► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘American Thinker’

Rifqa Bary Suffering from Cancer

by savage ( 36 Comments › )
Filed under CAIR, Islamic hypocrisy at May 25th, 2010 - 11:00 am

Found this on Pamela Geller’s American Thinker essay.

There has been a terrible development in the case of Rifqa Bary, the teenage girl who fled from her home in fear for her life after her devout Muslim father found out she had become a Christian. According to Rifqa, who is now in foster care in Ohio, she has been diagnosed with advanced uterine cancer.

While this is a tragedy, how Rifqa is being victimized by her lawyers and her parents is nothing less than an atrocity. Her lawyers kept her in the dark about her condition — despite the seriousness of her cancer — for well over a week while they conferred with her parents and their CAIR-appointed lawyers about her treatment. While most cases like this result in a hysterectomy, Rifqa is only having the advanced malignancy removed. From what I understand, the survival rate in cases like these is only five percent.

Read the rest, please. And everyone who cares, please send a prayer, ok? Thanks.

savage

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Texas-Sized Lesson

by Speranza ( 156 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2010, George W. Bush, John McCain, Republican Party, Sarah Palin at March 5th, 2010 - 11:00 am

Although not an expert on Texas politics,  I do recognize a Republican (think John McCain) who has spent far too much time developing Potomac fever and her name is Kay Bailey Hutchison. I am particularly glad that the author called out the Bush/Rove/Karen Hughes  “new tone” strategy mentality of being gentlemen and reaching out to your opponents. I know that Rick Perry seems to have Texas’s economy in a lot better shape then most states and as far as Medina goes – that 9/11 Troofer moment on Beck’s show was a bit much.

by C. Edmund Wright

While the ever-helpful Jurassic media is trying to force-feed conservatives and Republicans groupthink analysis of Rick Perry’s thumping of Kay Bailey Hutchison (KBH), the GOP had better heed the main lesson: The “new tone” era is over.

Consider: The political team and concepts that dominated the Lone Star State just ten years ago and subsequently engineered two presidential elections just got whipped in what amounts to an intramural contest in their own state.

KBH’s incompetent primary campaign was itself a caricature of the senior senator — and it was precisely that caricature that her opponents wanted to portray. Perry and Tea Party candidate Debra Medina did not have to do much but get out of the way and let the KBH campaign prove that the senior senator and her top advisers were indeed all creatures of Washington who are hopelessly out of touch.

And for some reason, Hutchison, along with advisers Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, thought that the best way to counter this was to bring in George Bush 41, George Bush 43, and James Baker to campaign. Were John McCain, Bob Dole, and Olympia Snowe too busy to come?

Oh, and to top it off, the Hutchison campaign ads featured endorsements from the traditional liberal newspapers. Conversely, Perry brought in Sarah Palin to campaign for him and proudly addressed numerous tea party rallies.

[...]

… Remember that Rove was the architect of Bush’s “new tone” governing and communications strategy that was implemented right after Bush was declared the winner in 2000. The new tone was much like being able to “work with people.” The first new tone decision was to not even debate the national raw vote situation, a decision that still fuels anti-Republican sentiment to this day.

The bottom line is that the new tone was never called for by Americans. To think so was to be rather tone-deaf. Any strategy based on the assumption that people just could not get along — and ignores the possibility of legitimate and deep ideological divides — misses the point. By definition, the new tone more or less meant not debating your opponents very vigorously before compromising with them on almost everything.

Read the rest here: Texas-Sized Lesson: The New Tone Era Is Over

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Who lost Iran?

by Speranza ( 90 Comments › )
Filed under Ahmadinejad, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Iran, Progressives at February 27th, 2010 - 4:01 pm

Who lost Iran? The Left did. Starting with Jimmy Carter and continuing with cynical Democratic ex presidents  (and a current president) we’ve seen appeasement, obstructionism, and out and out sabotage of Republican presidents who actually wanted to confront the mad mullahs who are on the verge of obtaining a nuclear bomb.

The Left printed a false story (either in Newsweek or Time Magazine – I forget which one) that the Defense Intelligence Agency claimed that Iran had abandoned its nuclear ambitions years ago, the Left (in the form of the unspeakable Zbigniew Breszinski a former NSC head under Carter) wants American planes to confront any Israeli planes that that fly over Iraq to strike the Iranian nuclear facilities (something that will never happen by the way). By the way does anyone for a moment think that had Saddam remained in power he would have sat back and allowed Iran to go nuclear without trying to get a hold of a bomb himself?

by James Lewis
“Who lost China?” was the Republican slogan in the 1950s, after Mao Zedong conquered China and turned it into a Communist tyranny. Jozef Stalin was in power in the Soviet Union at the time and controlled half of Europe. China and Russia were both nuclear-armed tyrannies, and democracy was in retreat all over the world.

[...]

We are once again threatened by a fast-rising rogue state, run by a totalitarian, suicidal cult, soon to be armed with nuclear weapons. The life-or-death question for the coming elections should therefore be: Who lost Iran?

We have to pin that tail on the donkeys who let it happen. The Left is always boasting about their “compassion” and “progressivism” — and most recently, they are boasting that they are “the educated class,” when they have nothing but abysmal ignorance to show. Grandiose boasting and abysmal performance — who does that remind you of?  It’s a shocking sight. But as long as the Left controls the organs of propaganda, the schools and the media, it will be an uphill battle to tell the simple truth.

[...]

The responsibility of the Left for this looming disaster is undeniable. Who enabled the viciously anti-American Khomeini revolution, right at the height of the Cold War? (Jimmy Carter!) Who allowed the suicide cult of Khomeini to get the biggest weapons of mass destruction ever? (Jimmy! Bill! Barry!) Who radicalized the Democratic Party, so that a once-decent group of mainstream politicians were replaced by radical Lefties? (The Left.) Who constantly sabotaged efforts by sane US presidents — all Republicans — to stabilize the Middle East? (Jimmy! Bill! Barry!) Who failed to protect this country against the biggest terror attack ever? (Bill!) And who didn’t lift a finger to keep the Khomeini fascists from getting strategic missiles and nukes? (Barry!)

There you have it. Who lost Iran? The Left. The Left has constantly sabotaged US defenses, always agitating to expose the civilized world to nuclear terror.  Who blocked anti-missile defenses in Poland and Czechoslovakia? (Yes.) If ever the world has been led by a suicide cult this is it.

Bush and Cheney were trying to stop the two dangerous powers in the Gulf: Saddam and Iran. As a direct result George W. Bush was bruised and bloodied for two terms. The Left — Carter, Clinton and Obama — go out of their way to surrender to Islamic Fascism whenever they can. Obama just appointed a Muslim Brotherhood agitator to be his ambassador to the Organization of Islamic States.

At some point we’re no longer looking at stupidity and ignorance on the Left, but rather at real malevolence, a real desire to destroy this country and civilized life. When you see the same people always driving the school bus into the same marsh, over and over again, you have to finally realize they are really acting out of destructive hatred. And that is how they sound on their “progressive” websites: They are filled with rage and hatred. These are just not normally constructive people.

[...]

When — not if — Ahmadinejad gets his fingers on the nuclear button, it is our responsibility to pin that tail on the donkeys. The media will scream and Blame Bush for Iranian nukes. We have to tell the truth, and ensure that it is never forgotten.

[...]

Once that nuke goes off, Americans must come to their senses.

Obama is not the Messiah. He’s more like the Prince of Darkness.

Read the rest: Who Lost Iran?

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Cooling The Kennedy Mystique

by Speranza ( 114 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Politics at February 8th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

I certainly hope so.  If ever there was an overrated and probably destructive family it was the Kennedy’s. The old man was a Nazi sympathizer, JFK was a reckless womanizer whose hyperactive libido and general ill health was covered up by a compliant media, Bobby was a ruthless Attorney General who wiretapped Martin Luther King, Teddy got away with manslaughter, many of the kids have been in trouble with the law,  etc.  Funny how JFK would be considered way too conservative now by the current Democrats.

by Phil Boehmke

The Kennedy clan has to be wondering lately, what the ____ (fill in blank) happened? The past year has not been kind to America’s Royal Family. With yet another brutal winter storm having virtually shut down America’s capital, our liberal friends in those snowy climbs will have ample time to pause and reflect on the demise of the Kennedys during the past year.

First Caroline met with unexpected criticism in her quest to fill Hillary Clinton’s term in the Senate, whereupon she withdrew from consideration. What the ____ (fill in blank) happened? She’s JFK’s daughter! She’s Teddy’s niece! Her uncle RFK was a senator from New York! Qualifications? For a Kennedy?

Then came that dark day when Teddy passed away. The last Kennedy brother (with the exception of Barack Obama) was gone, and with him his political and family influence. As the Liberal Lion prepared to face divine justice for Mary Jo Kopechne and other lesser crimes, the family was preparing to lay claim to “the Kennedy seat.”

Joe Kennedy, Jr.’s name was floated as his uncle Teddy’s rightful successor. Joe Jr. had served in Congress and looked like the logical choice to maintain the Kennedy legacy in the Senate. Then out of nowhere came stories of Joe Jr.’s connection to Hugo Chávez. Mark Tapscott in The Washington Examiner wrote:

There are at least three reasons why Joe Kennedy should not be a U.S. senator from any state. First, he’s not only a defender of a declared enemy of the U.S., but is also guilty of shamelessly using that enemy’s resources in an unsuccessful attempt to polish his own image here in America. I refer, of course to Kennedy’s deal with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez under which the latter gives the former heating oil which is then sold to “the poor” in America.

What the ____ (fill in blank) happened? For the second time in a matter of mere months, a member of America’s Royal Family withdrew from consideration for a legacy seat in the Senate.

After Massachusetts Democrats had found a successor to “the Kennedy seat,” the clan came out to lend their family clout to the campaign. Patrick Kennedy, the only member of the clan still in Congress, joined his stepmother in support of “Marsha” Coakley, but to no avail. Republican Scott Brown won the special election for the Senate seat belonging to the people of Massachusetts.

Patrick Kennedy has recently referred to the election of Scott Brown as “a joke,” and like his fellow Democrats (former President Clinton and future former President Obama), he has placed the blame squarely on “Marsha” (really it’s Martha) Coakley’s shoulders.

[...]

Read the rest: Cooling The Kennedy Mystique

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Liberal Hate Speech

by Speranza ( 160 Comments › )
Filed under Hate Speech, Media at February 5th, 2010 - 1:00 pm

It is funny how during Bush’s time in office that dissent was called “the highest form of patriotism”, now it is called subverting the nation and trying to weaken the president.  They feel that The One should be beyond reproach and that like good little citizens of  oh say North Korea – we need to be singing the praises of The Great Leader. I think we need to out Alinsky them and ratchet up the legitimate criticism of Obama’s failed and failing policies.

by  James Dietrich

When Sarah Palin made Rahm Emanuel’s expletive-enhanced use of the word “retarded” an embarrassment for him and the president, she forced the left to live up to its own P.C. standards. Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Normally, according to the media elites’ rulebook, when liberals rant, it’s called free speech; when conservatives rant, it is hate speech.

Members of the media elite appear to sincerely believe that liberals are less vitriolic than conservatives, and through repetition they have convinced a large part of the public that this is true. The reason liberals can “rant” without fear of being labeled terrorists is that their “rants” are justified in the eyes of the media elite. Liberals believe that their beliefs are based on the rational analysis of scientific data. Their opponents’ beliefs are based on superstition and prejudice.

This perspective was exemplified by comedian Bill Maher, who explained that “half this country wants to guide our ship of state by a compass. A compass, something that works by science and rationality, and empirical wisdom. And half this country wants to kill a chicken and read the entrails like they used to do in the old Roman Empire.” Opponents of the liberal agenda are frequently described as “racist,” “unpatriotic,” and “ignorant.” Conservative “rants” are not only incorrect; they are evil. It is therefore not “hateful” to describe opponents for what they are: “ignorant, unpatriotic racists.”

Criticism of liberal administrations is seen as destroying public faith in our institutions, and in some cases, it is called dangerous. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, Washington Post columnist David Broder opined, “The bombing shows how dangerous it really is to inflame twisted minds with statements that suggest political opponents are enemies.” During the Clinton administration, columnist Anthony Lewis criticized Rush Limbaugh, saying Limbaugh’s “game” was “to throw dirt on government and anyone who believes that society needs government. In his hateful talk about President and Mrs. Clinton and others in office, he is really trying to destroy public faith in our institutions.”

Recent criticisms of President Obama and his policies have been characterized as un-American. Suggestions that his policies should fail are equated with a suggestion that America should fail. This concern for American institutions may be something new, because it apparently was not a factor in the past. In 1986, Washington Post columnist William Raspberry commented on his view of the Reagan administration: “Ronald Reagan is in trouble, and [we might as well own up that] some of us are tempted to take a certain fiendish pleasure in the fact.” Later, Michael Kinsley of the New Republic wrote in the Washington Post, “The fall of Reagan is a laughable matter. The only irritating aspect of the otherwise delightful collapse of the Reagan administration is the widespread insistence that we must all be poker-faced about it.”

Read the rest: Liberal Hate Speech


(Don’t forget to vote in the Blogmocracy Awards! One vote per award, per day~ Voting ends Feb. 5)

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

The Fat Lady Sings for Keith Olbermann

by Speranza ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Media at February 2nd, 2010 - 7:30 am

I predict that one day Olbermann will have such a melt down on his show “Countdown to No Ratings” where he curses, spits, tears at his hair – that even MSNBC will have to pull the plug on him and call for medics to take him over to a mental institution for observation. He is a perfect example of the Peter Principle at work – he rose to his true level of mediocrity. He was a forgettable sportscaster and then got promoted to spew Leftist pap at MSNBC. He never, ever has an opposing viewpoint on his show because like a certain husky, pony-tailed blogger – he cannot debate.  (By the way last night on O’Reilly – a man I find insufferable most of the time – he had on as guests the leftist mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, and the angry leftist columnist from Time Magazine, Joe Klein. At least there is balance on Fox.)

by Stuart Schwartz

It ain’t over until the fat lady sings.”

The fat lady is doing more than singing for Keith Olbermann. And, like most of the other women in the life of MS-NBC’s premiere leftist sexist, she’s not interested in dating him. Rather, she merely wishes to see his well-padded bottom fade into the distance.

————————————–

By the end of 2009, media observers were noting the “abysmal” state of Olbermann’s ratings. And now the thirty-day moving average of ratings shows him steadily sinking as Bill O’Reilly leads the charge of FOX News to the top. The FOX blowout of Keith and friends during the State of the Union this past week prompted National Review to ask, “[A]t what point does MSDNC pull the plug on its all-Left format?”

And so the fat lady is not just singing for Olbermann and MS-NBC: Rather, she is belting out an aria that rushes Katrina-like past the designer finery of Old Media grandees in the audience of Manhattan’s Metropolitan Opera, rattles the Swarovski crystal chandeliers above their heads, hurtles across Central Park, and pierces the floor-to-ceiling windows of Olbermann’s  $4.2-million 40th-floor Trump Palace roost.

It is from here that Olbermann leads the progressive media battle on behalf of America’s downtrodden, joined by neighboring New York Times staffers and mainstream media executives, fighting their self-described war on privilege from foxholes developed by Donald Trump. The various Trump Towers dotting upper Manhattan are, collectively, a progressive Pentagon, headquarters for the media war on Middle America…with Olbermann among the most polished of its brass.

…That is, until America began paying attention. The result: The audience of Countdown has sunk to roughly 20% of FOX News-viewers led by Bill O’Reilly. And now the fat lady is howling her delight as she joins a decades-long string of females in Keith’s life — beginning with his mother, who thought her son needed psychological help — whose fist-bumps will come when he has exited their lives.

Olbermann does not like women, especially attractive and/or accomplished women. Nor is he particularly fond of men. He is forever the awkward, angry teenager of his high school days who mystified psychologists, the überdork whose cruel taunts of the athletes he covered as a sports broadcaster were legendary, even as he yearned to be thought of as the stud that covers studs. Give it up, a Philadelphia Inquirer sports columnist suggested after watching Olbermann ridicule the appearance of an overweight athlete. He noted that the hefty lefty is “so bloated he looks as if he swallowed Dan Patrick [his ESPN co-anchor] back in 1997.”

————————————–

Women are anathema to Olbermann. He delights in demeaning them, and the more attractive or accomplished they are, the more malicious he gets. Conservative Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, who relishes her role as policymaker and  mother, is a frequent object of his anger; columnist Michelle Malkin is a “big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick” because of her intelligence and traditional values; Sarah Palin is a moronic “Bush in a skirt”; and there’s nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton — who had the nerve to oppose Barack Obama in the Democrat primaries — that a good beating won’t cure.

[...]

Read the rest.


(Don’t forget to vote in the Blogmocracy Awards! One vote per award, per day~ Voting ends Feb. 5)

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

The Lesson of an Affirmative Action President

by Speranza ( 126 Comments › )
Filed under Politics at January 28th, 2010 - 8:00 pm

I personally think that affirmative action (talk about a phony p.c. “term” – there is nothing affirmative about it), is the most pernicious aspect of liberalisms Great Society. Ironically it was Richard Nixon (despised by liberals with a passion later to be used on George W. Bush) who with his Philadelphia Plan first gave us reverse discrimination. Liberals do Black people no favors by pushing them ahead of the line  without taking into considerations their qualifications and training. I have had liberals tell me (quietly of course) that they are reluctant to use a Black Doctor or Dentist for fear that the man was not qualified because he/she was an “affirmative action student”. The author points out that Asian-Americans are not considered to be minorities so they are in effect discriminated against. however as we know,  Asian-American students generally have terrific study habits and need no government intervention – all they want is a level playing field.

by James Lewis

You don’t pick brain surgeons by the color of their skin. You pick them by competence only. Same thing with airplane pilots. But we have allowed the profoundly irrational liberal media to persuade the American public that we are supposed to pick a U.S. president by affirmative action. Obama was elected to universal Hosannas because he is black. It wasn’t a secret. That’s why the Left around the world went into ecstasies when Obama ran and got elected.

We’ve been using affirmative action to hire and promote teachers and cops and to popularize movie stars and media heroes. We’ve had a generation of affirmative action agitprop, 24/7/365. Hillary Clinton was going to dictate racial and gender preferences for medical school admissions under HillaryCare. You can bet that reverse-racism is all over the 2,200 pages of ObamaCare. It’s reverse-racism forever!

In America today, competence is suspect, and incompetence gets all the attention. Yet competence is what keeps us alive.

Affirmative action was allowed by the Supreme Court as a temporary exception to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution until blacks had the same opportunities others did. It has now been about forty years, and the goal posts have just moved farther and farther Left. Today it’s not just blacks — it’s women, homosexuals, and illegal aliens. And it’s no longer equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome, which was the goal of Communism for seventy years in the Soviet Union, until the whole Soviet Empire crumbled as a result.

In the Soviet Union, everything was politicized. Incompetent people ran agriculture along Stalinist lines. Everything turned into a lie, and lies accelerated as they propagated through the system, in exactly the way the Climategate lies get worse and worse as they get passed along by politically correct bureaucrats and scientists. When political loyalty controls the outcomes, honesty and competence are driven out at every level of society. Nobody can point to Obama’s anti-terrorist policies and say that’s wildly incompetent — without fearing they will be accused of racism.

From a temporary policy to give black people a better chance in life, we have now arrived at a Marxist goal of universal equality for everyone — except for white, male, heterosexual, and excessively normal people. We have reversed racism, but guess what? Reverse-racism is still racism. As a direct result, corruption now pervades the big cities and Washington, D.C. That’s because race, gender, and victim status have taken over as the criteria for all the benefits society has to offer.

Obama’s election to the nation’s most powerful office is the direct outcome of racial reasoning. It was race that put him over the top against Hillary, in a thousand media endorsements, and finally, against John McCain, who was old, male and white. Three strikes against McCain, who for all his faults is vastly more experienced and knowledgeable than the Obamessiah.

Meanwhile, blacks are still suffering from the pervasive social pathology of the inner city — almost all self-inflicted, with the help of the welfare state. Europe shows exactly the same results, except that the victims of welfarism aren’t black, but mostly white and Muslim immigrants. American blacks today are more bitter and more racially enraged than ever before, after forty years of affirmative action. Affirmative action hasn’t helped women, who now have to work two jobs, one at home and one for income, especially because so many men have walked away from their families under liberal cultural values. Reverse-racism has actively hurt generations of children, who have grown up in broken homes as a direct result of pernicious social policies which Obama has actually tried to make worse. One of the first things he did was to reverse Clinton’s welfare reform so that social pathology in the black community can spread its poison even wider and deeper. Obama isn’t good for black people — but then, blacks consistently vote for those who do them the most harm.

Read the rest.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

by Speranza ( 179 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Politics at January 27th, 2010 - 12:00 pm

I cannot be happy until the moving vans arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the Obama’s. Yet compare the gloom and doom that was conservatism last year at this time with now. The magic has worn off, the emperor has no clothes, and we did pay attention to the man behind the curtain.  Obama could save himself and his legacy with a tactical and cynical shift to the center but the problem for him is that he is a hard core ideologue with a malignant narcissistic personality. When tawdry white liberals like Andrea Mitchell start trudging out the racist card -you know they are getting their butts handed to them. It also is obvious to me that Obama and his Gambino like Family crew are not very comfortable with average Americans and hold them in a mixture of fear, curiosity and contempt.

by Christopher Chantrill

Isn’t it great to have a Republican senator from Massachusetts? It’s also good to have the First Amendment reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court — even if our liberal friends are shocked and appalled at the notion of corporations sticking up for themselves.

As delicious as last week’s good news was for conservatives, You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet. We do not mean that every week will bring new conservative successes. Not at all. It is just that every month will bring fresh anguish for President Obama and his supporters.

There’s the sinking spell in the equity markets last week. It might be from worrying about the president’s anti-banker populism. Or more likely, it is telling us that we are not out of the woods yet on the economy. I suspect disappointing news on fourth-quarter GDP on January 29.

Indeed, it’s pretty clear after 2009, the year the locusts ate, that President Obama and his liberal supporters are facing an annus horribilis. And they know it. Here’s Jon Jeter of The Root telling his readers to be afraid, very afraid.  He sees “a perfect, gathering storm of economics, politics and tribalism[.]”

Trilbalism? I’m afraid so. Racism is rearing its ugly head again. Jeter quotes Andrea Mitchell, who sees anger out there — the worst since the days of George Wallace. And guess who will be taking the part of George Wallace this time around: Sarah Palin.

Palin is the latest in a long line of demagogues -from post-Reconstruction governors in the Deep South to Father Coughlin in the ’30s, from Reagan to Lou Dobbs-who’ve emerged to redeem, or reclaim, the land from Northern carpetbaggers and uppity Negroes.

It still takes me by surprise when the liberals reaches for the racist redneck line. Yet it makes complete sense. If you are writing the narrative of a progressive vanguard leading the world into a highly evolved future, then your story needs an antagonist. The redneck, racist truck-driver with a rifle in the back window fits the part to a T.

Presumably President Obama is trying to preempt the right-wing racists by getting the first dagger into the backs of the bankers. After all, it was the bankers who sent the Okies to California.

Here’s my prediction.  The president’s banker gambit will fall as flat as his stimulus plan, his cap-and-trade bill, and his ObamaCare fiasco. But that will be the least of his problems.  There will be continuing high unemployment right through 2010, which I predicted a couple of weeks ago. There’s the housing market that still hasn’t turned. There’s the huge monetary stimulus that must be unwound. There’s the budget crisis in the states. There is the tax increase coming in 2011 when the Bush tax cuts expire. Oh, and did I mention the budget deficit and runaway federal spending, or everyone’s favorite, Fannie and Freddie?

It is becoming more and more clear that neither Obama nor Axelrod nor Emanuel really understands ordinary, suburban, private-sector, Joe the Plumber America. Urban America they know. But not suburban Massachusetts.

Read the rest.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Obama’s Image: What a Difference a Year Makes

by Speranza ( 143 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at December 28th, 2009 - 5:00 pm

Yes the waters failed to part, the sun still sets in the West, the lion does not lay down with the lamb, teenagers still get blemishes right before prom night – and most shocking of all – our enemies still hate us, and yes as demonstrated by this past weekend they really do hate us (although now due too ur politically correct clumsiness – they also can laugh at us)! What a difference a year makes indeed! Well at least we here can say that the charlatan did not fool us. The question for me is not why the hard core ideologues voted for him – after all he was their ideal candidate, i.e. a true believing Socialist who made George McGovern seem moderate by comparison, but why did so many ordinary Americans choose to willfully ignore all the signs that were out there (despite a compliant media)?

by Ed Lasky

The American Thinker

Almost a year has passed since January 20, 2009 — when the waters of the ocean no longer rose and America began to heal from the depredations of Republicans. Barack Obama has been our president for that long, and the people have started to wise up.

The light that shines on Barack Obama as president has reflected back an image that bears very little similarity to the iconic visage that floated above us all in 2008. Why has Barack Obama betrayed so many allies, broken so many promises, thrown so many pledges and people under the bus?

One simple aphorism (paraphrasing Winston Churchill) can explain it all. Barack Obama is no longer a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Much about his past remains murky, but faced with the need to govern, he has given the American people plenty of evidence of his nature…if only they will look.

Obama is a cynic wrapped in a hypocrite inside a bully.

This comes as a shock to many, who are dismayed to find that he is “just a politician,” as Reverend Wright, Jr. (who knows him so well) called him back in 2008. But Wright was being all too kind and generous to his future former parishioner (Wright followed a long and ever-growing line of people trampled by Barack Obama’s rise.)

But Barack Obama is far more than just a politician. We all swallow a lot from politicians; we know that many pander and narrowcast, changing their message to suit their audience. But Obama expressly campaigned as a man who would not do this. He was the candidate of hope and change — he would bring a big broom to sweep clean the Augean Stables known as Washington, D.C. He called forth the better angels of our nature (hat tip: Honest Abe Lincoln, one of the truly honest politicians from Illinois) and tapped into a deep yearning for the rarest of the real things: an honest leader.

Read the rest.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

On the brink

by Speranza ( 180 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Progressives at December 17th, 2009 - 6:00 pm

The Progressives (who had everything going for them last year) have a closing window in order to push their agenda through.  November 2010 is eleven months away.

By Victor Volsky

After Richard Nixon defused the 1960s student revolt by abolishing the draft, the brain trust of the revolutionary left shifted its strategic focus to Antonio Gramsci’s teachings, realizing that it is the intelligentsia, not the proletariat, that is the true revolutionary force in society; that cultural dominance, not violent revolt, is the true path to power. A project known as the Great March through the Institutions was launched. Nearly four decades later, in November 2008, it triumphed in a historic electoral victory; the revolutionary wave crested and deposited in the White House Barack Obama, the most radical president in the history of the republic.

It is a favorite parlor game on the right to speculate whether Obama is a free agent or a puppet. Actually it is beside the point whether he is the leader of the “progressive” movement or merely its hood ornament. The point  is that the radical left came to power eager to grasp the rare moment  when all the stars were aligned in its favor, offering the revolutionaries  a realistic chance of achieving their long-cherished goal of turning the U.S. into a European-style welfare state. It was now or never.  Full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes!

And so Barack Obama sallied forth to usher in the Age of Aquarius. No one should have been surprised that the man whose entire previous life recommended him as a fervent far-left radical would turn out to be exactly that (after all, the past is prologue). What did come as a surprise to many was his zeal, his devil-take-the-hindmost approach. President Obama threw caution to the wind and at breakneck speed set about remaking America in the socialist mold.
[...]

Read the rest.

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon

Lincoln’s take on Obama

by m ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama at January 29th, 2009 - 1:29 pm

Brought to you by the iOwnTheWorld editorial staff… Via American Thinker

Lincoln speaks!

DNN cameras caught ex-President Lincoln on the golf course, and asked him about the comparison President Obama has drawn with him.

It might have been quaint had Obama likened himself to some B-List American President. The temerity to go from 0-60, like a Porsche Boxster, straight to Lincoln is usually a bit too much hubris for the average politician to pull off. Is one pit stop at the James K. Polk exit too much too ask?

But Obama is no ordinary politician. The righteous wind that Obama feels at his back is the Media Tabernacle Choir constantly singing his praises.

[snip]

You would think the media would at least give Obama a hard time for likening himself to a Republican, and not FDR, the Democrats’ Lincoln. After all, BHO has sort of a ring to it.

Meanwhile, while Obama is busy putting the chalk lines on Mount Rushmore for the chiselers to follow, DNN news has tracked down the real Abraham Lincoln to ask him what he thinks of the brash, bold new President.

Video at the link

► Hot Links

Post to Twitter Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Facebook Post to MySpace Post to StumbleUpon