Guess Who's Coming To Dinner The Convention

What political party convention would be complete without the Israel-hating, Jew-baiting, malaise-producing, America-denigrating, stagflation-creating, foreign oil-loving, proto-Obama President Jimmy Carter? It is appropriate that Jimmy will be at the Democratic convention since he is Barack Obama's mentor and role model on failed government. Carter will appear at the convention and speak via videotape.

Known as a do-nothing President who drifted with the political winds, Carter is an excellent choice for an appearance at the convention. Incumbent President Barack Hussein Obama learned a great deal from Carter, and is now giving the former president due deference. Both presidents managed to change the proverbial question “who's in charge here?” into the simple statement “nobody's in charge here.”

Obama and Carter share very thin skins. Even a moderate suggestion that the president might be off-target produces bristling and condemnation, although Obama has been more successful at using his Justice Department to silence critics and reward loyal disciples. Many Democrats have joined Republicans in proclaiming Carter near the top of the list of worst presidents. He has the clear title of worst ex-president ever. Obama is trying to steal both of those crowns, but he wants to be sure that people know he owes it all to his role model.

Carter did better on job creation. His record was miserable, but he places tenth or eleventh in that area among the past twelve presidents. Obama holds the title of worst job-producer. Carter showed small gains in job-creation, while Obama has lost far more jobs than were created in his first three and a half years. Carter did everything right to make himself a one-term president, and Obama is working hard to follow his lead.

Carter at least waited until he left office to alienate an important part of the liberal Democratic base. Obama has not been so circumspect. Jewish voters clung to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Obama by 78% in 2008. After slighting Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while spouting moral equivalencies between the Palestinian thugs and Israel, Obama's support is now down to around 64% or 65%.

In the past few weeks, the Obama administration realized it was bleeding votes from its very important Jewish constituency. Obama began what has been called a charm offensive to win them back. He actually spoke respectfully with Netanyahu, and promised more aid to Israel in light of the current situation in Iran. It was having a small effect right up to the announcement that Carter would be speaking at the Democratic convention.

National Jewish Democratic Council President David Harris had this to say about the Carter invitation: “When it comes to Israel and the Middle East, President Carter has unfortunately embarrassed himself—as his analysis has been stubbornly wrong, harmful to the peace process, and getting worse all the time.” What goodwill Obama was gaining was lost almost overnight. Before Obama became the official head of his party, smarter and cooler heads determined that Carter should not be invited to the 2008 convention to speak or as an honored guest. Nothing has changed much since then, except that an anti-Israel speaker seems to appeal to The One.

Obama has also followed Carter's lead in refusing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's proper capital. Pandering to the so-called Palestinians is a Carter-Obama shared value. Though he has not outright endorsed it, Obama clearly favors Carter's view that Israel should seek peace by withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders. There are those who suggest that if anything, Obama is even more anti-Israel and more pro-Arab than Carter. And at least Carter never declared America to be “one of the world's largest Muslim nations.”

All things considered, it seems to me that Obama is not intentionally challenging his Jewish base. It seems more like another example of his complete tone-deafness. If he wanted to honor an ex-president from his own party, having Carter sit in the gallery would have been more than sufficient. But in a speaker's list which includes Sandra Fluke (the Georgetown Law student who can't afford $7 a month for birth control), and Elizabeth Warren (non-Native American Native-American), I suppose nothing should surprise me. But then, I'm not Jewish.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

With Friends Like These. . .

Sometimes, your friends do more harm to you than your enemies. That’s been the case for Obama lately, and I’m not just talking about Biden shoving Obama into the gay marriage debacle. The truth is that Obama’s friends are causing him all kinds of problems.

● Obama Hates the Middle Class: Last week, the Republicans introduced Obama’s budget in the Senate. It lost without a single vote (0-99). More interestingly, it got blasted by the United Auto Workers as an “attack on the middle class and our most vulnerable citizens.” That makes this a double embarrassment for Obama. It also drives a stake through Obama’s middle class champion act.

● Obama Hates Capitalism: Newark Mayor Cory Booker, a prominent Democrat and Obama supporter, blasted Obama’s main attack on Romney this weekend when he went on Meet the Press. Obama is hoping that people will hate Romney because he founded Bain Capital. To do that, he’s been demonizing Bain. In fact, he just released a new ad doing exactly that. Said Booker:

“If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses. And this, to me, I'm very uncomfortable with. This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on.”

Booker has since walked these comments back, but the damage was done and it presented Obama with another headache and another distraction. Indeed, he’s spent the week attacking Booker and trying to explain why his anti-Bain attacks are justified.

● Not As Brave As Jimmy Carter: For weeks, Obama has been pushing the idea that he’s some tough guy hero, unlike Mitt Romney, because he ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. Romney rightly blasted Obama for politicizing military action in an effort to make himself look good. Well, The Economist decided to come to Obama’s defense because they now say there’s absolutely nothing wrong with a President trying to impress us with their military achievement (they said the opposite when Bush was President). Clearly Americans disagree as recent polls show upwards of 65% of people thinking that Obama was wrongly trying to politicize this military action.

In any event, here’s the great part. In defending Obama, they were particularly upset that Romney compared Obama to Carter when he said, “even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.” They are upset because they view this as unfair, because while the raid Carter authorized was a failure, it was not cowardly. In fact, they note it took more courage for Carter to order that raid than it took for Obama to order the killing of Osama bin Laden. Yep, they said that. To defend Obama, they took his sole positive achievement in office and told us it was less brave than what Jimmy Carter did. That is truly sad.

● Stop Condescending, Mr. Obama: We’ve discussed the supposed war on women extensively. And just when you think it’s finally dead and buried, along comes MSM personality Campbell Brown to lecture Obama about his behavior. Indeed, she just wrote an editorial in the New York Times in which she took Obama to task for his efforts to “relate to women” by saying that his campaign has been “maddeningly off point.” She says he has “failed to connect with tens of millions of Americans, many of them women, who feel economic opportunity is gone and are losing hope.” Then she says,

“In an effort to win them back, Mr. Obama is trying too hard. He’s employing a tone that can come across as grating and even condescending. . . Most women don’t want to be patted on the head or treated as wards of the state. They simply want to be given a chance to succeed based on their talent and skills.”

Julia anyone? So much for pushing the war on women.

● Give An Inch: When Obama decided to endorse (and not do anything about) gay marriage, he assumed this would shore up his gay supporters. Actually, it just increased their list of demands. Gay groups are now running around demanding that Obama come through on other promises. Indeed, they’ve got a list of 52 demands, including repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, extending Social Security benefits to gay partners, changing immigration rules to prevent the deportation of same-sex partners, adding gays to the Violence Against Women Act, preventing workplace discrimination, etc. Rather than making them happy, he has just stirred the nest.

● Show Me The Money: Romney’s super PAC not only blew Obama away in terms of raising cash in April, but they had a lot more cash on hand to begin with, even despite having to fight a long and nasty primary. The MSM once claimed Obama would get a billion dollars and now they are fretting that he can’t even keep up with Mitt Romney. Moreover, Tea Party groups have many-times more money on hand than both. So much for all of Obama’s rich friends.

All in all, Obama’s bad year continues. His campaign can’t get traction and he’s found no way to attack Romney. The things he’s tried, like the war on women and the attacks on Bain Capital, have all blown up on him and now even his allies are criticizing him. His donors aren’t giving him any money, his supporters are getting pushy, and even his defenders can’t defend him without making him look like a fool. Ha ha.


Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

More Trouble For Obama

Every week seems to bring more problems for Obama. Perhaps he should quit while he’s behind? Let’s add some more chapters to Obama’s tale of woe.

● Tally Me Banana: The most reliable predictor of a president’s chance of getting re-elected is real take- home pay, i.e. how much Americans earn after taxes and inflation. This is the statistic behind Reagan’s famous question: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” According to a Vanderbilt University study based on elections between 1948 and 2000, a president needs at least 1% growth in the election year to be favored for re-election. So far this year, take-home pay has actually fallen -0.2% in January and -0.1% in February. Based on these numbers, Vanderbilt professor Larry Bartels says Obama is likely to get 45% of the vote. . . which just happens to coincide with Obama’s approval rating.

● Running On Empty: Under Jimmy “Malaise” Carter, the price of gas increased 103.77%. People went insane and Carter was tossed out on his rear. How does Obama compare? Gas prices have risen 103.79%. . . slightly worse than under Carter.

And here’s an interesting aside. It turns out that 65% of hybrid owner go back to regular cars with their next car. So if hybrids can’t sustain their popularity with the people most likely to buy one, then it’s hard to see how Obama’s anti-gas push won’t hurt him.

● Burning Down The House: After never actually recovering, the housing market has started slipping again. The left is stumped. They really thought that this time would be different from each of the prior “recoveries” in the housing market. This is a killer for Obama because most Americans use their homes as their retirement savings.

● Get A Job: Yeah, that whole jobs recovery thing didn’t happen either. After a brief uptick, things are looking bleak again. The economy added only 120,000 jobs in March even though it needs 360,000 just to stay level with population growth. Right now the real unemployment rate is estimated to be 18% (almost one in five).

● Party All the Time: As America enters its fifth year of belt-tightening, GSA (the General Services Administration) is showing the public that government employees continue to live high on the hog. In the past couple weeks, we’ve seen a lavish $822,751 GSA party in Vegas disguised as a “regional training event” (complete with taxpayer-funded clown and mind reader), and videos of GSA employees playing around instead of working. What’s worse, however, has been the response. Team Obama tried to blame Bush for this, which went down about as well as blaming original sin. Moreover, government apologists whine that these are “first-class public servants and patriotic Americans” and it’s unfair to criticize them! Talk about being out of touch!

Now we’ve learned that the government is handing out “incentives” like ipads and laptops to these hard(ly) working (un)patriotic Americans. Again, this is supposedly Bush’s fault.

● Taxman: The latest Obama attack on Romney is that he only wants to be president so he can cut his own taxes. If that’s the best Team Obama has, they should start moving now.

● History Repeating?: Interestingly, Obama said yesterday that this election provides the clearest contrast since the 1964 election between Barry Goldwater and LBJ. Hmm. Carter-Reagan beg to differ, but let’s consider the parallels:

In 1964, LBJ tried to destroy the United States by imposing the Ingrate Society. Obama tried to do the same with his Crony Society and ObamaCare. In 1964, Johnson set us up to lose the Vietnam War. Obama is doing the same throughout the Middle East. In 1964, race was a flashpoint throughout the country. Now, Obama/Holder are trying to generate a race riot. In 1964, LBJ used one of the most despicable ads of all time -- the daisy ad, which suggested Goldwater wanted to start a nuclear war. Now, the Democrats and Obama are whining about a Republican war on old people and women and blacks. LBJ was a corrupt bastard. Well, shuck my grits, so is Obama! In 1964, the federal government tried to stop illegal voting practices which kept blacks form voting. Now, Obama is letting the Black Panthers intimidate voters and is whining about voter-ID laws being a return to Jim Crow.

In any event, there is method in this racist’s madness. Obama is invoking 1964 and not FDR because 1964 has been associated with the Voting Rights Act. Basically, this is an attempt to fire up his black base without alerting whites to what he is doing. And speaking of his black base. . .

● Black or White?: Although the MSM has been quick to hide Obama’s name now in connection with the Trayvon Martin scandal, it seems to be coming up a lot. And where it comes up the most is in questions about why Obama doesn’t seem to care about white people? After commenting about Trayvon, he failed to condemn the Black Panther bounty on Zimmerman. Then he failed to address several other black-on-white hate crimes. Now he’s ignored the beating of a 27-year-old white man in Gainesville by a group of 5-8 blacks who jumped the man and shouted “Trayvon” before the attack began. Even the Gainesville P.D. has declared the crime “racially motivated.” Yet, Obama has not called for calm or demanded that people not seek racist revenge for Trayvon. . . as he did when Islamic terrorist Hassan shot several American soldiers. In fact, the only time crimes, wars, terrorist acts or natural disasters seem to move him are when blacks are the victims. Hmm.

I think the left is realizing this is a problem because the MSM has all but cut off Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they’ve downplayed all other race-crimes, and they are trying to redefine the Trayvon shooting as something other than racially motivated. The new arguments are that it was the result of gun ownership or “vigilante culture” in movies. Of course, here are two facts to blow holes in that garbage: (1) there are 250,000,000 handguns in the US, but only 12,000 shootings a year, thus guns are not a motivator of any sort. (2) Almost every American has seen the films The Washington Post blamed for causing this “vigilante culture,” and yet Zimmerman was the only one to “get it” and become a vigilante? Thinking never was a liberal strong suit.

So there you have it, more woe for Team Obama. He is a sad clown now.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

It Ain't Easy Being A Demagogue

I’m consistently amazed at how well scholar Victor Davis Hanson can make ancient Greek history come alive and bring it forward to today’s parallels. Recently, he did a take on demagogues going back to the fourth-century original, Cleon. He then brought it forward to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in America. The original Greek word literally means “leader of the people.”

But the great Greek comedy writers quickly turned it into its modern meaning as a person who uses jealousy of the wealthy and successful, along with appeals to the masses, to advance his personal agenda.

Domestically, the word has most frequently been used to describe figures such as William Jennings Bryan, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and Sen. Huey “Kingfish” Long. Our demagogues were pikers compared to the experts such as Adolf Hitler and Mao Tse-Tung. A certain amount of charisma is required for a successful demagogue. Hanson points out that Jimmy Carter was more than a failure as a President. He was also a failure as a demagogue. He was boring, whiny and his speechifying skills were nonexistent. It wasn’t for want of trying, however, since Carter tried to attack three-martini lunches and luxurious private yachts, but he couldn’t get people to like him enough to hate the alleged “bad guys.”

Demagogues are good at pretending to be at one with the masses, even though they are far from it. FDR constantly chastised the rich, though he was not exactly the genuine American poverty-to-prominence story that his Vice President Harry Truman was. Barack Obama is not super-rich by any means, but he certainly isn’t a poor kid who made good as he would like people to believe he is. He has carried the “log cabin myth” far beyond its former boundaries. FDR and Obama both used the rule of stirring up popular anger against “the establishment.” Both were and are members of that very establishment. Both had the ability to wield immense power, including the redistribution of wealth.

As champions of the people, demagogues who are good at it use catch-phrases and exaggerations such as using alligators and moats to keep the huddled masses out of America. They have to paint pictures of starving poor children (ignoring the obesity crisis that they address entirely separately), and evoke plutocrats flying around in private jets. The demagogue must “share our pain” produced by the evil oil companies by making sure his tires are properly inflated, his car in good tune, and getting rid of those gas-guzzling old cars in exchange for a green vehicle.

The good demagogue must prove his mettle by rejecting demagoguery—except for his own, of course. Obama damns the habits of fat-cat corporate big-wigs and bankers, while spending more time on the golf course than all our former presidents combined. He says we must all tighten our belts while taking vacations that the rest of us can only dream of. He decries the use of private corporate jets while using Air Force One as if it were his own personal taxicab (a Prius, naturally). You must remember that the demagogue is always “the other guy.”

He says things like “we must bring a gun to a knife fight,” then condemns uncivil usage among Republicans when they describe an up-in-the-air electoral locus as “a target district.” He poses as the first “post-racial” President, but uses metaphors that picture his opponents as “making the down-and-out sit in the back of the bus.” He claims to be racially-neutral because he is of mixed ancestry, yet has his hand-picked attorney general call Americans cowards on race while describing his own grandmother as “a typical white person.”

Hanson also points out a facet of the demagogic personality that I hadn’t given much thought to. He says: “The demagogue, in messianic fashion, sees himself as a lone crusader taking on special interests, again, always on ‘behalf of the people.’ Almost everything is personalized in these cosmic struggles.” Which distinguishes him from FDR, and Reagan, for that matter. FDR and Reagan both used the pronoun “I” only when it involved an act specifically charged to the presidential power itself. Obama narcissistically uses “I,” “my,” “mine” as if he were the lone occupant of the executive branch. Most recently, he tried to steal the thunder of the SEAL team that captured and killed Osama bin Laden by constantly referring to what “I” did to effect the capture.

The good demagogue must also set himself up as the only reasonable person in town. That requires setting up straw men both to the left and right of himself so that he can take the “reasoned, middle position.” Likewise, he must denigrate anyone who disagrees with him as a lesser person than he himself is. Thus, Obama recently declared himself the only adult in a roomful of children. Then he told us all to “eat our peas.”

Hanson closes his treatise with words I wish I had thought of: “What impresses about Barack Obama is his ability to take an ancient art, refine it with an Ivy League veneer, and become a new, cool version of the old Cleon.”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Protocols Of The Elders Of Carter

This is a picture taken of former worst President, soon to be second worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter. He has just received the reviews of his anti-Israel screed Palestine--Peace Not Apartheid. The Jews conspired to give it a thumbs-down--even the liberals. Either that, or he hasn't had his prune juice yet.

Or maybe he just picked up a bug while he was on his fact-fabrication tour of North Korea. He returned in April from that unauthorized, and I mean unauthorized diplomatic visit to the wonderful Kim Jong Il worker's paradise. Unlike Barack Obama, whose visits are currently official, Carter's visits condemn all things American while visiting totalitarian dictators. Obama merely apologizes for our stupidity and arrogance.

In order to offset the pernicious Elders of Zion, Carter has formed his own group called The Elders who travel with him around the world stirring up peace and damning America. It's a sort of old farts' consortium of aging and discredited world leaders. Not content to bash the Jews alone, Carter and self-appointed Elder Martti Ahtassari of Finland went to Pyongyang to create an agreement with Kuddly Kim that would stop the onerous sanctions imposed on North Korea by the UN (front-men for the evil United States).

It's rumored that Carter proposed that if North Korea would destroy a rifle or two and give up cooking kimchi outside of airtight kitchens, he would convince the Americans to stop making nuclear demands while sending the entire food output of the Midwest to North Korea to make up for their attempt to starve innocent Koreans. Carter was apparently successful in brokering the North Korean end of the agreement, because he rushed back to Washington to present his plan to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

At first Clinton wouldn't comment on the proposed conference, since she was busy screwing free and open governments in Central and South America. She wasn't in any great hurry to accept Carter's calls. Carter has been trying now for about a month and a half to instruct Hillary on how to ease the tensions with North Korea. He's a bit of a dunderhead, and doesn't quite realize that he's not the President any longer. Hillary ain't returning his calls. But he should have recognized that his input was unsolicited and unwanted about the end of April.

Asked by a reporter at that time if Clinton intended to meet with the Peanut King, her undiplomatic response was "No--hell no!" It could be that Hillary was a little testy over some of Carter's public statements while he was visiting North Korea. Among other things, Carter told Kim that the United States and South Korea were conspiring to keep food from the starving North Koreans solely to get political and military concessions. Well, while you're insulting your own country, you might as well insult an ally at the same time and in exactly the right place.

Since returning, and while sitting next to the phone waiting for Hillary's call, Carter and The Elders have been busy undermining US Middle East policy while supporting the merger of two terrorist organizations in Palestine. Carter sees the cozy new friendship of Hamas and Fatah as the first step to peace in Palestine. He knows it will create democracy, and a genuine understanding with those damned recalcitrant Jews who are occupying the Palestinians' lands. The two are merely practicing the old Arab saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." They won't turn on each other again until Israel disappears.

Exhibiting a form of logorrhea previously unknown in the United States (he may have picked it up from Kim), Carter has also been blabbing about how "religion" is the cause of oppression of women. Well, he has a good point if you read the Koran. But I'm unclear on which other religions he thinks systematically abuse and demean women. On the Elder's site (www.theelders.org) Carter is also spending his waiting time stirring up animosities between the Cypriot Christians and the Muslims who want to take over the parts of the Greek island that they haven't already captured during a bloody mini-war.

Carter should put his hard-hat back on, put duct tape over his mouth, and go back to building quonset huts for poor people. Mr. Peanut--you're a disgrace to America.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Is America Ungovernable?

Did you ever meet one of those people who decides that something must be impossible because they weren’t able to do it? That’s a defense mechanism that keeps them from having to acknowledge a defect within themselves. Liberals are big on defense mechanisms, and this is one of their favorites. Indeed, every time one of their Presidents fails at something, they rush to warn us that this something is simply impossible. And when their Presidents fail utterly, we are treated to a whole slew of articles lamenting the fact that America is ungovernable.

Let me take you back to Jimmy Carter. When Carter was elected, liberals were elated. Things had not been going well for the country. Liberal John Kennedy botched foreign policy before he was killed. Liberal Lyndon Johnson botched the war in Vietnam, and his Great Society was worsening racial tensions and exploding poverty. Then, in collaboration with Satan, aka Nixon, the liberal Democrats in Congress passed a Soviet-style regulatory scheme to protect us from everything, and strangely the economy began to collapse.

But here was Carter. If anyone could fix our broken country, it was Carter. Why? Because Carter was a liberal-certified genius. Indeed, they called him the smartest man ever elected President. They pointed out that Carter was a former naval officer and a nuclear engineer (though Carter’s school records do not reflect this). They pointed to his supposedly incredible attention to detail, his legendary honesty (since dispelled by Bob Woodward), and his successful career as a Georgia State Senator and Governor of Georgia. Here was a man who was so smart that he could not possibly fail.

Yet fail he did. . . spectacularly.

He let the Soviets invade Afghanistan (a failure for which we are still paying today). He let inflation skyrocket and economic output collapse -- leading to a new term “stagflation.” Unemployment soared. The debt soared. He let the Arabs exploit American dependence on oil to dictate American policy. He let the military wither and the dollar collapse. And he went through an embarrassing hostage crisis.

Clearly the man was not up to the task of being President, right? No, not according to liberals. Instead, they “reasoned” that if the smartest man alive could not run the country, then the country must be ungovernable. Seriously. There was open talk in liberal ranks that “the Presidency is too big of a job for one man.” There was talk that “the economy had changed” and that 10%+ unemployment was the new natural state of our economy. And they talked about America needing to learn “to accept a diminished role in the world” because our superpower days were over.

It never dawned on them that the man they tagged as ultra-smart was simply not a good leader. It never occurred to them that he was weak, afraid, and that his economic policies (policies they believed in) were at fault for the nation’s problems. No, they chose instead to believe that these problems simply had no solution rather than accept the fact that the solutions they offered were wrong. Indeed, Reagan’s success in turning around each of these areas came as a great shock to them. In fact, they spent most of his first term waiting for their perceived reality to set in and the country to return to the “normal” state that Carter encountered.

Now fast forward to the present. George Bush and his liberal friends in Congress passed laws that caused bubbles to form and burst, blowing a huge hole in the economy. Our military was bogged down in failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. American influence the world over was waning. Oil prices were soaring again.

Enter Barack Obama. Liberals described him as the smartest man to ever be elected President, despite the total lack of any proof (and in spite of significant contrary evidence). They pointed to his ghostwritten books, his time teaching, his Harvard education, and his “successful” career as a United States Senator. Here was a man who was so smart that he could not possibly fail.

Yet failing he is. . . spectacularly.

Afghanistan is a morass. He let unemployment reach and exceed Carter-like levels, and he has no idea how to turn this around. The economy is failing. He’s driven the deficit/debt to unprecedented levels, so high that he’s risking bankruptcy. He’s let China exploit his party’s dependence on deficit spending to dictate American policy. Iran is getting closer to building an atomic bomb. And so on.

So what are liberals saying now? Are they admitting that their ideas didn’t work? No. It’s 1979 all over again. We’re hearing that 9% unemployment may be “the new normal,” and that Americans need to accept that the days of a strong economy are gone forever. We’re hearing that America must accept that “there are limits on American power,” and we can no longer play the role of superpower. And we’re hearing that the country may be “ungovernable.”

The ungovernable charge comes from the fact that Obama had supermajorities in both House of Congress, devoted zombies ready to do his bidding throughout the country, and a level of genius never before seen when he entered the White House. Yet, he failed repeatedly. He was never able to get his policies in place as he wanted them, and more significantly, his policies didn’t seem to help. Since liberals cannot accept that their policies run counter to human experience and human nature, and they cannot (yet) accept that Obama isn’t the expert to end all experts, the only conclusion they are left with is that there must be some change in the country that has permanently driven up unemployment, permanently depressed economic activity, and permanently weakened our power and influence.

In other words, it’s not Obama who failed, it is simply impossible for this country to succeed. . . just as it was impossible for America to ever succeed again circa 1979.

So watch for more and more of these articles, until they enter the next phase of their grieving -- anger directed at the false messiah. ETA November.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Administrations Seem Less Stressful

Ever notice that life is less stressful when the Democrats hold the White House? Actually, I’m serious. I’ve lived through several now and I can honestly say that the country seems much more at ease when the Democrats are in charge. Bear with me as I try to figure this out (or bare with me if you prefer).

Honest Jimmy Carter

My first real experience with a Democratic President was Honest Jimmy Carter. Good times, let me tell you.

Sure, we had 7.6% unemployment, 13.5% inflation, falling incomes, gas lines, labor strikes and the such, but that’s part of life. Anyone who says differently is just expecting too much. . . or so the media constantly assured us. Besides, Jimmy was such an honest man that you couldn't fault him. At least, that was the standard media motif.

With nothing to worry about, there were no nasty movies about Carter either. In fact, if I remember correctly, Hollywood was largely apolitical at the time, except for the occasional movie attacking Nixon. Oh, and the music. . . the apolitical music?! Great stuff!

The Evil Ronald Reagan

Then came Reagan. Man, the Reagan years were tense. The economy was crap. Sure, he got unemployment down to 5.2% and inflation down to 1.9%, but those weren’t real jobs. The real jobs were vanishing at an alarming rate, leaving us to sell hamburgers to each other. . . and our Japanese masters.

What caused all of our jobs to vanish? Greedy corporate types, all personal friends of Reagan, would forcibly buy our prosperous companies and part them out just to make a quick buck. I remember seeing a film about this. In fact, I recall a bunch of films attacking this horrible thing called mergers and acquisitions, and vulture..., er, venture capital.

And don’t forget what Reagan did to us with his debts! He sold our futures! Deficits of around 3% of GNP?! What was he thinking? (For cynics who note that Obama’s deficit is 12.6% of GNP, all I can say is that it was a different time and 3% meant more than it does today.)

Fortunately, there was strong oversight. The media kept on him day. . . after day. . . after day! He may have been made of Teflon, but that wasn't going to stop them. And who can forget all those Congressional hearings to investigate every single thing Reagan or anyone in his administration did (or didn’t) do! Even Hollywood and the music industry strove to point out how horrible Reaganomics was over and over again.

Oh (almost forgot), Reagan was dangerous too. He dreamed of getting us killed. He wanted to start a nuclear war! At least, that’s what a dozen movies (like Dreamscape) told us. . . and the protesters chanted. . . and a few Congressional Democrats proclaimed. . . and a bunch of singers sang about. It is any wonder things were so damn tense!

Heartless George Bush

Then we got Bush. He wasn’t Reagan, but he wasn’t much better. Bush brought us the wars that Reagan always wanted. He attacked Iraq to get its oil. In fact, I remember protestors screaming this daily, and of course Hollywood and the music industry backed this up in their films and music. The media did a great job of investigating this too. . . constantly. As I recall, they really dug into the idea that he sold Iraq the very weapons they would use to kill so many American soldiers and he encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait, a ruthless dictatorship of the kind that Bush favors, just to cause the war. True evil there.

Man, wasn’t it funny when he threw up in Japan? How many times did I see that on television!

Bush also gave us junk bonds, increasing the pace of jobs disappearing, and the S&L crisis -- caused by his nephew Neil Bush! He brought us the age of the never-ending Independent Counsel. And he created homelessness to kill poor people. Robert Redford told us so himself (Sneakers anyone?). I’m pretty sure the media backed Redford up on that. I don’t recall exactly, because there were so many stories about the 200 million homeless that it got a little confusing, but I think they did confirm it.

Very tense times.

Good-Natured Rogue Bill Clinton

Bush gave way to Clinton and things changed. Sure, Clinton loved women, but man was he a good guy. He was the Great Communicator II, the greatest politician of our time!

Let’s see, great economy, budget surpluses, nothing happened overseas. He ended homelessness. Sure, there were more mergers during the Clinton years than the Reagan/Bush years, but those were good mergers. They made America efficient.

Unlike Bush, Clinton never sold any influence. At least, I don’t recall hearing about that in the media.

Strangely, the number of films about presidents dropped off to almost nothing during his term. In fact, Hollywood largely went apolitical again, hmm. But that’s not to say they were playing favorites just because they were all FOBs. . . we got their word on that. Plus, don’t forget, they did do that one film about Clinton being a good-natured rogue who loves McDonalds. I remember a good deal of consternation in the media over that.

I don’t recall any protest music. But then what would you protest? He only used the military where it was absolutely necessary -- when the safety of the United States was at issue. . . like in Yugoslavia, and Somalia, and Haiti. And unlike Bush, whose failures led to a second Gulf war, Clinton solved the Somalia and Haiti problems completely -- or if he didn't, we never heard about it. He would have solved that Al Qaeda problem too, if the Republicans had let him. And you can't really blame him for Rwanda, no one knew what to do about that.

All in all, it was a very tension free time.

Bushitler

But all that changed when Bushitler stole the election and imposed himself upon us. I don’t even know where to begin with Bushitler.

Look at the problems he didn't solve in Rwanda, Somalia, and the genocide in Darfur!

And I’m not saying he caused 9/11, but I read that he knew about it and he didn’t call the airport to stop those guys because he wanted to create an incident to let Dick Cheney’s firm take Iraq’s oil. I don’t have any facts to back that up, and neither does the media, but I seem to recall reading that daily in real newspapers. I guess, sometimes the truth transcends the facts.

Seriously, was there anything he did right in Iraq or Afghanistan? Not according to the media, or Hollywood, or the music industry, or the protestors, or Democratic Congressmen, or Senators, or governors. And wow was Hollywood busy with movies about Bush and Iraq. The music industry too (how unfair to attack the Dixie Chicks for saying what everyone in the media was already saying).

And that was just the beginning. He tried to kill black people when he caused Katrina. He destroyed our economy, causing an unemployment rate that reached almost 7% -- no economy can survive with an unemployment rate that high, and the President is directly responsible for unemployment. . . except Obama and his 10.5%, that’s not his fault.

Bushitler also generated a massive deficit of around $200 billion! And don’t even think of comparing Obama’s $1.4 trillion deficit to Bushitler’s, they just aren’t the same thing. In fact, they're so different that the media doesn't even bother making the comparison.

Don’t forget Bushitler forced an entire generation of soldiers to develop mental illness and to become homeless. Everybody lost their homes! He let AIDS run wild in Africa, and, let’s be honest, he was stupid. How many times did I hear that! Probably every day. And didn’t he cause a school shooting?

Thank God he’s gone. Too tense.

Barack “The Messiah” Obama

Finally, we have the Obamatopia of today. What pleasant times. Sure there’s 10.5% unemployment, but that’s to be expected -- employment always lags in a recovery. We have $1.4 trillion deficits, but that’s Bush’s fault too, and those should drop again in 5-10 years. The dollar is falling, but that’s good for the stock market.

We’ve had no mass shootings and no terrorist attacks that have made the news. We have no homeless, and all of our soldiers are fine again. Foreclosures have stopped. We have no racial strife, except that racist cop. AIDS in Africa has ended. He solved Darfur. Obama brought peace to South America, I don’t think we’ve heard a peep out of Chavez in some time. . . certainly no criticism from him. Our relations with the Middle East are great, or so we're told.

What’s not to like? In fact, times are so good that most journalists have little to do except report what Obama tells them. I don't think I've heard a body count since Bush left office? And I guess the media dropped their demand to film caskets coming home. Who needs the stress of seeing that!

Hollywood too seems to have become apolitical again, except for the few films honoring Obama. Of course, the television industry also has worked hard to help Obama out with bringing us together and doing a few good things.

All very stress free.

My Point

Ok, enough. I think you get my point. I am actually being quite serious when I say the world seems less dangerous and less contentious when the Democrats are in power. For most people, it does. And there is a reason for that: the Democrats’ fellow travelers in the media and in the culture industry work to generate that perception.

They will savage Republicans on a 24/7 basis, including making things up when there is nothing to complain about. Angry films get cranked out, personal attacks are made nightly on television or in songs, Congressional investigations are held, and a chorus of hate arises all to keep the public on edge.

Why? Because the perception that life is contentious when the Republicans are in charge can be a powerful force to wear people out under Republican regimes, to get them to give Democratic another chance, and to keep fence-sitters voting for Democrats.

This is why it’s so important that conservatives reinsert themselves into the culture -- from Hollywood, to Madison Avenue, to the music world, to the media. We cannot allow this perception to continue unchallenged. It's like letting your competitor send people to your restaurant to bother the customers.

By the way, lest anyone suggest that the left is merely acting on principle, explain to me why they suddenly go silent on those same principles, and will ignore or forgo them, when the Democrats win the job? It’s all for show folks.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

White Man Kills Deer--Black Man Next

Of course, in this picture, the miscreant plans to skin and dress the animal for future meals for his family, but it does show that he must be a psycho. And as far as I know, if he goes for a black man next, he won't be planning on feeding the meat to his family. Or putting the antlers over the fireplace.

In case you haven't recognized him by now, the deer murderer is Ted Nugent, famous rocker and outspoken conservative, particularly where it comes to the Second Amendment.

This article isn't really about the Second Amendment, or racist murders. Its main purpose in starting out that way was to address something that the left does all the time. Say something shocking. Support it with no evidence. Accuse conservatives of racism, then tie the alleged subject of the article to someone you really, really don't like. Media Matters (the Soros-funded leftist blog run by the former queen of the American Spectator turned "straight" David Brock) first attacks Ted Nugent, briefly. Then moves on to tie him directly to Glenn Beck after quoting Nugent (who was discussing how Democrats perpetuate racism by pretending exactly the opposite).

Nugent's words were not exactly subtle or polite toward Democrats. So Media Matters concluded that the statements are "patently absurd." "The Democrats know that without the support of black Americans, their political party is doomed--at least until they can addict the immigrants who have arrived over our southern border. Get them dependent on Fedzilla handouts, and the Democrats believe they can own their votes. Meanwhile, the condition of black America continues to erode because our government keeps it so. How sad. How totally unnecessary. You don't need to be an historian to see who the real racists are in America. Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Boy Carter, Barry O. (Barack Obama) and others have been destroying black America for decades for their votes. That's the ugliest side of racism."

That may be a bit more strongly worded than I would have preferred, and limited in scope, but "patently absurd?" Not by a country mile. In fact, I can't find anything in it to argue with. Brock's blog had quoted a rather outrageous statement on Human Events online (which it neither refuted, nor tied in any way to either Beck or Nugent), but conveniently failed to quote a lengthy dissertation by John Perazzo which proved Nugent's point: "But if we use President Johnson's own stated goals as a measure of the War on Poverty's effectiveness, we can only conclude that the undertaking was a monstrous failure. Dependency on the government did not decline, but skyrocketed. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing rose nearly fivefold and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Also as of 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 196. Also as of 1974, federal spending on social welfare programs amounted to 16 percent of America's GNP, a far cry from the 8 percent figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960. By 1994 the number stood at about 5 million, five times the 1965 figure."

As David Horowitz put it in his Newsrealblog, Media Matters ignored that part because it "was thoroughly documented,using footnotes and everything (as opposed to, say, just quoting people he doesn't like)." And it is obvious that what Perazzo had just done is expand on what Nugent had said, and carefully proved it wasn't, as Brock would have it, "patent nonsense." As Perazzo put it: "The Democrats so-called 'War on Poverty' was such an obvious failure, and did so much damage to generations of African-Americans, the Democratic President Bill Clinton set about dismantling the welfare system."

Brock ignored another documented statement in the same Human Rights article, this time from Walter E. Williams, who incidentally happens to be black. "Racial discrimination has nothing to do with what's no less than an education meltdown within the black community. Where black education is the very worst, often the city mayor is black, city council dominated by blacks, and often the school superintendent is black, as well as most of the principals and teachers, and Democrats have run the cities for decades. I'm not saying there's a causal connection, just that one would be hard put to chalk up the rotten education to racial discrimination."

So far Brock has failed to prove that what Nugent said was in any way "patently absurd." So let's take some other quotes in the Human Rights article that would prove Media Matters point about Nugent:

"In 2002, NAACP chairman Julian Bond referred to Ward Connerly, a black University of California Board of Regents member who led the fight to end affirmative action at the university and the public sector, as a 'fraud' and a 'con man.' Bond likened black conservatives in general to 'ventriloquists' dummies' who 'speak in their puppet-master's voice.' "

"Jesse Jackson has called Connerly a 'house slave' and a 'puppet of the white man.' He also condemned Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's vote to place limits on affirmative action programs, characterizing Thomas as an 'enemy of civil rights' and likening his black judicial robes to the white sheets of Klansmen."

"The late columnist Carl Rowan sarcastically suggested, 'If you give Thomas a little flour on his face, you'd think you had [former Klansman] David Duke.' "

"San Francisco mayor Willie Brown called Thomas not only 'a shill and cover for the most insidious form of racism, but also a man whose views are 'legitimizing of the Ku Klux Klan.' Brown added that Thomas 'should be reduced to talking only to white conservatives,' and 'must be shut out' by the black Community."

Oops, I guess that doesn't work as proof, either. Well, Brock, you get one more at-bat: the link between Nugent and Beck. Obviously, you thought the connection between a crazed white hunter and a TV show host would prove that both were certifiably insane. Sorry to disappoint. Beck didn't mention Nugent anywhere in any of the columns you referred to. Perhaps in any columns at all. Nugent has never spoken of Beck, one way or the other. So how do you justify your conclusion that Nugent "is jumping on the Glenn Beck bandwagon?" Your facts are as illusory as your political convictions, and your journalistic integrity, for that matter.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Down, But Don't Count Him Out

Next Tuesday the President will be opening the school year nationwide with a canned address, talking points and helpful charts to start the students' annual propaganda school year off with a bang. On Wednesday night, he will address Congress and the nation on his nationalized health care scheme. But don't fail to notice that his face and his voice are showing up five to seven days a week, and may be implanting themselves in many people's minds as a permanent fixture.

The Democrats are comparing Obama to Lincoln, FDR and occasionally, Jesus Christ. Well, we know that's hooey. But too many Republicans who ought to know better are counting on Obama's poll numbers as an indication that he's more like other one-term wonders in the White House. Big mistake, and we'll pay dearly if we allow it to go on unabated.

Before we get too complacent, remember that we made that mistake with Bill Clinton, a far less ruthless politician than Obama. People had actually begun to speak of him as "irrelevant," so much so that he made speeches denying that he was irrelevant. Shortly thereafter, he was re-elected as the first two-term Democratic President since FDR. He won on a combination of personal affability, a lousy Republican candidate running against him, MSM squelching of "bimbo eruptions," and being lucky enough not to have to face a major international crisis. He lobbed a few missiles at Arab tents, quasi-military targets, and aspirin factories and made himself look decisive.

Assuming that Clinton's sleaziness would be enough along with his sagging poll numbers, the Republicans ran a lackluster campaign with a lackluster candidate, and handed Clinton his second term. His civilian criminal law view of terrorist war resulted in a few isolated prosecutions and convictions, including some of the principals in the first attack on the World Trade Center. It also resulted in an energized Al Qaeda. His refusal once to accept Osama bin Laden as a prisoner of war, and again his refusal to kill bin Laden on at least one occasion at a training camp played a major part in the subsequent second and far more deadly attack on the World Trade Center. His treatment of the attack on the USS Cole told terrorists worldwide that the United States would not do what was necessary to hunt them down and kill them. And all because Republicans underestimated Clinton and relied on polls rather than principles.

But because Obama is soft-spoken, proud of his family, loyal to his wife, and exudes phony warmth and misplaced compassion, far too many conservatives compare him to Jimmy Carter. The comparisons of certain milestones and public statements do tend to make those who don't view politics in-depth are somewhat apt. But only to a point. Make no mistake. Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter. Yes, he's namby-pamby about protecting American national security. Yes, he talks in spiritual terms (though not in strictly Christian terms). Yes, he talks platitudes instead of policy. And yes, he plays footsy with Arab dictators. But that's about as far as the comparisons can go, at least until some Middle East religious fanatic takes over an American embassy and holds everyone hostage. Then he'll have a half-assed Keystone Kops failed rescue attempt to finish the parallels.

So let's take a look at what's different (beside the fact that we don't have a Ronald Reagan standing in the wings). Jimmy Carter was a tough politician, by rural Georgia standards. Obama is a ruthless, doctrinaire politician from Chicago, with all the nastiness and will to power that goes with being a major player in a major urban political machine. When Carter became President, he failed to do proper obeisance to the Democratic political machines which got him the big states and the big cities. Obama knows where his power comes from, and he gives it proper allegiance, by staying in daily contact with them, and appointing their political hacks and agitators to major government positions.

Carter had powerful political enemies within his own party, and it made it difficult for him to propose then pursue a purely Carter agenda. Ted Kennedy showed public contempt for his President, and finally prepared to run against him after mocking him in the 1980 primaries as being a "sissy, running his campaign from the White House Rose Garden." Even those few Democrats who do not see eye-to-eye with Obama continue to present a united "stand behind our President" public image. Carter was a proud Navy man. Obama and his cohorts despise America's military men and women, but openly praise them while denigrating their main mission--to keep America safe by defeating the enemy overseas.

Carter won his election against an inept President who had succeeded one of the most intensely disliked Presidents in modern history. The Viet Nam War was already being left behind, but Watergate was not. The memory of Nixon's sneakiness combined with Carter's image as a lovable uncle overcame Gerald Ford's lame attempts to enunciate a clear Republican agenda. Obama came into office, succeeding a predecessor from the other party who had won two elections in squeakers. But Obama got a clear, if not large, majority of the votes in his election. He inherited a financial crisis which he was able to pin on George Bush (even though it was only partially true), and a war that had become unpopular and which he could blame almost entirely on Republicans.

Carter faced a Congress which was just barely Democratic, and certainly not unified. Obama inherited a Congress which was already heavily Democratic, and he brought more along with him on his coattails. Carter faced governors with a slight Democratic lead, while Obama has a clear majority of governors on his side and from his party. The press and TV leaned liberal, but did not act as surrogates for the Democratic Party under Carter. Today, Obama has a press and TV deeply ensconced in his camp. Carter wasn't very media savvy. Obama is a master of it. Carter had to invite the media to come to the White House. Obama has one network practically in permanent residence in the White House.

Like nearly all Presidents before him, Carter came into office to effect a change within the historical American system. And here is where Obama is completely unlike Carter, or any other President of the Twentieth Century. He doesn't want to move the system in a different direction. He wants to scrap it. He was mentored by communists, homosexuals, black liberation theologians, a foreign Muslim father (for awhile) and a radical mother who preferred almost anywhere to America, and of course 60s radical activists. He has a strong streak of authoritarian narcissism. And when he announced during the campaign that he wanted to "bring a fundamental change to American politics," he wasn't speaking abstractly.

Reaching the voters has changed radically in the thirty-two years between Carter's election and Obama's election. With his Alinsky training and deep involvement in ACORN, he knows how to organize every group with any dissatisfaction with mainstream America. And the internet didn't even exist when Carter was elected, but Obama played it like a harp. Carter fought off personal enemies and political opponents in order to enact his version of clean, compassionate America. Obama sees only flies to be swatted if they get in the way of his inexorable march toward a socialist, rabid egalitarian society.

Although Carter did have a good education, he came off (purposely or accidentally) as one step above a country bumpkin. His Southern accent was rural and exaggerated. Obama sounds urbane and crisp, and flaunts his [somewhat questionable] education and professional credentials. Carter couldn't convince the American people of much of anything. Obama has brilliantly succeeded in fooling the public into believing he governs from intellect rather than emotion. And again, unlike Carter, Obama is a master of misdirection. Obama speaks of equality, fairness, help from the government, cleaning up the economic mess, providing health care for everyone, knocking the rich and powerful off their lofty perches, eliminating special interests and making sure that everyone shares in American success. In fact, behind it all, is the radical thinking, but without the violent tactics, of Fidel Castro and the other "successful" leftists in the Americas.

Carter never appointed a leftist radical to any office, though at the time some of his appointments seemed very liberal. Carter foolishly backed down from dictators and foreign leaders whom he really didn't like much. Obama not only likes them, he patronizes them. He bowed to the Saudi King, and practically made love to Hugo Chavez. He giggled like a little girl around Russian President Medvedev, and quietly allowed Vladimir Putin, former (?) head of the KGB to lecture him like an arrant schoolboy (partially because he thoroughly agrees that America is fatally flawed). Although he is smart enough not to openly encourage America's enemies, he certainly doesn't seem to be able to find the words in his extensive vocabulary to criticize them or stand up to them.

Bill Clinton did attempt to appoint a few very left ultraliberals, but he never intentionally appointed a known communist, 60s radical left activist, or racial supremacist/separatist. When he got caught on a few really bad appointments, he knew he had to back down or else. Obama has knowingly appointed exactly such types to high positions, and utterly refuses to acknowledge what he has done, and shows every sign of standing behind his anti-American appointments. As a candidate, he felt he had to disassociate himself from white-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as he said when asked once after he became President why something he believed in should automatically trump what an opponent might believe, "I won." That belief in the absolute righteousness of the Obama Presidency motivates him today. He won't throw a white-hating, professed communist named Van Jones out of his administration, and won't respond to questions about why he appointed a man like that in the first place.

Another thing has changed, and it's something Obama plays in a way Carter could only dream of. America's attitude toward a common culture and a common understanding of the concept of ordered liberty has morphed into assorted victim groups and special pleaders with no belief in anything resembling unity. Diversity has become a loathsome, mindless mantra. And Obama knows how to play all sides against the middle. He doesn't have a majority of Americans so much as a majority of the pluralities which comprise all those various groups which he can turn on each other. As Quin Hillyer has said: "Obama has the talent to raise demogoguery to an art form."

Carter tweaked the tax code a bit, and said so. Obama plans to tax every hardworking American into destitution while claiming he's handing out tax cuts. Carter would have had a heart attack if anyone had suggested he wanted the government to replace private enterprise in every facet of American life. Obama is doing it at an astounding rate, and claiming it's just helping out troubled corporations. Carter attempted to extend some social security and medical benefits to relatively small segments of society not then covered--and got slapped down by his own party for doing so. Obama proposes to throw over a trillion dollars into universal health care, and nobody in his party even asks where he intends to find the money and who is going to pay for it.

Carter would have loved to know who in the general public was working against his policies. Obama opened a special White House e-mail address to get citizens to report their fellow citizens who were distributing "false information" about his socialist policies. Carter couldn't even get some extra funding for the Peace Corps. But Obama proposes to set up a multi-billion dollar civilian force to push his agenda, and the Democrats go "hmmmm." Carter took some heat for trying to get some youngsters involved in politics by having grants available for them to go into a nebulous public service. He was shot down. Obama cut his teeth on the felonious and leftist ACORN, and when they were caught time and again during and after the election committing one illegal act after another, he didn't disavow them. Instead he got more billions of dollars put into the federal budget to fund ACORN and similar community-organizing cadres. He has used AmeriCorps funds for supporting his agenda, and when his minions were caught doing so, he fired the Inspector General who blew the whistle, then defamed him. Currently he has co-opted the National Endowment for the Arts to work for his "recovery" agenda. Carter couldn't have conceived of such a thing.

In foreign policy, Carter was weak-kneed, but didn't actively support our enemies. Obama undermines our allies and potential allies while embracing or playing neutral with oppressive governments. He had nothing positive to say about the pro-democracy demonstrators in Iran. He has imposed economic and travel sanctions on Honduras because they tossed out an anti-American president who tried to undermine the Honduran constitution. But in the case of Ecuador's leftist president who tried to shake down an American corporation for $27 billion, not a word.

Domestically, Carter tried several "outreach programs" which would get Democratic operatives to glean information on potential voters. He was criticized. Obama has established an immense "data-mining" operation which includes monitoring e-mails and activity on the White House website while gathering names of potential enemies. Carter sported his basic Baptist theology, and invoked Christ and God on regular occasion. Obama informed the entire world that America is not only not a Christian nation, but it is one of the world's largest Muslim nations.

Carter took attacks on him personally and reacted in petty ways. Obama is trained in radical politics, and knows how to use attacks on him to his own advantage. And despite being the first "post-racial" President, he is quick to use the race card to explain why someone might oppose him. And he stood idly by (or was actively involved) in his Attorney General's dismissal of all charges against New Black Panther thugs who had been proven to have threatened and intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling-place. At the same time, he has allowed the very same Attorney General to pursue damning investigations against CIA operatives over their interrogation techniques which led to the thwarting of at least two major terrorist attacks on American soil.

The millionaire Kennedys actively sabotaged Carter. But their puny millions which were put into the service of Obama pale compared to the money being provided by the gazillionaire America-hating George Soros directly and through his multiple front-organizations such as MoveOn.org. Carter tried to influence and guide the dialog with his known supporters. Obama's team sends out daily talking points to various left-wing organizations such as the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post. Carter was boring. Obama is charismatic.

So this coming Tuesday, when Obama greets American school children nationwide, I want you to consider this. Obama resembles Carter in very few ways. On the other hand he resembles another famous world figure who is shown in the opening illustration on this page being worshipfully attended to by his future supporters (and later victims). Trotsky and the radical social democrats didn't take Josef Stalin seriously and paid dearly for it. And the loving peasants of Soviet Georgia and the Ukraine sang his praises, even as they were starving to death in the many millions from Stalin's policies. After all, how could such a mild, caring leader not love them as much as he claimed to love them? Carter is unlike Obama because Carter wanted to advance his idea of an America that was the best nation on earth. Obama, like Stalin, wants nothing less than government control of every area of American life, and he will do whatever he thinks he can get away with to get it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...