Sunday roundup: absurdities abound in Obamaworld
Here’s Mark Steyn’s succinct take on McChrystal’s plight:
Stanley McChrystal is a liberal who voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his HQ TV. Which may at least partly explain how he became the first U.S. general to be lost in combat while giving an interview to Rolling Stone: They’ll be studying that one in war colleges around the world for decades.
The rest of Steyn’s column tries to answer that age-old question about Obama, “Who is this guy? ” On this forum we’ve pretty much resolved that, for now, as “at least knave, and perhaps both knave and fool.” But others are still attempting to puzzle it out.
For example, re the unused skimmers in the Gulf oil spill:
Sen. Lemieux found the president unengaged, and uninformed. “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers and domestic skimmers,” reported the senator.
He doesn’t seem to know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t know, and he doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t care. “It can seem that at the heart of Barack Obama’s foreign policy is no heart at all,” wrote Richard Cohen in The Washington Post last week. “For instance, it’s not clear that Obama is appalled by China’s appalling human-rights record. He seems hardly stirred about continued repression in Russia.”
I dunno, but it seems to me that all of these otherwise-inexplicable stances can be explained quite simply by positing an over-arching philosophy on Obama’s part that is hostile to liberty, capitalism, and the US, and friendly to socialism around the world. What’s so complicated and mysterious about that?
Nothing, except that the mind finds it difficult to wrap itself around the idea that this would be true of the president of the United States. And then, to voice that idea is to ally oneself with fringe elements such as Glenn Beck, and other assorted and sundry supposed-wackos.
Even Steyn stops short of such a conclusion in his piece, expressing merely the idea that Obama is an opportunistic narcissist. And while that certainly appears true, it is not inconsistent with a commitment to Marxist ideology.
In other news, we have Mike Huckabee saying that he’s the best challenger for Obama in 2012. If that is so, then heaven help the Republican Party, and the US.
And then there’s Joe Biden. There’s always Joe Biden:
The following, however, can’t really be blamed on Obama. So we’ll just have to blame Bush, I guess. Or perhaps Beyonce herself, for whose fashion choice here I have no ready explanation:
Oil crisis? Check
Lack of leadership? Check
Recession? Check
Bad fashion? Check.
The late 70’s are officially back.
Holmes: I would place Beyonce’s bad fashion in the early 80s, however, in the “Flashdance” era.
Looks like her clothes got caught in a shredder.
Funny quote of the day: “Mrs. Palin said it was good to be back in Texas, which she calls ‘Alaska’s little sister state’…” From JUN 27, 2010 Tyler Morning Telegraph. On the other hand, one of the guys at work said ” Anyone from north of the Red River or South of the Rio Grande is a Yankee.” lol
Huckabee! (Spit-Spit) That rascall helped get a Mexican Consulate built in Arkansas. There are about 50 of those in the US now- helping Illegal aliens get IDs, etc. I like to think of them as Mexican colonization centers. Is there any other country in the world with that many Consulates in another single country?
I dont care if he is a fellow Baptist, I won’t vote for him! I held my nose and pulled the lever, actually pushed the button, for Mcamnesty- but never again.
There is an intriguing article in American Thinker today by Sam Besserman, an 11 year old “kid” writing about his experiences in California schools. I do not know whether the article is a parody or not. I rather hope not. But if not, there’s something creepy about the level of sophistication Sam possesses. And that wouldn’t be his fault.
But this relates to Neo’s simply but powerfully stated observation about Obama: all of these otherwise-inexplicable stances can be explained quite simply by positing an over-arching philosophy on Obama’s part that is hostile to liberty, capitalism, and the US, and friendly to socialism around the world.
Sam tells us that we should not be suprised at Obama’s philosophy.
The pied piper is in our schools blowing his pipes. We need to wrench them out of his hands and shove them down his throat. Evil has manifested and Americans stand like frogs in a rainstorm, open-mouthed and disbelieving.
I’ll end with a quote from one who understood evil and how to deal with it:
We will make his policy and political elitist allies pay for it – with their lives if need be. I’m not kidding. These people who are trying to achieve these goals have no idea of the violence we can visit upon them for their betrayal.–FredHjr at June 7, 2009 at 2:43 pm.
Curtis: you will note that Fred also wrote:
Yes, now is the time to wake people up, not to fight literally. Must forward insightful articles and videos and post them to our Facebook pages. etc.
From Declaration of Independence : “…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. …”
And what would be the appropriate response if Obama unilaterally gives amnesty to millions of illegals without going through Congress? It’s being discussed right now. The guy has no shame and the Dems don’t care about the will of the people.
Steyn is right. The President is disengaged, but not so much from day to day events as from reality. He’s a sociopath and has been for a long time. He creates an internal reality through maipulation and delusion, and in some circumstances he’s a pretty good faker. In other words, he’s a con man. Some say he’s brilliant, but there is no compelling evidence that he is. Some admire his brilliant rhetoric, but his speeches are uniformly average to terrible, but reasonably well delivered. Some admire his pragmatism; good cons are extraordinarily pragmatic.
The President has built the ultimate cocoon. He’s comfortable and protected which is his primary motivation. His circle of engagement doesn’t extend very far beyond what it takes to stay comfortable and keep power. But the con is falling apart, it’s plain to see. I can’t imagine the horror show in the White House now–the acting out, the finger pointing. He’ll try to continue the magic show, but increasingly he’ll retreat to the golf course, to Paul McCartney, to Michelle.
People are shocked by his lack of engagement in the Big Spill, his lack of empathy. But he really doesn’t give a shit. He can’t. He’s always solved his problems by magic, by the con, by words not deeds, but his world now is intractable, and he’s afraid and angry, and it will only get worse. He’s dangerous, but he’s not that good or strong. When the dogs get close to the inner chambers of the cocoon, he’ll cave and deal. His con is that he can “fundamentally tranform” the world, but he doesn’t give two shits about the world, only the con. When the con is exposed, and it will be in November, he’ll strategically fold, and retreat to his money and safety and comfort and golf. And he’ll keep up the schtick as President emeritus, and people will feed his ego. Someone will write his books, and he’ll give speeches, and the media will blow smoke up his ass, and he’ll seethe and swear behind a gated mansion somewhere in Chicago.
Mr. Frank: you are not the only one wondering about what the appropriate response be to mass amnesty. The problem is, both parties have been doing it by stealth for a while now. congress has allowed the use of matricular Consular cards in banking for a while. That was an enabling tool for the illegals.
The Phrase “these are the times that try men’s souls” comes to mind a lot…..
I dunno, but it seems to me that all of these otherwise-inexplicable stances can be explained quite simply by positing an over-arching philosophy on Obama’s part that is hostile to liberty, capitalism, and the US, and friendly to socialism around the world. What’s so complicated and mysterious about that?
I guess you can have an over-arching philosophy and still be a fool, but I would lean more toward explanations emphasizing his naivete, inexperience, and narcissism, rather than any grand design. That’s pretty small comfort, but it does avoid the more paranoid aspects of conspiracy theories. And if he does have an over-arching philosophy, then he’s doing a pretty poor of executing it, as even Charles Blow admitted in a recent column. Still, of course, sometimes there really are vast conspiracies, and in any case I don’t doubt he’s imbibed the the standard “progressive” denunciations of capitalism from his early academic environment, along with hostility to any idea of American exceptionalism, even the most historically objective.
Marxism as Obama’s philosophy? Hardly. One need to be a real idiot to believe in Marxism these days. Even Obama is not dumb enough for that. Progressivism? Absolutely. But progressivism is more like fashion and hypocrisy of elites, not a serious philosophy. To BELIEVE in progressivism sincerly you need to be a nut-case, like Chomsky. This is the most probable explanation: Obama is a nut-case.
Thank you Neo. I wouldn’t want to misrepresent Fred. And that quote alone and without context is misleading of his temperment. However, I do appreciate that Fred did not shrink from recognizing where we might be going and what we might have to do.
I do hope and believe that our great country is at least getting to the point of agitation and supplication.
sergey: But I know many such idiots, and quite of few of them are college professors.
They believe not necessarily in classical Marxism, but some new, “improved,” form. But whether or not Obama is technically and strictly speaking a Marxist, he is certainly a far leftist, socialist, progressive, call it whatever one wants.
Metamorf: read some of the links under the words “perhaps both knave and fool” in my post, as well as the comments sections to each post, and you’ll see some previous discussions here on that very topic.
Neo-neocon said “But whether or not Obama is technically and strictly speaking a Marxist, he is certainly a far leftist, socialist, progressive, call it whatever one wants.”
lets not forget about the affinity for Islam either….
Old Dad: I agree that Obama is a con artist, as I wrote here. But I think he is also an ideologue. The con is in service of both his narcissism and his ideology. Whether it will continue to work well enough is anyone’s guess.
Huckabee is disaster. That’s for sure. More so Romney. But what about Gingrich? I don’t know why, but my hunch is that he might do. Why? Old age and treachery beat youth and inexperience.
And if we can take back both houses and the Presidency, we can repeal HCR, stagger back from the edge of catastrophic debt, re-invigorate USA as a superpower to a world now ready to appreciate our role, and . . . well . . . that would be enough!
Contrary to Curtis Blow’s opinion that the future is dark for conservatives, the future is still in our control, because as he admits, 42 percent of Americans identify as conservative.
Trying to explain Pres. Obama’s beliefs w/o sounding like a wacky irrational thinker:
The infant/child/teen Barry Obama was inculcated with a belief that success and power occur only via unfair exploitation. President Barack Obama retains this foundational, inculcated view of humanity and of life – including holding the belief that national success and power only occur due to unfair exploitation of less powerful peoples and nations. President Obama believes this: over the last century or so, if all nations had acted fairly towards each other, then all nations would today be enjoying equal wealth and equal power on the world stage.
Therefore, I suspect President Obama has profound misgivings about:
— the United States
— any nation which becomes wealthy and powerful
— any nation which is a loyal friend to any nation which becomes wealthy and powerful.
President Obama believes such nations, entities, societies, and peoples are greedy schemers who unfairly exploit the less powerful. President Obama surrounds himself with like minded persons, and the meme about unfair exploitation informs United States foreign policy.
Separately, Pres. Obama’s belief about power only occurring via unfair exploitation thus explains Pres. Obama’s own easy willingness to play by Chicago Rules. Pres. Obama knows this: even he cannot rise without unfairly exploiting people and situations along the way. Therefore, Pres. Obama eagerly bends rules and exploits people. He’s doing it for our own good! He is virtuous that way.
Re: the GOP candidacy in 2012.
I think the key thing is to think strategically.
There are times for idealistic thinking and idealistic voting . . . by which I mean seeking out someone who is 100% in agreement with you. The problem with the 100% thing is that such a person may not ultimately win a majority because while they appeal to a particular segment of the population, they may not appeal to the remainder.
Thats one of my concerns about Sarah Palin in the top spot. Although she would definitely energize a large part of the conservative GOP base, she may put off enough others to allow Obama to squeak by. After much thought, I have recently come to the conclusion that she would make a pretty good VP candidate… energizing the base while at the same time leaving the top spot to someone who is conservative but who has broader appeal.
(In this regard, I think its a good idea not to make the mistake the left made with Obama, thinking first, that because his leftism is so appealing to them that its also just as appealing to the rest of the U.S. population, and second, that because he was such an appealing candidate to many [not me!], that experience and what they used to call “gravitas” didn’t matter. Now the American puplic is awakening to both Obama’s leftism and his naivete.)
I used to toss out for GOP prez in 2012 (with palin in VP spot) the names of Romney and Pawlenty. Ok… I understand Romney is in the doghouse due to his support of the Massachusettes health care program. Lets put him aside, if such is the case. But the point is still the same: a candidate that is conservative but who is sufficiently attractive to those who are not idealogically 100% to the right. Gingrich maybe?? Mitch Daniels?? (Hell, I’ll support JACK Daniels if he can get Obama out of office.) The gov. from New Jersey (whose name I presently forget.)?
Lets not play “idealistic roulette” here, and put up a candidate who will be the equivalent of Goldwater in ’64, or McGovern in ’72. I want Obama out of office, and I’m willing to be (reasonably) open to which candidate it will be. Think strategically…
J.L.
You are making the argument that there are “moderate” voters who have some right side beliefs and some left side beliefs, and a GOP candidate ought make nice with moderates in order to gain their votes.
Your argument is common on the right, and is exactly wrong.
So called “moderates”, with rare exception, are not this: informed voters who make cafeteria style selections about which left or right policies they agree with.
Rather, so called “moderates” are actually voters who do not understand the issues; who do not understand the foundation which underlies the small government vs big government argument.
I’m not criticizing these voters. I often call them the sanest Americans amongst all of us. I’m just saying: they are not cafeteria voters who carefully pick and choose amongst issues. they are uninformed voters. A GOP candidate therefore does not, cannot, win these voters via making accommodation with them. A GOP candidate wins these voters via leading them to agree with tenets of the U.S. Constitution; via leading them to agree with principles of small government; via leading them to agree with Hayek, Friedman, Laffer, and to disagree with Keynes (or, at least, to disagree with how Keynes is currently being interpreted by the left).
In 2008, at NRO, James Gimpel wrote about a study of such middle voters. These voters respond significantly to social influences and excitement amongst friends and family. A candidate must build and excite his base; his base will excite and influence voters in the middle. A candidate surely can influence such middle voters as are listening – yet many or most middle voters are not listening to the candidate. They are more socially influenced – possibly by friends whose opinions they respect – than candidate influenced.
J.L., I think you mean Chris Christie. I agree he’d be good, but I don’t think he wants it. He appears to be more interested in actually doing the job he was elected to do in New Jersey–and that is not the least of the many refreshing things about the guy.
I myself would prefer Mitch Daniels, or maybe–maybe Pawlenty. I like Daniels quite a bit, actually. Although recycling is supposed to be a virtue in these times, I don’t think recycling Republican presidential candidates is going to earn anyone any points. Please, PLEASE spare us the likes of Romney (especially Romney), Gingrich, Huckabee, and all the rest. Shoot, maybe someone would even think about hauling Bob Dole out, just in case it’s “his turn” again. I’m over the ol’ “Second verse, same as the first!” routine, and so, I’m guessing, are most of us.
But right now it strikes me that the bigger problem is going to be even getting to 2012. I hear a lot of people in the commentariat talk about Obama pulling us all, kicking and screaming, to the left because he’s trying to please his “base.” Forget his base. This wizard is pulling us to the left because that’s where he is. Too many pundits (and, I might add, too many Republicans) think the game is still about getting re-elected, and doing so by pleasing the largest number of probable voters. The game has changed, and precious few people with roles in The Goon Show on the Potomac realize it. Obama was never kidding when he spoke about fundamentally transforming this country. He’s playing for keeps this time. Sometimes I look at him and I’m reminded of the old saw about post-colonial elections in African countries: “One person, one vote–one time.” 2012 is a long ways off, and if this wizard and his show-team aren’t stopped dead in their tracks and reversed before then, 2012 may be too late.
gcotharn: Thanks for that exellent article by Gimpel wherein he disputes the “spatial” model. I must confess to so thinking. Gimpel’s social contagion thesis is a better model. Would Gingrich be able to do that? I doubt it. I was relishing his considerable intellect and debating skills against Obama’s.
Christie would do as well and might generate the social momentum. But it would be somewhat of a shame to take him from New Jersey.
Many college profs are nutty lefties, which I find amusing, because only the children of really successful capitalists can pay the tuition of these private liberal colleges. The profs don’t put two and two together. No capitalism, no cushy college job for them.
Neo, “…an over-arching philosophy on Obama’s part that is hostile to liberty, capitalism, and the US, and friendly to socialism around the world. What’s so complicated and mysterious about that?”
That’s the answer. The mystery is not a mystery. It hasn’t been one for the better part of 6 months, and longer for people who paid attention from the start with this guy.
The time for answering riddles about Obama is over. We know the answer.
Full concentration has to go into how to stop this runaway freight train of a disaster of a President before he destroys the greatest nation there has ever been.
I am not being hyperbolic. Great nations get destroyed. It happens. He is doing ours right now. We need to figure out how to stop him.
“And then, to voice that idea is to ally oneself with fringe elements such as Glenn Beck”
Huh? Beck is on the fringe? Look I think the guys is goofball and delivers his message in a wildly over the top way. Try and filter the shtick when you’re watching him. It may occur to you that his actual “ideas” are not all that fringe.
2 cents
I just downloaded for free Newt’s first chapter of his book. If he decides to run, we may not have a choice because a primary may not follow the “social contagion” rule.
When Newt went galvacading around the country with Sharpton, I wanted to puke. But, Newt did engineer the greatest conservative movement ever.
So . . . I’m going to do some more investigating, especially about his character.
Before I get lambasted, let me say Newt engineered the greatest conservative LEGISLATION ever.
Who the hell is this Bouncy person? Is she some kind of celebrity? Can she not afford better clothes? Maybe the financial times are hard on celebrities as well.
Tell her not to worry cause the bamsters got a laser like focus on the economy and she will soon be able to work her way up from the Good Will retail outlet.
betsybounds, here is a Daniels site.
I don’t insist on the point, but IMO there’s somewhat of a facial resemblance to another Midwestern Republican: Dwight Eisenhower. If the resemblance is more than skin deep, we could do far worse.
**********
If I were a Democratic strategist, I’d try to prevent the GOP from considering its second tier of potential Presidents. I’d try to frame the race as restricted to Palin, Huckabee and Romney.
gs,
Hmmm. I see what you mean about Ike, but probably wouldn’t have thought of it myself. I remember back when Daniels left the George W. administration to run for Indiana governor, and he was called “The Blade.” He had the look of a clean, cool man–and I don’t mean in the sense of “kew-el.”
I also like it that he was born in Monongahela, PA, just down the road from my hometown of Uniontown. So–a bit of the ol’ “hometown boy,” there! We do love to like our own.
The world is waking up to the Dope. His devil may care attitude is starting to appear as an inability to absorb and process information. Ridicule and laughter are replacing awe. Not one half decent reaction to any natural or man caused disaster. No plan. No strategy for creating jobs. Lecturing the Europeans on the need to keep on spending when they can’t find new suckers to buy their bonds. His understanding of economics can be reduced to spend, tax, spend and print money to make up any shortfall. I wonder if the crooks he appointed to the Treasury ever get to talk to him. I’d bet that if they do, they come away with shock at his ignorance of things economic. The financial bill will tie the economy in knots. Real consumer anger will surface when what we consider everyday credit becomes unavailable or takes too long to obtain. And, he takes credit for this and the healthcare fiasco.
The problem is that we are focusing on the next Republican candidate for president when we must act drastically to take apart the liberal regime that has a stranglehold on our economy. Jobs do not travel to other nations for purely pay reasons. After all, we are the most productive society in the history of the world. But they disappear because there are so many regulations and litigation traps that expose our capital to class action transfers to attorneys. How long does it take to get approval for a power plant? Even if less than 15 years, is it wise to invest capital in a venture that will surely be tied up in litigation that seemingly never ends.
Democrats have our industrial leaders trained like Pavlov’s dogs. And, the same trick works time after time. Go after an industry and the new mantra is to get a seat at the table rather than be what is served. In the meantime donations are made to support the Democrats and the industry under attack is now paraded as part of the team in support of really dreadful legislation. It doesn’t take a lot of smarts to play this game. Democrats have been doing it for centuries. You would think the “capitalists” would learn, but they never do. So, while we schnooks, conservatives, find ourselves acting to preserve capitalism from the stupid capitalists who bought their ways to the table and now find that they are being served as dessert. My disgust is that the game is to put legislation in play in order to grab money and power, without any regard for what that legislation will do to our society as a whole. I believe that Democrats love to play the game and consider themselves smarter because it is a game that Republicans either do not play or, if they do, they do not play well. So, we conservatives get riled up about the stupidity in the latest 2,000 page legislative bomb and the Democrats could not care less. They used the power to draft legislation to fund their agenda, which based on the same playbook year after year, brings fools to the table to fund their own demise. The trick is to focus on the Democrat playbook and find a way to discredit it and then take it apart.
No, no, neo, Marxism’s never really been tried. You know, with the right people running it and all.
All the failed attempts were by imposters, but with true Marxists in charge, not imposters and usurpers, it would run like a watch.
Bingo! Well, SteveG, that looks like a pretty fine, astute analysis to me.
Steve G Says:
Democrats have our industrial leaders trained like Pavlov’s dogs. And, the same trick works time after time.
You’d think the Business Roundtable would draw conclusions from how the politicians turned on the tobacco companies that supported them for decades. But nooooo…
The trick is to focus on the Democrat playbook and find a way to discredit it and then take it apart.
And to educate the voters about the predicament of small business.
OB, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/2fb6at3
It’s not easy reading, and I’m not sure I agree with every point. But still, it’s very enlightening–to say nothing of pretty durned scary.
Maybe it has something to do with Marxian evolution.
These people never give up.
While Newt Gingrich is a bright fellow and an able conservative, his personal history is a mess for someone running for national office. He’s on his third marriage and was having affairs while his then wives were seriously ill. He was also having an affair while he was going after Clinton over the Lewinski issue. Obama and the Dems would shred him. He makes Rudy look good.
Steve Ducharme: When I said that about Beck, I was sarcastically referring to the way most people think of him, and the way he’s labeled by the left.
That said, I am put off at times by his schtick and some hyperbole, but a lot of what he says I agree with.
Steve G: I believe Lenin said some version of that: “Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Old Dad and Sergey are using words about Baraq (as I previously posted here some days ago) that apply to psychotics: divorced from reality, delusional, grandiose. His remarkably flattened affect is a further sign. I have become seriously persuaded Baraq is at the very least schizoid, if not schizophrenic, with paranoid features.
No one has yet taken me up on this theme.
betsybounds, thanks for that link. Well worth reading even though my single reading is inadequate.
Since you seem to be a kind (and subtle) soul, I will swing at the fat pitch you tossed out:
I’ve suspected that Obama is something–something having nothing to do with his race–fundamentally different from the American mainstream, but characterizations of him as a Commie have never quite rung true to me.
However, it would be fascinating to analyze his rhetoric, especially the campaign rhetoric, in terms of Sternberg’s purificationism.
People have to somehow be shown the progressive fallacy of hating business but loving and caring for Americans. Which is like saying you love people but hate that they actually eat, breathe, live and do stuff with their lives.
Business is people and people are business. Period.
And Mike Huckabee is the prefered democrat choice. We either get bold with our leaders or we’re going down.
This is one to keep in mind for the coming days, from Thomas Jefferson :
“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
We must make our election between economy and liberty
or profusion and servitude.
If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and
in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and
our amusements, for our calling and our creeds…
[we will] have no time to think,
no means of calling our miss-managers to account
but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves
to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers…
And this is the tendency of all human governments.
A departure from principle in one instance
becomes a precedent for [another ]…
till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery…
And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt.
Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”
From here: http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/thomas_jefferson_quote_0564
This is George Soros world. You’re just living in it.
Soros HATED George Bush. So Soros and 3 other progressive/socialst billionaires (hereinafter, “The Soros Club”) tried to buy the election in 2004 and force Bush out. (See Byron York’s article today. Most of what follows below comes from excellent stuff I’ve either read by David Horowitz or heard him say in speeches and lectures. Horowitz estimates The Soros Club spent about $150 million to try to buy the 2004 election and defeat Bush.)
The other billionaire’s in The Soros Club are Peter Lewis, a self proclaimed “functioning pothead” and a Trustee of Princeton University. Lewis inherited Progressive Insurance when it was a tiny company and it has grown into the powerhouse it is today. The other two billionaires are Herb and Marion Sandler, who sold their Golden West financial sub-prime mortgage “factory” to Wachovia for $25 billion at the absolute top of the market right before the financial collapse.
The Soros Club finance MoveOn.org, Media Matters, the Center for American Progress, and several other socialist/progressive think tanks. They also are believed to partly finance some of the more popular far left “group” blogs, not to mention leftist PACs, the ACLU, and other far left non-profit institutions. And they all have foundations that give at least part of their fortune to socialist/progressive causes.
After the 2000 presidential election, it became clear how important the secretary of state can be in determing the outcome of close elections. The Soros Club embarked on a plan to influence the secretary of state elections in several key states, including Minnesota and Washington state. The Soros Club backed Democratic candidate for secretary of state won nearly all their races. Subsequently, Republican Norm Coleman was initially believed to have won a close contest against Democrat Stuart Smalley, I mean Al Franken, for the U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. Franken asked for a re-count, and of course The Soros Club backed Democrat secretary of state ultimately certifed Franken the winner by a few votes. The same thing happened in Washington state to Dino Rossi.
The Soros Club is funnelling huge amounts of money into socialist/progressive institutions and causes to permanently transform America in Soros vision. Obama is simply his instrument.
America better wake up. It is absolutely crucial we take back at least one of the two houses of Congress in November. If we don’t, and the Democrats are allowed to keep control of both the House and Senate, Soros will probably have succeeded in permantly transforming the country.
Steve G
How can you talk like that about a person who discussed the profits earnings ratio? ïŠ 🙂
Well, we have a bill of grievances against Obama and his high handed methods of forcing this country to the left. Watch this video for a little sample:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
Kinda puts things in perspective, heh.
Our freedom of speech and our vote are still our most powerful weapons. Work for and support fiscally conservative candidates for the House and Senate. That is where we need to concentrate. We know Obama is bad medicine. The quickest antidote is to elect a conservative Congress to oppose his every move.
Speaking of Jefferson, check out this Day By Day strip.
Scott Says:
June 27th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Super incapsulation of the Soros influence. Additionally, Soros think tanks and personnel have been instrumental in crafting much of the legislation which the Dems have pursued, and passed.
The Dems have also been in bed with BP for quite some time, mutually pushing Cap and Trade, the outcome of which will be sky high energy prices for the masses, and massive profits for the BP’s. From my point of view it reflects a unique aspect of left-wing fascism, as a non-defence related reciprocal and politicized government/business relationship which the masses will pay heavily for. I wonder if anyone here would have some perspective to add to my observation.
Beyonce looks like a vacuous adolescent eager to get gang banged…
betsybounds:
I’ve read the article you linked. I think it’s very important and I hope it goes viral.
I’ve been doing my part.
🙂
Julia NYC said:
“Many college profs are nutty lefties, which I find amusing, because only the children of really successful capitalists can pay the tuition of these private liberal colleges. The profs don’t put two and two together. No capitalism, no cushy college job for them.”
You have it backwards. They do get it. They know who they are teaching and think of it as breaking the cycle. They’ll still have their cushy jobs when they’re part of the ruling elite.
Paul Krugman’s new article
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html
Is he insane?
I’ll answer that. Absolutely.
betsybounds Says:
J.L., I think you mean Chris Christie.
Yes, that the one. When writing my prior comment, his name just escaped me. But he’s good at . . . to borrow a leftist phrase… at “speaking truth to power.”
BTW: I wouldnt necessarily throw out all the “retreads” from past years. Remember, Reagan was in a sense a re-tread from 1976, having run in the GOP primaries and lost against Ford. And, although it is now forgotten, he was thought at the time by many to be “too old.” But he proved all that wrong and became one of the most successful presidents, revitalizing America from the funk of the ’70s.
I just read Jay Valentines article in American Thinker, “Rolling the Conservative Movement: Seduction on the Right.” Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich are the members of those conservatives who either betrayed the tenets of conservativism or were never believers to begin with.
I get Jim Demint’s email newsletters. Who he backs, pretty much that’s who I will back if I don’t have enough time to do a thorough investigation of my own. This issue, basically, how much one should compromise with the erstatz old republican regime, is real. They could sabotage the whole thing.
“Many college profs are nutty lefties, which I find amusing, because only the children of really successful capitalists can pay the tuition of these private liberal colleges. The profs don’t put two and two together. No capitalism, no cushy college job for them.”
Jim Sullivan said: “You have it backwards. They do get it. They know who they are teaching and think of it as breaking the cycle. They’ll still have their cushy jobs when they’re part of the ruling elite.”
Well maybe, some might become part of the ruling class, but a lot are not gonna be. Most of those cushy overpriced schools are gonna close down. They can barely stay open now, and wouldn’t be able to except for the exploitation of those poor kids who take out six figure student loans that are gonna be pretty hard to pay back. Perhaps you’re right, perhaps they all think they’re gonna be part of the ruling commie party elite. But to be honest, if we do go down the tubes into socialism/ communism it’s gonna be pretty miserable for most everyone. Odd that they are this naive.
from http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/25/g8-obama-interested-in-huntsvilles-golf-courses-clement/
I’m not sure what Beyonce is wearing, but it looks good on her. I suspect that sack cloth and ashes would look good on her, too.
“No one has yet taken me up on this theme.”
Ok Tom, I think I agree…. Not sure what else to add other than I hope you’re wrong.
> Or perhaps Beyonce herself, for whose fashion choice here I have no ready explanation:
I believe the error is calling it a “choice”.
The term you seek is fashion disaster.
Let’s try that:
Or perhaps Beyonce herself, for whose fashion disaster here I have no ready explanation…
See, much, much better.
lol @ holmes! Tha late 70’s – so true!
Darth Aggie has the right of it. Some girls dress down simply to make the point that they are hawt no matter what they wear. I saw a young gal today in an ice cream shop who was doing this.
Hi there! This is kind of off topic but I need some advice from an established
blog. Is it very difficult to set up your own blog? I’m not very techincal but
I can figure things out pretty fast. I’m thinking about making my own but I’m not sure
where to begin. Do you have any points or
suggestions? Many thanks
No, there are no penalties or taxes to pay whenever you transfer
a traditional IRA to a gold IRA.
Pingback:evolution labs