Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

The Naivete of the American Public and Barack Obama

August 24, 2010 1 comment

Suddenly the American public is shocked.  Perhaps there is no economic recovery.  Perhaps the One really does favor Islam.

Democrats and Republicans shake their heads and wonder, how could our President pursue such divisive and unpopular policies?  What is the rationale for this President’s decisions?  Is he incompetent?  Is he naive?

The answer is none of the above.

I have said before and I will say again, Barack Obama does not share the values of Americans.  His vision is completely anathema to an America based on individualism, private property rights and Judeo-Christian morality.

When one argues that Barack Obama is merely mistaken in his economic program, they completely discount the notion that he knows exactly what he is doing and that he has been 100% successful in achieving his policies and their intended ends, means and ends that any objective viewer would realize were insane.  After all, an economy is nothing more than the collection of mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges of labor and the fruits of labor.  Anything that impedes one’s labor, or the trading of its fruits is necessarily bad for the economy.  Hence, almost everything a government does to try to stimulate an economy, impeding the natural spontaneous harmony of such a system necessarily postpones any recovery.

We were in major trouble with unsustainable public and private debt prior to this President, coupled with a completely insolvent financial system, a destined to fail monetary system and numerous stagnant businesses sucking up economic resources.  A real financial restructuring would have taken significant time, and even the most “fiscally conservative” President and Congress would not have been able to move enough roadblocks out of the way to make this recovery painless or quick.  I question whether or not anything could change the direction of the economy in the long run, save for a collapse that would force us to let the free market work and liquidate the welfare state.  But this President ensures that there will not even be a chance for recovery for many many years, regardless of who the next President is.

And it is all by design.

If you are Barack Obama, your plans are working perfectly.  You are driving the economy into the ground, fueling turmoil in the Middle East, weakening our nuclear defenses and supporting the enemies of civilization, and you are lining the pockets of your constituency and pushing us towards such great crises that a society already addicted to government may be forced to its knees wrongfully begging for an even greater paternal one.  If you doubt my argument that the American people are still not awake enough to cause any meaningful change, consider that for all the talk of a backlash against this government, if you look at the Republicans that will take over Congress, almost none of them them would truly be willing to do the things necessary to make our government solvent, break the chains off of our private sector and defend us against our enemies and their abetters, starting with calling them by name, not a tactic like terrorism.

This brings us to Barack Obama’s stance on the Ground Zero mosque.  Months ago I argued that Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense.  I argued that as Islam is a theo-political system, it should not deserve the same Constitutional protections as other religions with a strictly spiritual component.  In effect, to support Islam in this country would be to support a political system incompatible with ours, and intolerant of our pluralistic Judeo-Christian society.  To support Islamic institutions would be to weaken America’s freedom, not strengthen it.  And this is because Islam and America cannot coexist because America is a threat to the Ummah; us infidels would have to be converted by the sword or forced to live as second-class citizens under Islamic law, like Spaniards once did in Cordoba.  Hence the Cordoba Initiative.

Yet Barack Obama consistently sides with Muslims; makes it a point to bow down to Muslims at every turn and has since the start of his Presidency and throughout his public life.  He also studied in the madrass as a child, has had the backing of major players in the Muslim community during his academic and political career and attended Reverend Wright’s church which parrots the same narrative as Imams worldwide.  His true colors showed when he made the Ground Zero mosque a national issue by supporting it.  Howard Dean has gone on record as questioning what Barack Obama could have been thinking politically.  Of course he found it to be a political disaster, lest he should care about its destructiveness on principle.

Barack Obama had to know the firestorm he would create, but he did not care.  He could not help himself when it came to something he truly believed in, jumping to say something unpopular to the American people but instinctive for him.  Just like he did not care about creating fertile soil for economic growth, just like he does not care in my opinion about defending American lives as reflected by his policies.  And when he speaks and says inflammatory things that make political pundits shake their heads in wonder, it is because he is showing who he is, and where his passions lie.  This President is a principled politician, but he supports principles that are crushing the American people.  He is a third world man who gives a second rate speech and believes in the First Amendment as a suicide pact.

This is the most destructive President since FDR, and that it is intentionally so makes it all the more demoralizing.  Until more people realize this, we won’t even have a fighting chance.  We are going to be poorer, weaker and less likely to ever rekindle the flame of freedom in this nation, and I fear that our differences with our political opposition will prove irreconcilable.


John Derbyshire on Immigration and the Racist Obama Administration

July 4, 2010 4 comments

Joyous commentary from the prodigious pessimist Mr. Derbyshire:

Immigration 101. Look: Here’s the immigration issue in a nutshell. Let X be the number of people we — we, the people, as expressed through our democratic procedures — are willing to accept for settlement in this and the next few years. That’s X: the number of people we are willing to give settlement visas to. Now let Y be the number of people, from among the seven billion currently alive on this planet, who wish to come and settle here. Y want to come settle; we’re willing to take in X.

Let’s assume that Y is greater than X — which, in the case of the U.S.A., it certainly is, by a couple of orders of magnitude. The two questions our immigration policy has to answer are, one, what is the value of X? and two, assuming X is greater than zero, how do we select the smaller number, X, from the larger number, Y? That’s it. That’s all there is to immigration policy in the large. The rest is details and fine-tuning. That’s legal immigration, of course. Illegal immigration is a law-enforcement issue. Illegal residents just have to be identified and deported. Fuel up those half million school buses!

There is actually a case for deciding that X, the number of people we should accept for settlement, is zero. Do you actually feel that the U.S.A. is under-populated right now? Maybe I’m swayed somewhat on this — I have to drive the Long Island Expressway. We don’t have to accept anyone for settlement if we don’t want to. The nation belongs to us, its citizens. And certainly when unemployment is at ten percent, the case for zero immigration looks pretty good. Why would we take in new people for settlement when our own citizens can’t find work?

If we collectively decide that we do want to take in immigrants, even in a recession, then discussion moves to the second of my two questions: How do we select the smaller number, X, from the larger number, Y? Say the number of people wishing to come settle in the U.S.A., worldwide, is a hundred million a year — one in seventy of the world’s population. I should think that is likely an under-estimate, but let’s suppose. And let’s further suppose that we have decided to let in a million a year for settlement. How do we pick the million from the hundred million? How do we decide who’s the lucky one, and who are the unlucky ninety-nine?

I’d guess that most Americans, if you asked them this question, would favor some kind of points system. So many points for education and work skills, so many for English fluency, so many for demonstrated talents in art, sport, or music; then negative points taken off for anything suggesting a burden on our public fisc — health problems, criminal record, old age, number of dependents, and so on.

There you are: I just worked out a rational immigration system. Do you think this is anything at all like what Barack Obama has in mind when he talks about “comprehensive immigration reform”? [Laughter]

Once you decide to let people settle in your country, everything else is a matter of human capital, which does matter. The president even said so in his speech — all those tributes to immigrant entrepreneurs and scientists. This is the hardest point for politicians to talk about honestly, though, since our current state ideology pretends that everyone is an Einstein — that people and nations don’t differ at all in their human capital. This is idiotic of course, and nobody really believes it. The Institute of Advanced Study isn’t going to hire me to do nuclear physics research. For some reason, though, we’ve all decided that we should pretend to believe it.

Consider the city of Maywood, California, which Radio Derb reported on last week. This is the city that laid off all its employees, disbanded its police and fire departments, and so on, because insurance companies wouldn’t write the city any policies. Why not? Because the city was hopelessly corrupt and mis-managed. Maywood is 96 percent Hispanic. This being southern California, that means Mexican. Do you think, does even Barack Obama think, that Maywood would be in the trouble it’s in if it was 96 percent Indian software engineers, 96 percent Scottish Presbyterians, 96 percent Jewish Russians, or 96 percent Chinese entrepreneurs? Human capital matters. It matters. If you pretend it doesn’t matter, you end up with … well, Maywood.

I also like how he dispels the whole “nation of immigrants” thing:

“Nation of immigrants”? No we’re not. The original settlers were just moving from one part of British or Dutch territory to another part. That’s not immigration. If there had been no further inflows whatsoever since the founding of the Republic, natural increase alone would have given the U.S.A. a population almost half what it actually was by 1992, the date that demographer Campbell Gibson carried out the computation. So “nation of immigrants” is at best a half truth — kind of an insulting one for the other half of America, the ones who would have been here anyway.

Furthermore, immigration has always been a stop and go affair. For the quarter-century of the Napoleonic Wars, immigration into America practically ceased. It didn’t really pick up until the 1840s. It peaked in the early 1850s, then dropped off during the Civil War. It picked up in the early 1880s, leading into the Great Wave that ended in the 1920s. Then there was a great lull until the late 1960s, a forty-year lull with very low levels.

If you pick out particular regions, the “nation of immigrants” cliché looks even sillier. New England had almost no incoming population for two hundred years, from the 1640s to the 1840s. “Nation of immigrants”? Pah! Lots of us are immigrants, and even more of us have parents or grandparents who are immigrants, but that doesn’t make us a nation of immigrants; it only makes us a nation with immigrants.

And Barack Obama’s assertion that, quote: “We’ve always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants,” is just false. No we haven’t. The phrase “nation of immigrants” was thought up by John F. Kennedy in 1958. To my knowledge, nobody in the previous 180 years of the republic’s existence ever uttered that phrase. It certainly wasn’t commonplace. Funny use of the word “always” there, Mr. President.

He also skewers Obama and Holder as the whiney racists that they are.  With liberty and justice for some.

Black Panther case. Well knock me down with a feather! It turns out that Eric Holder’s Justice Department doesn’t think that civil rights and voting rights laws should be enforced on behalf of white people. Civil rights and voting rights are only for black people. That’s according to J. Christian Adams, the former Justice Department attorney who quit his job to protest the administration’s handling of the voter intimidation case in Philadephia, where Black Panthers in full dress uniform and carrying nightsticks stood at the entrance to a polling place snarling at white voters.

For goodness’ sake, is anyone surprised at this? Barack Obama and Eric Holder are leftist black Americans with enormous chips on their shoulders about race. Obama’s autobiography is full of racial whining. It’s even there in the title: “A story of race and inheritance.” Obama simply couldn’t forgive all those pleasant, middle-class white people he grew up amongst for giving him such a pleasant, middle-class upbringing and education. Same with Holder, who grew up in New York City of the 1950s and 1960s, a city run by white liberals like Robert Wagner and John Lindsay, determined to give smart black kids every possible break in life. Hence Eric Holder’s career: Stuyvesant High School, Columbia University, and easy access to plum lawyering jobs. These guys hate white America for being so damn nice to them.

Human nature’s a funny thing. When black Americans really were cruelly oppressed they produced moral giants like Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington. Once the cruelty ended and America at large started bending over backwards to make amends for it, we began turning out spiteful, whining creeps like Obama and Holder.

We’ll put up with them, of course. We feel we have to. It all comes under the heading of the Slavery Tax, which the U.S.A. will be paying for ever.

Obama and Medvedev Grab a Burger

June 24, 2010 1 comment

I have been studying Russia a lot recently, and with regard to our relations with them I would generally say this: the Russians are deceiving us, “liberalizing” so they can use our capital and technology to advance on and ultimately undermine us, agreeing to ridiculous nuclear weapons reductions agreements so as to weaken our defenses and demanding (and receiving) respect and admiration by Obama, signaling a dangerous fundamental shift in our relations.  The Russian leadership is full of Communist criminals, all who IMHO ultimately wish to turn American into another socialist playground under their control, and letting them come to the US to learn how to build their own Silicon Valley is NOT in our national interest by any stretch of the imagination.  This President is completely suicidal.

Now, moving beyond these vagaries, note the poster in the below picture of Obama and Medvedev:

What was the purpose of “one of the most influential of German Expressionist films and…one of the greatest horror movies of all time,” The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari?  Wikipedia says:

Writers Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer met each other in Berlin soon after World War I. The two men considered the new film medium as a new type of artistic expression – visual storytelling that necessitated collaboration between writers and painters, cameramen, actors, directors. They felt that film was the ideal medium through which to both call attention to the emerging pacifism in postwar Germany and exhibit radical anti-bourgeois art.[1]


I’m only about 75% joking around here.

Jon Voigt Defends Israel

June 22, 2010 Leave a comment

Candor from Jon Voigt in the Washington Times:

Dear President Obama:

You will be the first American president that lied to the Jewish people, and the American people as well, when you said that you would defend Israel, the only Democratic state in the Middle East, against all their enemies. You have done just the opposite. You have propagandized Israel, until they look like they are everyone’s enemy – and it has resonated throughout the world. You are putting Israel in harm’s way, and you have promoted anti-Semitism throughout the world.

You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today. The Jewish people have given the world our greatest scientist and philosophers, and the cures for many diseases, and now you play a very dangerous game so you can look like a true martyr to what you see and say are the underdogs. But the underdogs you defend are murderers and criminals and want Israel eradicated.

You have brought to Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics.

With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel,

Jon Voight

RIP America’s Dignity: “Obama told Netanyahu: Go Home, Don’t Explain From Here”

June 5, 2010 Leave a comment

From Israel National News:

In the hubbub surrounding the “battle of the flotilla,” Netanyahu’s quick reversal of his decision to remain in the United States has been largely ignored. It turns out that Obama told him to leave because he didn’t want Netanyahu to use the White House as a stage on which to present Israel’s side of the story.

The flotilla violence caught Netanyahu in the midst of a diplomatic trip to North America. He was in the Canadian capital of Ottawa at the time, about to leave for Washington for a meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. The meeting was to have been a way for Obama to make up for the humiliation he dealt Netanyahu on his last visit, when he refused to be seen with the Israeli leader in public.

Netanyahu announced immediately after the flotilla news broke that he would remain in North America and would meet with Obama as scheduled. However, within minutes after media reported Netanyahu would continue with his trip as scheduled, he abruptly announced a change of plan and set off immediately for Israel to “deal with the flotilla crisis.”

Behind the scenes, it was Obama officials who caused the turnabout. Globes cites sources in both Jerusalem and Washington who say that Obama officials gave a clear message to Netanyahu’s people: “Don’t come.”

Officials in both Washington and Jerusalem deny that this was the case.

Some sources said that it was precisely the high-profile nature of the visit that scared the Americans. The White House did not wish Obama to be seen sharing the stage with the leader of the country that was under international attack for having “attacked peace activists.”

Netanyahu, for his part, was looking forward to explaining to the world from Washington that the violent activists on the boat in question were “terror activists” with ties to Hamas and Al-Qaeda, who attempted to lynch the minimally-armed soldiers as they rappelled down down their helicopter.

Pamela Geller: “This is about good vs. evil…This is the war against the West.”

June 3, 2010 Leave a comment

Pamela sums up all one needs to grasp over at BigGovernment.

All of the chickens are coming home to roost with the worst possible people running our country: socialist, Islamic sympathizers.