Tag Archives: david axelrod

NEWS TO MUSE: Being Bibi; using polls to influence; the Chevy Chase presidency and political correctness v. the Constitution

Bibi beats Obama

Make no mistake about it.  President Obama’s people were behind a major effort to unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  Obama’s own doubletalk was designed to scare Israeli voters into believing that Netanyahu’s re-election would hurt the Israeli-American alliance.  Operatives, clearly aligned to Obama, and paid for by Obama’s financial backers, such as George Soros, were on the ground working against Netanyahu.  (This may result in a congressional investigation).  The Obama anti-Netanyahu sentiment was reflected in the post election comments by the President’s personal Rasputin, David Axelod.  When exit polls suggested a win by Bibi, Axelrod ranted, “Tightness of exits in Israel suggests Bibi’s shameful 11th hour demagoguery may have swayed enough votes to save him. But at what cost?

Polling  or wishful thinking

Speaking of the polls.  Was the failure of the polls to predict the Israeli election outcome yet another example of polls leaning to the left only to be upset by the reality of the voting booth?  We see this often in American elections.  It was also evident internationally during the Reagan administrations when the American left was rooting for a Daniel Ortega Sandinista victory in Nicaragua.   In a remarkable similar situation to the Israeli election, the polls showed an easy victory for Ortega.  Left wing organizations were also on the ground working for the Communist leader against Reagan’s policy.  Ortega was buried in a “surprise” election landslide.  I do know that some polls are corrupt enough to be rigged, but I think most liberal pollsters have a tendency to include too many left wingers in the polling samples.  They then save face by alleging a “last minute shift” or “surge.” That is a bogus excuse.  Within the last month of an election, most voters a locked in.  They do not change their vote.  Even the so-called independents are pretty much decided before Election Day.

The Obama’s channeling the Griswolds

In a 2008 pre-presidency interview, candidate Barack Obama promised the American people of workaholic president.  He said “The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone, I am giving myself to you.”  He added “that people should only run for president if they’re willing to make that sacrifice.”

Is this yet another example of a man who will say anything and mean none of it?

Obama and family have given new meaning to the term, “imperial presidency.”  The President seems to enjoy the trappings of the office more than the responsibilities.  The Obamas have logged a record breaking 38 vacation trips (exceeded only by the seemingly endless sequels of Chevy Chase’s National Lampoon vacation movies).  That averages to more than 6 vacations per year, not counting the many official business trips with time for play.

The extent of the Obama’s sense of privilege was evident when the President and Michelle left from the same location at approximately the same time for the same destination and they travelled in two different White House jumbo jets.

Your and my vacations have one thing in common with the Obama’s – we pay for all of them.  No need to budget when rich Uncle Sam is footing the bill.  So far, these pleasure trips have cost you and me officially more than $40 million.  I say “officially” since there are untold additional millions that are not charged as vacation expenses.

This does not include his 219 days on the golf course.  That comes to 10 percent of each year on top of vacations.  The president is also known to be off the deck during a lot of major events.  When as his whereabouts at moments of crisis, Obama engages the press in a White House version of “where’s Waldo”

The Lincoln-style rocking chair was the icon piece of White House furniture during the Kennedy presidency.  For Roosevelt it was the wheelchair.  In that spirit, I propose the Lazy-Boy lounge chair as the most appropriate symbol of the Obama presidency.

Liberal gulag politics.

This is really scary.  The hard core left in American politics it in full assault on free speech – among the most sacred of our Constitutional liberties.  We have long believed in a quote attributed, correctly or wrongly, to Voltaire “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  Over the years, the Supreme Court has protected virtually all speech – even speech offensive to the sensibility of the general public.

Under liberal oppression and political correctness, however, that concept is being declared null and void.

Not long ago, New York Governor Cuomo said that conservatives have no business in New York.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. stated that those who question global warming should be jailed.  More recently Al Gore said that people who question global warming need to suffer severe consequences.

People who violate the rules of liberal political correctness are to be subjected to criminal punishment, or at least committed to re-education (so-called diversity) programs.  Obama & Company attack critics as racists, malcontents, enemies of the state and even terrorists.  The very agencies of the American government, such as the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice, are all corrupted to oppress opinion.

In the radical liberal world, you can be profane, pornographic, sacrilegious, and obscene.  Political correctness does not apply to attacks on Republicans, conservatives, southerners and those who “cling to their guns and bibles.” Liberalism, like all authoritarian beliefs, views disagreement as a form of philosophic apostasy.

All this smacks of the old Stalin/Mao approach, where disagreement with the powers that be is viewed either as criminal or mental illness.

Advertisements

NEWS TO MUSE: Meaningless opinions, meaningless delays, meaningless oaths and meaningless Internet benefits

Rand Paul wind CPAC straw poll.  So What?

For the third year in a row, Rand Paul has won the CPACE straw poll.  The news made it seem like he won the Iowa primary.  Paul got 25 percent of the vote with new comer, Scott Walker, close behind with 21 percent.  When winning a poll is based on a plurality rather than a majority, it really needs to be questioned.  I mean, 75 percent of the attendees at CPAC voted against Paul.  That does not seem like a meaningful victory to me.  Also, in a field of more than 10 candidates, the guy with the biggest hard core supporters wins.  It is also understood by political pros that any poll that creates a horserace between more than ten candidates is … to put it in a word … meaningless.

Watching the GOP wiggle on the hook.

Did you wonder why the Democrats refused to support a three week DHS funding bill in favor of a one week delay?  Easy answer.  Since the Democrats have Speaker Boehner and the House Republicans boxed in on an increasingly unpopular tactic, and they know the press will hype the drama of last minute maneuvers, why give the GOP a break from the bad press?  Also, this consumes a lot of the media attention in the week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in the Capitol Building making Obama and the Democrats look bad for negotiating with terrorists – specifically Iran.

So, what parts of the United States Constitution does President Obama intend to uphold?

When President Obama raised his right hand and took the oath of office, he must have had his fingers crossed. By imperial decree, the President thinks a range of popular bullets should be banned from manufacturing, selling and owning.  This essentially makes the guns that use them wall decorations.  This sounds more like undermining rather than defending the Second Amendment, as he swore to do.  In his campaign, he claimed to be a strong defender of the right to own guns.  But now we know he is liar – maybe pathological.  Too harsh, you say?  Think back.  There was the promise of greater transparency.  His opposition to gay marriages (which David Axelrod revealed as a premeditated lie).  Then there was keeping your doctor and lowering your premiums (a premeditated lie revealed by Jonathon Gruber).  Remember his criticism of George Bush’s use of Executive Orders?  He promised to end excessive spending in Washington.  Yep! He promised fiscal responsibility.  He said he would improve the floundering image of the United States around the world.  He said he would end the war in the Middle East.  The only thing he ended was the United State winning.  Then there was that whopper about “post racial America.”

Netting the Internet

President Obama looks back to FDR’s New Deal to come up with a bad deal for users of the Internet.  In typical liberal double talk, we are to believe that the Internet will be freer and fairer with our federal government promulgating hundreds of pages of regulations.  This is liberal thinking.  We have more freedom if and elite group of Washington bureaucrats make up the rules for us to live by.  Under a misnamed policy of “Net Neutrality,” federal regulators will decide how we use the Internet.  And, this is not some new policy.  They basically made copies of the 1930s Rooseveltian regulations that made a government monopoly of our telephone services.  If you think that was a good idea, remember that none of the amazing things we can now do with phones happened until we ended that old monopoly.

NEWS TO AMUSE

Several stories in that past couple days clearly establish that liberals see lies as merely a matter of public policy.

David Axelrod’s new book reveals what many of us knew in the first place.  President Obama lied his way into office – and on the advice and counsel of Axelrod.  There are many examples, but the one making the news is his oft repeated campaign claim to being opposed to gay marriage.  When running for the State Senate, Obama filled out questionnaires in support of gay marriage.  When running for President, he repeatedly lied, saying he opposed gay marriage.  Once in office, he went back to supporting gay marriage.  He says he “evolved.”  No.  He lied.  What is amazing to me is the many liberals on MSNBC who defended the lie as a good thing – you know, the ends justify the means.  This is no different than the lies Jonathon Gruber exposed about the cost of Obamacare and keeping your doctor.  Or, Obama criticism of Bush using executive orders.  Or, promising to work with Congress.  Or, promising transparency. Or … wow … is there anything Obama says that is the truth?

Remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, who sexually molested a maid at a New York hotel, and is now charged with being a pimp and orgy host for the high and mighty?  Well, he now claims that it was for the greater good since it helped alleviate the tensions of dealing on the global stage.  I am not making this up.  Using this theory, we might put an end to ISIS by giving them 40 virgins now instead of a gift in the afterlife.

You can’t miss the story of NBC uber anchor Brian Williams, who believes in making up stories to convey the impression of news when the facts are not good enough.  A number of supporters are saying that it is okay to claim false experiences because it gives a better “sense of the event.”  On the other hand, if Williams was coving a raid on a house of ill-repute, would he have reported as being one of the “johns” in order to convey a better “sense of the event?”

Zombies are making a comeback in the world of entertainment.  Also in politics.

I noticed in my local newspaper, that Gloria Steinem has surfaced from obscurity to give a lecture at the University of Miami.  After reading some of her 1960’s retreaded comments, I better understood why the editors placed the news article on the obituary page.  Her’s is the only article on the page where the person is still alive.  Maybe politically dead, counts.

Not since slavery …

Former New York Mayor, and America’s billionaire liberal nanny, Michael Bloomberg has thrown political correctness aside in taking his anti-gun zealotry to a new level.  He suggests that young minority men be banned from gun ownership.  Again, I am not making this stuff up.  This has not been suggested since the Democrats were running things in the old days of southern slavery.  Would somebody get this guy a copy of the Constitution … and the Emancipation Proclamation?

And finally, under “there outta be a law …” or “what’s in a name.”

Recently, a 61-year-old man was arrested, but found not guilty, for taking phone photos up a young girl’s skirt in a Target store.  Though totally repulsive and offensive, the judge could not find a law that made it illegal.  The story was not what caught my eye.  But am I the only one who thought it was ironic that the incident occurred in Beaverton, Oregon?

Understanding President Obama.

I have lived under the Chicago Machine for most of my life.  I personally know many of the key players who brought Barack Obama out of obscurity to the presidency.  Perhaps this analysis should have been made several years ago.  But, better late than never.

I am way not the conspiratorial theorist type.  I never bought into the Obama birther theory.  I never thought of him as some sort of Manchurian candidate.  I do not believe Obama is member of the Muslim faith – not after attending a Christian church, such as it is, for 20 years.  Is it possible that the President is really a nice guy who believes he is doing good for the United States and the world?  I think it is possible.  BUT, just because he might believe that does not mean it is true.

There has to be some explanation for his six years of seemingly inexplicable presidential behavior – at least as measured against his 42 predecessors.  Why has Obama become arguably the least trusted President in American History?  Why has his patriotism been questioned by so many?  And, don’t give me the “because he’s black” excuse.  One of his greatest benefits in becoming President was his skin color.  God knows, it was not due to his record and experience.  Being black has insulated Obama from scrutiny and proper vetting – and given his sycophants and a fawning news corps a racist mantra to deflect justified criticism.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem with Obama is that he is the first un-American president.

By that, I mean he has a completely different core of knowledge and value structure than the vast majority of Americans. He was not raised in an American culture.  He never learned American history in depth.  He does not understand the American culture – and what he thinks he understands, he does not like.

As a child, he was raised in Muslim traditions by his father, then an uncle and a family mentor who, more importantly, all harbored negative viewpoints about America.  He attended a Muslim school in a nation highly critical of America. His mother, though not Muslim, was a lifelong critic of America, its culture, its politics and its economic system.   He attended American colleges where criticism of America reigns supreme among students and faculty.

He spent most of his life subjected and devoted to a politicized anti-American version of Christianity in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  As a community activist in Chicago’s University of Chicago neighborhood, he worked in a pseudo-intellectual cultural enclave that exaggerates American racism and demonizes free market capitalism.  It is a tightly knit community best personified by its local iconic leaders, such Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.

His formative political experience comes from his association with the Chicago Democrat “Machine.”  It can explain his contempt for Republicans – and even contempt for any opposition and accommodation.  It may also explain his belief in authoritarian “boss” governance, where the executive is the primary source of public policy.  His Chicago experience would lead him to believe that role of a legislative body is to endorse — rubber stamp, if you will — but not to challenge.

In many ways, Obama is the product of his two closest advisors, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett.  Axelrod represents the thuggish Chicago Machine’s strident partisanship, with its allegiance to an autocratic boss figure.  He personifies what could be called the Daley wing of the Democratic Party, operating more like a “banana republic” than what the Founders had in mind.

Jarrett represents the far left ideological wing of the Democratic Party – also autocratic.  Under the first Mayor Daley, these were warring factions.  Under the second Mayor Daley, the factions united in the person of Barack Obama.

Since both factions are autocratic, Obama represents the worst of them in terms of the American republic.  Both factions place government rule by an elite over the historic American concept of governance by the people.  With a belief in and tendency toward autocratic power, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the intoxicating power of the presidency has introduced a sense of megalomania.

Obama came to office believing America is an imperial power guilty of shameful acts.  That is why his first overseas junket as President was widely described as “an apology tour.”  That is why he is so quick to draw moral equivalencies between us and every other nation – and more recently, between the maniacal brutality of today’s Islamic extremists and the Christian Crusades of 1000 years ago.

That is why he relegated American Exceptionalism to nothing more than nationalistic pride. Obama sees America as no better than any other nation, and to think otherwise is arrogance.  He does not believe in the need or importance of America’s economic, military and moral leadership, so, at every turn, he withdraws us from it.  Since he cannot make other nations as strong as America, he seems determined to make America as weak as them.  He seems to think that world leadership, itself, is arrogance.

His disdain for the traditional American culture extends to allies who share that culture.  It is why his foreign policy realigns America away from historic allies in favor of relationships with even current enemies, such as Cuba and Iran.  His preference for third world countries is evident in his refusal to not only secure the American border, but to encourage illegal migration and acceptance on an every growing level.

He has created a deceptive language to explain his governing philosophy, with such oxymoron’s as “leading from behind” as an excuse for not leading, or “patient diplomacy,” as a euphemism for doing nothing.  As with all autocrats, he is capable of the most audacious lies.  He talks of our victory over al Qaeda and ISIS as relatively harmless “junior varsity.”  He takes pride in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even as they accelerate. He claims Gitmo promotes terrorism, but claims the release of terrorists is in our national interest.

He takes victory laps for ending our economic crisis even as millions of Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and under employment.  His infamous “you can keep your doctor” promise now rates with President George H. Bush’s “read my lips” as an iconic presidential betrayal.

The President is a left wing globalist, who not only surrenders American leadership, but American sovereignty.  He promotes agreements and treaties that give international bodies authority of our lands, our international policies, our guns and even our elections.

He has no frame of reference to understand the nature of the American republic, in which the people govern.  Rather, he subscribes to the authoritarian philosophy that a government run by self determined enlightened people must rule over the masses for their own good.  He sees the federal government as the necessary regulatory authority over every aspect of our personal lives.  He relegates America’s several states to mere Chinese-style provinces, and redistributes wealth according to his political agenda.

We have seen this in his preference for personal power over the shared power of three branches.  His go-it-alone policy is not born out of strong leadership, but is the result of an all too obvious contempt for the people’s Congress as an equal branch of government.

He came into office promising change.  His meaning was not the change Americans had every reason to assume.  It was to change the very nature of the American government from a republic based on the autonomy of the people to an authoritarian regime where dependency replaces opportunity as the dominant characteristic.  He would change our successful free enterprise system to a controlled central economy where the market forces are replaced by government manipulation, regulation and redistribution of wealth.

The Founders risked life and property “in order to form a more perfect union.”  It was ours to preserve through “eternal vigilance.”  In recent generations, we have failed in both regards, and may now be reaching a point of no return.

When you look at the critical education and emotional development of past presidents, Democrat and Republican, none has been so devoid of traditional American education and understanding.  Obama operates the way he does because he knows no other way.  He is not anti-American, but I think he is un-American in his intellectual foundation.  And that is the problem.

The General Election of 2016 may well determine whether our historic culture has truly changed as we the people decide either to continue down the path of subjugation to Washington, or will we rise up to re-establish the great American Dream based on American Exceptionalism that made this nation the most successful democracy in history?  We will determine whether to leave a nation and a world to our children that is greater and safer than we found it, or we will condemn them to lesser status with fewer opportunities under an oppressive regime in Washington.