Obama, knave or fool, latest edition
Mort Zuckerman, former Obama supporter, answers the question and says “fool.”
I beg to differ (I believe the answer is that he is both). But it’s still interesting to see Zuckerman come this far in his condemnation. He doesn’t quite get that what he may see as a bug (our declining influence and power in the world) Obama sees as a feature.
Zuckerman writes, “Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well.” Why that is so clear he does not say; it’s not at all clear to me, but perhaps it’s clear to Zuckerman because he’s a Democrat.
However, for a guy who wants to do good and means well, the list of Obama negatives in foreign policy that Zuckerman notes is unconscionably long and very serious. Zuckerman also brings up the following additional point, which is a part of the picture I hadn’t really thought much about before:
Obama’s meeting with the [Saudi] king was widely described as a disaster. This is but one example of an absence of the personal chemistry that characterized the relationships that Presidents Clinton and Bush had with world leaders. This is a serious matter because foreign policy entails an understanding of the personal and political circumstances of the leaders as well as the cultural and historical factors of the countries we deal with.
Whatever it is that Obama lacks in personal terms—call it warmth, call it empathy, call it what you will—it has apparently been duly noted by those heads of state with whom he has interacted in person.
There are over 800 comments to the Zuckerman article as of this moment, and there is no way I’m going to read them all. But, just looking at the first twenty or so, I see that most of them are saying what I’m saying: Obama’s a knave, Mr. Zuckerman; and if he’s a fool, too, he’s probably not been foolish or incompetent enough at getting his agenda implemented.
I agree with you Neo. I believe his intent is knavish. I also believe that his incompetence protects us to some degree from his inclinations.
On the other hand, an incompetent President certainly puts the country at risk.
We are as the cliches tell us, “between a rock and a hard place”, or “up a creek without a paddle”, or “in deep . . . .”.
Foolish knave for certain. And one who can’t deal with crisis; not “a man of action”. His “agenda” is in the hands of Ried and Pelosi. He advocates for positions only in the broadest of terms. His “speechifying” is empty-suit rhetoric with no details as to “how”.
I have friends who think we will survive this. I have doubts.
Knave! and Soros is pulling some strings…..
I posted on my facebook page that when considering Obama and the oil spill you should never forget his comment that he wanted carbon regs that would bankrupt anyone trying to build a coal powered plant. What is oil-other than another carbon based fuel…..
That article almost sounds as if it was written by a conservative. It now appears that the scales are falling off the eyes of Obama’s supporters.
Also note that Obama’s positives in the article are abstract. The concrete discussion skewers him.
I find it strange that Zuckerman failed to mention Obama’s shabby treatment of Israel. Is that well intentioned, too?
Frank Ross over at Big Journalism notes that this is the same Mort Zuckerman “who owns the New York Daily News, wherein an October 19, 2008 editorial endorsed candidate Obama:
Obama has been called audacious, and he certainly is. But his confidence is supported by both a high intelligence and a clear-eyed pragmatism, qualities that enabled him to best more established competitors — now to stand within reach of breaking America’s ultimate racial barrier.
A brilliant mind combined with practicality would well serve any President, and the reserves shown by Obama suggest he would bring nimbleness and judgment to the Oval Office. So does his crucial vow to reach across the aisle for solutions frozen in partisan gridlock.
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/25/mort-zuckerman-and-the-obama-kool-aid-drinkers-americas-fourth-great-awakening/
PA CAT:
Thanks for bringing that up. Perhaps Zuckerman and the Daily News were thinking of this when writing about “clear-eyed pragmatism:”Obama was rate the most liberal Senator in 2007 .
Regarding the likes of Zuckerman and Noonan who are now viewing ∅bama in another light, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am glad they are abandoning their support of ∅bama. On the other hand, if they had been using their brains instead of leg tingles to make decisions, they would not have supported ∅bama in 20008. They bear as much responsibility for ∅bama being in office as the most brain-addled moonbat, perhaps more, because they were in positions of influence.
Regarding the Obama means well meme, weren’t we always told that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
As for Mort Zuckerman and Peggy Noonan, refer to this devasting commentary from Bill Quick at Daily Pundit (h/t Instapundit Glenn Reynolds).
http://dailypundit.com/?p=38661
Thanks for the link T. It raises a question I would really like someone to answer, why didn’t all these enlightened souls see Obama as he truly was, like many of us mere mortals did?
“why didn’t all these enlightened souls see Obama as he truly was, like many of us mere mortals did?”
Because they were more interested in demonstrating their own englightenedness, particularly to the circle of similarly-enlightened, than they were in comprehending and speaking the truth.
It’s been said that you should never count on a man understanding something when his paycheck depends on him *not* understanding it. The same is true when his self-image and/or social status depends on him not understanding it.
The Zuckerman piece is simply inane, and Noonan is still either blind or gob-smackingly stupid. She thinks poor Obama is just unlucky. And paying him the compliment of thinking he’s incompetent assumes, along with Zuckerman, that he wants good things for this country. He’s engaged in destroying it. I don’t think he’s incompetent at all–in fact, I think he probably laughs at the poor schlubs who call him that. Everything he’s doing is deliberate. Does anyone think he looks worried, flustered, or uncertain? The fact that he takes aeons to make a decision is not evidence of uncertainty or indecision. In another person it might be, but look at him. Look at his manner. Look at his self-assurance, his cockiness. He wants things to remain chaotic for as long as may be. He wants everyone to be kept guessing as to what he’s going to do. Every now and then he gets hounded into taking some step or other, making a trivial little visit to the Gulf Coast or something similar, but he’s annoyed by it. He knows where things are going, and he’s quite content with that.
betsybounds,
Obama may well want America to be cut down to what he thinks is its appropriate size; however, the fool in him thinks that he will rise above it and be acclaimed throughout the world.
“Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well.” When one considers that do good means “do liberal things,” and means well is equal to “has a fondness for utopian visions, just as we all do,” then the assertion is less surprising.
Remember that they think we are selfish and immoral because we resist letting them deciding what to do with our money.
So much for proofreading and tabbing over for the golf scores in the same minute.
Bob from Virginia,
I have some thoughts about why they didn’t see Obama as he was. I offer several reasons.
First, the left had an intense and irrational hatred for Geo W. Bush (still do and he’s been out of office 18 months). They hated his policies, but they personalized that hatred to the point that they hated HIM. Krauthammer was deadly serious when he diagnosed Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Second, keep in mind that the left is all about appearances and intentions, not reality and results. To a liberal, diversity means non-white skin; it has nothing to do with the character or ability of the person. Socialist theories are not wrong; they’ve never worked because they weren’t implemented properly. Tolerance means allowing other anti-establishment views than one’s own, not tolerating conservative points of view—on and on ad nauseam.
Third, a media existed that bought into both of the above points. Many poorly informed individuals honestly believed that Bush was a dolt because the media said so time and time again and showcased his errors and flaws while giving him credit for absolutely nothing. They criticized him for playing golf and also for saying that he was going to stop playing golf–again on and on ad nauseam. Obama, on the other hand could do no wrong, and any criticism of him was racist.
Now combine these and you have Obama the anti-Bush. Eloqquent (off a teleprompter anyway), lithe and graceful, a rich radio announcer’s baritone voice, photogenic (not too black) and the icing on the cake, a black man (notice how his white half is conveniently ignored, just as his Columbia and Harvard degrees confer brilliance, while Bush’s Yale and Harvard degrees were conveniently ignored).
They didn’t see that he was an empty suit because it’s all about appearances, and they didn’t care because it’s not about results. Now, they can’t understand why they are not getting the results they wanted. The irony would be hilarious if the damage weren’t so potentially dangerous.
I am not alone!
One of the dailypundit bloggers also thinks Obama=Mugabe.
Good to have company.
Months ago there was a story about the US government helping to fund some South American countries oil drilling…..Now Obama puts this six month ban on drilling in the Gulf…..and we hear Soros has set himself up to profit from drilling off of South America. Coincidence?
Articles, such as Zuckerman’s, are always interesting. The conservative take on Obama usually seems to be: ‘I’m desperately unhappy with what he’s doing, and I don’t really understand why he’s doing it–with varying degrees of cause ranging from he’s a Commie/Moslem/Socialist, to — he is completely inexperienced, incompetent and unwilling to learn.’
The Liberal/Progressive take is more “How dare you attack my team, you are stupid, evil, dumb, and look how much better Obama is than the rotten/crooked Bush/Cheney/Karl Rove/Halliburton–(mouth foams over).’ [I read further in the comments than you did, Neo]
I miss Bush a lot! But the big question remains — what is Obama’s intent? Is he deliberately trying to destroy America? Does he want to turn us into Europe? Is he so narrowly educated that he has no idea of the unintended consequences of his policies? Does he really believe in a “clean energy economy?” Or is it just all a carefully planned power grab for himself and his radical friends?
I mostly believe in the faculty-lounge influence, that he is deeply uninformed about history, economics, world affairs and the nature of the office of the presidency, full of lefty-Utopian ideas, and that he instinctively rejects anything Republican or associated with Bush (whom he hates), rejects any warnings of consequences as Republican propaganda designed to favor the rich and corporations. Because he is a control-freak and a narcissist, his people can’t, or are afraid to, oppose him.
But then I could be wrong too.
Could we please add ‘passive/aggressive’ to the mix?
I posted on the Anchoress last night that I believe that Obama is like Stalin. I can’t see any other reason for his actions/inactions with regard to the Gulf. What’s a few million dead if you’re building socialism? Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.
So he will allow the Gulf to be destroyed if it furthers his goals.
Most people cannot comprehend the thinking of such a person.
I would LOVE to be shown the error of my thoughts!
I see commentor “Political Observer” pointed out the Soros / South American / money giveaway /drilling ban connection here :
http://neoneocon.com/2010/06/16/how-hard-can-it-be-to-be-a-competent-president/
He that cheats another is a knave; but he that cheats himself is a fool. – Karl G. Maeser (1828-1901), American educator and 1st president of Brigham Young University.
Yes, Obama is most definitely a knave. Robbing Peter (also his children plus grandchildren….) to pay Paul is the basis of his health care proposal — now the law. I believe the issue of him being a fool is decided in the affirmative. The evidence comes from a certain Reverend Wright and Obama’s excuse for attending that particular church for 20 years. Who but a fool attends church and doesn’t listen to the sermons? Moreover, who but a dupe would accept this explanation as valid for participating in racist diatribes? So, we have as President a man who is a cheat and a fool with the added bonus of Obama’s true believers being dupes. I believe the case is now closed.
“I have some thoughts about why they didn’t see Obama as he was. I offer several reasons.”
\
Another was his meteoric rise through politics – many figured he *had* to be good to do that.
I learned quite quickly not to say I didn’t think Obama was that smart with the few liberals I know quite well – it was a quick way to get into an argument that was going to cause hurt feelings. Harvard grad, college professor (umm, no – Adjunct Faculty isn’t a “college professor”), state senator, federal senator, not to mention high profile projects like the Annenberg College. It was so obvious too if you just heard him talk – why couldn’t I see it?
No, he wasn’t really experienced much, but he was *smart*. I can clearly recall one how has nearly as much dislike for him now as he does bush getting fairly animated and making sure I knew Obama was “one of the smartest men he had ever seen” (now not so much).
Of course, the only success he had at that those was to get promoted. Each one of those should have had other things to go with it – for instance Harvard Law Review should have resulted in at least a couple of publications and an offer if clerking with a high ranking Judge (if not the SCOTUS). But it didn’t – indeed his time at the helm was usually one of the worst in history for those places, often when the one before him was quite successful.
But the idea was that he was so smart that he would quickly learn. He had grand visions and presidents delegate anyway – they are more often just visionaries and whom they appoint is more important (true in many respects).
Were I a leftist or liberal I can certainly see why they would have been excited over it – he certainly spoke the right words and did a good job of being selective in his resume.
Indeed – were there a higher office to attain I suspect he would have already and many would see his presidency as a success. Instead he is having to live with his decisions and doesn’t really know how. Add in that once you get over the high minded rhetoric his “grand visions” are disastrous coupled with his belief in his own infallibility and you get Obama. I do not think it will sink in what is happening till sometime *after* 2012 (assuming the Republicans do not screw it up – which even as bad as Obama they certainly are capable of doing), after all giving a little speech amidst detractors has always won the day before, why would he think any different now?
Not a knave, not a fool: worse, a psycho. Only psychopaths are so self-confident and devoid of empathy. Lots of bewilderments about Obama get resolved if one seriously consider this third possibility. Given his childhood, this is hardly surprising.
“…and a clear-eyed pragmatism”
There was (and is still) zero evidence for that. What were these people thinking?
The Press’s relentless misinformation campaign of all things conservative made Obama the default choice. His whole political existence is built on the image of what he isn’t rather than what he is.
The way to get people to willingly accept their own demise, is to repeatedly descibe the alternative as a more hellish demise.
I agree with many of the posters.
Support for zero is based on self-image and the desire to project one’s intelligence and moral wonderfulness.
It is much harder to give these up than a position arrived at through facts and rational thought.
I suppose that the meme will have to be “we were right, it’s just that there was no indication to begin with that he would make such a lousy president. we can’t be blamed. we were right in essence.”
And anybody who was right from the beginning wasn’t actually right. they were racists.
I guess gloating won’t repair much but, like revenge, it may have a deterrent or educational effect. Fun, anyway.
I think Obama is a psycho too. I linked twice to Belmont Club’s article on the fake doctors who didn’t get stopped till they had killed dozens.
Obama is a psycho fraud and the lightweight “intellectuals” go along with it. Look at the Obama worship in the Chicago Tribune, for example. What is the actual background of the people writing the rubbish? Probably very weak. They are know-nothings in the true sense of the word, and they are under the spell of this psycho fraud.
Sergey and Promethea are right. Obama belongs in a category I call “Victims gone wild.” Wild, here, does not necessarily result in outrageous behavior, but wild as opposed to moral . . . humane . . . having free will.
His 60’s mom abandoned him. His value was not his individuality, but what he offered his adult group as a precocious black child. He hates authority because authority abused and used him. HE is now abusing and using authority.
He is lazy because no one cared to do the difficult task of raising him. And affirmative action absorbed him completely. But, he made a step where objective reality could judge him; and a society where a large percentage have gone wild, had not the requisite power to stop him and the machine behind him.
Therefore, he is not a fool in the sense of being an “idiot” or an “imbecile.” And he is not a knave in the sense that he is consciously choosing to hurt and destroy. (But perhaps that day is near. ) He thinks he is a great builder and bringer of world peace. So did Hitler–the want to be architect.
Not being in essense a “fool” or a knave, the essence he lacks is human-ness. Obama is not human.
Some comments here about Baraq being”psycho”.
I am not a psychiatrist, but in an earlier post here raised my concern that he might be schizophrenic, with paranoid features. OK, maybe only schizoid, but the grandiose delusionality and paranoia are hard to deny.
I cannot ask my brother the shrink about this, for reasons of committed Leftism among most in mental health.
Richard Aubrey (:05 above) posits that liberal will say “we were right in essence.”
No surprise here. As I noted above, In a liberal’s eyes their theories are never wrong, no matter how unsuccessful they’ve been proven to be. Liberal programs fail because they’re not executed properly.
The consistent liberal approach to politics and social theory seems to be “avoid reality at all costs.”
This would be a good time to start evincing either of these qualities (presuming that he possesses them, which I doubt), or ideally, both.
Ah, but Mugabe has executive experience.
Sure, lots of highly intelligent people stumble over the word “corpsman.” It’s just that most of them are in middle school.
I think he’s actually rather a dull fellow. It’s heresy to say that, because 1) the media have portrayed every Democrat since Adlai Stevenson as a genius, and his Republican opponent as a dolt (“Eisenhower? What did he ever do?”), 2) the Red networks burnished Buraq’s resume to a high gloss to insulate him from such suspicions, and 3) he’s black, and we have to pretend that we don’t suspect that the IQ test results might just be valid.
At law and medical schools, once you’re in, you’re in for the duration (unless you pull your own ripcord) because flunking someone out means a revenue hole in that year’s class. At Harvard that’s even true for undergrads (the Ted Kennedy effect), never mind professional schools. As for his stellar performance, I note that Obama’s HLS transcripts are still top secret, although you can find atomic secrets on the Internet. Conclusion: his grades sucked.
You left out “MLB pitcher.” Remember throwing out the opening day first pitch? There ya go. That makes him as much an MLB pitcher as he was a college professor, which is to say, not at all.
I should clarify. When I say “dull fellow” above I mean he’s about the intelligence of the average college grad, as opposed to some towering intellect. On re-reading I realized that my characterization might be taken to mean he’s below average in intelligence, which I certainly do not believe.
kcom: There is no evidence of pragmatic thinking. On the other hand, “Pragmatism” is a code word that signals one’s belief in tenets of statist faith: a “living constitution,” elite based control, gnostic utopianism, outcome based education, population control, amorality/multiculturalism . . .
And in jurisprudence, legal pragmatism rejects classical reliance on natural law and even rationality. It is postmodernism.
Therefore, when a media mogul uses a word like “pragmatism,” it is code to all those who immediately understand what that word represents. Those who don’t believe in code communication, confuse “pragmatic” with “Pragmatism.” The two terms are actually antonyms and a good example of Orwellian definition.
Occam’s Beard . . .
“You left out “MLB pitcher.” Remember throwing out the opening day first pitch? There ya go. That makes him as much an MLB pitcher as he was a college professor, which is to say, not at all.”
Ha, ha.
If I wrote my resume the way Obama wrote his, all of you would be astounded by my incredibly fabulous career, awards, skills, and talents. Seriously, folks, just for fun, write down ALL the things you’ve done and the people you’ve met. You might be amazed with your own biography.
Everyone reading this comment is a SUPERSTAR. Kisses to all! Mwuuaahhhh!
Tom, one need not be clinically insane to held views amounting for critical observer to grandiose delusionality: such views are the heart of Leftist worldview. What betrays Obama’s psychological problems are rather subtle symptoms: he is tone-deaf, emotionally empty, his rhetoric is out of tone with his intonations and body language, he is always somewhat out of step with actual situation – and many else, which gives overall sense of being a fake. Not because he wants to decieve somebody, but because he tries hard to look and sound normal, which he can’t. It is a bad case of dissimulation, in medical sense.
Francesca I noted the likelihood of passive/aggressive tendencies as well. There are so many valid points being made about Odumbo’s mental condition, and those of his believers, that I really would like to see a professional psychoanalysis done on both. Tragically, considering the experiences my social worker/psychologist wife has had with the mental health community; they would find him a model of mental hygiene and his opposition insane.
Knave or fool? I’m with Neo in that I think it’s both. The two characteristics are not mutually exclusive, after all.
The Zukermans, Noonans, Althouses and McArdles will always express surprise and go with the “fool” narrative rather that the “knave,” because in the hierarchy of catastrophic political mistakes having voted for a fool is preferable to have endorsed a knave. Giving Obama a “fool” status still gives them somewhat of a psychological exemption(in their own minds) — if Obama is perceived as a mere fool they retain some credibility — and credibility is important to us all.
I have a slightly different take on Obama’s strange behavior in regards to the Gulf Oil Spill. Early on I think what may have happened is that the Whitehouse was not aware of the depth and breadth of the environmental calamity that the Spill would turn out to be. They may have figured at first that a nice little oil spill would be the ideal minor mishap to exploit as an excuse to stop oceanic drilling and push the Cap and Trade Bill.
Thus the administration’s quick early refusal of help offered by other nations, to not waive the Jones Act, to do not much of anything to keep the oil from washing ashore. They may have even thought the spill might not be severe enough to foment the crisis they needed if they took immediate action to limit the damage to the coast.
They now may realize that the huge scope of this disaster could very well become their political downfall but it would look very bad at this late date to suddenly waive the Jones Act and to go hat in hand to nations whose previous offers of help had been arrogantly spurned. That would only draw attention to the mistakes. Better to count on the MSM to pull this iron out of the fire for them. After all, the MSM has a stake in keeping this administration in power. Blame BP, blame Bush, blame the GOP, blame the MMS, blame anyone but Obama. Right now it looks to me that the MSM’s coterie of Obama apologists and his allies in Congress are casting around for the best template into which to fit this political cataclysm. It will be difficult for them but as we all know the MSM can be extremely creative when it comes to covering for Obama.
Bob-
To best of my knowlege, “Psychoanalysis” is not a psychiatric diagnostic endeavor. It is a therapeutic method pushed by Freudians and Jungians, which has not claimed utility, to my knowledge (again), as treatment of serious cognitive disorders.
Grackle, if what you say is true, then Obama approved of “a little” ecological devastation to promote his agenda, but then approved of alot more to hide his mistake of underestimating the possibility of complete devastation.
Plausible. Very plausible.
On an ironic note, we’ve found a weapon of mass destruction. Its Obama!
There are so many things that are seriously wrong with Obama and his policies–any one of which could be a major problem in a President–that I think that we are looking at the prospect of the most disastrous, most malevolent Presidency in U.S. history; already a huge amount of damage done to America (and all that grave damage accomplished in just a year and a half!), much of which that will be hard if not impossible to fix, and none of it easily or quickly–and the possibility of much more and worse to come.
Look in any direction:
The Dollar?–Obama & Co. are busily demolishing it, our credit and bond ratings, and our economic capabilities, and are quickly saddling us and our children and grandchildren with a public debt too impossibly high to ever pay off (thus opening up the possibility of the United States, sometime in the future, having to use one of the only two tools available to a nation in this situation, either to deliberately induce “hyperinflation,” or to–like a South American Banana Republic–“repudiate” our public debt).
Our Health Care system?–even the government’s own experts at DOL, HHH and the IRS estimated last week that, due to Obamacare’s requirements, 60% to 80% of current employer offered health care plans will fold within the next three years, throwing millions of employees on the tender mercies of Obamacare–an occurrence that Obama and his accomplices and minions swore would never, ever happen (remember Obama’s repeated promises that, “If you like your current health care coverage, under my plan, you can keep it”) and that, if this happens, you would likely not be able to keep you own doctor ( remember Obama saying over and over again, “If you like your current doctor, under may plan, you will be able to keep your current doctor”), and how about the news that the “individual mandate” i.e. the requirement of the Health Care Reform Law that everybody must buy insurance–whether they were young and healthy or not, wanted to or not, could afford to or not–or face fines or jail, that Obama & Co swore was not a “tax,” was defended in court last week by government lawyers as being a “tax” (i.e. they had small chance of successfully arguing that the government could impose a “mandate,” but had a much better chance if they were defending the imposition of a “tax”).
Entitlements?–a reported 40 million people are now on food stamps, and this month, for the first time ever, Social Security started to pay out more than it took in–an ominous development that, because of the damage that Obama & Co have done to the economy, happened several years before it was predicted to occur,
The Constitution and Checks and Balances?–what are Obama’s forty some Czars–busily working away behind the scenes (does the MSM ever report on what they are actually doing?) to undermine every aspect of our Republic–but a major way to evade the critical checks and balances set up by the Constitution, what is his running roughshod over Arizona’s attempts to defend itself against invasion from Mexico but a violation of “State’s Rights,” and a State’s and its citizen’s rights to self defense and survival?
Foreign Policy?–our traditional Allies have been insulted and pushed away, we are cozying up to and funding Muslim dictators, and Marxists in Latin America, are allowing Iran–aiding them really–to acquire nuclear weapons, and greasing the skids for Israel to be destroyed.
Our Capitalist system?–we are rapidly entering the era of “Economic Fascism,” of public/private ownership but government control–the Federal government now owns or controls something between 50% to 70% of our entire economy, including GM, Chrysler, the Health Care sector, several major Financial Institutions and 95% of all mortgages.
Our Energy situation?–Obama dithers, two months after the explosion of BP’s oil rig in the Gulf Obama has no plan except bashing BP, Obama has his first–20 minute–meeting with the head of BP almost 60 days into the crisis (but, from day one on, Obama has spent hundreds of hours and millions of our tax dollars on untold rounds of golf, on attending sports events, on long vacations, concerts, a weekend theater “date” with Michelle in New York (one estimate of the cost for this “date” alone was $250,000, plus quite a lot of disruption), and on throwing numerous lavish White House parties), while the oil continues to gush out to pollute our Gulf Coast and devastate its ecology and economy–and that for decades to come and perhaps, in some cases, forever.
Meanwhile, Obama uses the “crisis” of the gusher as an excuse to pass what would be a disastrous “Cap and Trade” bill, an energy regime that will literally castrate our economy, “necessarily cause” energy prices to skyrocket (as Obama admitted was its deliberate intent, forcing us immediately into the fantasy of a unattainable, uneconomical, unsustainable “Green economy,” unrealistic, failed efforts of the type that Spain has admitted were part of the reason that it now teeters on the edge of bankruptcy) and, a “Cap and Trade” regime that would allow the Federal government–through its stranglehold on the exploration, production, sale, and use of energy–to destroy our existing “bad” “polluting” coal and petroleum industries that supply the vast majority of our current energy needs (all alternative sources of energy today combined supplying less than 5% of those needs, with many “alternative sources of energy” not ready or able to scale up from very uneconomical and expensive “demonstration project” level to the output levels necessary to supply–at an affordable price– major portions of our energy needs for many years or decades to come, if ever).
Moreover, much more ominously and critically, are the specifics of the “Cap and Trade” regime–whatever they now might want to call it–that would give the Federal government the virtually dictatorial power to monitor, regulate and control every facet of our lives–our businesses, our personal energy use, our homes, our schools, our stores, our cars, and our manufacturing and transportation systems, the “energy efficiency” of our houses–forcing us to spend money for replacements and repairs to raise that efficiency level, in order to get a government inspector to issue us an “energy efficiency score” high enough to “permit” us to sell our house–we can’t be allowed to sell our house if it is not sufficiently “energy efficient,” can we?–and to entice other people to buy our house at a reasonable price when we want to sell it–to have the government monitor and prescribe every mile we drive, every light bulb turned on or off, every appliance we buy and which one, the level and type of energy use and heating and temperature in our houses, the price and amount of energy–electricity, natural gas, petroleum–we are allowed to buy, the car we buy and what type and size and fuel it runs on, the number of miles we drive and how far and fast, and what for, etc., etc.
National Security?–while Obama & Co do everything in their power to clear the way for Iran to acquire both nuclear weapons and the ICBMs to deliver them, Obama has stopped us from building our now mature and workable Ballistic Missile Defense to protect Europe, and slowed as much as possible efforts for us to use this technology to protect the U.S. mainland, while simultaneously reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have.
Communications and the Internet?–Obama is seeking the authority to shut down parts or all of the Internet in an “Emergency,” and–through things like his political appointees at the FCC ‘s proposals/efforts to raise taxes on private broadcasters to 100?% per year and to give those funds to PBS, impose the innocent and worthwhile sounding policies of “Net Neutrality” and “Local control” on TV, Radio and the Internet–to strangle and silence the voices of opposition on the Right and Center to Obama & Co., and leave the Left in possession of the “Battlefield of Ideas.”
Immigration and Border Security?–although the Constitution says that the Census is supposed to be counting citizens, so that States can have their representatives in Congress correctly apportioned, Obama’s hand picked Census director has a policy of counting illegal aliens (adding their numbers to count totals to bolster the number of representatives allocated to the mostly Democratic states they cluster in), the paltry efforts to construct any “border fence” at all have been drastically curtailed, and the Federal government this week closed several parks on the Arizona boarder with Mexico as too dangerous for Americans to enter i.e. Mexico and Mexican illegals and drug gangs have now gotten “de facto” control of part of our State of Arizona north of their border with us, and Eric Holder’s Justice Department (stonewalling about why it dropped prosecution of the Black Panthers who intimidated voters in Philadelphia) is, instead, going full steam ahead to sue the State of Arizona for its temerity in trying to protect itself from invasion from Mexico.
Terrorism?–Janet Nepolitano’s Homeland Security Department now calls Muslim terrorist attacks “man-caused disasters,” and wants to focus its efforts, not on them, but on the grave threat they see of terrorism, insurrection and bloodshed posed by the racist, rabid, stroller pushing, bespectacled, shorts-wearing, knobby-kneed, parents, children and arthritic members of the Tea Party, the rising tide and boldness of Muslim terrorist attacks here in the U.S. are ignored, and the most destructive terrorist attack on a U.S. military base here in the U.S. committed by Muslim Maj. Hasan, a Muslim in Internet contact with terrorist cheerleader al-Awlaki who was reading his sermons urging terrorism and Jihad, a man who had calling cards printed up identifying himself as a “soldier of Allah,” and who cried “Allahu Akbar” as he killed 13 soldiers and wounded another 30 at Ft. Hood, is passed of as the “inexplicable” act of a “troubled man,” and the military’s own 86 page report on what General Casey, the Army’s highest General, calls the “tragedy”–not the attack, not the terrorist, or the Muslim, or Jihadist attack at Ft. Hood, but the “tragedy” of Ft. Hood–as if the roof collapsed or something–does not once mention the words “Islamic Extremism” or “Jihad.”
In short, the wrecking crew that is Obama & Co has deliberately taken a wrecking ball to the United States as we knew it, and is quickly demolishing it, deliberately weakening the United States–“taking it down a peg or two”–while taking ever more power and control from citizens and the State governments to be added to the power and control of the Federal government, and severely reducing our and our children’s prospects for the future and; seeing to it, as well, that our ability to repair the massive damage and to restore things to the way they were becomes more remote with each day they remain in office.
One or two or three of these policies, actions and inactions could be chalked up to incompetence or inexperience, but when a dozen or more major initiatives by Obama & Co. in all fields–each and every one of them–results in obviously and dangerously weakening the United States, radically and rapidly expanding the power and ability to control citizens wielded by the Federal government, and setting us up for even more and more serious trouble to come, this is not incompetence or inexperience, this is not a mere difference of opinion or choice about strategy. When Obama’s chief science policy adviser, John Holdren, has written that the United States needs to be “de-developed,” and all of these policies of Obama & Co are rapidly accomplishing this “de-development,” this is deliberate sabotage.
That’s right. He’s destroying our foundation because statism can’t be built on it.
He won’t succeed, but we will pay the price of the attempt.
Just finished another book on FDR and can’t help but conclude that the Dope was supposed to reprise the New Deal. Neo, the same things could be said about FDR as about the Dope. FDR used public moneys to buy votes, was vindictive in the extreme, had a real hatred towards business and the rich, was unable to articulate a coherent economic policy and was driven in all he did by politics. He even issued an executive order during the war creating a 100% tax rate on income over $25,000. He refused to listen to his economic advisors because he was driven by emotion. He perverted politics and was notorious for never telling the truth, even to his closest advisors. Manipulation meant more than jobs. It was all about power. And, yet, his memory is still loved. Just another Dope to me.
And, yet, his memory is still loved.
Helped in no small part by media obfuscation. How many times have you read that “the US Government” interned the nisei? And how many times that Franklin Delano Roosevelt singlehandedly ordered their internment?
I’m not faulting his decision. Different time, different perspective. But I do fault the media for dissembling on his behalf. FDR did all the things that can be made to look good, but the US Government did all the things that were contentious.
It’s intellectual dishonesty on a breathtaking scale.
Magnificent summation, Wolla Dalbo.
Magnificent and bone-chilling.
Bob from Virginia said: “Tragically, considering the experiences my social worker/psychologist wife has had with the mental health community; they would find him a model of mental hygiene and his opposition insane.”
EXACTLY!!!
I would like to add that I was married to a doctor who was passive/aggressive-of course, I knew nothing of this at the time, but I learned the hard way. For years I felt as if I were going insane, which is the reason your wife’s experiences caught my attention. Everyone else thought he was a sterling guy. Wrong! Pleasant on the surface; mean as h*ll underneath.
Obama has had a similar effect: I feel that I am going crazy in trying to make any sense of what he is doing. Is he just incompetent, or is he doing all this stuff purposefully? Neither? Both? Aargh.
Francesca: You’re not crazy. Baraq is. One cannot find reason in an unreasoning, delusional, paranoid brain.
Give up trying, and watch out for the Stockholm syndrome, which may in fact be at work in his supporters.
Whatever it is that Obama lacks in personal terms–call it warmth, call it empathy, call it what you will–it has apparently been duly noted by those heads of state with whom he has interacted in person.
Believe it or not, I think it is a lack of a sense of humor. Narcissism at his level leaves him so full of himself, there is simply no room for one.
We’re talking about something that helps keep you balanced and sane, and to not take yourself too seriously.
To NOT have a trace of one is to literally have no soul.
–
I don’t think he likes white people, or the country they built. His divine mission is to redress the great wrong of its wealth and power.
So, not exactly a fool, not exactly a knave, but most evil.
“Any cook should be able to run the country…” Lennin
Wolla Dalbo, Paul in Houston, well said.
What a g-d damn mess, the worse part is that so many still approve of the guy.
What a g-d damn mess, the worse part is that so many still approve of the guy.
I still have confidence that will change: “…and the sharks will come.”
–
As I may have posted here before, since 9/11 I have spent several years in fairly intense research on Islam, the Qur’an, Hadiths and Sira, the life of Muhammad, Muslim ideology and jurisprudence, and the history and tactics of Islam, both ancient and modern.
Given what I have learned, my view is that it is very likely that Obama is a Muslim/crypto-Muslim, and here are a few recent items by people who have come to the same conclusion (see http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/report_obama_said_i_am_a_musli.html and http://abyssum.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/barack-hussein-obama-is-a-closet-muslim/ and http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/islam_antithetical_to_religiou.html ).
In the last paragraph of my last lengthily comment above, I said that what Obama & Co. were doing was basically sabotaging America, which brought to mind–particularly in the context of the debate about whether or not Obama is a Muslim–the documents the DOJ had entered into the record in the Holy Land terrorism funding trial; a case initiated by the Bush administration that would, I am confident, never even be considered being brought by the Obama justice department under Eric Holder today.
The key document, entered into evidence without objections as to its authenticity or content, was a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) strategy document, which laid out their long-term strategy and objective for the United States as follows:
“The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”
“The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”
Damn! Sorry for the double posting of the quote above.
Wolla, it bore repeating.
Wolla: We just figured you took to heart the following advice…
“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time – a tremendous whack.” ~Winston Churchill
–
Knave or Fool, do you really care if its even a saint that breaks the treasured vase?
When I commented on Obama’s preference for enjoying practically non-stop taxpayer funded relaxation and entertainment over doing his job, and I mentioned his golfing, I had no idea that he had been on 39 golfing outings in just his first 18 months in office, but that is the count by somebody who has bothered to tally them up ( see http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/ ). When added to his various trips that are, in essence, campaign stops and fundraisers, the White House parties ($125 per 5 oz. Wagyu steaks flown in from Australia and all–I’m sure the 40 million people on food stamps would like some Wagyu steaks too)–179 as of early December, 2009, so surely well over 200 by now, his various long vacations and visits to various sports events, his famous and very expensive–for you and me–$250,000 weekend “date” with Michelle to go to the theater in New York, I guess any time he does not spend pretending to be President is actually a win for the country.
It dawned on me it is really up to the electorate to declare Obama a knave or fool. If he is roundly defeated in Nov. and Nov. 2012 then he is a fool for revealing his anti-American agenda early and being turned out because of it. If he is not roundly defeated then he is a knave and the public are fools.
Considering they Obama was elected in the first place I would be fairly confident if I were him.