Category Archives: barack obama

What was wrong with Obama’s speech? Everything.

In presenting his so-called “Jobs Plan” to the Congress, President Obama was 100 percent in everything he is good at. 

1.  It was a well crafted and delivered  campaign speech — more fitting for the stomp than a joint session of the United States Congress.  There is no doubt that Obama can make a good speech.  It is hard to disagree with a lot of things he says.  However, what he does not say and what he does has little in common with his words.  This was not an exception.  It is a character trait.  He lies on a grand scale — a strategy that I suspect he learned under the tutelage of his Chicago Machine handlers.

2.  In that mode, he was naturally lacking in detail.  His repeated call for the Congress to quickly pass his self-proclaimed perfect plan before seeing if there is even a pig in the poke is outrageously arrogant.

3.  He reinforced his reputation as a strident philosophic and political partisan.  The speech was all about politics to the exclusion of economic realities.  Notice that he wants the taxpayers to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to feed money to his base, mostly the unions and government workers.  His promised assist to the millions of small businesses is a sop and any advantage will be wiped out by the negative impact of the increased debt and continuation of draconian regulations.  He is using the federal treasure and our children’s money in the hope of gaining permanent empowerment for his party and his radical left philosophy.  His unabated scheme is to make Washington and the White House more powerful at the expense of the people.

4.  He set up the same old trick that got us into this mess.   He wants to spend up to $500 billion more borrowed dollars with the claim that it is all “paid for.”  That is not just a lie, it is a dangerous and damnable lie.  According to Obama, the $500 billion will come from cuts in the envisioned increases in federal spending over the next ten years.  Under his plan, the federal budget will continue to grow, the deficit will surge to a new unfathomable level and our children and grandchildren will pay the price when the federal budget bubble bursts.  Even if he was well-intentioned, there is no way that he can guarantee that future congresses will follow through on even the cuts in proposed new spending.

5.  He played the shop worn “bleeding heart” card.  He wants to help the elderly, and children and keep teachers in the classrooms.  He carried forward the progressives’ favorite tactics — social division, class warfare and fear-mongering.  It is easy to talk about all the good things we could do with another trillion dollars or two.  But it does not take a degree in economics (and I have one, by the way) to understand that even our best intentions and most charitable instincts have to be carried out within the limits of our resources. 

So … if Obama knows all this, and I am sure he does, why does he pursue such destructive policies.  It is obvious.  His goals and objectives are purely political and partisan.  He and his ilk want to use the financial crises and public fear to gain more power for their idea of a ruling elite.  Yet!  That’s it, folks.  Remember, it was his senior advisor, Rahm Emmanuel, who opined that “no good crisis should go to waste.”

If you want to understand the Obama game, look at it this way.  let’s say I earned only enough money to pay 52 percent of my bills, so  I borrowed 48 percent of the money from the bank– and this has been going on for years until my interest payment to the bank each month is more than all my other bills.  Even though I am not sure of my income in the next ten years, I go to the bank and ask for another huge loan on top of all that I already owe — and I promise to repay them out of the additional money I hope to make in future years.  I suspect the banker would think I was stark raving mad — and I would be.  But this is exactly the Obama jobs scam.  He expects the American public to be suckers at least one more time.

No more post-speech autographs, puleeeeeez!

>

I am not sure when it started, but I am sure it should be ended.

I am referring the President of the United States signing autographs on the floor of the Congress as he exits the chamber. It defines the word “tacky.”

Certainly, it makes the President and the event look bad. There has been significant notice of the fact that the State of the Union speech has become more of a political pep rally than a presidential report. In signing autographs on his way out, the President makes the entire event look like a campaign appearance. It is just not, as they say, presidential.

Even worse, though, is the gaggle of legislators begging for his signature on their souvenir programs. These are supposed to be serious minded legislators, contemplating the great issues of the day. Instead, they behave like teenie-boppers at a rock concert.

Some legislators even handed the President a stack of programs. And one fellow appeared to have an unrelated photograph for the President to sign. Has he no sense of propriety and dignity? At least the President was not suckered into that gambit. He refused to sign the photo.

Personally, I think the President should have made – and let us hope all future presidents will – a hasty, albeit dignified, retreat from the chamber with minimal glad-handing and autographing.

Lame Ducks and Dead Ducks

We all know that a “lame duck president,” or now, a “lame duck Congress,” refers to that period between the election of the “new” and the inauguration of the “new.” It is that period in which the “old” still govern, but from a much weaker or “lame” position. The upcoming special session of Congress is, therefore, a “lame duck” session.

 Recently, I coined a term to describe the Chief Executive of the United States as a “dead duck” President, defining a President whose party suffers such a horrendous defeat in the mid-term election that they lose an enormous power such that the President is mortally weakened and potentially unelectable for a second term. By my appellation, Barack Obama is now a “dead duck” President. (You can see the actual term and definition at the online Urban Dictionary, if you like.)

I THINK … the Ground Zero is the wrong place for the mosque, and Obama has failed to show leadership.

Many times, public policy is not as complicated as the political leadership would have you believe. The proposed mosque within a stone’s throw from Ground Zero – which many now consider hallowed ground.

There are two important consideration on the side of the decision-making scale that favors the proposed masque site.

First: It would be wrong to suggest that the attack on the World Trade Towers by Muslim extremists indicts all Muslims and justifies the suspension of their Constitutional rights. We have to always guard against diminishing the power of the Constitution over a narrow or momentary issue.

The second thing that supports the advocates of the project is the law, it would seem. There is nothing in the plans for the project that runs counter to legal requirements.

Just because the law is on their side, however, does not mean the mosque should be built so close to Ground Zero (see ariel view). In fact, these two seemingly formidable arguments are outweighed by obvioius wrongness of the plan. The problem stems from the fact that the overwhelming reasons NOT to build on that site are emotional and moral, while the arguments in favor or technical and legal.

The most disturbing part of the public debate is that the Muslim community, under the leadership of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, knows full well that the location is contentious. They know that it is an unnecessarily painful tribute to those who lost loved ones, and the millions more who sympathize with the bereaved.

In recent days, it was announced that Imam Rauf will be travelling as a goodwill ambassador of the United States to the Middle East courtesy of our own State Department. According to Department spokespersons, the Imam is a voice bridging any schism between Muslims and non-Muslims.

At the same time, others report some of Imam’s more provocative rhetoric and allege that he is a supporter or at least sympathizer of radical Muslimism. His supporters say that the Imam must maintain a balance in order to be effective. This is nonsense. If he cannot speak out against the wrongness of the murderous terrorists in every instance, he served no benefit as a conciliator. Rather, he only serves as an apologist for our enemies.

There is also the history of Muslims building mosques at the sites of great victories. So, is the determination to build this house of worship in the missing shadow of the Trade Towers an opportunity for conciliation and understanding – a bridge, if you will — or is it some cultural celebration and symbol of victory to be telegraphed to the Muslim world.

The fact that the motivation is controversial suggest that the project should be relocated. Failure to do so gives credence to the more sinister motivation. If the local Muslims want to produce goodwill, it is obvious that respectfully changing the site would have the most positive impact. If they persist in pursuing the Ground Zero site despite the public reaction, it is obvious that they are not seeking to establish goodwill but to force their own will for their own parochial purposes.

I am at a loss to understand why New York Michael Bloomberg gave the mosque his full support and endorsement. Governor David Paterson was more correct in proposing an alternative site, which he would help to secure.

But what about the President.

Obama stuck with the technical legal position in saying the Muslims have a right to build the mosque at the chosen site. He deferred in expressing any opinion on the wisdom or morality of the decision. In ducking the most important issue, the President missed an opportunity for leadership. If he can call in a cop and a professor to the White House to settle a minor confrontation, certainly he could have called in the Imam and expressed his presidential displeasure with the current plan. He could have cancelled the Imam’s taxpayer paid trip to Mecca.

Obama’s call for tolerance and understanding for the Imam and his mosque begs the questions why the American president chose to side with international Muslimism over the suffering of the American victims, their families and the majority of the President’s constituents.

If Obama, Paterson and Bloomberg had joined together to negotiate an alternative site, I feel quite confident that the issue would have been resolved early on. Why they didn’t is the lingering question. Minimally, it is a shortsighted lack of leadership. More disturbingly, it was the obvious new found influence the Muslim world enjoys with the Obama administration.

I THINK … we need to resurrect our historic concept of treason.

It is reported in Politics Daily that Wikileaks has released to publications all over the world more than 90,000 top secret documents relating to the military and diplomatic situation in Afghanistan — and this is not the first time.

The sole purpose of the leak is to undermine our war effort … pure and simple. It will embolden our enemies, weaken our allies and cost the lives of untold numbers of military and intelligence personnel. Perhaps we cannot yet put an exact number on the latter, but additional loss of life is inevitable.

The White House, through National Security Advisor James Jones, strongly condemned the action and complained that Wikileaks did not contact them first.

Condemn the action? This is what you get from liberal governance … words. I can only imagine what our reaction would be if Ronald Reagan were President at this time.

We are in war, and giving out military secrets is treason. It is about time we enforce the laws against treason without sympathy. The First Amendment rights and the tradition of a free press do not entitle individuals or organizations to release and publish secret documents. There are no nuances.

Unless President Obama enforces the treason laws and brings to swift justice all those who now flaunt them, he will again prove that his left wing global philosophy trumps the traditions and laws of the United States of America, and the Constitution which he has sworn to uphold.

When you couple this with his refusal to secure our southern border for political purposes and his willingness to enter into international pacts detrimental to the power and wealth of the United States, it is no wonder that a significant percentage of the public consider him the first un-American President.

I THINK … there is no economic recovery with Obama-nomics.

It appears that the “recovery” recently proffered by President Obama and his Democrat cohorts is now falling into relapse — at least that is the latest report from the economic wunderkind. We should not be surprised.

First: There has been no recovery. Oh sure, the stock market had some gains, foreclosures abated a bit and the rate of new joblessness started to level off. Don’t those things suggest recovery? Nope!

First of all, the stock market tends to respond to corporate profitability. Profits go up. Stocks go up. The reason, however, is not good. Corporate America’s bottom line starting looking better because of cost cutting, not increased sales – and cost cutting was largely in the workforce. That is why the stock market rose and unemployment did not go down.

Second: The Obama stimulus package was largely a waste of money. It was more like a pain killer that makes the pain lessen until it wears off. Now that the stimulus money passed through the financial system, the same old economic headache has returned. This is what happens when we treat only the symptoms and ignore the disease.

Finally: Obama did very little to fix the real problems. His attempts to have the government produce growth by financing work projects is a loser. Never worked, and never will. Remember, every time Obama says the federal money will create spending, and therefore jobs, he does not want you to understand that he took away the money, through taxes, from people who would have spent it, themselves.

His age-old scheme simply redistributes wealth from those who oppose him to those who support him. Obama is using the economic downturn as cover to impost his big government agenda on the United States. He is operating more like a looter who uses a disaster as a cover for his actions. It may be good Machiavellian politics, but certainly not good economics.

You might counter by noting that a lot of the money being spent by Obama is not from taxes, but from borrowing or simply printing more money. Borrowing only insures that we will have a much larger financial crisis in the future. He is literally stealing out children’s and grandchildren’s … and by this time maybe eve our great grandchildren’s … money. This means a lower standard of living for future generations. This is not only bad economics, but immoral.

Printing money is another short term solution that will bring hyper inflation to a nation that will be, by then, reeling on the brink of economic chaos. They call it “stagflation.” Keep in mind that inflation can feel good because wages go up. This is not economic growth, as Obama and the Keynesians would have you believe. When you go to spend your wages at the store, you will find that your “buying power” will be no better, or even worse, as prices soar.

Government spending is often compared to a narcotic, since there is a certain short term good feeling followed by an inevitable crash – and people and institution do get “hooked” on government money.

Brace yourself for a rocky economic ride for the foreseeable future. For real relief, we should be looking at 2014 – two years after we toss out Obama and the Democrat leadership. If we do not, the long term outlook is grim.

Obama is no socialist

I THINK … President Obama is not a socialist.

So, stop calling him one! He is not!

He is a fascist, and about that, I am not kidding.

First you must remember that he and his cadre are products of the Illinois (nee Chicago) Machine, the “banana republic” of American politics. It is that same form of government that produced Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy, Hitler Germany and the old dictatorships of South and Central America, Illinois. Yes, Chicago is a classic dictatorship – a fascist dictatorship.

For more than two generations, we feared and loathed Communist socialism, forgetting about the fascism we crushed in Europe in World War II. Our “eternal vigilance” has been so focused on the failed, frail and fading extreme socialism that we hardly recognize the threat of fascism.

Knowing the basic distinction between the two is critical to understanding why we are not sufficiently alarmed by what is happening in Washington. Socialism means the government taking over all aspects of civic life. In socialistic society, the government owns and operates everything. Except for the most minimal human interaction, there is no private sector, no personal property, and no inalienable individual rights that trump the pseudo rights of the collective as determined by an elite minority.

Like socialism, fascism is an authoritarian and elitist doctrine (again I refer you to Chicago), but with one great difference – maybe more in appearance than reality, but significant nonetheless. In fascism, the private sector succumbs to the power of the central government, but does not lose its technical private status. The great businesses become quasi governmental entities. The business leaders become less entrepreneurs and more like bureaucrats.

We can see this in the creation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac – two “banks” that are as much public sector a private. With the passage of the so-called financial reform legislation, the small banks are put to virtually fatal competitive disadvantage, while the big banks morph into Fannie and Freddie-type institutions. The Healthcare legislations is nothing less than a “great leap forward” for government run medicine.

The co-opting of General Motors is yet another example. Unlike a loan or the bailout that was given to Chrysler a generation ago, GM comes under the management control of the federal government. Through the use of unelected “czars” and bureaucrat overlords, GM is effectively being owned and operated by the central government. Obama even talks about hiring and firing officers. Car dealerships are now doled out by liberal congressmen to friends and contributors.

There is movement toward bringing other industries under “regulatory control,” such as energy and agriculture. Among the more ominous proposals is the “bailing out” of the old media companies, such as the New York Times and the Chicago tribune. Combined with efforts to force pro government viewpoints onto the media by edict, the independence of our “free” press is significantly imperiled. You should be thinking Pravda here.

One of the reasons we are blind to fascism is that it appears to align with free market conservatism – which is totally inaccurate. When bailing out (co-opting) Wall Street, it appears that the Obama administration is siding with a conservative business community – the private sector. This is the dangerous myth. Any true conservative abhors the neo-fascists business leaders as much as anyone.

For those who take the time to notice, the current crop of business leaders are not free market zealots, but fellow travelers of the “big brother” types who now control our federal government. They are buying into the unholy partnership. Their chief mission is personal wealth, power and glory – with little regard for America’s entrepreneurial tradition and dying spirit. In short, the fanged wolf of fascism is better able to hide beneath the lamb skin of capitalism. Socialism has no disguise.

Despite their pro-big government bias, the independent trade unions will be big losers. Already, the gigantic public sector unions, such as _______ and _______, are turning into the 500 pound gorillas. The United Auto Workers are already co-opted by the GM take over. Trade unionism will survive, but only as a government agency of sorts — like those in China.

As President Lincoln once feared, we are a nation divided. The anxiety and conflict we see at the grassroots is due to the fact that we have reached the fulcrum between the dominance of individual free-market capitalism that gave America its strength and the highest standard of living in the world and fascism’s road to an oppressive central government and the eventual decline and fall of the American democracy, as we know it.

Under Obama, and the Chicago Way, we are most certainly moving swiftly toward a stronger and more dominant federal government. No sane person can auger against that. This path leads inevitably to authoritarianism. Socialism and fascism cannot prevail in a society were power is truly derived from, and exercized by, the masses.

The American fate is sealed unless this country has the strength and the understanding to not only slow down the intrusion of the federal government into all aspects of our daily lives, but to commence a rollback that will restore the powers of the several states and the municipal governments. It is there where the people have their strongest influence, and there where matters of education, welfare, police protection, etc. can be most responsively and economically managed.

If we continue to be suckered into thinking that all matters of our daily lives must be addressed by the distant federal government, we are witnessing the last days of “the great American experiment in democracy.”

No No Nobel Prize … and why not?

Nothing gives more evidence of the narrow philosophic view of the grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize than the omission of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

The bold diplomacy of Nixon transformed China from dangerous adversary to friendly trading partner. In bringing down the old Soviet Union, Reagan ended the 40 year Cold War. No diplomatic efforts in

modern times have brought more global peace and stability.

The largely failed or nonexistent peace making accomplishments of Nobel winners Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama fade to inconsequential by comparison. If you add Al Gore as another recent political recipient, the Nobel Peace Prize becomes a farce.

Peace prize and past presidents

When it comes to awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to U.S, presidents, the folks in Oslo have had a dubious record. Four American Chief Executives have received the Award: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter and now Barack Obama.

Roosevelt was famous for his statement that American should “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Of course, the “big stick” was military might, which he tended to deploy with little hesitancy. The bellicose Mr. Roosevelt was never known to speak softly – literally or figuratively.

Woodrow Wilson let this nation into the “war to end all wars” – which it did not. Perhaps the Nobel committee was impressed with his failed effort to create a League of Nations. They were, and are consistent promoters of unitary global governance. They apparently were not concerned that Wilson was a virulent racist who segregated the armed forces, among other things.

Then there was Jimmy Carter, who produced a series of high visibility summits and peace accords in the Middle East. You may be aware that the good work of Jimmy Carter has not provided a moment of peace in that region.

And into this undistinguished field cometh Barack Obama., taking time away from managing two major wars (in Carter’s Middle East, no less) to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. In one way, he may be more deserving than the others. Where they have all failed, Obama has done nothing.

Nothing Noble about the Nobel Prize for Obama

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is not about his accomplishments in advancing world harmony. He has none. In fact, his continuation of the war in Iraq — despite his campaign promises — his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, his appropriate threats against Iran’s nuclear program and the unveiling of America’s newest super bomb would have brought George Bush the derision of the left-wing Nobel committee.

Why then the prize?

It is quite simple. The Nobel folks did not award Obama the Prize in recognition of any accomplishments, but as a means of promoting his embrace of their “after America” global view in which the United States is only a participant in an international collective, not a noble leader. The Obama doctrine repudiates the concepts of America as an inspiring beacon of democracy, as well as the traditional “America first” perspective of his 42 predecessors. Not since President Franklin Pierce secretly aligned with the Confederacy has a president stood in such opposition to the fundamentals of America.

Obama’s increase in world popularity results from his decision to build himself into a global personality at the expense of a weaker America, political and economically. From community organizer to President of the United States, Obama has always found comfort with the critics of America — not just differences over policy, but a repudiation our fundamental concepts of limited government, personal freedom and free market capitalism. In many ways, he is the anti-Reagan.

The awarding of this year’s Prize does not reflect Obama’s accomplishments, but reveals in stark clarity the vehemently anti-American view of the Oslo committee. To have them in premature praise and promotion of this President ought to have us significantly concerned about what they find so appealing about him.