Publicado: 02-01-2012 11:57 PM
Project Obama: A Puppetmaster or a Puppet?
Is President Obama the mastermind of the radical-left movement or merely its symbol? Actually, it doesn't matter. What matters is that the socialist project, which had been nearly a century in the making, in 2008 came to fruition, winning the presidential election and seizing power. And whether the face of the movement, Barack Obama, is indeed its leader or just a puppet of a revolutionary cabal is purely academic. Still, trying to divine the truth is an intriguing proposition. So let me take a stab at this intellectually stimulating game. And no, I'm not going to indulge in guesswork, trying to penetrate the veil of mystery surrounding Obama, a man without a past. My intention is to arrive at an answer by induction from what is a matter of public record and what is in plain view.
The more one watches the 44th U.S. president, the more certain it becomes that he is not the person David Axelrod and Co. successfully foisted on the public during the 2008 election campaign -- that he is, in fact, the Wizard of Oz, the little man behind the curtain, an empty suit -- that the image of a giant who bestrides the world, orders the oceans to recede, and heals the planet is a fruit of relentless propaganda and a figment of his sycophants' imaginations.
There are certain personality traits a true revolutionary leader must possess, yet Obama exhibits none of them (other than perhaps the perfect crease of his pant leg, deemed by some to be an essential condition of presidential greatness).
The character profile of a true revolutionary leader, a Robespierre, a Lenin, or a Hitler, is well-known. The revolutionary giant is a person of titanic energy and vigor, seething with implacable hatred for the status quo (the talent for hatred is the real key to the revolutionary character); a man (or, on rare occasions, a woman) obsessed with power to such an extent that everything else pales into insignificance.
Characteristically, many revolutionaries are ascetics indifferent to hedonistic pleasures. Power for power's sake, not its perks, is the real fuel they run on. Indeed, sybaritic inclinations are the Achilles heel of many lesser revolutionary lights who, finding themselves in the lap of luxury, quickly go soft, lose their edge, and are brought down by leaner and hungrier rivals.
Furthermore, the revolutionary giant is typically a person of intellectual distinction and enormous capacity and taste for work. He is also tough-minded, highly disciplined, and possessed of an indomitable will. Finally, he must be charismatic and able to bend people to his will by force of his magnetic personality.
It took Hitler just one face-to-face conversation with a bitter enemy, Joseph Goebbels, to win him over once and for all and instill in him a dog-like devotion to his master that Goebbels never lost 'til his dying breath.
Does Barack Obama exhibit any of these qualities? Alas for his admirers, he fails on all counts. His limp-wristed demeanor, more typical of a world-weary courtier than a king, bespeaks indolence rather than energy. What we know about his schedule is certainly no evidence of a workaholic. Endless hours spent on the links, a net of three months over the last three years, so that his caddy has far more face time with the president than any member of his cabinet. Frequent, prolonged vacations in posh spots. Regular, come-hell-or-high-water parties at the White House, rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous.
Sybaritic habits and expensive tastes in food (Wagyu beef, which sells for upwards of $150 per pound, is said to be a particular favorite) matching his spouse's exorbitant taste in clothes. Lack of intellectual curiosity (even his associates and allies admit that he is an intellectual lightweight) and fixation on middle-brow TV entertainment and sports.
Obama is sloth incarnate, known for a passionate abhorrence of steady, nose-to-the-grindstone work and an equally passionate love of leisure. Whenever possible, the president shirks the duties of his office. He detests being in the White House and never misses an opportunity to escape its confines. How much time does he devote to work? And what is his definition of work?
Flying about the country with a set of teleprompters to deliver endless variations on the same tired, stock-in-trade campaign speech -- and that's about it. Come to think of it, can anyone imagine a true leader leaning so heavily on the teleprompter like a convalescent patient on his walker?
But what about his grand projects, the Stimulus and ObamaCare? Aren't they evidence of persistent effort? But he never presented the actual bills, allowing his allies, Harry Reid in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House, to do all the heavy lifting. He is just fine with the Senate refusing to pass a budget for almost three years. Budget matters are so-o-o boring...lonely green-eyeshade fanatics like Paul Ryan like to deal with them. On other big issues, like the appallingly burgeoning national debt, he would grandly appoint a bipartisan commission, creating a simulacrum of activity, only to blithely ignore its recommendations. In politics, outsourcing is not work; it's avoidance of work.
True leaders are serious people; they are too focused on their main goals to indulge in childish pranks or ostentatiously flaunt utter disrespect for good manners. At a debate during the primary season in 2008, Obama flipped off Hillary Clinton while pretending to wipe sweat off his brow. It was so surreal that I rubbed my eyes, refusing to believe the evidence. But then he did it again -- to McCain during the general. One instance may have been an accident (however, try to replicate the deed and you'll see how inconvenient it is), but two dispelled all doubt. The candidate for the highest office in the land was playing to the gallery in the 'hood to burnish his "street cred." It was a typical act of ghetto bravado -- a street tough dissing his opponent and asserting his superiority, the politician's equivalent of trash talk so prevalent in Obama's beloved NBA.
Upon arrival in Arizona last week, he was met on the airport tarmac by Governor Jan Brewer and immediately launched into a tirade, castigating Brewer for some unflattering remarks about him in her year-old book, Scorpions for Breakfast. The governor tried to remonstrate with the president, but he cut her off mid-sentence, turned around, and walked away. No true leader would be that thin-skinned and small-minded, let alone rude -- particularly on camera. But Obama didn't care.
All true leaders rise through the ranks, honing their martial skills in incessant combat on all fronts -- now smiting the enemies on the right or on the left, now bracing the timid among their supporters, now crushing dissent among their followers -- all the while reaffirming their leadership positions. In short, they fight their way to the top.
Has Barack Obama ever fought a single fight in his life, other than a one-on-one with an awestruck former NBA star? He was propelled to the top, his opponents knocked off by any means necessary to clear the path for Obama. True leaders are extremely combative and never miss a chance to mix it up with their enemies. Not Obama. He always tries to avoid face-to-face confrontation, insulting his enemies from a safe distance. Is an instinctive inclination to avoid a fight and to vote "present" the mark of a true leader?
All true leaders are passionate, full of piss and vinegar. Obama, on the other hand, is clearly a cold fish, totally dispassionate about everything around him, including his own policies. Who can forget his glassy-eyed indifference as he pretended to listen to Paul Ryan trying to explain to him fiscal reality -- before unceremoniously cutting off the uppity congressman? This at a time when the centerpiece of his policy was hanging in the balance. He grows passionate only when discussing basketball. Lately he has been showing signs of life, bemoaning the evils of capitalism. But even his animation looks manufactured, like the movements of a wind-up doll.
All true leaders are good actors, feigning whatever sentiment is warranted by the circumstances. Whether or not Obama is endowed with acting ability, he disdains the need to pretend that he cares.
The day the Palestinian-American Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot up Fort Hood, killing 13 and wounding 30, Obama was scheduled to give another of his speeches. As usual, the President arrived late, dawdled a while, finally launched into an interminable acknowledgement routine followed by a shout-out to an Indian chief in the audience, and only then, three minutes into his speech, nonchalantly, almost as an afterthought, mentioned the tragedy, hastily admonishing his listeners not to jump to conclusions about the motives of the assailant (true, he ecstatically shouted "Allah Akbar" as he pulled the trigger, but maybe he was a right-wing agent provocateur agitating against the religion of peace). Any politician worth his salt would fake concern and grief. But not Obama, who apparently doesn't see any point going to the trouble. Of course, he relies on the complicit mainstream media to cover up for him, but is it a mark of a leader mindful of his image?
So given his obvious unfitness for the job, how did Obama manage to climb to the very top? My guess is that he was spotted early on, judged to be a promising prospect (good looks, great voice, gift of facile dissimulation, right ideological credentials) made particularly attractive by the notable paucity of competition, and then carried all the way to the White House with minimum effort on his part. Of course, once there, surrounded by brown-nose courtiers whose well-being hinges on presidential favor, he must have succumbed to megalomania, to which, by all accounts, he has long been susceptible. So maybe he even tries, from time to time, to steer the ship of state all by himself. But I doubt it. He is so patently bored by statecraft and so unaccustomed to any kind of exertion other than workouts that it is a stretch to suppose he would sacrifice his leisure on the altar of presidential duties.
But even if it's true, it doesn't change the underlying fact that he came to the presidency as a puppet, not a puppet master. With not a single trait of a true leader in evidence, he is not the engine of the radical left juggernaut, but merely its hood ornament.
The image of a colossus that the elites have forged in their own minds has very little to do with reality and everything to do with their fashionable radicalism, racial guilt, and servile infatuation with power.
Image by Richard Terrell of Aftermath
Publicado: 02-27-2012 11:58 AM
George W. Bush: Drill more to lower gas prices (BUSH PROVES AGAIN HE'S SMARTER THAN OBAMA)
JENNIFER EPSTEIN 4/27/11
President Bush's July 2008 decision to lift the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling caused oil prices to drop from "$147 straight down to $33 a barrel in six months."
Former President George W. Bush wants to see more oil drilling to combat prices at the gas pump that are nearing $4 a gallon, he said Wednesday.
“I would suggest Americans understand how supply and demand works. And if you restrict supplies of crude, the price of oil is going to go up and it affects gasoline,” Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” before telling host George Stephanopoulos that he’s not too interested in talking about policy or politics.
POLITICO Influence: Insiders react
“You know, I really appreciate your giving me the chance to opine on the issues of the day, but as you know I made the decision to support causes I’m interested in without feeling like I’ve got to get an opinion on every issue,” Bush said. “So you’re still going to try, nevertheless. You haven’t lost a step, Stephanopoulos.”
Bush has largely steered clear of politics since leaving office more than two years ago, saying last year that Obama deserves to be able to govern “without criticism from me.” And in January, he said he had no plans to campaign or raise funds for any candidates or to become a TV talk show political commentator.
But before the former president begged off discussing policy in an interview about a bicycle tour he’s taking with wounded veterans, he did weigh in on reports that his successor will appoint Leon Panetta to be the next defense secretary and Gen. David Petraeus to take on the job of Central Intelligence Agency director.
“You know, both of them are good men,” Bush said. “I have the great respect for David Petraeus, I got to know him well. I also got to know Leon Panetta, not as well as I did David. Both of them are good public servants and I wish them well.”
Then, he paused and asked Stephanopoulos about the picks, which were reported by The Associated Press just minutes before Bush went on air. “Is it gossip or truth?” he said, as the host assured him that President Barack Obama will make the announcement later this week.
“Well, just because you’re reporting it, as you might recall, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true,” Bush said, chuckling as Stephanopoulos reassured him again. “OK, that’s good.”
BAJO BUSH EN LOS PRIMEROS 26 MESES EN EL PODER LA GASOLINA SUBIO UN 7%, EN EL MISMO TIEMPO CON OBAMA SUBIO 67%
Under President Obama, the American Petroleum Institute notes, leases on federal lands in the West are down 44%, while permits and new well drilling are both down 39% compared to 2007 levels.
This is why Obama and Democrats must be sent home.
RASMUSSEN POLL: Obama Approval at 45%, Lowest in Month—President Falls Behind Romney and Paul... Romney 45% Obama 43%... Paul 43% Obama 41% Obama 45% Santorum 43%
Publicado: 03-06-2012 07:54 PM
WIKILEAKS: EL GRAN FRAUDE ELECTORAL DE OBAMA DEL 2008
Wikileaks reveals Democrat 2008 election crimes
Exclusive: Andrea Shea King links to ballot scandal
Andrea Shea King is a talk-radio host who also writes at The Radio Patriot website and is known as Central Florida’s “First Lady of Space Coast Conservatism.”
The latest activity by Wikileaks dumped some 5 million emails and documents hacked from the database of Stratfor Intelligence. The emails reveal Democrats’ effort to steal the 2008 election.
Shocking revelations from a Wikileaks document dump show the Democrat Party committed a felony when it stuffed ballot boxes in Ohio and Philadelphia during the 2008 presidential election.
A memo further revealed that the so-called “Reverend” Jesse Jackson was paid a handsome figure to keep his mouth shut about candidate Obama, a man for whom he had little regard.
The same internal memo revealed that Obama’s campaign was taking Russian money surreptitiously.
From: Fred Burton [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: Insight – The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only – Pls Do
Not Forward **
** Internal Use Only – Pls Do Not Forward **
1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”.
2) It appears the Dems “made a donation” to Rev. Jesse (no, they would never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and Israel. A little bird told me it was a “nice six-figure donation”. This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers. A smoking gun has already been found. Will get more on this when the time is right. My source was too giddy to continue. Can you say Clinton and ChiCom funny money? This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.
Wikileaks last week began disclosing the emails obtained by WikiLeaks and hacktivist group Anonymous that expose the dirty dealings and election tampering done by Democratic Party operatives and the Obama campaign.
Stratfor, under the leadership of founder and Chief Executive George Friedman, counts Fortune 500 corporations and federal government agencies and the military among its subscribers. In a statement, Stratfor said it had built “good sources” in many countries, “as any publisher of global geopolitical analysis would do.”
In a published report, a second Wikileaks email indicated that 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain decided not to pursue legal action against the Democrats for engaging in voter fraud, believing that to do so would have thrown the country into civil unrest, and thus let the matter drop.
Emails between Stratfor staffers indicate that McCain’s actions were viewed as baffling, to say the least.
In other related news, the man believed to have provided much information to Wikileaks, Bradley Manning, was suggested to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
NIXON, POR LAS MISMAS RAZONES QUE McCAIN (PATRIOTISMO), TAMPOCO QUIZO .DENUNCIAR EL ROBO DE LAS ELECCIONES CUANDO EN CHICAGO Y OTRAS PARTES DE U.S. LOS KENNEDY RECURRIERON A UN FRAUDE ELECTORAL MASIVO
Publicado: 05-03-2012 06:43 PM
OBAMA/ACORN AND THE REALITY OF VOTER FRAUD
Houston — The 2012 elections will feature many close races, likely including the presidential contest. That makes concern about voter fraud and ballot integrity all the more meaningful, and a conference held here last weekend by the watchdog group True the Vote made clear just how high the stakes are.
“Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised.”
Indeed, a brand-new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe voter fraud is a serious problem, with whites registering 63 percent agreement and African-Americans 64 percent. A Fox News poll taken last month found that 70 percent of Americans support requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity and citizenship before casting a ballot. Majorities of all demographic groups agreed on the need for photo ID, including 58 percent of non-white voters, 52 percent of liberals, and 52 percent of Democrats.
Catherine Englebrecht, the Houston businesswoman and mother who founded True the Vote in 2009 after witnessing an ACORN-**noallow** group registering thousands of illegal or nonexistent voters in Houston, told the voter observers from 32 states gathered for the summit: “There is nothing more important this year than your work in making sure legitimate votes aren’t canceled out by fraud.”
Liberal groups ranging from the ACLU to the NAACP oppose voter-ID laws, claiming that voter fraud is almost nonexistent and that an ID requirement would amount to voter suppression. It’s certainly true that in-person voter fraud — the type of fraud most easily fought with voter-ID laws — isn’t the whole picture. Voter-ID laws must be combined with tighter controls on absentee ballots, the tool of choice of fraudsters. But filmmaker James O’Keefe demonstrated just last month how easy — and almost impossible to detect — voter impersonation can be: A white 22-year-old assistant of O’Keefe’s was offered the Washington, D.C., primary ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder, the most visible opponent of ID laws.
Just this week in Fort Worth, Texas, a Democratic precinct chairwoman was indicted on charges of arranging an illegal vote. Hazel Woodard James has been charged with conspiring with her non-registered son to have him vote in place of his father. The only reason the crime was detected was that the father showed up later in the day to vote at the same precinct. Most fraudsters are smart enough to have their accomplices cast votes in the names of dead people on the voter rolls, who are highly unlikely to appear and complain that someone else voted in their place.
One of the highlights of the True the Vote conference was a speech by Artur Davis, who was a Democratic congressman from Alabama until last year. Davis has been an up-and-coming black Democratic leader, having been selected to second the nomination of Barack Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver.
But in 2009 he decided to vote against Obamacare because he viewed it as unworkable and too expensive. When he ran the next year in the Democratic primary for governor in Alabama, he was attacked as disloyal and defeated by a coalition of liberals, teachers’ unions, and old-**noallow** black political machines.
He told me that the voter suppression he most observed in his 68 percent African-American district was rampant fraud in counties with powerful political machines. To keep themselves in power, these machines would frequently steal the votes of members of minority groups. “I know it exists, I’ve had the chance to steal votes in my favor offered to me, and the people it hurts the most are the poor and those without power,” he said.
Davis made it clear in his speech to True the Vote that much of the opposition to voter-ID and ballot-integrity laws is a sad attempt to inject racism into the discussion and intimidate supporters of anti-fraud laws. “This is not a billy club, this is not a fire hose,” he told his audience while holding up his driver’s license. “Where is this notion that if I have a right [to vote], that I don’t have to be bothered with responsibility?” He concluded with an appeal for all sides to eschew racial appeals: “We have to be one country, but the way you become one country is you stop acting like a country that’s divided into different buckets and bases of people.”
It’s a pity that so much of the discussion about voting this fall will be drenched in race. Americans have two important rights when it comes to voting. The first is the right to vote without fear and intimidation, for which this country fought an epic civil-rights struggle in the 1960s. Those gains in voter access must be preserved. But Americans also have a right to vote without their ballots’ being canceled out by people who are voting twice, are voting for the dead or nonexistent, or are non-citizens. We can and should accomplish two goals in the 2012 election — making sure it is easy to vote, and making sure it is hard to cheat. Groups such as True the Vote will be essential to make sure both sides of that imperative are fulfilled.
— John Fund is the national-affairs columnist for NRO.