Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Tea Party has more suppoert than Obama

September 30, 2010

According to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll,only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.

The Tea Party Movement, which has emerged as the biggest threat to Democrats’ dominance of Washington, is viewed favorably by 43 percent of respondents, compared with 35 percent who view it unfavorably. In the eight-state Mountain West region, more than half — 53 percent — have a favorable view of the tea party movement.

Looks like the Tea Party has more support than Obama.

According to the latest POLITICO / George Washington University Battleground Poll,only 38 percent of respondents said Obama deserves to be reelected. Forty-four percent said they will vote to oust him, and 13 percent said they will consider voting for someone else.

It’s Obama’s policies that are hurting him right now. By a 13-point margin, voters are down on the health care law. In an especially troubling sign, more than half of self-identified independents — 54 percent — have an unfavorable opinion of the law, compared with just 38 percent who have a favorable opinion.

The Tea Party Movement, which has emerged as the biggest threat to Democrats’ dominance of Washington, is viewed favorably by 43 percent of respondents, compared with 35 percent who view it unfavorably. In the eight-state Mountain West region, more than half — 53 percent — have a favorable view of the tea party movement.

No, Mr. President, we ain’t buying it

September 30, 2010

The official word on the Democratic agenda, if you listen to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a vague promise to keep moving the country forward. While defending an unpopular agenda, the idea of laying out a clear agenda for the 112th Congress is not yet taking hold. “We’re so busy defending our record — and it is quite a record. If you look at what we accomplished, you may not like it, we have accomplished quite a bit in a very short period time.”

Very telling. Yes, it’s quite a record of passing legislation that the clear majority strongly opposed. And no, we do not like it at all. We see it as arrogant elitists telling us “shut up, we know better than you”. This is not what Americans elect their representatives to do. You arrogant elitists have ignored the majority of your constituents, and we are rightfully outraged. Just what did you expect?

Obama had the absolute hubris to say “You’d think they would be thanking me”!  Thanking you? Thanking you for trampling the Constitution? Thanking you for ignoring the will of the people? Thanking you for putting our grandchildren in debt so you could reward your supporters? Thanking you for growing the government into a Soviet style overseer of our everyday functions? Thanking you for forcing your socialist policies and agenda on us, when we have been screaming “NO!” at the top of our lungs?

No, Mr. President, we have no thanks for you. We reject your “progressive” (socialist) policies and agenda. In fact, we want your so-called “accomplishments” repealed. We don’t want your “vision” of a Democratic Socialist state. We now see that your ambition is to become America’s Hugo Chavez, and we will absolutely not stand for it. We don’t need “adult supervision”, we are adults, thank you very much. We can make our own decisions without government guidance. Do you really believe that you are so superior to the American people that we cannot function without your wisdom? We CAN do without you, and there is little doubt now that we would do better without you and your arrogance.

We reject you and your arrogant elitism, Mr. President. Most of us think we would be better off if you would go back to your “community organizing” with corrupt organizations like ACORN. We have seen your dog and pony show, and we are not impressed. We don’t want you, and we certainly don’t need you. Go back to Chicago, where your brand of corruption and thuggery is the norm. We don’t want you anymore, or your “progressive (socialist) vision.

Common Spin, or Pure Propaganda? – 01

May 14, 2010

Fire is hot, ice is cold, water is wet, and all politicians spin. In this age of 24/7 cable news outlets, the internet and the blogosphere, it’s not nearly as easy to do as it was when there were only the Big 3 Networks. Back then, you could have a spokesman read a prepared statement a couple of times a week, and be done with it. Now, there is an issue or two a day to deal with. And depending on your political philosophy, you either have the majority of TV networks and print media defending you and one cable news network and the majority of talk radio slamming you, or vice-versa.

Politicians have always had complaints about treatment in the media, even when the media consisted entirely of a weekly newspaper, and that available only in larger cities. And they complained bitterly. Often, their refutations and rebuttals were published, as well. That was how the free press operated. If you owned a newspaper, you were free to publish such rebuttals, or not, but your credibility was at stake. I would call this “free-market journalism”. The success or failure of your paper depended upon the confidence of your readers in your relative “fairness”.

Between World War II, and the turn of the century, there have been a few attempts by administrations to stifle criticism by the press. None were taken kindly by the American people. In fact, the backlash was usually worse than the bad press that inspired it. Since the advent of satellite communications, cable news networks, and the internet, now folks have so much choice in their sources of information, they don’t seem so concerned with sources taking sides. One can get their information from multiple sources  of varying points of view. Most people don’t see that as a bad thing. A bit confusing, perhaps, but in a free society, choice is generally a good thing.

It is also nothing new in politics, particularly in campaigns, to try to “control the message”. But at what point does common “spin” and “controlling the message” become propaganda?

The first definition of “propaganda” I present is from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48;

Propaganda Prop`a*gan”da, n. [Abbrev. fr. L. de propaganda
fide: cf. F. propagande. See Propagate.]
[1913 Webster]
1. (R. C. Ch.)
(a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622,
charged with the management of missions.
(b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban
VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in
all parts of the world.
[1913 Webster]

2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular
doctrine or a system of principles.
[1913 Webster]

In the context of the consistency of message among missionaries, that sounds fairly reasonable. Note, however, that this definition is from 1913. Here is a more updated version from the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia;

Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience. Lobbying, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda, but the term is most commonly used in the political arena. Prior to the 20th century, pictures and the written media were the principal instruments of propaganda; radio, television, motion pictures, and the Internet later joined their ranks. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes use propaganda to win and keep the support of the populace. In wartime, propaganda directed by a country at its own civilian population and military forces can boost morale; propaganda aimed at the enemy is an element of psychological warfare.” (Emphasis mine)

Let’s examine what’s going on currently in the political struggle to “control the message”, beginning with the Presidential campaign of 2008.

In a nutshell, the Republican campaign struggled to try to keep up with the Democrats media campaign. With the support of the majority of Hollywood, where fantasies come to life, the Democrats put on a masterful display of a Grand Illusion. The Republicans, lacking an exciting candidate, as well as the theatrical mastery of Hollywood, were at a huge disadvantage. Obama became a messianic figure, with vague promises of “hope and change”, but without much detail. Their timing and organization, thanks to ACORN and SEIU, managed to register hundreds of thousands of new voters (some actually real, live people), and mobilize the guilt-ridden Liberals and African-American voters who desperately wanted to see the first Black President in their lifetime. It didn’t hurt that the overwhelming majority of the media was swooning over the first ever African-American candidate for President. Obama’s campaign took advantage of the situation brilliantly, as any campaign would have hoped to have done.

The Obama campaign also used the new communications technology to spread their message, solicit contributions, and to mobilize his base of voters very effectively, where the McCain camp was not able to. All fair play, so far.

What has happened in the information world since January 21, 2009 is where things start to get dicey.

As the Obama administration came into office with a healthy majority in both houses of Congress, Mr. Obama apparently assumed that he had a mandate from the people for his agenda. Not willing to accept the fact that the 47% of voters voted against him,  he proceeded to try to take advantage of that perceived mandate to push a radical progressive agenda.

What he didn’t count on, was the pushback he would receive from that other 47%. That is totally unacceptable for a messiah with a mandate. Worse yet, he didn’t have a total lock on the news outlets, with that one pesky TV news channel and most of talk radio questioning his appointees, his policies, and his motives. I can just imagine him thinking “I had ’em eating out of my hand, and now these spoilers are exposing things I don’t want exposed, and asking questions I don’t want to have to answer. I had the wool pulled completely over their eyes, and it was clear sailing ahead, but these a*****es are wrecking the illusion we have so carefully built”.

Yep, those damned dissenters. So what do we do about that? We certainly can’t have the opposition going around dispelling our BS figures we feed them in order to keep them from insurrection if they knew the truth. That would also wreck the illusion that I am indeed the messiah, the savior they have been waiting for. We haven’t yet put into place the mechanisms for putting dissenters in FEMA camps. The logical solution is to take “controlling the message” to the next level. Enter Cass Sunstein.

Another radical from Chicago, Sunstein was tapped to be the president’s “Information and Regulatory” chief. Radical from Chicago, you say? I’m sooooo glad you asked.

I see that I am nearing 1200 words, so to keep from losing your interest, I’ll have to continue with a part 2. Sorry, I didn’t intend this, but I’ve learned that I must carefully explain my points, or I’ll be responding to minutia for days, if I don’t. I guess it goes with the territory.

The story of Cass Sunstein, Propaganda Minister of the Obama Regime, coming soon…

How is Obama wrecking America? Let me count the ways

May 11, 2010

Barrack Obama, with only 2 years of experience as  U.S. Senator, was swept into the White House as a supposed Messiah. His lofty campaign promises included a “post-racial”, and “post-partisan” era, which would cure America’s economic woes, put America back to work, and restore America’s good standing in the world, all without raising your taxes “one dime” if you make less than $250.00 a year. Fifteen months and a few trillion dollars later,  entirely different consequences have unfolded, and even worse is planned.

Let’s start with the “post-racial” myth. In just the last month or so, the Obama administration has used race to inflame Hispanics over Arizona’s passage of a state law to protect it’s citizens against an onslaught of illegal immigration, and the enormous expense and crime that comes with it.  That would not have been necessary had the Federal Government done it’s job of enforcing existing immigration laws. Instead, the administration is using Arizona’s self-defense move to paint Republicans as racist, and to push for “comprehensive immigration reform”, a nice name for amnesty for 12 million new Democrat voters.

Then, there’s the rallying cry from Obama for everyone except older white people to get out the vote to defend his majority in congress this November. This is certainly a call to his base, but was delivered in unmistakably racial terms. Obama leaves it to his surrogates to suggest that any opposition to his policies is based on race.

Next, the myth of the new “post-partisan” era in Washington. Once Obama realized that he had a large majority in the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate,  that went right out the window. It quickly became “my way or the highway”, and he proceeded to take advantage of his majority to ram through the most ambitious dreams of the far left, spending the majority of his first year on the Holy Grail, government control of the health care system. He got the government take over of the entire energy systems of the country passed in the House, but thank God that Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts to stop it in the Senate.

As far as curing America’s economic ills, he claims to have averted disaster by putting us all in debt to a degree unimaginable, but the results have been lackluster at best. Unless, of course, you or your organization had been a staunch Obama supporter, like a labor union or a “Community Organizing” outfit. They all came out “smelling like a rose”, while the rest of the country struggles with nearly 10% unemployment and credit so stifled that it prevents any improvement. Instead of cutting wasteful government programs and attending to exploding entitlement programs, the administration is expanding government at a record pace, and even worse, expanding it’s power over all aspects of American life.

When it comes to restoring America’s standing in the world, that too, has been a colossal failure. Iran is closer to having nuclear weapon every day with no fear at all. North Korea does as it damn well pleases with no fear at all. Obama bows repeatedly to the heads of lesser nations, many not such good friends. And dictator Hugo Chavez is practically jealous of Obama’s rush toward socialism. America has gone from Superpower to laughingstock in just over one year.

And when it comes to the pledge of not raising your taxes “one dime” if you make under $250,000 a year, that one was broken within a month of Obama taking office. Federal taxes on beer and cigarettes went up right away, affecting mostly lower and middle income people. Now, the Value Added Tax is being floated, not as a replacement for income taxes, but in addition to them. To Obama, a tax isn’t really a tax if you don’t call it a tax, and make no mistake, more hidden “user fees” and such are on the way.

And when Obama can’t get his way through the congress, he resorts to an end-run play by way of administrative decrees from appointed agency heads, who are not accountable to congress. When his Cap and Tax bill hit the Scott Brown roadblock, he had the EPA declare CO2 to be a dangerous gas, subjecting it to regulation. This is the same CO2 that all plant life needs, and all mammals exhale as they breathe. Now, since the courts have shot down his “Net Neutrality” scheme to censor the internet, he has directed the head of the FCC to have the internet designated a “public utility”, thus making it’s content subject to federal regulation. Anyone see a pattern here?

Obama talks a good game, but once you get past the rhetoric and look at what he’s doing, it becomes clear that he’s not only driving us straight for the cliff, he’s got the pedal to the metal. He’s driving us to bankruptcy at break-neck speed, growing government and government dependence at a frightening rate, and gradually taking our rights away from us. He is indeed “transforming America” as he promised in his campaign, but not for the good.

We currently have the most dangerous president in office since FDR, and if we don’t put the brakes on his agenda quickly, he may well transform us into the failed and collapsing society that many European countries are finding themselves in now.

Arizona, Immigration, and Politics

May 7, 2010

For all of the outrage over Arizona’s passage of their new immigration law, you’d think doors were being kicked in in the middle of the night. On a popular TV program yesterday, the host asked an audience of about 50 legal immigrants if they knew of anyone who actually had their door kicked in. One man raised his hand. He said his sister had been robbed twice by criminal illegals.

In all fairness, it is probably true that the majority of illegal immigrants do not commit crimes after crossing our border illegally. There is a distinction between those illegal immigrants, and those who kidnap, rob, and rape. But the fact remains that anyone who crosses our border without authorization, or deliberately over-stays their visa, is by definition in our country illegally.

Perhaps some of the confusion in terminology stems from the use of the word “illegal” , which is an adjective describing legal status, as a noun, referring to an individual.  Either way, the individual is here illegally, thus breaking the law.

The oxy-moron of the “law-abiding illegal immigrant” is being used widely by the amnesty crowd. Here, Columnist Jeanne Cummings of Politico uses the term twice in her column “Democrat’s shift right frustrates Hispanic activists”

“Worse still, immigrant advocates charge, in their zeal to demonstrate toughness, DHS and its enforcement partners have dragged many law-abiding illegal immigrants and legitimate businesses into the system, shattering Obama’s promises of more humane treatment.” “In a recent meeting with community advocates, Obama appeared surprised to learn that federal immigration officials were still conducting midmorning raids in Hispanic communities that resulted in long detentions of law-abiding illegal immigrants, according to participants.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36844

The obvious intent is to garner sympathy for the poor  “law-abiding illegal immigrants”.  Again, the fact remains that are here illegally, and by Federal law, should be deported.

The security of the country, including it’s borders, is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government. Pure and simple.

Unfortunately, the current administration sees the estimated 12-20 million immigrants currently in the country illegally, as a huge base of new Democrat voters, if it can manage to get them amnesty and immediate access to all sorts of taxpayer funded subsidies. Why, a voting bloc of that size might well be enough to counter the Tea Party movement. The president and his supporters are clearly putting politics ahead of the security of the nation.

That is not to say that previous presidents have done such a great job securing the southern border. There is no doubt that it is a very tricky political issue. However, we should learn from our mistakes. The amnesty granted to the illegal immigrants already here in the 80s under President Reagan did nothing to stop illegal immigration.

President Obama, following his advisor’s motto of never letting a crisis go to waste, is trying to use the angry backlash against the Arizona law to push for  “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation.  Consider all of the unintended consequences of the “comprehensive health care reform”  that are coming to light almost daily, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with “comprehensive” anything from the Democrats, and particularly this Congress?

The definition of the word “comprehensive”, when used by Democrats, means thousands of pages of convoluted legal gibberish that a half dozen lawyers, given a month to read, would not be able to agree on what it means. It means hundreds, if not thousands, of pork goodies and rewards to supporters hidden away in that gibberish. And it means that it will not only be expensive, and put us deeper in debt, it will likely to be waaaaaay more expensive than they tell you it will be.

What is needed, is for the Federal Government to enforce current immigration laws and secure the border. Janet Napolitano is an incompetent political appointee and cheerleader for Obama.  The government thinks nothing of setting up another multi-trillion dollar entitlement, so don’t tell me a few billion spent to finish the fence and quadruple the border patrol and ICE is not financially feasible.

Arizona passed their new law to protect their citizens. It wasn’t done out of racism, nor out of hate. It was done out of necessity, because the Obama administration refuses uphold their primary duty for political reasons.

Progressives and History – 01

April 30, 2010

Is it just me, or do the Progressives not just cherry-pick history, but bend and twist it to suit their needs?

The current uproar over Arizona’s new law, making illegal immigrants illegal (huh?) is a perfect example.

Because of the Federal Government’s abdication of it’s primary duty to defend the sovereign borders of the United States, the citizens of Arizona demanded some protection from their state. Facing an onslaught of crime, including home invasions, car-jackings, kidnappings, and a real danger to travelers on public roads from transporters of illegals, I can’t say as I blame them one bit.

The Obama administration is aghast that a state might assert it’s right to defend it’s citizens without the blessing of the Feds. How dare they uphold laws already on the books that we refuse to enforce? It’s nothing short of impudence to defy the “Anointed One”. I want as many illegals in the country as possible, so when I grant them all amnesty, they will all be beholden to vote for me in 2012. Sounds like a plan to me.

The problem is a simple fact of history. The fact is, that freshman Senator Obama was the deciding vote in passing a “poison-pill” amendment, dooming the 2007 “comprehensive” immigration bill to fail passage. You don’t have to take my word for it, check out the documented facts:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/29/obama-helped-kill-immigration-reform-2007-will-media-remember

Now, the Obama administration needs the votes of the Illegal Immigrants already here, so he is all for giving them amnesty, as well as housing, food stamps and free medical care, on your dime. As the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live used to say, “How convenient”. This is also what is behind the sudden push for statehood for Puerto Rico, but that is another story.

The Progressives will use history as it suits their purposes. No excuses, and no apologies. If it fits their needs, they’ll use it. If it doesn’t, it’s irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Progressives don’t seem to observe any rules other than, “If it serves our purpose, use it, but if our opposition uses the same tactic, cry foul loudly”.

We are accustomed to engagement confined by rules which confine each opponent to the same constraints. Unable to maintain a competitive stance by those accepted standards, the Progressives seek to “win by any means” including deception, smearing their opponents unfairly, and attempting to “change history”. Outright lies are not out of bounds, either.

In the face of this opponent, willing to go to any lengths to advance their oppressive agenda upon us all, I suggest that while we retain the honorability that defines our cause for generations, that we become familiar enough with their tactics that we can not only defend against them, but are able to “flank” them and entrap them in their own tactics.

We must prevail in this defense of our liberty, lest we become slaves of a failed and flawed perversion of our great nation.