Category Archives: 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.

Advertisements

>REACT: Obama a reformer? Puhleeeez

>In a recent Chicago Sun-Times column, Carol Marin advised Barack Obama to start naming his Cabinet as a means to get past the lipstick level journalism of the day. She suggested naming U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as Attorney General. A splendid choice, but the usually insightful columnist seems to have forgotten where she resides. So, I thought I should send her this letter.

Dear Carol,

I am a great fan of you and your professional work. However, your recent Obama column shocked me for your lack of realization of the world in which you live. Apparently you got suckered into believing that Obama IS a reformer. Oh sure, he is selling that image nationally where people do not know Chicago and Illinois politics. But, you should know better.

Obama is the product of arguably the most corrupt political operation in America. For Mayor Daley to sanctimoniously deny the existence of “the Machine” is as absurd as his father once denying the presence of “the Mob” in Chicago.

(I have to interject here. LMAO The photo on the right of Obama and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is the first photo that pops up on google images when you search for “Chicago political corruption.” And you think life ain’t full of funnyironies? Actually, under that search there are quite a few photos of Obama and nefarious characters. Okay, back to the letter.)

Obama was first elected to office by knocking all the competition off the ballot in the good old Chicago tradition. He was the benefactor of the patronage of some of the sleaziest influence peddlers and inside wheeler-dealers – one of whom, Tony Rezko (left), is now a convicted criminal.

Obama endorsed all the machine candidates, and in doing so he endorsed flagrant cronyism, nepotism and illegal patronage. His political god-father is Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, who supported legislative pay raises while opposing every bit of reform legislation. His chief political consultant, David Axelrod has been the flack for the machine for years. And on and on.

And what about Obama, himself? He has never … not once … produced or supported any reform legislation. He has never voiced criticism of the corrupt practices of the Machine. Most recently, he was asked to encourage Jones to pass ethics legislation. He demurred. Never once has he pointed a reform finger at the corruption within his own political base. He never challenged the establishment. He never voiced his support for whistle blowers and investigators. He never promoted “change” in Illinois – believable or otherwise.

On the other hand, as a state senator, he played Chicago-style politics by doling out taxpayer money to friends and supporters without much oversight and accountability. Several of his community improvement projects failed and the money “vanished.” He left his district not much better than he found it.

On the matter of Fitzgerald (right), Carol, you completely missed the mark. As President, Obama will do what the Machine demands – fire Fitzgerald. The most serious problem the machine has is a truly honest, independent REFORM U.S. Attorney. Whatever promises or lip service you may hear to the contrary, Obama will serve the Machine, not the public interest, in this matter. He owes the Machine bosses that much. He will deliver in the good old Chicago way.

>REACT: Obama takes the lowest of the low roads to mock McCain physical disabilities

>As a political junkie, I am rather sick of the “gotcha” brand of politics – which I blame mostly on the press. If the reporters and editors did not dwell on statements that can be made to look like gaffes, the politicians would stop reacting the way they do. I don’t think Barack Obama was insulting Sarah Palin personally when he used the well worn metaphor of “lipstick on a pig.” I don’t think Palin was war mongering when she said Georgia’s inclusion in NATO could place America in potential military confrontation with Russia. She is not wrong. That is what the alliance is about.

When McCain jested about his Iran policy by singing “bomb … bomb … bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the old rock song, “Barbara Ann,” the Democrats tried to have it taken as a serious policy statement. It was a joke. Hellooooo. JOKE. The McCain bashers decided it was tasteless. Actually, I thought it was just funny. I did not take it as a serious policy statement.

I don’t think John McCain’s snide comment about how many houses he has any bearing on his capability to be president. His wife’s wealth is immaterial. Presidential candidates are millionaires, Obama included. Kerry married the Heinz ketchup heiress – who got the money when her Republican husband, John Heinz, was killed in a plane crash. Who is richer than the Kennedys, whose family fortune came originally from rum running during Prohibition? Al Gore was the privileged son of one of the wealthiest families in Tennessee. Even with those who claim to have risen from poverty, the rise was very early in their lives. There are no giant leaps from pauper to president in American history – at least not in modern times.

We recently had one of the worst examples of such meaningless accusations I have even seen – or could have imagined. This one deserves attention because it brings gotcha politics to a new low. The Obama camp put out an ad seizing on the fact that McCain said he cannot use emails – interpreted by Obama as evidence that McCain’s technical deficiency disqualifies him from the presidency.

In making this specious argument, Obama heartlessly ignores the fact — well enough known that there is no way team Obama can plead ignorance — that war prison torture has left McCain (right, after release from POW camp –note bandaged hands) incapable of typing. He also cannot raise his arms high enough to comb his hair or bend over far enough to tie his shoes. He is a physically handicapped person, whose limitations are cruelly mocked relentlessly by the left wing. Furthermore, there is no need for a President of the United States to have to write his own emails. It is almost crazy to think he should. And this mockery comes from those who idolize the wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt. Such cruel hypocrisy.

In view of the well-established media bias and lust for the latest gotcha, it will be interesting to see how the press handles this outrageous breech of decency. I suspect they will largely ignore this one in favor of some contrived interpretation of an off handed remark or joke by McCain or Palin.

>OBSERVATION: Obama shifts from pre-emptive winner to panicked underdog

>Here we are in the post convention season, and the tide has taken a dramatic turn. While most media observers lavished praise on the tightly controlled and well executed Democrat convention, and reported the Republican convention as a bit of a disaster – rescheduling around a hurricane (the ghost of Katrina haunting the GOP), lackluster speeches, the Palin blunder, etc.

The only problem in this media-driven imagery was public reaction. Seems like more folks actually watched the Republicans. Left-wing pundits spent a week noting with awe that 38 million people tuned into Obama’s fascist-background acceptance speech, but grew silent when the numbers came in on Sarah Palin. She topped 40 million views, — WITHOUT the black stations that carried only Barack Obama.

Despite the panicked predictions from Democrat liberal feminists that “women will not be fooled by Palin,” her post convention numbers soared. It appears that as many as 12 percent of women voters switched allegiance to Sarah – and 23 percent of the Hillary voters are going for McCain despite what was described as the most enthusiastic support from both the Clintons.

All of this pushed McCain into a narrow, but sustainable, lead.

Now here is where I get a little self-serving. I have recently read a number of columns and blogs that talk about the unexpected turn around. They say Obama has blown an all but certain victory.

For those of you who read this blog, you know that the recent events are totally consistent with my past writings. Obama never had the numbers to win. Right after the South Caroline primary, I proffered his defeat. More recently, I even suggested that this campaign was essentially over.

Well folks … hang on to your remotes. This campaign is about to get really ugly and very racial. I have said in the past that David Axelrod (right), Obama’s senior guru, is one of the toughest and most ruthless political consultants on the scene. He makes a Pit Bull look like a Poodle. (I mean, take alook at his photo and tell me he doesn’t look like a guy who would drown puppies).

As long as nice-nice was working, Axelrod will behave. Now that the bloody sweat of fear and desperation is permeating the Obama camp, you can expect Axelrod to unleash the rabid dogs of political warfare. He suddenly is representing the underdog. (What’s with all this “dog” stuff? If Palin had made it a Piranha instead of a Pit Bull, would I be locked on fish analogies?)

For the next few weeks, you will be able to judge the desperation of the Democrats by the viciousness of their campaign tactics. The above-it-all, agent of change, Obama, is about to start fighting like the Chicago machine politician he is.

>OBSERVATION: Obama a danger to black churches

>

When I served as campaign media guy for Mayor Gene Sawyer’s 1989 attempt to retain his office on the fifth floor of City Hall, it was my pleasure to travel with Hizzoner as he made the Sunday rounds of black churches. It was an all day event.

I say “pleasure” because I am a total fan of black gospel music. I cannot get enough of Mahalia Jackson. Having grown up in the sonorous monotones of Gregorian chant, I find the foot stomping, hand waving, and sweaty swaying of the black Baptist tradition entirely uplifting. In terms of religious preference, I am as black as Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Father Michael Pfleger. Okay … maybe not as black as Pfleger.

Traveling with Sawyer was also politically enlightening. At each stop, Sawyer was presented to the throng in characteristic black minister style, with the over-the-top introduction punctuated with endless audience responses of “amen” and “you tell ’em, bother.”

Typically the minister would praise the good work of the Mayor, remind the audience that he is a “brother.” He would call on the assembled to spread the word to all the neighbors. It was not the word of God he was promoting, but the message of the campaign. Get out and vote “for our man Gene.”

The Mayor would then say a few words about the campaign, the issues, and the need to get out and vote for him. In some cases, a “special collection” was taken to be handed over to one of the Mayor’s aides.

Often during these Sunday services, three little words would pop into my mind – Internal Revenue Service. Clearly, the black churches were grossly violating federal laws governing 501(c)(3) tax exempt institutions. To be tax exempt, you must avoid partisan politics.

Despite this common knowledge, the black ministry has always enjoyed an informal political exemption from the law. Black churches were routinely used by candidates, Republican and Democrat, as political platforms. We were just too politically correct to call in the feds. After a couple hundred years of slavery, and another hundred years of segregation and prejudice, we were entirely too guilt ridden to point an accusatory finger at the black God merchants.

Now cometh, Barack Obama. Obviously, he is the darling of the black ministry. However, he brings more public and media attention to the black churches than any previous candidate – even the Almost Reverend Jesse Jackson. This in turn is raising the questions of propriety and legality to new heights.

Ironically, it is the liberal attack on Jerry Falwell, and the religious right, that will make the case against the liberal and black churches today. Barry Lynn, the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lead the successful effort to get Falwell’s tax exemption canceled for a couple years. Today this unabashed left-winger is parsing his own eloquent arguments in an incredulously inept defense of churches serving as liberal political platforms. He is trying to sell a difference with out a distinction.

>REACT: Bidding Biden bye bye

>Some say a slip of the tongue has ended the presidential bid of Senator Joseph Biden. I have to admit that I totally enjoyed seeing Biden getting bit by the bias of the boys in the media, and then called out by the racial Gestapo. I am referring to the totally silly, unreasonable and unfair response to his calling Obama a “clean” candidate.

For the likes of Jesse Jackson, it was a racist remark. The senator foolishly apologized. That’s what liberals do best, because their philosophy is based on atonement.

Referring to a candidate as “clean” is standard jargon in politics. A candidate without scandal, legal problems, criminal record, school expulsions, and unacceptable sexual practices is considered a “clean” candidate. We might call him “Mr. Clean” or some such thing.

(I am only speaking in male gender terms because in politics we always think woman candidates are “clean.” Maybe Hillary will break that tradition, too.)

Even as I delight in the irony of a liberal democrat getting the back of the hand from the media and those black “all-whites-are-racists” racists, I am compelled by my own code of honor to rise in defense of Biden.

Memo to Biden: Senator! You have been screwed. This is exactly the kind of unfair political correct nonsense that is routinely heaped upon conservatives and common sense Americans – those of us who live in what you guys call “fly-over” country. Sorry your presidential campaign has been cut short. Okay, I am not really sorry, and still giggling over the way you went down. It is, however, a pity. And next time, instead of flying over, drop in for a visit.

>OBSERVATION: Will Obama’s campaign go up in smoke?

>

HELP ME BEFORE I DO IT AGAIN!!!

I find that I have joined the ranks of journalists who are obsessed with writing about Barak Obama. It is just that the more those “other” guys and gals write – the ones who get paid – the more I feel compelled to respond. Oh my God! Here I go again …

In the parlance of the culture, Obama is “smokin’.” In most cases, we mean that figuratively. In his case, it is literally. Among the things that distinguish his campaign from the rest is the fact that he is a smoker … literally … and by some measure a pretty dedicated one. Read that as meaning he has repeatedly failed to quite and he smokes a fair amount – not one of these “I only smoke when I drink” types.

(ASIDE: I tried the I-only-smoke-when-I-drink plan. I was still smoking two packs a day. ß That was a joke for those who would add “drinking problem” to explain my quirky opinions.)

How much Obama smokes is now elevated to national security secret.

Not since the press “protected” Franklin Roosevelt by not revealing that he was wheel chair bound, and that John Kennedy was a Casanova, has the press failed to bring out the story. Nowadays, however, such secrets cannot be kept from the salacious gossipy appetite of the public – and the bloggers preclude the past prerogatives of a fawning press. So it is, we know of Bob Doles erectile dysfunction and Bill Clinton’s lack thereof.

Now cometh the revelation of Obama. The “clean” image described by his presidential competitor, Senator Joseph Biden, has been a bit tarnished. One has to wonder how great an impact it may have been on Obama’s rise if he was frequently seen with a cig hanging from his lips, or wedged between his fingers. How sanctimonious would be that boyish face if it was surrounded by a perpetual blue haze. I think it would have hurt a lot.

In fact, I have decided to engage in “creative truth” to see what that would look like. You be the judge, but keep in mind George Bush overcame a serious drinking problem.