seek freedom from tyranny.

We will find out, just as the Jews of the Old Testament found out, that if we continue down this road of throwing God out of our lives, we will be disinherited by Him until and unless we relent and repent of our hedonism and idolatry. I am confident that we will make the right choice, the choice to turn back to our Christian God and to the wisdom of the founders of our country in giving us a federalist system with a democratically elected representative government for our republic. I am a strong believer in the wisdom of the people of our nation, despite their many failings to this point in time. In a manner of speaking, this allowing of all those failures is a testament to the openness of our freedom-loving people; a people, who in the end always choose the best course, when they follow the dictates of our heavenly king, Jesus, the Christ—the anointed Son of God.

Related articles

• Van Jones Uses Washing Univ. Police Force to Squash Dissent of Citizen Journalists (pumabydesign001.wordpress.com)
• Saturday Movie Matinee (nicedeb.wordpress.com)
• Van Jones resigns amid controversy (politico.com)

Related posts:

1. Will Obama Dismantle America Before She Wakes Up?
2. Pres. Obama wants Elective Surgery on Health Care
3. Obama Courts Latinos by Suing Arizona

By George F. Will

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Promoting his new book, Jimmy Carter , whose version of Christianity allows ample scope for what some Christians consider the sin of pride, has been doing something at which he has had long practice — praising himself. He is, he says, “probably superior” to all other ex-presidents, and would have enacted comprehensive health care if a selfish Ted Kennedy had not sabotaged his plan.

Actually, one reason Carter, who promised to deliver government “as good as the American people,” lost 44 states in his 1980 reelection bid was that voters believed he considered himself too good for them. And they thought he did not know them — that he was disconnected from the way most people thought and felt.

Eight years later, another Democratic presidential candidate had a comparable problem. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis had vetoed a bill that would have required public schoolteachers to lead their classes in the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps the bill was constitutionally problematic. But a presidential campaign is not a law seminar. Dukakis’s incomprehension of American political culture outside of Massachusetts was apparent when, responding to Republican insinuations about his patriotism, he said dismissively that “every first-year law student” studies flag-salute cases that vindicate his position.

Today, Barack Obama, a chronic campaigner, is out and about trying to arouse the masses against the inequity of not raising taxes on “the rich.” He opposes extending the Bush tax rates—they are due to expire Dec. 31, when a higher rate is restored — for “millionaires and billionaires.”

And for quarter-millionaires. Expiration would mean an increase for households with incomes of at least $250,000. Obama’s $750,000 fudge sweeps many people into the plutocracy. In Obama’s Chicago, a high school principal can earn $148,000. A police officer with 25 years on the force can earn $114,000 — not counting overtime. If the principal and the officer are married, supposedly they are rich.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said that the rich begin at $150,000. If so, both the principal and the police officer are perilously close to becoming targets of liberal redistributionists.

The damage that has been done to the Democratic brand in just 20 months has encouraged comparisons of Obama to Carter, who seemed miniaturized by the presidency, and to Dukakis, who seemed mystified that Massachusetts’s political culture was not the national norm. There also is, however, an Obama resemblance to Lyndon Johnson.

Obama became president knowing next to nothing about Washington. Johnson began his career as a congressional staffer and spent almost all of his pre-presidential adulthood in Washington. But there is this similarity between them: overreaching.

Obama’s overreaching is testimony to what 44 years can do to a party’s memory. It has forgotten the 1966 elections, which cost Democrats three Senate and 47 House seats, abruptly terminating two years of liberal happiness that had followed 28 fallow years.

In 1938, five years into the New Deal, the public was weary of Washington’s hyperkinesis. Voters recoiled against FDR’s attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court by enlarging it, and his related attempt to purge conservative Democrats from Congress. After 1938, Republicans and conservative Democrats prevented a durable liberal legislative majority. Until the 1964 anti-Goldwater landslide.

Johnson carried 44 states, Democrats gained two Senate and 38 House seats, and hyperkinesis returned in the form of the Great Society agenda. Since 1966, liberal overreaching has been difficult. After November, it will be impossible, for many years. For Obama, the worst result next month might be for Democrats to retain control of both houses of Congress. If they do, their majorities will be paralyzingly small. And their remaining moderates will be more resistant to the liberal leadership: The moderates will have survived not because of, but in spite of, those leaders.

Today, if you see Obama in a political ad, you are almost certainly watching a Republican ad. And a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that more than twice as many people view House Speaker Nancy Pelosi negatively (50 percent) than positively (22 percent).

If Democrats retain control of Congress, Obama will seek reelection while being perceived as responsible for everything in Washington, where everything is perceived to be dysfunctional. And anti-Washington fever may be worse than it is today, because the 2010 elections will not seem to have changed very much.

If Democrats lose both houses, Obama will seem repudiated. If they lose neither, he will seem impotent. So, if Democrats lose big, he loses big. If they lose smaller, he loses bigger.

Source: Washington Post

Related articles

• Obama Gets Political Advice, From Mike Dukakis (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Obama Gets Advice From Another Proven Winner (michellemalkin.com)
• Old, Unelectable Democrats Have Lots of Advice for Barack Obama (newsweek.com)
• The Conservative Tide (powerlineblog.com)
• Dukakis’s directions – Globe: Ex-candidate advised W.H. (politico.com)
• Few Dems eager to campaign with Obama (sfgate.com)
• Good News: Dukakis Advising Democrats (michellemalkin.com)
• Dems feud over plan to fix deficits (politico.com)

Related posts:

1. Pres. Obama wants Elective Surgery on Health Care
2. Fallout from the Republican Victory in Massachusetts Continues to Pour Down on Obama
3. Will Obama Dismantle America Before She Wakes Up?

Click this link, RightChange.com videos. It will take you to the video center for RightChange.com. Wait for the video Failed Leadership Timeline to appear in the big TV window. When it does, a link will appear with it in the lower-right hand corner of the window that says “CLICK TO WATCH THE VIDEO.” Click it and see one of the best political videos you have ever seen. It takes you through the major points along that timeline of failed leadership by President Obama in the British Petroleum oil spill in the gulf. In this video you will see why the BP oil spill is such a game changer for the political scene in America.

Note: I do not suggest you give money to RightChange.com until they make it clear who is behind their website

God allowed the BP oil spill to teach us a lesson

I believe God has allowed the BP oil spill to happen to America because nothing short of such a calamity would finally show the remainder of the American electorate who still believe in President Obama and his liberal agenda is not the best way to a free lunch. Liberalism (a.k.a. socialism, communism, Marxism) is wrong: dead wrong. The only people it helps is the ruling class. Not a single poor person has ever been given a leg up economically by liberalism. Many have been re-enslaved by liberalism, but none have ever seen their lot improved by liberalism.

A president badly needs business experience before he becomes president

How could anyone expect a man and a party composed of people, 90+% of whom, including the president, have never been the CEO of so much as a Kool-Aid stand, to be able to know how to manage an entity as large as America.

Add to that the man, the president in this case, had three strikes against his abilities to understand and be capable of being the CEO of U.S. government.

I confess I am wrong to say he had three strikes against him. He had a lot more strikes against him.

Here is a short list, though not an exhaustive list, of the strikes against him:

• He is an academic.
• He is an egomaniac.
• He grew up loving Marxism and Marxist leadership.
• He hates America.
• He hates white people, even though his mother was white.
• He attended a church where hate for America, white people, and the Constitution of the United States that was composed and voted on by white people, was loudly proclaimed by his pastor every Sunday and every chance he got outside of church.
• He is a product of Chicago gangster-style government.
• He is believes government is more munificent and intelligent, and, ipso facto, better knows than does the electorate, how to care for you and your needs from cradle to grave; and, as a bonus, it better knows when you should finally repose in your grave than you, your family, and your physician.

Instead of liberals like those, we would do well to listen to God and to those who would conserve His ways. The only way for us to bring back the American exceptionalism that we have lost is to follow the constitutional conservative way. The best hope for us to get started along that way is to elect Republicans—constitutional conservative Republicans—when and where possible. That means no more big spender Republicans like we have been electing for the last twenty plus years.

No more big spenders

We don’t need big spender Republicans in office who will triple the size of the federal government, as did George W. Bush. We need real conservatives.  Do you realize that Bill Clinton was the most conservative president we have had since Ronald Reagan

I think it good that Obama became our president

I must say that I was pleased that we elected Obama as president rather than the Republican John McCain. Had we elected John McCain he would have tried his best to ruined America, just as Obama has tried to do. And he would probably have forever ruined any chance that we would ever believe in the promises of Republicans again. Therefore, I was very pleased when Obama was elected president. He has given us a political enema like no one else could have given us.

God knows, we don’t

God knows when we need to suffer. He knows the right choice of the moment that is most beneficial for the soul. We don’t. We can pray that the coke machine will cough up a coke when we put our money in the slot and it usually will. But God isn’t a coke machine. When you pray to God for a coke, you may get one in answer to your prayer if God thinks it will be good for your soul. God answers our every prayer, He just does always give us the answer we want.

We must remember the lessons that God has taught America through the idiocy of President Obama. That remembrance will be the right change for us.

President Obama has mismanaged the oil spill on purpose

I can’t add this to the strikes list I gave above, but I am convinced that President Obama’s clumsy handling of the British Petroleum oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is not the result of his lack of managerial skills but is purposeful. I won’t take the time to go into why he would do such a thing here. But you can probably figure that out yourself. If many of you say you don’t understand why he might do such a thing, I will try to address that subject.  You might have noticed I am not doing much on this blog right now. That is because I am busy trying to make enough money to survive in this economy.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama vows to fight on for climate change bill (alternet.org)

Related posts:

1. The Great Mockery: Climate-change

By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Why is President Obama suing to invalidate the Arizona law on illegal immigration? Why is he incurring the enmity of even his own Democratic Congressmen from the Phoenix and Tucson areas by trying to kill a law that two-thirds of Arizona and a similar proportion of America as a whole supports?

The answer: It is a desperate, last ditch attempt to rebuild his sagging popularity with America’s Hispanic voters.

Furious at Obama for failing to keep his election year promise to promote comprehensive immigration reform when he had a super-majority at his disposal, they are deserting the president and his party in droves. Unemployment, a sagging economy, and their sharp disagreement with Obama over social issues don’t help the president’s cause any.

So Obama has seized on the Arizona immigration law as a symbolic target, hoping to accomplish in a lawsuit the political task of rebuilding his base.

Remember that in 2008, Obama won precisely the same share of the white vote that Kerry won in 2004. There was a shift among whites as the Obama won more young whites and lost more older ones, but the white vote ratios as a whole remained constant. His entire margin of victory was based on two factors:

a) The African-American vote rose from 11% of the total in 2004 to 14% in 2008 and virtually all voted for Obama; and

b) Latinos, who had backed Kerry by only 10 points, supported Obama by fifty points.

For Obama to have a shot at keeping Democrats in control of Congress, he must replicate the enthusiasm of 2008 among minorities. But his Hispanic flank is definitely weakened. Hence the lawsuit to shore it up.

The answer on immigration reform is to adopt a three part program to dry up the jobs that attract illegal migrants in the first place. When there are no jobs, they will not come and those who are here will go back home without deportations or roundups.

We need to:

1. Strengthen penalties and enforcement of laws barring people and companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Those who do so should face prison time.

2. We need a fool proof national bio-metric ID card so employers can tell who is legal and who is not.

3. We should implement a broad guest worker program to bring upscale and manual workers into the US to fill our labor force needs. They must get at least the minimum wage and have health benefits. But, when the job is over, they must go home.

Democrats won’t embrace this program because the unions won’t let them and because they want illegals to stay here and become Democratic voters. Republican agri-businesses won’t go for it because they want to exploit illegal workers with low pay and bad work conditions.

But this is the solution. Trying to seal the border is good rhetoric but is a hopeless task. Drying up the jobs that bring illegal immigrants here is something we can and must do.

Source: Dick Morris

Related posts:

1. Arizona Official Threatens to Cut Off Los Angeles Power as Payback for Boycott
2. Will Obama Dismantle America Before She Wakes Up?
3. Pres. Obama wants Elective Surgery on Health Care

Published May 30, 2010 | FOXNews.com

Friday: Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa. speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill. (AP)

A California congressman who called it an “impeachable” offense for the administration to offer Rep. Joe Sestak a job in exchange for his quitting a Senate bid said Sunday the cover-up, as usual, appears worse than the crime.

Republican Rep. Darrell Issa said the explanation for the Sestak affair — that former President Bill Clinton offered the Democratic congressman an unpaid position on an advisory board if he would drop his challenge against party-switching Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter — is not plausible because as a sitting congressman Sestak couldn’t have served on a presidential commission.

“It’s a crime because they’ve admitted that they offered this position … So that begs the real question. Do we believe this is a further cover-up because he’s — they’re now talking about a job that President Clinton himself should have known Sestak couldn’t take? ” he said.

“They’re now coming up with a nonplausible answer,” Issa said.

On Friday, the White House revealed that Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had asked Clinton to talk to Sestak about a presidential appointment if Sestak would suspend his bid for the Democratic Senate nomination.

Sestak has said repeatedly since February that he was offered a job to drop out of the race, but he declined. He would not reveal the nature of the conversation until after the White House issued its report on Friday.

“If it’s not a crime — and I believe it is — it certainly is business as usual, politics of corruption. The fact is once you’re in power, if you can use our appointments, you can corrupt the process,” Issa said.

Appearing with Issa on Sunday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said Obama has cleaned up Washington, but he didn’t say “he was going to change every aspect of everything we’ve done.”

“I think Barack Obama has brought a new level of ethical standards to Washington. Has he changed some basic hard-knuckle politics? No. You need hard-knuckle politics to succeed,” Rendell said. “But he’s not perfect. And there are certain things that have to go on to make things work, and this is one of them.”

Rendell said offers of jobs for political cooperation have happened “for time immemorial.”

“I did the same thing in 2006 to ask a former congressman, Joe Hoeffel, to drop out of the race against Bob Casey in the primary,” Rendell said. “I said come back and see me if you do it. He came back and saw me, and he was out of public service. I appointed him as a deputy secretary of commerce. He did a great job.”

Issa said the difference between Rendell’s scenario and the White House action is that Rendell didn’t have a specific offer in exchange in the deal, so therefore did not violate the U.S. law signed by then-President Clinton.

“Ed Rendell is saying this happens all the time. Sure, it happens all the time, things like this. But it’s usually carefully crafted so it doesn’t fall under this kind of quid pro quo,” Issa said.

Issa said Sunday candidate Obama pledged to conduct a transparent administration so he should submit to an FBI review.

“The question is, has this been transparent? No. Has there been stalling? Yes. Is there a possibility that what we’re being told now is not true because it’s not so plausible? Yes. Should there be independent investigation so we can move on? Yes,” Issa told “Fox News Sunday.”

“I don’t want to be investigating this. I don’t want the White House investigating itself. The FBI or the attorney general should see that it’s investigated so the American people can feel they can put this behind them,” he said.

Issa added he would accept the result if an FBI investigation exonerates the White House of an illegal bribe.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sestak vs. al-Awlaki (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Clinton Acted as White House Intermediary With Sestak (Update3) (businessweek.com)
• Did Joe Sestak/Bill Clinton Chat Break the Law? (cbsnews.com)
• Joe Sestak White House Job Offer: Congressman Speaks Out On Allegations (huffingtonpost.com)
• White House, Sestak Confirm Clinton’s Role In “Job Offer” (outsidethebeltway.com)

Related posts:

1. PENN AG TOM CORBETT SHOULD EMPANEL GRAND JURY IN SESTAK AFFAIR
2. Hey, Stupid! Have We Got a Deal for You
3. John F. Kennedy’s Crime