Comments

Solving the Obama conundrum — 61 Comments

1. Hillary is pushing the Obama agenda, when she isn’t pursuing her women’s’ rights thing, to the point that she had the Supreme Court of Honduras barred from entry into the U.S. because they had the effrontery to enforce the Honduran constitution. So, as scary as Obama is getting, one could point out that Hillary is not far behind. And, what about Axelrod? And Emmanual? What roles do they play? Do they all have the same agenda? Do these strange pronouncements (the midnight call to the premier of Poland to repeat the Neville Chamberlain manner of appeasement on the anniversary of the Russian invasion being the latest example) come out of bull sessions or straight from the mind of Obama? Who writes the speeches? Is there a crying need for group therapy?

2. Obama’s entire claim to both bipartisanship and knowledge of nuclear policy can be encompassed by the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Bill.

   I doubt that Obama even read the thing, as it was just an updated version of the outdated Nunn—Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction signed 12 years earlier.

   Senator Lugar was driving the thing. He needed a Democrat to sign on. Senate Democrats saw this as an opportunity to give some legislative credit to their up-and-coming presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

   I’m absolutely certain Obama hasn’t a clue of the most basic concepts of nuclear weapons to understand the bill he signed, much less any idea as to ‘countervalue’ or ‘counterforce’ strategies, our current stockpile, what is in reserve, maintenance status, deployed, what can be reconstituted, and most importantly the intricacies of the interdependent nuclear force treaties that we maintain with our allies.

   The point of this blog is well taken, Obama is an unqualified and ideologically driven stuffed shirt.

   Nevertheless, I don’t buy this Guardian article. There are too many in the DoD that do understand the issues I mentioned above and the apparatus is too powerful and complex for just one idiot in the Oval Office to undo with the stroke of a pen.

3. Obama is nothing more nor less than a leftist con man, out for Obama. All his life, he’s done nothing but look out for number one, and rely on the kindness and help of folks who see him as a useful front for whatever power plays they’re into. Follow the money, and you’ll find out who’s running the show…because it for sure is not The Oneâ„¢. He’s the empty suit with the glib manner who’s only interested in one thing: “What’s in it for me?” I don’t believe there’s a single thing he actually believes in, other than himself.

4. Good ol’ Pamela Geller @ Atlas Shrugs chops right to the meat with:

   Stupid or Evil

   Most folks, even critics, say that Obama is hopelessly naive. I have heard John Bolton (no Obama supporter) say it more than once. Nonsense. You don’t consistently choose the side of evil by accident.

5. And the difference between Bill Ayers and Obama is that, although Ayers may not be the most straightforward guy in the universe, he’s honesty itself compared to Obama.

   As Jon Stewart would say, you nailed it. Bill Ayers has a track record. Like them or not, Bill Ayers has taken stands, and if he has later modified or tried to obfuscate his stands, we can make sense of Bill Ayers. We know who he is. The Bill Ayers who spoke in Venezuela several years ago is consistent with the education professor and with the Weatherman.

   I keep returning to the theme of ∅bama acting as the mirror of other people, upon whom others can project their wishes. This theme comes up in his autobiography, in his time at Harvard, and in his time on the campaign trail.

   The question then arises: in his decisions as President, whom is ∅bama trying to mirror? I go back to the far left environment in which ∅bama was raised.

6. Neo:

   You say: “the whole point of a con is that enough people fall for it.” Actually, that is only part of the point. The other part is that a con involves something that is not quite right and makes the “mark” complicit in the bargain so he is not willing to go to the authorities. Hence the expression among con artists that “you cannot con an honest man” or that a mark “must have larceny in his heart”.

   Cons typically include something that is not quite legal: “I just discovered that the bank overpaid me by $1,000 but I have to go back in there and can’t carry the money back in with me — you hold it and I’ll give you half” is a typical street con that works when the mark puts some “earnest money” in the envelop he is holding, but doesn’t see the envelop being switched so the con walks away with all the earnest money and leaves the mark holding an envelop full of cut-up newspapers. And so on.

   What’s the larceny on voters’ part that Obama is counting on? I don’t see it. I think our failing (voters’ failing) is not larceny, it’s too much willingness to suspend disbelief. We are not cautious enough in the face of someone who speaks in vague generalities and probably elicits overcompensation on the racism issue.

   So what does he want? I wonder if we’ll learn something this week when he goes to the UN. I remember wondering what office he was running for when he made his campaign speech in Germany. When he makes his presentation to the UN will we all wonder what he is running for? Could it be that what he really wants is not to be US President but leader of the whole world? Don’t tell me he doesn’t have the qualifications or experience for the job — the same should have been said about his current job but damn few people were willing to say it.

   Who is Obama? I keep coming back to one either/or: either he is a dupe manipulated by others (the so-called “Manchurian Candidate” option) or he wants to change the US in a radical manner that reflects the desires of probably only about 10% of the American electorate. My money is on the later alternative, but I think the jury’s still out. F

7. Neo,

   #3 above (everyone’s point of view is equally valid). I heartily disagree with that. He listens to another point of view like an arrogant physician listens to a patient (“Now, now, who’s the doctor here?”) then dismisses it (“I won!”). Hardly a validation of others’ opinions.

   #5 He may believe that wisdom is the function of knowledge and education, but his focus is on the superficial. To think one is knowledgeable because one went to Harvard and Columbia is like positing that a financial advisor is competent just because s/he drives an expensive car.

   (Regarding wisdom, I am reminded of a line from the movie “The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao,” when Dr. Lao asks the young protagonist “Do you know what wisdom is?” Young Tim says “No,” to which Dr. Lao responds “That’s a wise answer.”)

   I think worrying about what Obama IS is a futile waste of time; it doesn’t matter. What is important is what he DOES, and for this we have ample evidence. Just listen to what he says. If it bespeaks moderation he will try to do the opposite; if it promotes politically correct liberalism he will carry it out.

   He speaks in laywer-ese. He doesn’t outright lie, but he doesn’t tell us the whole truth. For example, his claim that illegal aliens will not be covered under health care reform is a case in point. Is there now any doubt that he intends to make all illegal aliens citizens so they will be covered?

   How about not raising taxes on the middle class; nothing said about fining them for not having health insurance. Ah, but a fine is not a tax!

   How about being able to keep our current health insurance; nothing said about making it untenable for your insurance carrier to be able to continue in business. To say they went out of business does not equal forcing us to give up our insurance!

   Frankly, his claims remind of Faustian deals with Mephistopheles; there’s always a catch that is never enumerated in the promise. The only consistency one needs is to not trust the promise
   from the outset.

8. One of the very few scraps of Obama’s writing that the MSM actually dug up (from his years at Columbia) had to do with his fervent support for the nuclear freeze movement. I guess he is finally getting his wish:

   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/05nuclear.html

9. A couple of things that Obama reminds me of: Woody Allen’s Zelig, Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Wilde’s Dorian Gray.

10. Shelby Steele accurately captured the essence of BO some time ago:he wears a mask.He plays the non threatening black man just enough to get him across the goal line, yet it was all an act.He feigns affability,yet he isn’t in the least, and he spends his time zealously guarding his domain so that no one can get close to figure him out.Scholar Richard Epstein has described faculty room conversations with BO that go nowhere with Barry spending his time trying to remain aloof and counterpunching, doing the bare minimum to affect the mannerisms of an engaged intellectual without actually having to make any point.

11. I hereby offer my two cents about the major influences in the early years Obama’s life, and what I think motivates Obama.

    First, there was his abandonment by his biological father, and Obama’s idealization of that father, a father who was a Muslim and a Socialist, and a member of Kenya’s Luo tribe; the major, central wound in his life. Then, there was Obama’s virtual abandonment by his biological mother, “Stanley Dunham,”– an oddly named women–very carefully described in the few things I have seen written about her as an “internationalist,” as “different,” as “iconoclastic” and “adventurous”–who was off, most of Obama’s life, in some foreign country doing “fieldwork”; the other key, wounding, abandonment in his life.

    There was Obama’s extended African family of Muslims, and Obama’s Indonesian Muslim step-father Lolo Soetoro and his family in which Obama–now named Barry Soetoro and according to Indonesian official records, a Muslim and an Indonesian citizen–lived as a Muslim from around age 6 to 10, taking mandatory Islamic religious courses at school, taking the extra courses after school in reciting the Qur’an in Arabic (mangaji) that the more pious Muslims did, and according to Obama’s schoolmates, who were witnesses–going to the Mosque with his stepfather; easily findable information that none of the MSM bothered to unearth, printed, or wanted to have anything to do with.

    Then when, at age 10, Obama was shipped off to his maternal grandparents in Hawaii, during the time Stanley was divorcing her second husband, Obama landed in the custody of his grandmother Madelyn, who had the steady job in the family, kept food on the table and the family together, and his grandfather Stanley, who Obama called “Gramps”–again, very cautiously and discretely described by Obama–and no other sources that I have seen–as a dissatisfied “dreamer” and an apparently failing furniture salesman; a man who, according to Obama’s autobiographical writings, took young Obama with him when Gramps visited smoky, low down dive bars filled with drunks and hookers in Honolulu’s Red Light district, and who introduced Obama, at age 10 or thereabouts, to the black mentor of Obama’s teen age years from 10 until Obama went to college at 17–Frank Marshal Davis–a mentor that Obama esteemed very highly.

    Davis was a piece of work–according to the investigative work done by the U.K’s Telegraph, a cynical “angry black man,” an apparently active member of the Communist party with a thick FBI and Hawaii dossier, time before HUAC taking the fifth, a self-admitted “pervert,” bisexual, sadomasochist, voyeur, troller of Honolulu for threesome partners of either sex, a sometimes pedophile, and pornographer, newspaperman, and “poet,” who authored “Smash On, Victory Eating Red Army,” and a hard drinker and lover of pot, the man who Obama called “Pop” (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2601914/Frank-Marshall-Davis-alleged-Communist-was-early-influence-on-Barack-Obama.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/2591139/Barack-Obamas-true-colours-The-making-of-the-man-who-would-be-US-president.html ); this was Obama’s mentor for seven critical years, who advised him on all manner of things–that we know of from Obama, about race, what is was to be a black man, whites, women, education–and about whose relationship with Obama we really know almost exactly nothing, except for a very revealing and disturbing poem that Obama wrote at College, and that Neo commented on back in April here: (http://neoneocon.com/2009/04/03/obama-and-the-disturbing-influence-of-frank-marshall-davis/):

    “Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken

    In, sprinkled with ashes

    Pop switches channels, takes another

    Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks

    What to do with me, a green young man

    Who fails to consider the
    Flim and flam of the world, since

    Things have been easy for me; 

    I stare hard at his face, a stare

    That deflects off his brow; 

    I’m sure he’s unaware of his

    Dark, watery eyes, that

    Glance in different directions,

    And his slow, unwelcome twitches,

    Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,

    Listen, open, till I cling to his pale, 

    Beige T-shirt, yelling,

    Yelling in his ears, that hang

    With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
    His joke, so I ask why
    He’s so unhappy, to which he replies…

    But I don’t care anymore, cause

    He took too damn long, and from

    Under my seat, I pull out the
    
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing, 

    Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face

    To mine, as he grows small,

    A spot in my brain, something

    That may be squeezed out, like a 

    Watermelon seed between

    Two fingers.

    Pop takes another shot, neat,

    Points out the same amber

    Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and

    Makes me smell his smell, coming

    From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem

    He wrote before his mother died,

    Stands, shouts, and asks

    For a hug, as I shrink, my 

    Arms barely reaching around

    His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ’cause
    
I see my face, framed within
    Pop’s black-framed glasses

    And know he’s laughing too”

    As I read it, all of the pussyfooting and fuzzy, soft lens images of both Obama’s mother Stanley and Gramps exist to cover up the fact that they were both people of the Far Left and, in essence, Obama was a “Red Diaper”/Muslim baby, and became a deeply conflicted person on many levels and for many reasons, but one who hated his white half–and by extension all whites–and idolized his black half and Islam, and we are paying and will pay for that hatred and idealization.

12. Huxley,

    There are a number of nails here. Pamela Geller has hit one of them dead, solid, square on the head.

    I have a question that I’ve been asking for some time, and wonder what some here might think about it: I frequently hear people voicing their fear that Obama and the Congressional Democrats are going to lead us to (horrors) a European-style social democracy. I think rather differently. I think that if Obama and the others are successful, by the time they’re finished, we will wish we could GET a European-style social democracy. And by that I mean they are heading us for the horrors of the totalitarian communist regimes. Maybe I’m just full of soup, or maybe I’ve lost track of how bad things are in Europe (I haven’t been over there since the early ’80s). Or there may be the outside chance that I’m right.

    I don’t know, but it keeps nagging at me.

13. people are busy asking the question “Who is Obama, what is he?”

    Yes. And this is the question that should have been raised, oh, say, a year ago. Thanks alot, 52%!

14. With respect – Neo, Oblio, Huxley, mizpants, expat, Baklava, Scottie, southernjames, betsybounds, grackle, and many other fine minded commentators here (forgive me if I left your tag out) have given us many insights into who Obama appears to be, what seems to driving his behavior, and based on those insights, what his next move might be or has to be. It’s been a fine discussion and I appreciate it. Actually, I can picture us around a large round table sipping glasses of wine or cocktails while we talk. Of course, Neo would have her water bottle. Frankly, I could talk / read about Obama and his behavior forever and probably will, but at this point I think “T” (above) has it exactly right when he says:

    “I think worrying about what Obama IS is a futile waste of time; it doesn’t matter. What is important is what he DOES, and for this we have ample evidence. Just listen to what he says. If it bespeaks moderation he will try to do the opposite; if it promotes politically correct liberalism he will carry it out.”

    I think T’s implication is obvious – we, as thoughtful people, have to stay too vigilant with Obama’s behavior and make our opposition known in any venue that we might have, including at the smallest level with family and friends. Unfortunately, it looks like staying vigilant might been an every day responsibility for us for the next 40 months.

15. Wolla Dalbo,

    I’ve seen that poem before–when, as you say, neo posted it in April, and several other places. I saw it again this past week-end, linked from another site: http://thebestamericanpoetry.typepad.com/the_best_american_poetry/2008/09/pop-by-barack-o.html

    It’s a deeply disturbing piece of work. The Telegraph describes Frank Marshall Davis as “a cynical “angry black man,” an apparently active member of the Communist party with a thick FBI and Hawaii dossier, time before HUAC taking the fifth, a self-admitted “pervert,” bisexual, sadomasochist, voyeur, troller of Honolulu for threesome partners of either sex, a sometimes pedophile, and pornographer, newspaperman, and “poet,” who authored “Smash On, Victory Eating Red Army,” and a hard drinker and lover of pot, the man who Obama called ‘Pop’ . . . .” Wow. Just the guy you’d want advising and mentoring your impressionable teen boy.

    No wonder Mr. Obama thinks he has a gift.

    I don’t know. My husband and I have gone back and forth between thinking Obama is someone’s Manchurian Candidate and thinking he is evil enough all on his own not to be a puppet. It’s never clear–as neo says, he’s an enigma. But as more time passes, I move further towards the conclusion that he’s no-one’s place-holder, and that he’s the guy running the show. And I don’t think he has benign intentions.

16. JohnC,

    Your last paragraph makes me wonder whether his game is to wear us out. That fits with his dozens of priorities to save the world (from us probably). Is he counting on us to finally shake our heads and walk away from the fight? We need to conseve our energy and concentrate our efforts.

17. expat:

    I have thought of this also. They were counting on the niceness, the civic decency, the willingness to see the other side to get what they want. Counting also on the fact that most Americans don’t obsess about politics the way they do and assuming that we would simply wilt in the face of opposition. But ever since 9/12 I think we can do this, if we work very hard.

18. I think Obama is hard left and naive. These apparently incommensurate views can be reconciled by positing that Obama is the spokesmodel for others. He himself may be hard left, but he’s obviously a lightweight, and easily led. (Even by Pelosi, God help us.) He’s naive enough not to realize that those for whom he is fronting will dump him (or worse) in a second if he becomes a liability.

    Not to veer into tinfoil hat territory, but I think the spokesmodel hypothesis explains the observations (murky history, meteoric rise, need for a teleprompter, foot in mouth disease when speaking extemporaneously) with the fewest postulates, consistent with my screen name.

19. betsybounds,

    It’s a bit like Running With Scissors, isn’t it?

20. Neo,

    Breaking news on Honduras. Zelaya in Embassy

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8267775.stm

21. What in the world? What does this mean people?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE58K5A420090921?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

22. I found the link below from one of the comments on the Belmont Club thread that Neo referenced. It is a new post from the personal blog of a frequent Belmont commenter, “whiskey”:

    http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2009/09/barack-obama-americas-vizier.html

    I also found the link below over the weekend from Ali Sina at FaithFreedom.org, about Obama’s narcissism. It is a year old, but I haven’t seen it before.

    http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

    Both are rather long but well worth a look.

23. Excuse me for quoting myself, Jan. 7th:

    I don’t have any answers, but I do have some questions that I believe are pertinent.

    1. Obama has spent most of his adult life consorting with Communists, America-haters, and/or racists who have made a very fine life for themselves in white-dominated, capitalistic America and who try to portray themselves to the world as anything but what they are.

    Why would somebody who has spent his life in close association with such people want to be president of the United States of America? And what would he really want to do as president of the USA? Or, why would they want him to be POTUS? What would they want him to do as POTUS?

    2. Obama’s executive experience is either (a) so slight as to merit little notice, or (b) so bad as to require assignment to the memory hole, or (c) both.

    In a country and world rife with crises of all kinds, is Obama actually prepared to be the top decision-maker of the US federal government? And what will it take to show us whether he is? And why in the world are these considerations still to be pondered after his election?

    3. On the record, Obama’s experience with the military is AFAIK non-existent.

    What will he do as Commander-in-Chief, especially considering (1) he has associated his whole life with people who consider the American military the locus of evil in the world and (2) he has no positive executive experience worth mentioning?

    4. What answers have our enemies – both foreign and domestic – given to these questions already?

24. Obama the Man v. Obama the POTUS is a distinction without a difference, as is whether he’s a front v. the real thing.
    He does not have to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, either.
    Extrapolate his personal history, his lying, plus his actions to date to their inescapable endpoint and one reaches only this: he is a totalitarian tyrant.

25. betsybounds:

    I agree with you. Obama is not a slightly left of center European-style social democrat. He is the real deal. He aims to be a totalitarian leader. The cult of personality during the primary campaign was the first warning, and his stated intention to take over the census as soon as he was inaugurated was another. The only plausible reason for doing that is to rig future elections in his favor.

    See also the three dozen czars, who are not confirmed by Congress and answer only to him; his declared intention to create a “civilian national security force”; his constant putdowns of free enterprise and private profit; and his incessant, almost daily TV appearances. He seems to be trying to accumulate as much personal power as possible, and portray himself as the face of American government.

26. JohnC and Tom: well, I thought that was the point of my post—everyone’s so busy trying to figure out Obama the Man, and it’s futile and a waste of time. Before the election we didn’t have the evidence of Obama the President, but now we do. I believe we do know him, by his actions so far as President.

27. betsybounds: I agree with you that Obama is no one’s placeholder, and that he’s in charge of himself. Whether or not it began that way, or what help he had along the way, isn’t all that relevant any more.

    History is littered with the bodies (metaphorical or literal) of people who thought they could control a certain person and helped guide that person to power. After that person got to power, the helpers were jettisoned.

28. Check out the Contentions post on Mitt Romney’s assessment of Obama’s policies.

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/100211

29. Neo – I suppose I didn’t read your post as carefully as I usually do. It came across to me as more guesstamenting into what he is and why he is that way. But, I can see that we are on the same page — it’s Obama’s weekly / daily observable behavior which are the real ‘teachable moments’. Knowing about his historical context is important too, of course.

30. I had a brief semi-panic moment in the shower a few days ago down here in Texas. Rational or not, I thought about that this guy has control of “the bomb”.

31. jon baker Says:
    September 21st, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    I had a brief semi-panic moment in the shower a few days ago down here in Texas. Rational or not, I thought about that this guy has control of “the bomb”.

    And it’s his bomb, too. He owns it. Personally.

    /Thanks a bunch, 52%!

32. Neo: My modest post was to show agreement with you, despite my brevity.

    jon b.: Who’d he use The Bomb on? His only enemy is Honduras.
    In my semi-panic moments I think about an armed uprising by citizens heeding Jefferson’s observation that the tree of Liberty periodically requires the blood of patriots (was it Jefferson?), and the O’s response.

33. Pingback:House of Eratosthenes

34. Tom:

    Patriots and tyrants. That last bit is key, I think.

    Yes, it was Jefferson.

35. We must resist any attempt to pack the Federal judiciary. The judges are the last defense for Constitutional government in the Republic. If they are subverted, we have a problem that goes way beyond an Obama administration. We will have a generation of Humpty-Dumptyism masquerading as law.

    As an adjunct professor of Constitutional law, this is where Obama will go, as the sparks fly upward. It’s a “Living Constitution” and it belongs to THEM, don’t you know.

    But let us have no talk of violence: we must not cease from mental fight in the courts, on the airways, in print, in Congress and the statehouses. We are winning. Let’s play smart and keep chasing them down. Our strategy is (all together now), “We Win, They Lose.”

    And I don’t think we should focus on Obama right now, but on the company he keeps: Holder, Jarrett, Hassan Nemazee, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

36. Cherche la Gates.

37. And Breitbart is inside the media’s OODA loop. He is dictating the pace of the stories and undermining the media’s ability to respond, read spike unfavorable news.

    I’m contributing to that man’s legal defense fund, if he ever needs help.

    http://biggovernment.com/

38. He was never a mystery to me. As I posted a few times previously:

    He’s a bad guy. Obama is a bad guy.

    We’ve elected fools, narcissists, womanizers, liars and crooks as president. Obama is the first actual bad guy we have elected.

    He’s goal is not statism or leftism. His goal is to do ill. He is a badguy; he is leftist and statist only to the extent of the ills they do society and people.

    I disagree with Wretchard that his is unpredicatable; he is entirely predictable: He advocates any position that produces the most immediate harm and misery for people. If his actions appear unpredictable, it is only because ignoring or overturning a previous harmful position occasionally causes more harm and misery. He is a bad guy.

    You to can predict his actions. Just ask yourself: “What can he do right now to create more fear, harm and misery for everyone”. You can be sure that is what he will advocate.

    It may seem he works at cross-purposes, but his goal of creating fear and misery is always met: He is a bad guy.

39. Bombs are neither Left nor Right; Liberal nor Conservative, they are simply agents of destruction. In righteous hands, they provide security and defend the innocent. In evil hands, they destroy innocence and security, but their operation is always the same: destruction.

    Barack Hussein Obama is the weapon Ayers, Soros and the dirty leftists are using to destroy the elements of America they hate so they and their can re-make it.

    He is, as advertised, the agent of Change in the way that demolition Changes a building and allows it to be rebuilt. He’s not the builder, he never was, he is simply the agent of destruction sent on it’s course by the usual enemies of freedom.

    He’s the political suicide bomber of the Left. They wound him up ideologically and sent him off.

40. “A unified field theory of Obama would explain all his moves. I think that the idea that he is a covert far Leftist and statist up to no good does exactly that. But saying that aloud is still unconscionable to most people (not to mention racist!).”

    Not covert in the least. The People just didn’t look up from American Idol long enough to get a good look.

    The Media line was “post racial unifier”, and here we are with a stone communist working a 24 month agenda to destroy the economy, constitution, and society.

    I agree; incompetence is random screw ups, evil runs on rails.

    Obama is on his own schedule.

41. Pingback:Webloggin » Who Exactly Is This Guy Anyway?

42. Pingback:Ed Driscoll

43. Thomas Sowell has a column up at NRO entitled Underdogs, and it deals with the poisonous attitude propagated by ACORN types. I have had this opinion since the 1960s, when I observed first hand the workings of the Welfare Rights Organization, and it’s one of the reasons I was wary of Obama when I learned of his support for ACORN. I would like to see the whole ACORN issue being discussed at this basic philosophical level as well as the criminal one because it points out the basic problem with Obama’s policies. You can’t hang around with people who say that learning to read is acting white and then blame whites for denying education to blacks. It’s like giving vitamin D to to a child you’ve been holding i a dark closet and hoping for normal bone development. College financing and televised lectures to school children are vitamin D tablets being administered to kids who have received massive doses of authenticity poison their whole lives. If Obama doesn’t see this, then his understanding of human nature is flawed and all of his policies will reflect this. If he sees it and has still acted as an enabler for 20 years, then his ability and willingness to stand up for what he believes is seriously wanting.

    Obama looks at what is wrong and concocts grand schemes to to counter wrongs. He is incapable of looking at what is right, be it in the poorest family or community, and trying to build on these strengths. His clinging remark was only one indication of this.

44. There is no conundrum… the conundrum is in peoples ability to accept the reality they see rather than create the reality they want. they are so used to putting their own spin and color on reality and it being ok, that it seems to be right. but when something real and critical comes up, their faculties are failing them (as intended), and they cant conclude the obvious. why? because this reality no longer supports their dreamy reality, it intrudes, and it is not accepting the spins we put on things to wish em away.

    he is what he has always expressed himself to be, its just that ignorance takes a long time to learn what knowlege and experience knows and then trust itself enough to step forward. until then, the reasonable ones get a lot of cache till its too late (as everyone gathers round them).

    being reasonable is what kept us from starting this dialogue meaningfully before when crap and crappy were running to be pres elect.

    back then, the reasonable ones refused to let such extreme things in the conversations. even if this time they were not just extreme, but real. THEY are the enablers of despotism because they make unreasonable peoples unreasonable desires invisable!!!! they make sure that the other history including spies and games is not known, because that is more reasonable than accepting this dark war behind the curtain that supports all these personal realities that dont match.

    by removing the argument before ascention, so the discussions are always reasonable (sacrificing truth for reason), they cut out every person who could tell, inform, teach, and so forth from being part of the discussion before AND after.

    the only conundrum here is that you are looking at the events from INSIDE, while all your histories have been views from the OUTSIDE. seeing hitler AFTER his rise from the outside tells you nothing about what its like inside the beast maturing.

    its the ones that need a series of examples that completely assaults there senses before they accept what they see is what they see, and even then they dont. they dont even learn from examples becuse everything they are is wrapped up in being the reasonable one that people turn to.

    no matter how many things you list
    nationalizing auto
    attemptng to nationalize health
    dictating car performance
    dictating what you can smoke or eat
    amnesty
    export of abortion
    debasing currency
    unilateral nuclear disarmament
    planned loss of war

    you can see them rewriting the history of the 9/12 march… soon the reasonable ones will want a number between the two, that way they help facilitate the leaders consensus and social mental homogenization.

    the replacement of your life plan with our leaders life plan for you.

    breaking of the rule of law
    backroom deals
    sociopathic organizations helping
    (wait till they train the kids).
    kids being used to report on adults (census and more).

    of course the reasonable ones are not knowlegeable in the history details of life as a person then, they are not knowing in the broader histories given they are ignorant of the spies and such games (which have molded this), and they are extremely confident that in the near future some useful idiot will make some sense of the leaders moves to them. not realizing that its just 10,000 excuses to see which ones stick.

45. I was going to come up with the Zelig comparison but JB beat me to it.

    To me it seems that Obama doesn’t have a clear sense of himself because of the way he was raised. Most of us grow up firmly part of a family, set in a community, ethnic, religious or regional, and taught a consistent set of values. Not Obama.

    He was raised by whites, nontraditional whites but white all the same, but he is black. He can’t identify with his own family. His father was a mythic figure that turned out to be a fraud. He moved all over the place, but was never rooted to any of them.

    With all that he found that he was smart, and could get along with his smarts and his quiet charm, and could get people to mentor him. He adopted each of his mentors’ values and goals, I think sincerely, but as with his family, there was always a separation, because he knew from experience that sooner or later he would have to go his own way.

    I think he learned early on that he could only really rely on himself to survive whatever life threw at him. I think the only real attachment he has are to Michele and to his children. The children most of all.

    With his healthy ego and the combination of Lefty do-goodism and hunger to be Somebody Big, he was a natural for politics. He kept getting mentors, early on of the far Left, Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc. As his career in politics took off, he drifted to the Chicago school of politics and took easily to the cuthroat style of that school, and starting throwing each former mentor under the bus as his or her usefulness came to an end.

    He came to the attention of some big powers of Democratic Party operatives and seeing his potential, they took him under their collective wing. There he found out who really ran the party, what money was behind it, and where the bodies were buried. He was groomed for the presidency, especially by the Leftward part of the party, who were sick of the Clintons. And the final mentor was Ted Kennedy, who pretty much sealed the presidency for him.

    Now that he is in power there no more mentors, although, ironically, I think the Clintons partly serve that role. After who else can tell him what a president should do?

    I disagree with some of you who think he has a radical Left Socialist agenda that he will ruthlessly engineer on the country. His dreams might be served by the Left ideals he was raised on but the hardened politician in him knows that he can’t fight the money. He will pursue his goals as far as the money interests in this country will let him but they hold the purse strings on him and every other politician in America.

    Besides he has had his ups and downs with his former Leftist comrades. He surely knows most of them are extremely flawed human beings, blinded by their own egos and tunnel vision. He may have grand goals but the survivor in him instinctively acts cautiously and warily and will quickly jettison anything or anyone who might threaten his ultimate survival

    Of course he will be an effective politician and will get some of his agenda passed and implemented. But I don’t think he is capable of radically changing the course of this country. And it’s still possible that he will fail utterly, his inexperience and strategic errors will cause his coalition to fall apart. It’s pretty much the norm of politics which is why I believe in the ultimate victory of inertia in American politics.

46. Pingback:The Obama Conundrum: Who Is He… What Is He… « Nice Deb

47. He’s the front man for the clique in the WH. They’re all working for China. And when people tire of him and elect Hillary, she too is working for China.
    I know this sounds mad. But what does China want? They want to expand their sphere of influence. They need us weakened economically and militarialy.
    Have you ever read Lucky Bastard? the ending?–I know fiction, but why would China want to fight an expensive war with us when they can make us immaterial and unable to respond to to their expansionist plans.

48. I have nothing new to add to this conversation, but I agree with the poster above that we need to observe and to be ready to act as best we can–whether it be convincing our own social circles or running for office. Going to tea parties is always a good way to get energized.

    For me the big mystery is WHO are Obama’s main foreign backers? The Saudis clearly gave him bundles of money. The Russians probably did too. Then there is always my favorite villain–George Soros–a James Bond bad-guy type if there ever was one.

    So, Obama is either a front for the Islamists, who want a Mohammedan hell on earth; the Russians, who want to destroy their biggest (perceived) enemy; or an evil man who just wants to crash the system because he can.

    Obama, himself, is one of those crazy guys who rise in history. It’s clear that he doesn’t know much about anything except campaigning, but he believes in some wacky combination of “hate whitey,” “profits are nasty,” and “America is too imperialistic.” Just a bunch of the same cliches we’ve been hearing ever since the Black Power demagogues grabbed the microphones in the late 1960s.

    I knew that I disliked Obama before the Senatorial election when I learned of the tenets of his church, which opposed the pursuit of “middleclassness.” That kind of muddled Black Power thinking is what we see today in his actions. That’s why it’s hard to define his views–they’re just a mush of stupid ideas.

    I’m glad I don’t have to write a term paper on this subject for a college class. His ideas are such a mess, they are difficult to describe.

    BTW, once again Artfldodger has hit the nail on the head: It’s hard to see history happening when we’re living inside it.

49. Pingback:Maggie's Farm

50. Man, that’s a lot of words to say that Obama is an a$$hole.

51. If you want to know who Obama “is”, you may need to know what he is “on”. The country is facing unprecedented problems not seen since the great depression, and yet he carries on like a sixteen year old girl at a coming out party. As well, he and his entire administration jump from issue to issue giving the nation whiplash. We haven’t resolved the healtcare issue and now he says that Global Warming is the crisis that can’t be ignored. His dillatante prclivities are now clear for all to see. Could it be that his pathological need for attention has to be attended and the issue is not so important as the fact that he has his needs met…

52. Real simple: He means us harm. Much harm. The sooner the better.

53. I’m starting to think Obama is the Antichrist, and I’m only half joking. Meanwhile I sit through my local book club meeting, sipping wine and listening to my (formerly) good friends digress about the failures of capitalism and what a shame it is that people are so ignorant they wouldn’t want their kids to listen to a simple, encouraging speech from the president. When my husband suggested I was being a little paranoid, I asked him to name one thing in our 21 years of marriage that I was seriously worried about for no good reason and he couldn’t. “I’m the one who checks your friends’ stupid emails with snopes. And you know I can argue either side of any issue, as devil’s advocate, but I can’t argue myself to the not-worried side of this one.”

    So by what miracle have all the (few) people who wake up in the night like I do found their way to your good blog, neo? Do you all know how rare you are?

    The good news: two fearless kids with a camera brought down ACORN. Support independent investigative journalism.

    Meanwhile, I will not be surprised if a major “emergency” occurs before the 2010 elections that allows the president to impose his presidential authority on us. This is such a test for Americans. I hope we do not fail.

54. Gray is correct. Obama is a bad man. He hates anything that’s good and anyone who is happy (unless happiness is brought about by evil doing and creating misery.) He became president to “punish” the US. That’s it. I said it before the elections, and I’m still saying it and it allows me to predict his actions.

55. Tom . . .

    You said it!

    But now that O’s agenda is clear for many millions to see, We Shall Overcome!

    Ha, ha. My many years of training at leftist institutions has given me the knowledge that I need to defeat the monsters of statism.

56. artfl dodger (above) points out that reasonablness is partly what got us into this mess. I agree wholeheartedly. Everyone lauds bipartisanship, but I think it’s not a good thing. I want opposition (reasonable opposition) from whichever party is not in power. Bipartisanship, to means, that both parties have agreed on the best way to stick it to the American people.

    To Amy (above). As you sit in your book club listening to your “formerly” good friends, you should speak up if you haven’t already. It’s not easy, but is is almost becoming a duty. The left gets away with misinterpretations of facts, revisionist history and just plain ignorance because many people of the silent majority are “too nice” to call them on that.

    I say “The First Amendment: It’s not just for liberals anymore!”

57. this is just a partial list… will expand it as i come across things…

    listing things out makes it easier to see how much we are ignoring in our assesments because they are outside of the framework we want to accept in being “reasonable”.

    Giving England’s Queen Elizabeth II an iPod with his speeches on it

    Giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a collection of DVDs that were not formatted to the European standard (by contrast, Mr. Brown gave Mr. Obama an ornamental desk-pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, among other historically significant gifts)

    Calling “Austrian” a language

    Bowing to the Saudi king

    Releasing a photo of a conference call with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in which the president was showing the soles of his shoes to the camera (an Arab insult)

    Saying “let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s”; saying the United States was “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world”

    Suggesting Arabic translators be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan where Arabic is not a native language

    Sending a letter to French President Jacques Chirac when Nicolas Sarkozy was the president of France

    Holding a town-hall meeting in France and not calling on a single French citizen

    Referring to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when he meant Cinco de Mayo

    Of note was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton giving Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a “reset” button with the Russian word for “overcharge.”

    Learned religion from Rev Wright

    Mentored and assisted by William Ayers a founder of the weather underground terrorist organization, a man who just happens to live in his neighborhood

    Mentored by Frank Marshall Davis (who may have sexually abused him given Obama’s poem, and Davis admissions to similar acts in other writing), a communist.

    Created and facilitated the Global Poverty Act, to redistribute trillions (eventually) of US capital to other regimes.

    Appoints self avowed communist Van Jones to be Green Jobs Czar

    Working hard against freedom in the Honduras by favoring a socialist leader who violated the constitution of his own state in seeking a “dictatorship of the proletariat”

    Sam Graham-Felson who runs Obama’s blog is also a writer for “the nation” as well as a contributor to “the socialist viewpoint”.

    Received backing early in his career from Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for his senate seat. DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

    Eulogized Saul Mendelson a long time socialist activist (see DSA for facts)

    Obama campaigned openly for socialist Bernis Sanders of Vermont

    Nationalized the banks

    Broke rule of law in contracts with the auto industry bailouts

    Partially nationalized the auto industry

    Trying to nationalize the health care industry

    Granting of rights to enemy combatants

    Creation of an internal force and youth army funded more than the military

    Unilateral nuclear disarmament

    Insulted and abandoned the polish people on the anniversary of the invasion of soviet russia

    Was associated with Blago and his attempt to fix the replacement to his seat

    Mother was a communist sympathizer who met his father in a Russian language class when russia was still soviet.

    Obamas father was a communist, who wrote “problems with our socialism” that advocated a 100% tax on the rich.

    Obamas brother Roy is a Marxist and luo activist

    Obamas Cousing Odinga is also a Marxist fighting to impose sharia law in Kenya

    Obamas uncle facilitated the soviet communist take over of Kenya

    Obama Attended Socialist Conferences at Cooper Union

    Obama hand picked by Alice Palmer to succeed her in the senate. she was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, according to an article Palmer wrote in the CPUSA newspaper, People’s Daily World, June 19, 1986

    Launched his career in the house of Ayers and Dohrn, founders of weather underground terrorist organization (Stalinists).

    Was a lawyer for the organization ACORN who now is in trouble for being more criminal than the gotti’s

    Endorsed Openly socialist senator Bernis Sanders. Sanders is the first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate.”

    CPUSA endorsed his presidency

    His religion (for 20 years) is/was Marxist Liberation theology

    The opening band for his election campaign events was the Decemberists, named after the 1825 revolt over the imperial russian succession (viewed as the first attempt at socialism). they open their concerts, and obamas campaigns with the soviet national anthem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCCTe87IxfU

58. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

    Johann von Goethe

59. I know I’m rather late to this conversation and I haven’t read all the comments, but the one thing I think might be missing so far is that Obama is “evolving.” Most of us over much of our lifetimes change. We respond to the conditions of our lives and, if we’re open-minded, we change our thinking. We are not static in who we are and neither is Obama.

    I asked a very Bible-literate Evangelical friend if the Anti-Christ is born or made? Does he know who he is or is he just an available vessel? Ya’ll may think I’m an End-Time nutter, but I watch Obama responding to criticism and adulation and I see him becoming engorged with power and inflamed with wrath – “hit back twice as hard.” I think it is possible Obama got into this as simply a narcissist with European-Marxist sensibilities, but where he’s going with the aid of Satan behind him is much much worse. Keep your powder dry and your lamp full, friends. He might be The One.

60. I believe the psychological term is “Inflation,” and, in this context, I could not help noticing that Obama’s “Il Duce” tilt of the head is getting more pronounced.

61. I agree with you completely about the con artist angle.He does use the methods of both a con-artist & a cult leader.I 1st noticed this back in 2007.I intend to dissect his MO in a blog post in the future.I’ll let you know when I post it.(If I ever get my computer problems straightened out)

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>