The Real Roots of Obama's Rage

[Warph]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_real_roots_of_obamas_rage.html

October 07, 2010

The Real Roots of Obama's Rage
by Jack Cashill

On Monday morning of this week, after reviewing my book proofs and shipping them off to Simon & Schuster, I picked up a copy of Dinesh D'Souza's new book "The Rage of Obama's Roots" and read it until I finished. Happily, it is a short book.


In my own forthcoming book, "Deconstructing Obama," I ask two basic questions: one is whether Barack Obama wrote the books and speeches penned under his name, and two is whether the stories he tells therein are true. Like D'Souza, I focus on the most important work in Obama's canon: his celebrated 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.


To make his thesis work -- namely that Obama "embraced his father's ideals and decided to live out the script of his father's unfulfilled life" -- D'Souza must presume that the answer to both these questions is "yes." It is not. As I prove beyond any reasonable doubt, the answer to both questions is an unequivocal "no."


What undermines D'Souza's otherwise worthy book is that he had to ignore all the easily accessible research I and others have done on this subject to arrive at his thesis. In so doing, alas, he validates one of the sub-themes that runs through my own book: the self-destructive myopia of the "respectable" conservative media.


D'Souza centers his book on the phenomenon of anti-colonialism -- a potentially toxic mix of socialism, anti-imperialism, and anti-Americanism. This is a subject he knows well both from his studies and from his life. Born the same year as Obama, D'Souza grew up in the suburbs of Mumbai and can relate to Obama's cosmopolitanism on a visceral level.


D'Souza argues credibly that Barack Obama, Sr. was "first and foremost" an anti-colonialist and that his son is, too. Both assertions are true enough. Where the argument breaks down is in D'Souza's insistence that "through an incredible osmosis, [Barack Sr.] was able to transmit his ideology to his son living in America."


Like Procrustes, the mythological innkeeper who stretched his victims or severed their limbs to make them fit his iron bed, D'Souza whacks away at the facts to make his "incredible osmosis" theory work.


The severing begins with the story of Obama's origins. In his "essence," D'Souza explains, Obama was "his father's son." In his retelling, Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, served largely as the vehicle through which the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being "Obama Sr.'s first convert" to anti-colonialism.


To make this storyline credible, D'Souza has to embrace the narrative that Obama rolled out in Dreams and amplified during his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.


As Obama told the conventioneers, his father grew up in Kenya "herding goats." His mother he traced to Kansas, as he always did. "My parents shared not only an improbable love," said Obama. "They shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation."  


Like Obama, D'Souza sustains this narrative at the expense of the facts, and he does so in several salient ways. First, he tells the reader only of Ann's "white-bread upbringing in the Midwest." He neglects to tell us that Ann and her parents moved to the Seattle area when she was twelve and remained there until she had completed her senior year of high school.


Next, to make the conversion story convincing, D'Souza suppresses Ann's radical roots. The reader does not learn that Ann felt most at home in "anarchy alley," a wing of Mercer Island High where the school's progressive teachers held forth, or that she attended a Unitarian church affectionately known as "the little Red church on the hill," or that she hung out in Seattle's coffee shops talking jazz, foreign films, and liberal politics.


Finally, and most critically, D'Souza has to accept the Obama-generated myth that the happy little family lived together until Obama was two, whereupon his father reluctantly departed for Harvard.  


As is easily proven, Ann enrolled for night classes at the University of Washington that began on August 19, 1961, just fifteen days after the presumed date of Obama's birth. In June 1962, while Ann and her ten-month old baby were still in Seattle, Barack Sr. left for a grand tour of mainland universities on his triumphant way to Harvard. The Honolulu Advertiser did a story on the same.  


In short, the little Obama family never lived together. It is likely that Ann and Barack Sr. never really dated, let alone married in any meaningful way. It is less likely, though possible, that Barack Sr. was not the real biological father. D'Souza buries the verifiable and fails to explore the possible. All of it challenges his thesis.


Forgive me if I take a wee bit personally the second large procrustean swipe on D'Souza's part. For the last two years, I have been writing articles on the true authorship of Obama's works, most notably Dreams from My Father.


In September 2009, in his otherwise Obama-friendly book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen confirmed my thesis that former terrorist Bill Ayers played a major role in the writing of Dreams. Andersen based his account on two obviously well-informed sources from Obama's Hyde Park neighborhood. Not a word on this subject makes it into D'Souza's book.


In his two-page synopsis of the Ayers-Obama relationship, D'Souza describes the pair as "fellow anti-colonial warriors" and freely admits that in Ayers's 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days, "[t]he anti-colonial themes jump out at you."


And yet, while conceding Obama's lack of "comprehensive knowledge" on the subject, D'Souza refuses to explore whether Ayers might have been the source of what knowledge he did have. The reason seems obvious enough. If Ayers provided the anti-colonial overlay to Dreams, as I have argued, then D'Souza's thesis is shot.


Ayers, in fact, has been schooling himself in anti-colonialism's many permutations for nearly fifty years. What is more, he has been a respected peer of Obama's acknowledged mentors. The preeminent anti-colonialist Edward Said wrote a blurb for Fugitive Days. Said's fellow traveler, Rashid Khalidi, gave Ayers top credit for helping him edit his book, Resurrecting Empire.


D'Souza also slights Ayers on the subject of rage. He attributes Obama's presumed anger to the imperialist world's treatment of his father. The actual villains being dead, writes D'Souza, "the rage takes a different form and settles on a different target."


Other than in the pages of Dreams, however, Obama has never seemed particularly enraged. Many of his friends have commented on the disparity between the angry Obama of the memoir and the amiable Obama of real life.  


Obama surely imported the brooding Telemachus imagery of Dreams from Ayers's inexplicably angry life. In Fugitive Days, "rage" rules. Ayers speaks of "rage" the way that Eskimos do of snow -- in so many varieties, so often, that he feels the need to qualify it. He tells of how his "rage got started," how it evolved into an "uncontrollable rage -- fierce frenzy of fire and lava," and how it climaxed in the famed "Days of Rage."


It gets worse. So fixed is D'Souza on the image of an angry Obama avenging his father's failures that he misinterprets the book's climactic scene. As told in Dreams, Obama finds himself at the burial site of his father and grandfather. "For a long time I sat between the two graves and wept," reads the text. D'Souza takes Obama at his word and editorializes, "It is here that Obama takes on the father's struggle."


This is all wrong. In his book, The Bridge, Obama-fan David Remnick concedes that Dreams is not to be taken at face value. He calls it a "mixture of verifiable fact, recollection, recreation, invention, and artful shaping." The grave scene registers high on the invention scale.


As I have argued in these pages, Ayers has imposed an Homeric structure on Obama's life. Obama's trip to Kenya and the burial site serves the same purpose that Odysseus' trip to the underworld serves: a chance to reconcile with the spirits of the past.


What Obama pulls from this experience, in a sequence that feels heavily indebted to his muse and largely contrived after the fact, has nothing to do with anti-colonial rage. Just the opposite. He learns that home is where the heart is. Cultural "authenticity" is an illusion, and there is "no shame in confusion." There was shame only in the silence that leads the individual to try to form an identity without help from a community of others.  


From Africa, Dreams passes at warp speed through Obama's Harvard experience and culminates with his wedding to Michelle. Just as the Odyssey ends with Odysseus reuniting with his wife, Penelope, Obama rounds his circle by marrying into the African-American culture that has beguiled him all his life.  


Michelle is "a daughter of the South Side," the real McCoy. "I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves," Obama would remind America during his briefly celebrated Philadelphia race speech.  


More than anything, Obama has always wanted to be accepted as an African-American. Thus, the community organizing, the Christianity, the basketball, the wife. Yes, he developed an anti-colonial edge along the way, but this he got from many sources, none more important than his hippie mother and Bill Ayers.  


What has motivated Obama throughout his life is not rage, but ambition. He planned to be mayor of Chicago. He stumbled on to a bigger stage, and most of what he knew about the larger world he learned half-assedly by listening to his mother and by reading Dreams from My Father.


What D'Souza does describe well is the price we are paying for Obama's miseducation....
on "The Real Roots of Obama's Rage"

[Warph]

Where Are All the Jobs, you Poverty Pimp?? These days even Saturday Night Live is mocking Obama's failed job creation programs, mainly because the stench of Barry's economic failure has become a little too pungent to ignore. But then again Obama's programs were never designed to create jobs in the first place. As far back as 2008, it was pointed out that Obama's proposal put the environment first and jobs a distance third if at all, emphasizing environment efficiency and infrastructure programs, neither of which had any serious likelihood of creating permanent jobs. And unsurprisingly they didn't.

Obama has inflated the bureaucracy at taxpayer expense, but he has not actually created jobs. Had he cut taxes by the same amount that he spent or just outright put the money to granting tax breaks to companies willing to move jobs to the United States, he could have boasted some actual job creation numbers. But Obama has no interest in creating jobs. As a former Community Organizer, read Poverty Pimp, Obama is not interested in promoting, what his mentor Jeremiah Wright called, "Middle Classedness". What he wanted and wants is to create government dependency.

Poverty Pimps do not get ahead by creating jobs, but by taking them away and replacing them with programs under their control.  
....Community Organizers do not want people working, they want people with their hand stretched out to them.
....They spread misery and unemployment by shaking down businesses, blackmailing them if they will pay and driving them out of the neighborhood if they won't. Employed people have a degree of independence that unemployed people do not
....And Poverty Pimps are not in the market for independence.

Instead of creating jobs, Obama created more misery..... and that was always the plan. Now that he has sensed enough of the backlash to shift from talking about job creation, which his policies have failed miserably at, to talking about deficit reduction, which is a lot like Elliot Spitzer giving a lecture on ethics, but the endgame has never changed. Obama has created a monstrous deficit and every program on his agenda is meant to increase it further. For the White House which is pushing a trillion dollar government health insurance package to talk about deficit reduction is the sum of all hypocrisy.

Meanwhile Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman is busy arguing in his New York Times that the stimulus was too small and we need a much bigger stimulus plan to save the economy. But as the court jester of the Democratic economic apocalypse knows quite well, more government spending will not lead to job growth anywhere outside the civil service. The government can only create jobs under its own control and those jobs cost far more to create than private sector jobs and are built on the backs of an already overtaxed public. What government spending does is increasingly dry up the ability of companies and small businesses to create new jobs.

While the public increasingly blames the White House for the economic situation, the Obamas and Krugmans of the left blamed unregulated free enterprise. Their solution is to transform America into a centralized and planned economy, an approach that even most Communist countries have abandoned. But the liberal approach as always is to presume that it simply wasn't done right and that having all the bright boys in one room running the country would be an improvement over having businessmen run their own companies.

That kind of thinking is what put a 31 year old campaign worker in charge of running the US Auto industry, with predictably disastrous results.

The Brightest Boys in the room policy .....goes back to the JFK Administration, where the brightest boys in the room helped give us such successes as the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. In the Obama Administration though the boys part is sadly literal where the premium is not on experience or qualifications, neither of those being qualities that Obama himself possesses, but political allegiance. That same sense of liberal moral invulnerability promised that Obama would be able to handle Iraq and Afghanistan better than Bush, when in fact it is becoming increasingly clear that he doesn't even understand it. It also presumed that Obama could handle an economic crisis better than Bush, but in fact all Obama has done is played Poverty Pimp with hundreds of billions of dollars.

What Republicans must do in 2010 and 2012: ...is make clear that the chief problem with the economy is the government and the best solution is freedom. Government spending cannot create jobs, all it can do is inhibit the economic recovery that is a natural part of the economic cycles. Today more and more Americans are rejecting the idea of government dependency as an economic solution. Meanwhile when even Saturday Night Live can spell out the unpleasant economic truth that the only place that the government takeover of the economy is leading is to wildly useless spending and a sharecropper society run by our creditors from abroad-- it is clear that Obama's legislative victories carry the makings of his own political defeat.

But defeating Obama politically may well be a Pyrrhic victory if it leaves the edifice he is busy constructing intact. With falling numbers, Obama has not tried to do what Clinton did early on when he retreated from the unpopularity of his policies to try and seize the center, instead he has only tacked further left. Obama and those behind him are not satisfied with the slow revolution from within pushed by the likes of Clinton, instead they are gambling everything on the ability to transform America quickly, to replace free enterprise with socialism, and American independence with multilateral co-dependence.

And so even in the absence of jobs and growing public opposition, Obama and his people are pushing hard left, and gambling that the same factors which got them ahead in 2008, namely a tame media corps, voter fraud and the tattered remains of Obama's charisma will save them again in 2010 and 2012. And that means we can expect a growing escalation on both sides as Obama and the Democrats forge on regardless of public opinion working to create a state in which Republicans can only survive by being liberals.

 

[Warph]

'O'... He Of Little Faith
by Peter Heck

In light of the fact that an increasing number of Americans are questioning his faith, President Obama has apparently been told by his advisors to ratchet up the Jesus talk.  So at a staged event in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama complied by responding to a question about why he became a Christian.

"I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," he explained, adding he was moved by the thought of, "Being my brothers' and sisters' keeper."

One has to wonder whether such an answer was really what his advisors were wanting.  After all, who would ever suggest the president use the Biblical phrase, "being my brothers' keeper," when his actual half-brother (blood related) resides in a shack in Kenya?

If I may be so bold, I think this strained proclamation of faith by the President is far more about a Machiavellian manipulation of the masses (trying to convince people he's something that he's not) than it is about a devotion to the teachings of Christ.  In other words, I call bull.

Anyone who has actually studied and taken the 'precepts of Jesus' to heart knows that Jesus taught us to be personally charitable.  This is fitting with Christ's testimony that his was not a political kingdom, but a spiritual one (John 18:36).  He came not to conquer earthly thrones, but the human heart.

Yet false teachers like Obama seek to confuse that point.  They tell us that obedience to Christ comes in the form of high taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor.  Even if these programs weren't as miserably ineffective as what they are, look at what they foster: envy, greed, bitterness and resentment.  Not exactly the motivations of love and altruism that Jesus said were to be at the heart of our goodwill.

In truth, there is not one recorded instance of Christ advocating government confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the name of charity.


Jesus did say: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:40)

Jesus did not say: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you forcibly took from the masses through taxation in the name of these brothers of mine, you did for me."


Jesus did say: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

Jesus did not say: "If you want to be perfect, go, get elected to high office and then use the law to confiscate the property of those who have, and give to those you deem more worthy of it.  Then claim you are following me."

You get the point.  Barack Obama's social gospel of government sponsored theft is a flat contradiction to what Jesus taught. 

So keeping in mind another Biblical precept that "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), perhaps it's time to put Mr. Obama's fruits on trial against the actual principles of Jesus he claims are so moving.  If these words of our Savior truly spoke to Obama about the kind of life he wanted to lead, the evidence should be manifest.

But oddly, according to the New York Times, "In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income...'Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,' said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law."

Moreover, cited and notated research of conservative writer Ann Coulter reveals something truly astonishing: "For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million - more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 - but they both gave about the same amount to charity.  That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity."

In other words, while Mr. Obama is very interested in being charitable with your money, he's pretty stingy with his own.  While you may find that in the teachings of Marx, you won't find it in the precepts of Jesus.

As I watch Mr. Obama's persistently arrogant, sanctimonious sermonizing to a nation of citizens far more personally charitable than him, there's another phrase of Christ that comes to mind.  Perhaps the President would be wise to familiarize himself with it...whitewashed tomb.


Matthew 23:27-28 (New International Version)

27)"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28)In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness."

[redcliffsw]

Amen to the 'O'...He of Little Faith.  Well written and right as can be.
Remember that O's kind of false theology has been around for
several years and it's a doctrine that's promoted and compromised
by many churches.  It wasn't Christian a 100 years ago and it's not today.
Yet, it appears that many are hooked on that belief.

[srkruzich]

if i remember right i watched his little speech on it, and he stated that everyone has to find their own grace and salvation.  That one statement alone shows he knows nothing of christianity.  So how can he be a christian when he doesn't even know the  basic tenets of christianity.  Secondly if he is a member of the COC then he doesn't even believe what they teach.  The COC teaches that if your not a COC then your not christian.

[Warph]

From the desk of President Barack Hussein Obuma:

Dear srkruzich, redcliffsw, and Warph.
Although you, the great unwashed, are unworthy, I will explain to you that I, President Barack Hussein Obuma, am neither sophomoric nor subjective in my embrace of the precepts of Jesus of Nazareth.

After a quick perusal of the New Testament.... which I must admit I read over the objections of my good friend and mentor, Rev. J. Wright.... I realized that the precepts of Jesus were Directly Applicable to Me.  Allow me to enlighten your feeble minds to whatever degree possible.

First, Jesus said he was "the way, the truth and the light", which was doubtlessly to some extent true for his generation.  Just so, I, Barack Hussein Obuma, am The Way, The Truth, and The Light for this generation, and for all to follow once I implement my full agenda.  Truly no one will come to the great father of us all, cradle to grave sustenance from a caring federal government, except through ME.

Jesus also had to suffer persecution.  If only he had known how much more I would have to endure in THIS generation.  Sure, he had folks mock him some, but I have to deal with the Great Satan, FOX NEWS, and truly their demons are legion..... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly; or the Three Fools as I like to call them.... and they persecute Me without cause or care.  And how could those pathetic scribes and Pharisees compare to the rabble-filled hordes of Tea-baggers that hound me and my faithful disciples all across this nation?  Truly, I am persecuted even more than Jesus, and thus am shown to be More Worthy.  As to that business about a cross, my good friend Rev. J. Wright assures me that part is purely apocryphal and has no real bearing on the meaning of the New Testament.

Jesus was also a healer in his day.  Well, he healed a few, and seemed kind of hit and miss to tell the truth.  I, Barack Hussein Obuma, will exceed him in this regard once my marvelous health care system is in place.  Jesus may have been the great physician, I will be The Greatest Physician, and all will love and worship me when the see my benevolence.

Of course, many of you less-enlightened "Christians" persist in the medieval superstition about Jesus being raised from the dead, which is not only utter nonsense, but, I have been assured by my good friend and spiritual guide Rev. J. Wright, really has nothing to do with the main message of the gospels.  Well, I will show you a real miracle, a sign if you must have it, for even though Rasmussen, Gallup and their ilk have blasphemed My Great Name... BARACK HUSSEIN OBUMA.... in publishing poor poll numbers of alleged individuals claiming to disapprove of my performance, soon this will reverse.  My poll numbers will rise from the grave just before election day, the people's love for me will be universal, and my disciples shall be vindicated at the ballot box. Just wait and see.

Now Srkruzich, Redcliffsw and Warph, I give you one final admonition. You three fools have spoken evil of The True Messiah of this age.  Thus you must repent.  DOWN ON YOUR KNEES FOR ME!  YOU AND ALL YOUR PITIFUL TEA-BAGGER FRIENDS WILL BOW BEFORE ME!  PRAY THAT I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THE IMPERTINENCE YOU HAVE SHOWN AGAINST MY MOST HOLY NAME!

Meantime, have a nice day.

Your President for Life,
Barack Hussein Obuma

[Warph]

Some comments on this article:

******What kind of egomaniac writes two autobiographies before he's forty-years-old? This autocrat has it out for America and what she stands for. You true believers need to wake up to the REAL obama that the MSM kept from you during the '08 presidential campaign while you were rinsing yourself of your liberal-engrained white guilt. Feel better now?

******This article should be read by every American. The GOP should make adds - one based on each paragraph. It`s writing like this that can save America - if enough people read it, see it, hear it.

******Mr McCann: Thank you for this brilliant article. Political correctness has been ruinous for all, denying truths is a denial of reality that is destructive and irresponsible. Political correctness is the equivalent of excuses that lower standards and allows acceptance of the unacceptable. There is a huge difference between a diplomatic, respectful style and truthfulness, they are not mutually exclusive.

******Absolutely fantastic piece! It is time someone stands up and says the "emporer has no clothes" and tell the world who this man really is. The other members of the commentary community are too intimidated to state what Mr. McCann has so eloquently described. Perhaps it took someone with his personal background to be able to stand up to the political correctness of today.

*****Of all the things Obama has done and said to date, I don't think we have seen "nothing" yet. After the elections, Obama will be faced with a group with actual power to counter his moves. At a minimum, the House in Repub hands will control the purse strings and will chair investigations into Dem activities over the past two years. With his agenda stymied and investigations baring some damning secrets, I expect Obama to "lose it". His cool demeanor will disappear and he will lash out in a  mean and petty manner against the "forces of evil" that stand in his way.



http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/barack_obama_liar_and_demagogu.html
October 11, 2010
Barack Obama: Liar and Demagogue
by Steve McCann


There are among the population of the country Barack Obama has been chosen to lead those who have experienced firsthand the iron fist of a dictatorial government and who have survived the bloodshed that resulted. Tens of millions died during the past century under dictators. Deep within their psyche, these survivors are extraordinarily attuned to those factors that gave rise to the devastation when dictators have their way.  

They know that the first step along this path is the emergence of a leader willing to do or say anything to promote a destructive and failed political philosophy and to achieve power by manipulating the emotions, fears, and prejudices of the people. But above all, they are mindful that only by exposing those who are determined to undermine their society, without hesitation or fear, can their nation be saved

Therefore, on behalf of those of us who have lived through the worst of times, and based upon the president's words and deeds, it must be stated that Mr. Obama is a liar and a demagogue!!!

This deception began during the presidential campaign. Falling sway to soothing rhetoric and a deliberately fraudulent campaign to promote moderate positions on the economy and government, many citizens in 2008 voted for Senator Obama. Further, they hoped that by electing a man of African descent, the long national nightmare of slavery and the long civil rights struggle would at last be relegated to the pages of history. Capitalizing on that hope, Mr. Obama campaigned on the theme that as a political moderate, he would bring all Americans together and end the divisive politics of the past, as well as control the scope and size of government.

In the intervening two years since the election, the president, his underlings in the administration, and the sycophantic members of Congress have repeatedly invoked the checkered past of this country in regard to civil rights and never missed an opportunity to remind the people of Mr. Obama skin color. This has been done in a willful effort to capitalize on so-called white guilt, thus keeping alive the tensions in the black community and muzzling dissent, while enacting radical policies anathema to the overwhelming majority of the American people.

There has been no compunction in exploiting race or racial incidents, such as Professor Gates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Department of Justice and the Black Panthers, or the references to slavery in recent speeches by the president, to sow dissent among the populace. Given numerous opportunities to denounce racial demagoguery by his supporters or the media, the president has chosen to remain silent, thus giving his tacit approval to the onslaught of racial divisiveness and manipulation.

Employing the crassest of political ploys, Mr. Obama has, with forethought, sought to exploit the issue of illegal immigration by making it a matter of race and not law. His opposition to the Arizona immigration law and the false and overheated rhetoric used by both him and his associates constituted a deliberate attempt to disseminate fear and loathing toward fellow citizens by the Hispanic population in order to capture Hispanic votes and ensure Obama's and his party's radical wing's continued and expanded hold on power.

In a time of recession and apprehension about the future economic well-being of the country, President Obama has exploited one of the oldest of man's failings: envy towards those perceived to have more. Whether it is allusions to "the fat cats" in corporate America or snide references to millionaires or the implication that all of the average citizen's problems can be solved by taking away money from the rich (who supposedly achieved their wealth on the backs of the poor), it is an age-old tactic geared to distract the populace by inciting anger against their fellow citizens and to present the government as the final arbiter of "fairness," which results in the massive expansion of governmental dominance.

In furtherance of these aims, the lies and misrepresentations by Barack Obama and his administration are legion. But none are as egregious as those made in order to pass the Health Care Reform Act. Among the lies were assurances that premiums would not rise, Medicare would not be cut, everyone would be able to keep his or her current doctor and insurance, abortion would not be funded, and national medical costs would be reduced. All were total fabrications used to pass the most insidious attack on personal freedom in the history of the country.

It is of no difference who may have written the bill or what it may have contained within its 2,400 pages or whether Barack Obama or the members of Congress had read it. These false claims by the president would still have been made, as his only concern was to take away liberty from the people and vest it in himself and the government.

No president of the United States, or leader of any other country, would have made his primary foreign policy to go about the world apologizing and denigrating his nation, thus mocking the enormous sacrifices generations of Americans have made to save countless millions of people over the past century. Barack Obama, in a grandiose display of narcissism, did so only as a means of ingratiating himself to others and elevating his stature as a world figure. By his rhetoric and strategy, Mr. Obama has sunk to the same level as numerous demagogues over the past 150 years who employed these same tactics as a means of achieving personal and centralized power.

The United States is on the precipice of failure. It may follow the well-worn path taken by so many great powers over the centuries and become an entry in the list of the rise and fall of great nations. This country cannot sit idly by and allow a president (or any other national leader) whose guiding personal philosophy is "the end justifies the means" and is thus devoid of honor and integrity, to go unchallenged by being reluctant to confront his words and deeds.

The media, politicians, and general citizenry must not be intimidated by Mr. Obama's skin color or the pall of "political correctness." They must face the reality of who the president is and his radical objectives. Too much hangs in the balance not to speak out forcefully and without apprehension, even after the midterm election, regardless of the outcome, and not to trust or believe whatever the president may do or say in the future. After all, he has squandered all credibility by his actions to date.

[Warph]

Turned on the radio and heard Sean Hannity say that Obuma still doesn't get it in regard to the economy.
Of course he gets it.

Hannity was talking about how income tax will sky rocket next year and that along with this Obuma also wants a huge value added tax.  This will , of course, break the middle class, put people out of business and create chaos and poverty.

This isn't because he is inept. This is exactly what he wants.

Obuma isn't interested in helping the United States to remain on top, to remain viable and prosperous.  His agenda is to stop that and bring it down.  His biographies and writings prove it.  He has a profound dislike of America and for Britain and France as well.   
This is why while stopping off shore drilling in the USA, he sends millions to aid Brazil in setting up off shore drilling.  That is just one example of many.

Obuma feels that wealth comes only from greed, not hard work and enterprise but only from greed.  Indeed his father in his own writings, which deeply effected Obuma Jr., stated that taxing up to 100% of the income of the "rich" is not outlandish!

When I hear people say Obuma doesn't know what he is doing , I cringe.... because he knows exactly what he is doing and I have always believed that.

Media Matters' defended Obuma saying he lives among the poor.  Horse Hockey!  He eats Wagyu beef, lives in a multi-million dollar home and wears designer clothing.  His vacation expenses are legendary.  Give us a break.... please.  These half baked defenses are stupid, idiotic.

Barack Hussein Obuma is not a failure.  He is succeeding quite nicely in all he wants to do.

...Warph

[Warph]

Obama's Tipoff
by Elihu Perkins
October 12, 2010


Few things in cinema are more satisfying than a good "tipoff." Most often it happens in suspense films. Moviemakers use it when, let's say, the murderer of the piece hides in plain sight among the entire cast.

It's the "a-ha" instant when a character -- through a fishy comment or a shift of the eyes -- reveals that he is not what he has seemed. It's the moment when we discover the unseen villain.

For many of us groundlings, this mechanism also is the way that we come to judge the actors on the stage of public life. While prepared speeches and fussed-over appearances may form our basic impressions of such people, we in the main take such things for what they are. We know that these great, meticulously prepared packages compose a mask the public performer wears.

But we desire more than this. What we crave is the small moment. Especially we want that tiny, unguarded flash. We await the instance that acts as a lie detector. We need the happenstance that speaks with authority to the truth or falsity of the public performer's mask. Is its benign sheen genuine, or does it conceal something rotten beneath?

Last week we had a bonanza in this matter. Barack Obama had something of a presidential wardrobe malfunction while addressing Fortune Magazine's "Most Powerful Women's Summit" last Tuesday. The presidential seal that adorns any lectern at which the president stands fell off and clattered to the floor.

His initial reaction was fine, if pompous. "That's all right, all of you know who I am." This is nothing new. We know Obama's a stuffed shirt. If he had stopped there, that might have been the end of it. But he didn't.

No, he went further, in a remark that has been less reported than the immediate comeback. "But I'm sure there's somebody back there that's really nervous right now. Don't you think? They're sweating bullets back there right now."                                                                                                                     

It was unseemly, the jeer of a bully. The Most Powerful Man in the World was pointing his finger at some nobody for a minor mishap that could have happened to anyone, at any time.

The public mask slipped here. The view beneath showed something just a touch gamy -- again. It brought back in an instant many of the Obama government's most unattractive episodes.

They've become famous. Indeed, they form the bare-knuckled soundtrack of this administration. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."  "Why can't I just eat my waffle?"  "I won."  "Boot on the neck."  "They talk about me like a dog."  "So I know whose ass to kick." 
                                                                                               
And now add, "They're sweating bullets back there."

The public reaction has been interesting.

Upon hearing the Obama anecdote, there were those who dived eagerly into the pages of I, Claudius. They seemed tempted to attribute the mishap, as did the ancient Romans with such things, to some supernatural cause and to invest it with spectral meaning.

But that's foolish. Any augury we may divine here seems restricted to reading the reaction of the human behind the lectern. And we did learn something I think. Obama's first reaction to an unexpected annoyance can be fairly normal. 

But his follow-up can be troubling, though. He invokes his station to deflect embarrassment.

He sics his power on the powerless.