Thanks (for nothing) Obama!

I was reading the article about Obama’s ‘Auntie’ this morning, realize how little we know about our boy-leader in chief.  That is not, by the way, ‘boy’ as in racism;  that is ‘boy’ as in inexperienced, lack of character, untested cockiness, etc.  Liberals see racism everywhere, and will likely continue to see it here– no matter what is written.  If you are anti feminism, you are considered anti-women;  if you are anti-obama’s policies, you are considered racist.  Obama himself has a new ploy where he calls any criticism ’school-yard taunts;’ the media has not yet called him on it, and I don’t hold my breath waiting;  being a conservative labels a person as ‘mean’ according to the worldview of our liberal mainstream media, and every conservative learns to just accept the uneven playing field.

Obama's Auntie

Still, I wonder if the media finds any way to rationalize their collective loss of integrity over the past couple years.  They can blame it on illness I suppose– ‘Bush Derangement Syndrome,’ for example.  But whatever you call it, they let us all down big-time.  Obama has an Aunt who is an illegal alien in Boston.  I don’t remember that headline in October of 2008.  Even the Carter family-embarrassment, Billy, was exposed by a leftist media that at least had some integrity.  Remember ‘Billy Beer’?

For those of you who missed the article I am referring to above, this paragraph from the Boston Herald pretty much sums it up:

She (Obama’s Aunt, that is) was in federal court today in a wheelchair asking a federal judge to throw her a welcome mat.

Onyango, the 57-year-old Kenyan half-sister of Obama’s late father, has been in the country illegally since being ordered deported in 2004. In a removal proceeding versus the Department of Homeland Security she succeeded in barring the public from, Onyango will argued for political asylum before U.S. Immigration Judge Leonard I. Shapiro – though it’s unclear on what grounds.

Man.  Who the heck IS this idiot we elected?

as in Liar…

We all accept the fact that politicians are not the most sincere bunch of humans on the planet. But every now and then a politician comes along who raises lying to an art form– who can simply spew our words that have no connection to the truth, and then look you in the face and say “I never said such a thing!” I forget which Dem it was who called Clinton ‘a particularly good liar;’ I really thought that Clinton would be the best liar of my generation. But our current embarassing pig in the White House just keeps on fighting for the prize as ‘best liar’– even after he has clearly won the award several times over.

The following video is truly a classic, and has entertained viewers around the world.  The sad thing is that obama will still have his loyal idiots;  the folks who think Dems are the ‘good guys’, no matter how many times they are caught red-handed abusing interns and insisting ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman’ (depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is), no matter how many times the Charlie Rangels write tax policy for the rest of us and are then caught ‘forgetting’ about millions of dollars of real estate, and no matter how many Chris Dodds get sweetheart deals from bank execs as they write favorable regulations, and then blame the other party for the fallout.

The one good bit of news is that the bloom may be coming off the rose.  Even the obama fan club, also known as the mainstream media, is having a hard time ignoring obama’s lies.  The problem is that there really is nothing truthful to write about anymore!  Throw in the facts of what is going on out there– terrorists being moved from a military base in Cuba to the middle of Illinois where they can breed their terror among America’s lowest;  repeated attacks against American targets despite obama’s apologies to every country that would have him for a visit;  the trillions of dollars of deficit spending reaching as far as the eye can see;  the lack of job production in the private sector, largely thanks to obama’s reckless spending that leaves private businesses afraid to expand– which is no surprise, given the promise of higher taxes, higher inflation, and a weak dollar.

Only a fool can pretend that obama’s policies hold water.  The Dems with experience are lining up for retirement, hoping to get out before being labelled as a member of the party that destroyed the country in 2009 before being thrown out in 2010.  Good riddance– I just hope we can recover from the doubling of the country’s debt under two years of obama– not even counting the damage yet to come from the destruction of our health care system.

Enjoy the video.  If you still respect the guy, leave a comment and tell me what you’re smoking- I’d like to check it out myself!

I used to be quite Left in my thinking.  My views changed midway through the Clinton Presidency when I could no longer overlook the hypocrisy of my position.  People wedded to liberalism avoid the truth like subway-dwellers avoid the glare of bright sunlight, but at some point the light is bright enough to shine through the thickest sunglasses!  I am often surprised at how much hypocrisy the Left can ‘overlook;’ in the Clinton era a liberal needed only a bit of hubris to ignore the media double-standards, but now huge distortions of logic on the level of delusional thought are required in order to maintain the liberal argument!  As I try to understand how an entire country can fall victim to ‘folie a deux’,  I find order by dividing the delusional Left into two groups– the ‘low insight Left’ and ‘high insight Left.’   I will use a practical example to explain the difference.

Obama promised that HIS administration would be much more open than the Bush administration.  He said that all bills winding through Congress toward his desk would be debated and discussed openly on C-span (something that was already happening under Bush, by the way, but that has largely disappeared under the Democratic ownership of the government).  Obama promised there would be no back-door sessions, no private meetings with lobbyists, no kickbacks or bribes, and that every new piece of legislation would be published for at least 5 days on the internet for all citizens with a computer to see and review.  He promised to seek bipartisanship and to listen to the ‘middle’ of the country.  Of course anyone with even half a mind knows what has INSTEAD happened  (and if you don’t already know all of this, you must have quite a blind spot!!).  We can look at the ’stimulus’ bill– a piece of legislation that spent more money than 99% of the bills that ever pass through the legislature.  Obama sent it to Congress demanding passage, without allowing time for even Congress or the Senate to review the bill– let alone the American people!  There was no bipartisanship, and no allowing for debate.  Anyone from private industry who stood in the way was called out publicly by the President in a way that I have not witnessed during my 50 years—and in a way I hope I never have to see again.  Obama literally provoked death threats against bankers and company executives—openly, without complaint by the media!  Given the way it was thrown together, it is not surprising that studies of the ‘Stimulus’ Bill show that most of the money goes to districts where Democrats hold power.  Even worse, more money goes to wealthy Congressional districts than to poor districts!  Secret meetings with lobbyists were not disclosed, and that the press did not asked about them.  The process was more secretive than ever before– forget ‘more open!’  The result was a mess;  pay-offs to liberal groups and spending that occurs years after the recession ends, rather than targeted stimulus.   And not surprisingly we have had no job creation beyond what happens after every recession– perhaps even lower job production from the fear of higher taxes for businesses instilled by Obama spending a trillion extra dollars.  It is one thing to avoid trimming government too far during a recession, but another thing to waste of massive sums of money, resulting in deficits four times higher than the worst deficits under Bush (Obama also promised to trim the ‘immoral’ Bush deficits, by the way).

The low-insight Left can be divided again into ‘true believers’ and ‘simple idiots.’  The true believers WANT to tell the truth, and really mean it when they say they want things to be truthful and open– but they believe so strongly in their liberal principles that things that aren’t liberal causes don’t ‘count’.  They don’t consider it lying; they think that keeping our own money instead of paying it to the government is a selfish, silly idea– and so fair and open debate doesn’t need to include that opinion.  Similarly, they believe that the Earth is going to be destroyed, so the climate debate doesn’t need to be ‘fair’– in fact, they think that evil businesses fight dirty, so they CAN’T be fair in return– that NO serious, ‘good’ person would even EXPECT fairness when dealing with evil business people.  The minds of true believers simply dismiss opinions that differ from what THEY believe to be true, but still consider themselves open, honest and fair, even if every counter opinion is suppressed—because the counter opinions are not ‘valid’ enough to count.  If a respected scientist makes a discovery that causes his/her opinion to change to the counter-argument, the true believer actually believes that the person was paid off or became mentally ill– and so the ideas don’t deserve ‘fair and open’ expression.  The other half of the low-insight group– the idiots– believe whatever they hear without question, as long as the messenger fits a certain image.  Obama was the perfect messenger to appeal to this group, and they continue to buy into him hook, line, and sinker.  Emphasis on sinker.

The high-insight Left can also be further divided into the ‘manipulators for a cause’ and the power-hungry egomaniacs.  Rahm Emanuel is probably in the first group, and I would put some of Hollywood into this category— at least the few Hollywood and media types who have a decent education.  These people know they are being hypocritical, but justify their hypocrisy by believing that the ends justify the means.  Tom Daschl’s book about reforming health care displays this type of thinking very clearly.  The reform is needed, so lying, cheating, breaking promises, and double-speak are all OK as long as they lead toward the correct goal.  They cannot trust leaving such complicated decisions in the hands of regular people, because they consider regular people to be a bunch of fools that they push this way and that way around election time.  Their contempt for average Americans was obvious during the TEA Parties, when Nancy Pelosi literally cried at the thought of meeting up with those unwashed masses.  The insight of this group of liberals is somewhat limited, as they cannot see the self-righteousness that their position requires.  They see people as good or bad depending only on party affiliations.  When someone from the Right gets into trouble, these liberals scream from rooftops about hypocrisy.  But when someone on the Left does something far worse, the transgression is a ‘fluke’– devoid of any meaning or importance.  Packwood, to these liberals, was a ’serial groper’.  Clinton on the other hand was ‘victimized by a right-wing conspiracy’.  Go figure!

Finally, there are the high-insight liberals who don’t even care about the cause; they only care about the power that the cause can bring.  We know that Obama is in this group because of his efforts to distort the meaning of words and phrases to try to look good, without any effort to really DO good.  Measures to prevent privacy while voting about unions are called ‘Free Choice Acts.’  Pay-offs for favors from unions are called ’stimulus acts.’  Government takeover of health care is called ‘insurance reform’ or ‘healthcare reform’, depending on the polls.  Worst of all are the outright lies.  Obama is not an idiot, so he surely knows that the passage of his health care bill will raise insurance premiums and eventually destroy the insurance industry—and the competition that it brings.  Obama knows that the bill cuts Medicare spending, and he knows that it will reduce the freedom to choose one’s own doctor.  But his speeches claim the exact opposite!  He claimed that the bill will LOWER premiums (watch yours and see), PROTECT Medicare (watch that as well), and INCREASE choice (good luck!).  Everybody watching the game knows by now that Obama couldn’t care less about the content of health care legislation– he just wants a win.  He doesn’t care that all of his promises will be untrue, as long as people keep believing him.  I used to put him in the first group of high-insight liberals, thinking he was saving up his ‘honesty’ for something important.  Before that I even gave him credit as a ‘true believer.’  But we have seen him lie about pretty much every issue!  There are no more issues to ’save up for.’  He does not care about the future of the planet, the future of the economy, or the future of health care in America.  He just wants his applause.  He goes to the Middle East and bends over, in order to get a roomful of people to stand up and applaud him– even if there are others in the basement of the same building working to destroy us.   Obama’s lies are too complete to be accidental.  He has become utterly reliable in what he says, as long as you just substitute the opposite.  If he says ‘I will cut spending,’ you know that he is planning on a major spending increase, and is simply preparing for the response. He uses the forgetfulness and ignorance of the American people to avoid being found out– and members of the press are true believers, so they don’t call him on it.  Obama could give a speech claiming that the sun rises in the West every morning, and the press would either ignore the comment or print it as true, boycotting any stories that claim the opposite.

Many of the climate types are in this group, by the way.  How else do you explain people like Al Gore living with Carbon footprints the size of Rhode Island, while selling books and movies about cutting back?  I chuckled at the stories about the shortage of limos in Copenhagen–  they were shipping limos in from thousands of miles away, rather than forcing attendees at the climate summit to drive hybrids– or take the bus!!  Many scientists have hopped onto this gravy-train for years, knowing that any research proposal with ‘warming’ in the title is more likely to win support than a proposal seeking only the truth.  I put Soros in this latter group as well.  Streisand and Huffington are probably true believers or simple idiots.  Pelosi is probably in the low-insight group somewhere;  I used to thing she was smarter, but after watching the ‘deer in the headlights’ look in response to the Town Hall meetings and TEA parties, I have to assume that the insight isn’t there.

With all of that as a background, some of the people who are trying to follow the truth have come to the opinion that the climate nonsense is a front for something else– namely for control.  This was certainly in evidence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit—people talking about seizing global power that made Obama’s selfish desires seem amateurish in comparison!  I supposed the ‘one global government’ folks have their ‘true believers’ as well– those who picture a world ruled by one leader, with all people believing together in the same, noble goals.  They are the same people who hate the US, and want us to pony up trillions of dollars for ‘past carbon sins’—ignoring the amazing advances in technology and medicine that came from our enviable Capitalist system, and that raised the standard of living for every person on Earth.  But take away the true believers– the peace fairies and blind idealists– and you have a frightening group of people who are to the current world, as Hitler was to Europe.

We are lucky that the modern Left as a whole lack the intelligence and insight to go very far;  the most insightful are also the most power-hungry, preventing any meaningful collaboration as each new leader is eaten by the others who want to sit on the throne.  But the power-driven efforts of the insightful Left combined with the sheer mass of ‘useful idiots’ can easily cause damage to our economy that will take decades to repair.  We are already at a point where half of the population pays no Federal income tax, opening the door to confiscatory tax policies.  It would be asking too much for a large number of idiots to recognize the hypocrisy of the President who they elected.  But the rest of us should at least keep OUR eyes open!  Please join me at my blog, where I do my best to read between the lines of the weakest and most secretive government to rule our country in decades.

This commentary is an interesting look at historical politics–   and how everything old is new again.  How interesting that the motivations of Democrats 150 years ago still ring true today–  only the details have changed.  Back then the Democrats wanted to free up rich white people to own black men and women as slaves (your public education has probably prevented you from learning that the Republicans were the party behind establishing the Civil Rights of African Americans– NOT Democrats).  Today, Democrats still want to own black men and women–  by keeping them from finding success through Capitalism, by promoting out of wedlock births by black teens, by increasing their dependence on government, and by making certain they feel like ‘victims.’  Have you ever thought about the fact that people who wallow in victimization are not the type of people who would vote Republican?  Just out of curiosity, where do YOU fit on the ‘victimization scale?’

In every election the Dems can count on the vote of people who they lead around by the nose, telling them that they are victims, and telling them that the Dems will save them if they get their vote.  Jesse Jackson keeps getting ‘his’;  Rev. Al keeps getting ‘his’;  obama grabbed his own piece a year ago.  Obama used the same old crap used by Sharpton, the black victim crowd, and the rich white folk who make their livings off the black victim business like Huffington, Soros, and generations of Kennedys.  They keep pulling on the rope in the nose, saying ‘we’ll save you, brother!’  But you know what worries them the most?  How ironic!  If Black Americans would get their act together– buy into the idea of personal responsibility instead of personal victimhood– they would start moving up the wealth ladder.  Dems shudder at the thought!  Because if Black Americans start making it on their own, WITHOUT the Government, why would they vote for Democrats?

That is why the healthcare bill is so important;  it promises huge levels of government dependency.  The bill will increase premiums, leading to the dropping of coverage by employers (or firing workers– either way will cut costs, and either will benefit the Democrats).  Then the Dems got their story back… you NEED us!  Can you imagine if taxes went down and Black Americans became more employed as businesses looked for people to hire– what would THAT do for the re-election of Dems?  Nope– they need to keep minorities jobless, poor, and without insurance, depending on the Government to come to their rescue.

The commentary:

When Legerdemain Is Used to Pass an Unpopular Bill

A Commentary By Michael Barone

It’s time to blow the whistle on two erroneous statements that opponents and proponents of the health care legislation being jammed through Congress have been making. Republicans have been saying that never before has Congress passed such an unpopular bill with such important ramifications by such a narrow majority. Barack Obama has been saying that passage of the bill will mean that the health care issue will be settled once and for all.

The Republicans and Obama are both wrong. But perhaps they can be forgiven because the precedent for Congress passing an unpopular bill is an old one, and the issue it addressed has long been settled, though not by the legislation in question.

That legislation was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Its lead sponsor was Stephen A. Douglas, at 41 in his eighth year as senator from Illinois, the most dynamic leader of a Democratic Party that had won the previous presidential election by 254 electoral votes to 42.

Douglas’ legislative prowess far exceeded that of current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. To hold together his 60 Senate Democrats, Reid simply dispensed favors — eternal Medicaid financing for Ben Nelson’s Nebraska, a hospital grant for Chris Dodd’s Connecticut, more rural health money for Byron Dorgan’s North Dakota and Montana’s Max Baucus.

Douglas did something far more difficult. He got the Senate to pass a bill some of whose provisions were supported by half of the Senate plus Douglas and some of which were supported by the other half plus Douglas. After passage, Douglas spent a day getting drunk — a consolation unavailable to the teetotaling Reid.

The issue that Douglas said the Kansas-Nebraska Act would settle forever was slavery in the territories. His bill repealed the 34-year-old Missouri Compromise prohibiting slavery in territories north of Arkansas and substituted popular sovereignty — territory residents could vote slavery up or down.

We cannot say with assurance that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was unpopular — Dr. Gallup didn’t start polling until 81 years later. But the results of the next election were pretty convincing. The Republican Party was suddenly created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the 1854-55 elections transformed the Democrats’ 159-71 majority to a 108-83 Republican margin. Democrats didn’t win a majority of House seats for the next 20 years.

On the health care bill, there can be little doubt about public opinion. Quinnipiac, polling just after the Senate voted cloture, found Americans opposed by a 53 percent to 36 percent margin. Polls suggest that Democrats may suffer as much carnage in the 2010 elections as they did in 1854.

Nor did the Kansas-Nebraska Act settle the issue it addressed. Pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers fought it out in “bleeding Kansas,” and Douglas felt obliged to break with the Democratic administration and disown election-stealing by the pro-slavery side. The issue roused a former congressman named Abraham Lincoln to re-enter politics, and he beat Douglas in the popular vote (but not in the legislature) in 1858 and then was elected president in 1860.

A health care bill like the Senate’s is unlikely to settle all health care issues, either, though the ensuing political struggles will stop somewhere short of civil war. “We aren’t done talking about health care,” writes Atlantic blogger (and Obama voter) Megan McArdle. “We haven’t even really started. Our budget problems are as big as ever, and we just used up both political capital, and some of our stock of tax increases and spending cuts, to pay for something else.”

The Senate bill contains provisions that are likely to be revisited. Its language channeling federal and consumer dollars to abortion coverage is opposed, according to Quinnipiac, by a 72 percent to 23 percent margin. Its provision establishing an Independent Medicare Advisory Board and stating that it cannot be abolished except by a two-thirds vote of the Senate is of dubious constitutionality, and even if upheld in a court of law may not pass muster in the court of public opinion. Since when has Congress passed laws that cannot be repealed?

Kansas-Nebraska was an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by legislative legerdemain and political trickery. The Democrats’ health care bills are an attempt to settle a fundamental issue by partisan maneuver and cash-for-cloture. As Stephen Douglas learned, such tactics can work for a while, but the country — and the Democratic Party — can end up paying a heavy price.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER