Category Archives: Barack Hussein Obama

What Media Bias? Part 198

There is a Media Research Center study which shows that from January 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 the MSM reported on Bush’s crumbling poll numbers 124 times.  Fast forward and between January 1, 2014 and August 31, 2014 the MSM has reported on Obama’s equally crumbling poll numbers a total of nine times.

This is what media bias is all about: its not so much the outright lies (though they are a problem – and an increasing problem), but the way that the same sort of story will be reported quite differently depending on whether it involves a Republican or a Democrat.  Take, for instance, when a politician is arrested – you can just about bet your life savings on it that if a Republican politician is arrested, his party affiliation will be front and center. Meanwhile, if a Democrat is cuffed, you’d have to read to the last paragraph where it is revealed that the offender may have had some slight connection to the Democrat party.

This is common across all elements of the MSM – doesn’t matter what organization, they all report things pretty much the same way. There is, however, no cure for this – the hard left people who make up the MSM simply will not change.  The only thing we can do, as conservatives, is to create a duplicate MSM to compete.  Fox News has shown the way, but we need a genuinely conservative news network; we need newspapers and magazines and all that MSM infrastructure which drives the narrative. And we need to start ignoring what the MSM is saying because it is all presented in a manner to help the Democrats and harm Republicans.

Obama’s Non-War

The usual course of action is that when the guns go off, we citizens are to rally ’round the flag and back our forces in the pursuit of victory. But that is a bit impossible right now – Obama and his Administration are telling us, over and over, that this isn’t a war. That we’ll be bombing the heck out of things and that lots of people will die horrific, violent deaths at our hands doesn’t count: per Obama and Co, war is only in existence is U.S. troops are on the ground doing the fighting.

So, no war – and thus no rallying ’round the flag. And even if we decided – correctly – that Obama and Co are just full of “stuff” and that this is a war so we’d better rally anyways, what would we be rallying for? Not for victory, because there can be no victory in this non-war. Its not like the enemy commander can offer to surrender to a drone. We’ll bomb a lot and kill a lot of people and this will help those who are fighting the people we’re bombing – and that, in turn, might lead others to victory. A Kurdish victory would be ok, as the Kurds seem a lot of very decent people – but it could also lead to Assad’s victory in Syria and Iran’s victory in Iraq; not exactly ideal outcomes for us. It could also lead to victory for non-ISIS, non-Assad forces in Syria, this might not work out well, either. Let’s just say I have my doubts about Administration assurances that they can pick the non-Islamist-screwball forces in Syria for us to back.

We can also get the worst of all worlds – we blow a lot of stuff up and kill a lot of people with attendant video showing what a bunch of hideous war criminals we are but after all that, Assad still rules his part of Syria, ISIS still rules vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and Iran has secured itself the part of Iraq it cares about (ie, Baghdad plus the oil fields). That sort of outcome is made doubly bad because if ISIS survives in any form, it will become the Islamist hero as it stood up to us, endured a pounding and emerged from the welter of slaughter with victory. Of course, all of this won’t fully come out until after Obama leaves office, so he probably doesn’t care in the least about it, even if he’s aware of the possibility.

This whole thing is the terribly bad decision of a man – Obama – who knows nothing of history, nothing of the world and yet sits assured that he’s the smartest guy in the room. I hope it works out – and I hope our losses are small. But the rule of thumb for war is that you either go all in, or stay all out. Our choices for ISIS were two:

1.  Go all out to war against them until they are all killed or taken, regardless of cost.

2.  Surrender to them and allow them to do as the wish.

Either course of action can have rational arguments to back them up. We have failed to choose between them – we’re just going to bomb a bit and hope for the best. I believe we will be disappointed – and maybe in a vastly worse geo-strategic situation two or three years from now.

UPDATE: Reeling from criticism about us not being at war, the Administration has decided we are at war with ISIS, just as we are against al-Qaeda. Meaning? I guess that six years from now ISIS will be around and a threat, just as al-Qaeda is still around and a threat after six years of Obama…

A Progressive (Sorta) Figures it Out

But cut him some slack on being 7 years or so later than the non-Progressives – after all, he’s a highly respected and credentialed academic and so his knowledge of reality is on the low end of the scale. Anyways, Cornel West has some gripes about The One:

No, the thing is he posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency. The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neoliberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair…

Brother Cornel’s real problem is that he, himself, is shackled to Progressive thought as much as Obama is. It never occurred to Professor West that the reality is that Progressives are the Ruling Class.  And as such, they defend the status quo because any change to that means Progressives will be out of power and out of wealth. People like West think they are still out there getting ready to storm the barricades of the Ruling Class never realizing that they are the merest tools and foot-soldiers of the Ruling Class.  The Ruling Class likes people like West – they provide a patina of intellect to a class of people who are only in it for the money, power and fame. They also cook up arguments which allow the Ruling Class to pretend they are on the side of the people.  If West were to actually sit down and think about it all, now that he’s seen Obama for the fraud that he is, then he’d also start to realize that his Progressive ethic is the foundation of the fraud (seen more clearly in the way West – and the rest of the left – turn reality on ts head and find themselves on the side of bloodthirsty tyrants in Hamas vs the liberal democrats of Israel).

I actually have all sorts of sympathy for Mr. West.  He’s sincere. He really believes what he believes.  He really wants justice and mercy and equality to prevail – but he’s also been suckered his whole life by a left wing narrative and he’s so far proven himself incapable of breaking out of it, even when the stark, cruel truth is right in front of him. If he’d just realize that Obama hasn’t conned people any more than Reid or Pelosi or Sharpton or Jackson or Biden or Clinton (both of them), etc, etc, etc then he’d be on the route to being useful in the fight for liberty and justice for all. Solzhenitsyn noted this problem with Progressives in his Gulag Archipelago. Writing about the true-blue communists that Stalin, in his humor, raked in along with the “kulaks” and “wreckers”, Solzhenitsyn noted this inability to draw conclusions.  The communists remained convinced that the communist system was good; that Stalin was good – they couldn’t go from Step A to Step B and realize that if a gross injustice is carried out under the authority of those who claim to be for justice, then maybe they aren’t telling the truth. West is still stuck in the rut – certain that Obama is a fraud, he can’t go past that and realize that Obama is just one of many frauds…and maybe, just maybe, some on the right are better allies?

Don’t get me wrong, we’ve got some blind people on the right, as well – but they are only a small minority compared to the blind on the left. In reality, you have to be a bit blind just to be of the left. You have to ignore some basic facts about humanity and history in order to really think, for instance, that a set of bureaucrats in DC could, say, craft a health care system for all Americans. But I still take it as encouraging that someone like West has at least partially awakened – and it makes me hopeful that maybe over 2014 and 2016 we can do some genuine good…that we can really get some hope for change.

Tell Them Lies…. Tell Them Lies…. Tell Them Lies….

Tell the people what they want to hear….

…in 2004 when Senator obame said encouraging words:

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America. There is a United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America, a Latino America, an Asian America, There is a United States of America.”

he repeated this promise to unify us many times. After his Iowa caucus victory he said:

You [voters] said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and anger and pettiness that’s consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that’s been all about division. And instead make it about addition; to build a coalition for change that stretches through red states and blue states.”

We see this was another set of lies as he uttered statements as “get in their faces…”, “…ride in the back of the bus…” And proceed to divide us along racial, sexual, religious and political lines time and again. These lofty statements that had the mindless drones chanting “Yes we can” and “hope and change” to near orgasm and to some fainting orgasm.

…after the Democrats criticized Bush from going on vacation (to which the man took several “vacations” at his home in Texas) and after criticisms of playing golf (to which Bush NEVER played golf again while soldiers were in harm’s way), SENATOR obame gave the people what they wanted:

“The bargain that any president strikes with is, you give me this office and in turn my, fears, doubts, insecurities, foibles, need for sleep, family life, vacations, leisure is gone,” Obama said. “I am giving myself to you.”

Obama went on to say that “the American people should have no patience for what’s going on in your head because you’ve got a job to do” and that people should only run for president if they’re willing to make that sacrifice.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/11/flashback-obama-promises-no-vacations-for-himself-as-president-video/

Let’s see… several vacations after still promising “I will not rest until…..” and over 150 rounds of golf while soldiers were put in harm’s way with strangled rules of engagement by this bungling idiot. Some sacrifice…. a look at the White House calendar shows obame’s typical day does not begin until 10:00 am. … some sacrifice.  Nothing should surprise anyone after the lies told during obamacare debate and the failed rollout.

Then the whopper Reid told a few weeks ago (give them what they want to hear):

“The border is secure.”

James O’Keefe proved that the progressives are lying through their teeth.  He snuck in from Mexico to the United States dressed as a terrorist.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721991/The-border-fence-joke-Filmmaker-crosses-US-Mexico-dressed-Osama-bin-Laden-Border-Patrol-says-once.html

Speaking of Reid, there are more than 300 bills (55 introduced by Democrats) that have passed the House and are waiting action in the Senate. Reid refuses to do anything with them, but yet obame and Reid say the Republicans are the obstructionists – and we have mindless drones who will regurgitate it without question – a few of them can be found at the other blog.

http://lynnjenkins.house.gov/press-releases/jenkins-352-bills-are-sitting-on-harry-reids-desk-awaiting-action/

What we all knew about obamacare from the debate, the speeches, the passing and the rollout:

Barney Frank: “They Just Lied to People”

I am still waiting for my $2500 reduction and savings.

Clinton lowered the boom. Pointing out that obame’s “foreign policy” (I guess not having one is in effect a policy) is responsible for the rise of ISIS.  Definitely, the crisis in Iraq is his responsibility.  He pulled out before Iraq was ready so he could check the box next to that promise (again, tell them what they want to hear).  Now, innocent men, women and children are being murdered for their beliefs.   ISIS has told them to “convert or die”.  Their blood is on obame’s hands – and the sacrifices by our men and women in the military are now worthless.

Progressives – what a collection of worthless individuals.  To them, no sacrifice is too great as long as someone else does the sacrificing.

 

People Are Wising Up

Remember this woman: “Obama Will Pay For My Gas And Mortgage” – Peggy Joseph 2008

Peggy Joseph now: “He Lied About Everything”
“Just like the Wizard of Oz, Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a man behind a curtain,”

http://dailysurge.com/2014/07/peggy-joseph-obama-will-pay-gas-mortgage-lady-now-says-lied-everything/

While at a Chicago protest (I am sure these individuals voted for obame twice):
“Barack will go down as the worth president ever elected, Bill Clinton was the African-American President,” one resident said, in response to the president’s performance on the job, “President Barack needs to pay attention to Chicago, if he can not pay attention to Chicago and the African-American community, he needs to resign.”

http://rebelpundit.com/chicago-southside-residents-go-off-on-obama-over-amnesty-worst-president-ever-elected/

This is confirmed by Quinnipiac poll:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html

“Forty-five percent of voters said the U.S. would be better off with Mitt Romney serving in the White House”
“Fifty-four percent of voters say the Obama administration is not competent at running the government.”

UPDATE:Shock Video>>> Blacks Met With Hostility, Harassed at Annual NAACP Convention

Nooo… not by the TEA Party as the leftist dumbed down talking points command.

All in all – nothing is really surprising if you are an independent thinker and not caught up in the “Cult of Personality” as are the mindless proggy drones.

Is the Solution to Obama a Parliamentary Government?

Part of the genius of our Founders was the really clever way they blended three forms of government into one.  We are part monarchy, part Republic, part democracy.  The Democracy, of course, is the House – one man, one vote and everyone counts.  The Republic is the Senate – each constituent State has equal representation regardless of population.  The monarch, of course, is the President.  Most people don’t fully realize this aspect of our government – but the President is as much a king as anyone who ever sat a throne except for one thing:  his term of office is limited by years rather than by his life span.

It is interesting that in Churchill’s history of the First World War – The World Crisis – the description he gives of the American government observes that in practical terms, in 1917, the American President held more power than any other single individual on earth.  That was written before the enormities of Stalin and Hitler, but by Churchill’s lights at the time, it was correct – even though Russia had a Czar and Germany and Austria-Hungary had Kaisers. The President is at once party leader, head of State and head of government.  A vigorous person in that office is able to impose his will upon Congress and the people and move policy in the way he desires, even without violating the Constitution. And the President can pretty much get America into war any time he wants by simple fact of moving military forces under his own authority anywhere he wants, and letting the resultant events almost compel a declaration from Congress.

I believe that our Founders set this up quite deliberately – that they wanted a system which embodies what they perceived as best in all forms of government, but with each side checked vigorously by other Powers in government. And it worked very well – we had our leader who could act decisively in an emergency while also ensuring that final power to actual change things was in the hands of elected officials, with a final referee, as it were, in the Supreme Court to ensure that neither President nor Congress strayed beyond the bounds of settled law.  There was, however, a weakness in the system and it is a weakness which cannot be avoided in any system: it is dependent for its operation upon the actions of human beings.  Human beings are Fallen and thus get things wrong; usually very often. But we had a great bit of good luck at our start in that our first President – our first King, as it were – was George Washington.  Here was a man who genuinely held himself to be no more than the first magistrate of a free people and while he could have stayed in office until he died – and, indeed, at one point could have gotten himself crowned as actual king – he voluntarily gave up office and retired to private life.

This example of humble Presidential leadership stood us in good stead for quite a long time, but by the time Theodore Roosevelt took office, it started to wear thin as he and most of his successors thought of themselves not as agents of an impartial government, but men of destiny who had to place their indelible imprint upon the nation and the world.  From Theodore Roosevelt to Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama is a pretty straight line, only slightly pushed off course by Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, who did have a much more Washingtonian ideal of the Presidency than most over the past century.  It was Theodore Roosevelt who first denied the limitations of power in the Founder’s system – saying that unless something was specifically forbidden a President in the Constitution, the President was free to do it.  This was a watershed event – and quite in contrast to Roosevelt’s recent predecessor Grover Cleveland who routinely vetoed legislation for the sole reason that he found no warrant for the law in the powers granted to the government by the Constitution. Now we’ve finished the task and in Obama, we’ve got a President who is essentially claiming that unless someone can actually stop him, he can do as he wishes – the pen and the phone are mightier than the Constitution.  And, so, how do we fix this?

The Founders thought they had provided sufficient safe guards against such things by inserting into the Constitution the power of the legislative to impeach the executive. It was thought that out of a jealous desire to preserve legislative power that the legislature would vigorously oppose the executive and be willing to use the extreme sanction of impeachment when a President started abusing his office.  It didn’t really work out like that – the first impeachment of Andrew Johnson was the merest bit of partisan hackery where the legislative majority simply  wanted to do away with an uncooperative executive; the second against Nixon was only successful because Nixon’s own allies abandoned him; the third against Clinton failed because Clinton’s allies refused to abandon him even though it was clear that Clinton has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors”. And that was that – once it became clear that partisanship would rule the day in impeachment, then it became a requirement that the Senate have 67 firmly committed members to vote for conviction before impeachment would even be considered and given the partisan nature of things, this means a Senate wherein at least 67 members are from the opposition party.  You can look back in time and see how few and far between are the times when any party controlled 67% of the Senate seats.  This means that impeachment is functionally impossible. We need another means of controlling the executive.

We could decide to lower the bar on impeachment convictions, and that might be a sorta-good way to go.  Better than no restrictions, after all.  But if we made it so that only 55 Senators had to vote to convict, then we would see more partisan hackery in the matter of impeachment where the Senate majority just wants to get rid of a President who isn’t cooperative.  That is fatal to good government quite as much as an out of control executive.  Maybe, and this is just me starting to think it over, we should remove the President from day to day executive authority?  That would be to interpose a Prime Minister between the President and the operations of government on a day to day basis.  A Parliamentary regime.

We’d still want a Commander in Chief for war time and other such emergencies, but we also very much want a President who can’t use his pen and phone to alter law.  So, we amend the Constitution to command the President to nominate as Prime Minister the leader of the party holding the most seats in the House of Representatives, and that person – upon confirmation via the Senate – nominates the heads of the government Departments and monitors and controls their actions subject to approval or overthrow by the House. We would make it so that the President signs laws into approval, or vetoes them as he desires.  He would still command the armed forces, negotiate treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate as now) and could recommend legislation – but in what the Departments would do, he would have no say. And the people who do have the say in the actions of the Department, they can be removed by a simple majority vote in the House – and if the people don’t like how government is going, then every two years they get a chance to change the composition of the House, and thus get a government hopefully more to their liking.

Yes, this could lead to a situation – as it does in France, from time to time – where the President and the Prime Minister are of different parties.  Would it really be that bad if they had to work together?  The PM can want this, that or the other thing, but he’s not going to get it into law unless the President agrees – ditto on the President’s side. Other changes can also be made (I’ve long been in favor of limit the President to one, six-year term, eg), but we do have to think seriously about how we are going to ensure the means of cutting off a President – like Obama, but also like Johnson and FDR and Wilson in the past – who doesn’t care what the law says and is just going to do what he wants, defying anyone to stop him, secure in the knowledge that his opponents won’t have those 67 Senators necessary to convict on impeachment. At any rate, if anyone has a better idea, I’m all ears.

 

Tied to the Mast of the SS Obama

Earlier today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) ripped into the IRS commissioner, John Koskinen, over the serial falsehoods of the Obama Administration regarding the IRS scandal.  The clip is here and Ryan points out that “nobody believes you” to the Koskinen.  I saw a small bit of Koskinen’s testimony and the clearest impression I took was of a man who is a smug, little Ruling Class (expletive deleted). He’s quite confident that he won’t be called upon to pay a price for his actions – no surprise, after all, he was very senior at Freddie Mac when the housing market melted down.  Rather than being forced out in disgrace, at the minimum, he’s now in charge of the IRS.  He knows with certainty – as we all do – that with Obama as President and Holder as Attorney General, there will be no criminal prosecutions over this case.

Just as Koskinen and the rest of those involved in the IRS scandal know they are immune from prosecution, so does everyone else in the Obama Administration involved in all the other scandals feel this sense of security. Say what you will about Barack Obama, he protects his own – if you are on his team, he’ll make certain that nothing bad happens to you.  As things go from bad to worse in all aspects of Obama policy, this is the rock upon which Obama’s people sit: they can do what they want and know they are safe.  This is why we get this arrogant disdain from them about the hard, factual basis of our opposition.  We can bring up all the indisputable facts of corruption we want, Obama and his people will just deny it all, call us all names for bringing it up, and go about their business in a quite shameless manner.  That explains Obama and Co, but what of the Democrats in the larger sense?  Why are they going along with this?  Obama can’t protect them all – and Obama’s policies are making the Democrat brand ever more toxic in American politics.  Its all well and good for Obama to just keep going, but come January 20th, 2017, he won’t be there any more…while Democrats will have to live with his legacy.  So, why haven’t any leading Democrats come out in public against him?  To be sure, some have in private and not for attribution; but there has been no public opposition (and none really even from red State Democrats facing electoral defeat because of Obama) – and I suspect there won’t be.

For better or worse – and I predict it will be much, much worse – Democrats can’t cut themselves away from Obama.  That he’s dishonest, corrupt and incompetent doesn’t matter.  In the electoral geometry of Democrat politics, there is simply no way Democrats can renounce their support for the first African-American President…just as, in the by and by, they won’t be able to renounce support for the first female, first Latino and first gay President, if such Presidents wind up being Democrat. You and I over here on the right don’t care that much about such things – if we nominate, say, a gay Latina in 2016 and she wins but turns out to be a numbskull, we’ll turn on her (and be called racist and homophobic for doing that – but, we’re used to that false accusation and so don’t care any longer).  Democrats can’t.  Their existence is based upon certain falsehoods being acted upon as if they were true – one of them is that an African-American of the proper politics and views can do no wrong (other examples: government spending increases national wealth; government unions are the same as, say, the miners unions in the 1920’s; “tax the rich” means that actual rich people will be taxed, etc, etc). Why do you think they still carry the Sharpton and Jackson albatrosses around their necks?  For goodness sakes, those two, old hacks provide nothing for the party or the movement.  But they can’t be denied – because they are black and of the “correct” views.  To deny them is by definition – in Democrat circles – racist.  To turn on Obama would be racist.  They can’t do it – if you could prove to them that loyalty to Obama will cost them a dozen Senate seats this fall and the White House in 2016, they still wouldn’t turn on him.

Ryan told Koskinen that “nobody believes you”.  This, I think, is the epitaph of the Obama Administration: nobody believes you.  I’m confident that nobody believes Obama – well, to modify that a bit:  your Democrat base probably still does, because they get all their information from the traditional MSM and have never thought about anything deeper than the latest reality show.  But outside of that demographic, nobody believes Obama, or anyone on his team.  We all know its a pack of lies – everything; Benghazi, “saved or created” jobs, Fast and Furious, green energy cronyism, GM, Syria, Iraq, Keystone Pipeline, DREAM Act, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, China, Libya, IRS.  Everything Obama and team have said about these things is lies.  As Democrats in the House today spoke up one by one to essentially apologize to Koskinen and claim the whole IRS scandal was a GOP witch hunt, I’m confident that most of them knew as the words came out of their mouths that they were lying – and were lying to defend lies told by Obama and team (I said “most of them” because it seems to me that a number of Democrat Congresscritters are mindless drones selected by the Powers That Be to be mindless drones – hacks who just vote as the leadership demands; such people are probably not much beyond the reality TV intellectual level of the Democrat base…and such people might actually believe what they say is true, as their clever aids write their statements up for them).  But, still: nobody believes you.  But the Democrats will still fall on their swords for Obama – because they have to; to them, to deny Obama is to deny their view of themselves (remember, they honestly believe we are all racists – but that they are untainted by such things; after all, they support Barack Obama, right?  That makes them non-racist).

We’ll see how things come out.  There is a school of thought – and it does have much to be said for it – that we’re too far gone as a nation.  That too many of us are demoralized, dependent and intellectually bankrupt.  Because of this, the majority will continue to back the Democrats no matter what happens.  This line of thinking is why many people – including some very smart and well-informed people – are certain that Hillary will be elected in 2016.  This could be true.  We might be doomed.  On the other side are people like me – who really do think that after a while, when you pile up that much dishonesty and corruption, there is a reaction against it.  if so, then this reaction will start in November and carry through to 2016.  But regardless – sure victory or sure defeat – Democrats are tied to the mast of the SS Obama; they will go down with the ship, if necessary, to prove to themselves that they are good liberals.  So, don’t look for a break in the ranks over there – don’t look for Obama to fall to, say, 30% approval ratings.  There is a solid rock of ignorance, corruption and dishonesty to sustain even an Obama, no matter what he does.