Publicado: 10-29-2011 02:03 PM
Obama the Divider
Peter Wehner 10.07.2011
A Washington Post story from earlier this week reports, “There is a noticeably more aggressive, confrontational President Obama roaming the country these days, selling his jobs plan and attacking Republicans for standing in the way of progress by standing up only for the rich.”
That report, if anything, understates things a bit. Obama has essentially given up on his governing responsibilities (at which he has shown himself to be terribly inept) in lieu of a fierce and near constant attack on his political opponents. I have my doubts as to whether that strategy will work. But the point I want to make is a different one, which is that Obama has become the most intentionally divisive president we’ve seen in quite some time.
It’s not unusual, of course, for the policies of presidents to divide the nation. And politicians running for re-election often highlight differences. But Obama now belongs in a separate category. Each day, it seems, he and/or his supporters are seeking to divide us. The rhetoric employed by the president and his allies is meant to fan the flames of resentment, to turn Americans against one another, and to stoke up feelings of envy, grievances, and rage.
This is not healthy for our country or good for our political culture. And while we all contribute to what constitutes public discourse, there is one officeholder, the president, who bears the greatest responsibility for creating a sense of common purpose and for reminding us that we are, in the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Yet the president is trying, with almost every speech, to pry us apart. It’s a strategy he clearly believes is necessary for him to win re-election. But that doesn’t make what he’s doing any less shameful or any less hypocritical.
Publicado: 10-29-2011 02:04 PM
“Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the State.” Winston Churchill
LA CHUSMA USADA POR OBAMA PARA CREAR EL CAOS Y LA DIVISION
OBAMA IS THE POLITICIAN WHO HAS RECEIVED MORE $$$ FROM WALL STREET
By the end of the 2008 campaign, executives connected to Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America and JP Morgan dumped $15.8 million into Obama’s campaign to sweeten relations with the new president.
It was Obama, after all, who – more than any political figure in our lifetime – promised to heal the breach. That was at the very core of his message, and his appeal, during the last presidential election.
For example, in his announcement speech on February 10, 2007, it was Obama who complained, “We’re distracted from our real failures and told to blame the other party…” He would not sink to such depths, he promised us.
Publicado: 10-29-2011 02:05 PM
CITA DEL DÍA: "El secreto del agitador es adaptarse a la estupidez de los que le escuchan a fin de que estos crean que son tan inteligentes como él". -- Karl Kraus
It was Obama who said in his 2007 Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa, “I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America – I want to be the president of the United States of America.” It was Obama, in his March 18, 2008 speech in Philadelphia (addressing the controversy over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright) who said, “We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism… That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time….’”
It was Obama who told Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone, “I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.”
It was Obama who said during his acceptance speech on August 28, 2008, “If you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.”
And it was Obama who said on the night of his election, on a stage in Grant Park, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree… Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for too long.”
What he has done is the antithesis of what he said. Barack Obama has succumbed to virtually every partisan temptation, reached for every stale tactic, and bred division and conflict and cynicism across our land. He has resorted to petty bickering and pitted Red America against Blue America. He has even characterized his political opponents as “enemies.”
I suppose there are worse things a president can do, but this is bad enough. He is purposefully causing wounds that will be hard to heal – and he’s only just begun. Things will get uglier before they get better. Eventually, and thankfully, we will rediscover our bonds of affection. But it will require removing Obama from office before we do.
“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.” Winston Churchill
Publicado: 12-08-2011 02:28 PM
OBAMA Pointing Fingers at the Mess He Created
Townhall.com ^ | December 8, 2011 | Bill Tatro
So there it was, front page, the announcement about Barack Obama’s campaign strategy for 2012.
I didn’t immediately look at the details as I was waiting for my coffee to brew. After all, I had just written a column about the similarities between Obama’s and FDR’s re-election campaigns.
So, I thought to myself, the announcement has to declare the ultimate survival of the middle class.
The middle class is the easiest to embrace because everyone believes themselves to be part of that group.
Unless you run a hedge fund, have a personal jet at your disposal, or received an invitation to the economic summit in Davos, you more than likely consider yourself part of the mass.
When Walter Mondale wanted to tax the rich, it was defined as a couple making more than $150,000.
At least the bar has been raised by $100,000. Even those folks making Mondale’s level or Obama’s level consider themselves middle class.
For Obama, it has to be “us” against “them” and the bigger the “us” the better. I also thought the time had come for Obama to separate himself from his Wall Street banker buddies.
Big business in general has to be painted as “the forces of privilege and greed.” He has to continue to call on Congress to “wage unnecessary warfare” against “our resplendent economic autocracy” which thought “power for themselves, enslavement for the public.”
Much of the rhetoric can be taken from a speech given by any Occupy Wall Street participant.
I’m sure he’ll use such phrases as “economic royalist,” “privileged princess,” and “over-privileged.”
I thought to myself as the coffee finished brewing, he’s certain to declare “private enterprise” has become “privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.” Coffee finally brewed, and now time to look at the details of the campaign. However, I thought, I’m sure he’ll have to add that the election will be a contest between “the millions who never had a chance” and “organized money.”
As I started to read the details of the campaign, I couldn’t help believe that his message was a good one.
Who wouldn’t be angry at the actions of Goldman Sachs, Ben Bernanke, Jon Corzine and a host of others?
Then I realized, I was starting to fall into the same trap as millions of others. The current problems have been created by the current leaders with a lot of help from the usual gang of Washington hangers-on (Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, etc.)
Much like the Federal Reserve which creates the bubbles and then tries to sell them, so does Barack Obama.
It’s a great strategy, create the mess and then step away while pointing fingers back at others.
I didn’t have to read the rest of the newspaper story since I had already read about FDR’s strategy in 1936.
Obama’s and Roosevelt’s campaigns will be identical, right down to the quotes above. By the way, all quotes taken from 1936 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I’m sure it will convince many, but for me, I will have already seen the outcome, and the picture is not a pretty one.
Now, for another cup of coffee.
Publicado: 12-09-2011 11:20 PM
The Osawatomie Speech: A Defining Moment In History
Submitted by Econophile on 12/09/2011
Barack Obama Great Depression Recession
This article originally appeared in the Daily Capitalist.
I am not a fan of Barack Obama, but I have not criticized him as harshly as many other writers do. I have a different view of him. I see him as a rather run of the mill Progressive/Liberal who firmly believes his ideology and acts somewhat consistently on those ideas. Rather than pillory him personally, my approach has been to criticize the philosophy of which he is a product. In my mind, it's all about ideas. I detest his ideas because I believe they are anti-intellectual and they don't work.
There are many like Mr. Obama out there. His admirers perceive themselves as being the "downtrodden", envious of the accomplishments and wealth of those whose abilities they cannot match. I get that: if you can't achieve it, take it from those who can.
Even those limousine liberals who have wealth and accomplishment perceive themselves as either being guilty of their wealth or come from backgrounds where these ideas are passed along. Mr. Obama is no different than any other politician: he seeks power and admiration and the ability to impose his ideas on America.
We here at the Daily Capitalist try everyday to combat those ideas by demonstrating their lack of efficacy and by presenting analyses of events in a free market framework which analyses have actually been quite accurate in forecasting economic outcomes. We try to be the antidote to the Progressive juggernaut.
And then I heard President Obama's speech at Osawatomie, Kansas this week.
It perhaps wasn't surprising, but I was appalled. It was deceitful, inaccurate, revisionist, and demagogic.
Mr. Obama uses every cliché in the Progressive handbook to make his point. His direct point was that the "rich" should pay more taxes. The underlying point and theme of his speech was that individual effort, individualism, free market capitalism, and success is a gift bestowed by "society" on the successful and that what "society" grants, it can take away because "society" needs it. It is the collective versus the individual.
His speech is a recreation, a fabrication if you will, of history, economics, and philosophy into a Pandoran construct of collectivist statism whereby society can demand the individual's obedience and obeisance. In short, folks, it's a crock.
Publicado: 12-09-2011 11:21 PM
If you think I am exaggerating, I urge you to read or hear his entire speech. You may find the full text and video of the speech here.
Here is just one typical statement from his speech:
Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes;bespecially for the wealthy; our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.
This is the stuff that demagogues spew to the guileless. And the problem is that he believes it with all his heart. The man is not stupid nor slow on his feet, despite what his harshest critics day. He's not a mere puppet of the union bosses. He's bright, articulate, and well educated. Yet he has learned nothing despite his years of education and now he's at the vanguard of the Progessive/socialist/welfare statist/national corporatist movement in America.
If he has the force of personality he could be another Franklin Roosevelt, the president who did more harm to America than any other leader in our history. Fortunately, he may not have that strength of character.
While we may criticize the Republicans for being much of the same, there is still a difference. We are, as I have noted before, at a tipping point in America where:
Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.
No wonder the audience at Osawatomie loved him.
This is what has happened to much of Europe where welfare recipients voted themselves increasing benefits and economic stagnation and eventual bankruptcy. This is exactly where we are headed politically.
And this is why this election is critical. We must turn this ship around.
Publicado: 12-14-2011 03:11 PM
By Walter E. Williams
The most prevalent theme in President Barack Obama’s Dec. 6 Osawatomie, Kan., speech was the need for greater “fairness.” In fact, though the president never defined the term fair(ness), he used it 15 times. Explaining his new hero, Teddy Roosevelt, Obama said: “But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest.” What’s fair competition is somewhat subjective, but let me suggest a few examples of what’s clearly unfair.
Say a person wants to become a taxi owner. He has a driver’s license, a car and accident liability insurance. Is it fair that in New York City, he has to first purchase a taxi license (medallion) that as of October sold for $1 million? Taxi licenses in Chicago go for $56,000. In Boston, they are $285,000, and in Philadelphia, they run $75,000. Is that fair competition?
In some cities, to own a taxi one must obtain a certificate of “public convenience and necessity.” At a Public Utility Commission hearing, incumbent taxi owners show up with their attorneys to protest that another taxi company is not needed, and the application is denied. I’d like to have Obama — or anyone else — tell us whether that’s fair competition.
The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 is a law with racist origins and broad congressional support. During the 1931 legislative debate over the Davis-Bacon Act, which mandates super-minimum (mostly union) wages on federally financed or assisted construction projects, racist intents were obvious.
Rep. John Cochran, D-Mo., supported the bill, saying he had “received numerous complaints ... about Southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South.” Rep. Clayton Allgood, D-Ala., complained: “Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. ... That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” Rep. William Upshaw, D-Ga., spoke of the “superabundance or large aggregation of Negro labor.” American Federation of Labor President William Green said, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.”
Publicado: 12-14-2011 03:12 PM
The Davis-Bacon Act remains law. Modern rhetoric in support of it has changed, but its effects haven’t. It continues to discriminate against nonunion construction labor. Most black construction workers are in the nonunion sector. Tragically, both President Obama and almost all black congressmen, doing the bidding of their labor union allies, vote against any measure that would modify or eliminate Davis-Bacon restrictions. Would Obama see the Davis-Bacon Act as fair competition?
Probably the most unfair thing that happens to most blacks is the grossly rotten schools they attend. Often, fraudulent high-school diplomas are conferred that certify they can read, write and compute at the 12th-grade level when in fact they can’t perform at the seventh- or eighth-grade level. President Obama’s administration strongly opposes educational vouchers, even one as small as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, with his Office of Management and Budget saying: “Private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement. The administration strongly opposes expanding (the program) and opening it to new students.”
The president is against school choice for low-income parents while his own children attend Sidwell Friends, one of the most prestigious private schools in D.C. Many members of Congress keep their own children out of D.C. public schools; 44 percent of senators and 36 percent of representatives do, and that includes 35 percent of Congressional Black Caucus members, who tend to vote against school choice. Their actions are dictated by what’s good for the National Education Association, not low-income black children. Do you think that’s fair? By the way, teachers at public schools are twice as likely as other parents to send their own children to private schools. That ought to tell us something.
Walter E. Williams Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of ‘Race and Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?’ and ‘Up from the Projects: An Autobiography.’
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Walter Williams’ column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Murdoch: Obama Should Take on Teacher Unions
Australian billionaire Rupert Murdoch issued a challenge to President Barack Obama on Saturday: Confront the teacher unions if you want to save America's educational system.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the media tycoon bluntly insisted that U.S. schools have failed their students and that America will lose its competitive edge if something isn't done.
According to the Brisbane Times, Murdoch criticized America's educational system for allowing 35 percent to 40 percent of all students to never complete high school. Those children, he said, are relegated to a permanent underclass.
"This is the greatest test for President Obama because this will be a great confrontation with the teacher unions ... they are a very, very rich union and a number one contributor to the Democratic Party," he said. "The president must have the courage and the strength to take on the teachers and win ... if the United States is going to continue to lead the world over the next 30 or 40 years, education must be the way."
Publicado: 12-16-2011 08:45 AM
Limbaugh Rips Obama’s View of America: ‘Thinks of It as Criminal, Guilty’
Rush Limbaugh let it rip at Barack Obama‘s policies and gave a scathing assessment of the President’s view of America in this interview Wednesday night with Greta Van Susteren.
Rush said that “Obama is his policies, obama is the problem, obama has a vision for this country that is not held by anywhere near a majority of the american people.”
In Rush’s analysis, if Obama had campaigned on what he has done during his time in office, he would have gotten around 30% of the national vote.
Of course, Limbaugh singled out Obamacare for particular criticism, which he called “dangerous and destructive.”
If Obama wins reelection, Rush believes “the country is going to change forever”and there will be a “massive loss of individual liberty and freedom… national single payer healthcare is where this is headed.”
Rush also said that “Obama has a chip on his shoulder about the country… thinks of it as criminal, guilty in many ways…its superpower status the result of theft.”
On the public perception of President Obama, Rush rejected many of the prevailing sentiments of the mainstream media. He said we have been “living under a number of assumptions about obama– one of them is that he is brilliant, he is messianic”– and both of those, in Limbaugh’s opinion, are false.
As for the way ahead in 2012, Rush has very ominous predictions of a highly negative and divisive Obama campaign. “All obama can do is run a negative campaign,“ Rush said ”tear apart his opponent and country.”
But there was some light at the end of the tunnel. Perhaps most importantly given that the GOP primary season is about to kick off, Rush weighed in on the field of candidates and said: “I Don’t believe… Republicans only have one person who can beat him.”
Publicado: 12-16-2011 09:04 AM
Obama’s 2012 Opponent: The ‘Republican Congress’
By Doug Powers
Obama’s 2012 Opponent: The ‘Republican Congress’/////********//////******="float: right;">
This falls into the “nice try” category, but ultimately it probably won’t fly.
From The Hill:
President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly referring to the Congress as “Republican” even though their party controls one-half of the unpopular institution.
Obama and his allies have started to deploy the phrase “Republican Congress” in what some experts see as a clear attempt to gain a political advantage.
“I’m the first one to acknowledge that the relations between myself and the Republican Congress have not been good over the last several months, but it’s not for lack of effort,” Obama told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier this month.
And other Democrats have used the term.
Political scientists have said that Obama is using a game plan similar to that used by Presidents Truman and Clinton. Both won their reelection by railing about Congress. The difference, however, is that both chambers in 1948 and 1996 were controlled by Republicans.
Jay Carney also pinned the low approval rating of Congress on Republicans as if the GOP owns the show.
Why are they stopping at Congress? As much as Bush is still blamed for everything, shouldn’t Dems go all the way and refer to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as the “Republican White House”?
Sure, a lot of people aren’t aware that the Republicans do not control the full legislative branch, and so they might be tempted to fall for the latest verbal sleight of hand. But since Obama has been on the trail telling everybody he can and will bypass Congress to get what he wants, that would seem to weaken the “blame Republicans” approach. We’ll see.
By the way, the least popular member of the Republican Congress is Nancy Pelosi.
**Written by Doug Powers