from eddobloggo.com
Tuesday's strong gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia lend no credence to the title of a recent book by Democrat strategist/spinmeister James Carville: 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. In fact, post-election, Carville has sent an e-mail to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee warning that the GOP could rebound in 2010 and take over the Senate just as they did in 1994.

But rather than saying "We told you so" about Obama's loss of luster, rather than gloating over these impressive turn-around victories, we should make a single, unarguable point -- that if Democrats had won these governorships the left would be screaming from every media organ and rooftop about the Dear Leader's strength and righteousness instead of warning of the ominous possibilities inherent in the 2010 mid-term elections.

The previous point is validated when the left's spin-doctoring regarding the results of the special election in New York's tiny (low-population) 23rd Congressional District is examined...

Away from its social implications, Maine's same-sex marriage referendum defeat sends a further warning -- especially to liberals and RINO's like Maine's own senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- that they had better be more in tune with their constituents' growing distrust of the leftist agenda (universal health care, cap and tax and the climate bill) or risk ouster in the next election.

The bad news about these elections cutting Obama down to size is that he will be forced to ramp up his never-ending campaigning in an attempt to woo independents back into his corner. 

The good news is that there are so few of them left to woo.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com 

The big question asked from surprisingly far-flung corners of America this week: "What's your take on New York 23, Ed?"  Of course, the question refers to the special off-year election in the 23rd Congressional District here in upstate New York (not my district -- an adjacent one to the north).

It began as a three-way race.  A Conservative Party of New York State candidate endorsed by such Republican Party luminaries as Sarah Palin, a liberal Democrat and an even more liberal GOP candidate who, despite her ACORN connection and other left-progressive stances, was controversially endorsed by a surprisingly partisan Newt Gingrich before she suddenly dropped out of the race yesterday.

While there are many more conservative states than New York, most do not have a formal Conservative Party that appears on a regular ballot line.  In that regard, those of us who have always opposed the kind of out-of-control taxation, spending, social programs and social engineering that liberal New Yorkers have pioneered should consider ourselves fortunate that the Conservative Party of New York State exists. 

But we don't always have an alternative option to Republicans and Democrats in each and every state and federal election.  For every Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani and John Faso that the CPNYS has backed, we have been co-fed Republicans like John McCain and Jim Tedisco. (Tedisco was defeated by Scott Murphy here in the recent 20th CD special election to fill Kirstin Gillibrand's seat vacated when she was tapped to fill Hillary Clinton's vacated Senate seat.  John Faso was defeated by the disgraced Eliot Spitzer in the state's last gubernatorial election.)

Why?  Because those candidates have represented the lesser of two or three evils to our so-called Conservative Party leaders.

Sadder still, Conservatives have never really changed any liberals' minds in New York. To the contrary, our elected R-C governors have been notorious for taking a left turn somewhere along the way in order to get themselves re-elected with the support of those all-powerful downstate liberals.  Nelson Rockefeller was the first-ever RINO.  More recently, George Pataki, elected as a Conservative, followed Rocky's liberal gubernatorial lead in order to remain in power.

It was a kick to be among the tiny number of New Yorkers whose C-Party votes helped Ronald Reagan carry our liberal state.  Ironically, if Conservative Doug Hoffman wins in the 23rd CD election on Tuesday it will be by a margin of votes that exceeds the meager 30,000 or so Conservative Party of New York State votes received by the greatest Conservative politician of our time, Ronald Reagan.

It is a kick to hear and read about people from the other 49 states -- plus many from my own state -- who never realized that there is a Conservative Party of New York State -- that are suddenly talking about the next "change" in America beginning right here in rural upstate New York.  Make no mistake, despite our relative proximity to the Greater New York City tri-state metropolis, this part of America is as much flyover country as is Kansas or North Dakota.

My take, therefore, is that liberal and conservative Americans alike are quite curious to know whether some third party -- any third party -- can reclaim the America that once existed as the "shining city on a hill". 

Taken from The Gospel According to Matthew 5:14-16..."You are the light of the world, a city set on a hill cannot be hid." it is a passage that Ronald Reagan often quoted in his speeches to project his view of America as a beacon of freedom and hope in the world.

We will see this Tuesday whether the possibility of reclamation exists so soon after the light was dimmed by the smokescreen of hollow idealistic-sounding rhetoric. We will know whether Ronald Reagan's challenge has been answered a year from this Tuesday.

eddobloggo home/archive

If you've lost count of the number of times the president has made speeches, post-election campaign pleas, mini-speeches and speechlets about the need to overhaul health care you're certainly not alone. If someone said 1,000, 3,000 or even 5,000 times you'd probably say "Is that all?"

It is that constant droning on about key points in his agenda -- like the yet-to-be defined Obamacare and the yet-to-be proven creation and rescue of millions of jobs -- that eventually makes many Americans tune out and become indifferent to subject matter that has already been covered ad nauseam. Of course, that is the desired effect.

Perhaps the first time you heard of a particular program that they had begun to drone on about, you disagreed intensely.  Thirty-seven times later, however, you became so sick of the redundancy that you just tuned it out from that moment on. By the time it ultimately got crammed down your throat, all you could do was throw your hands up and say "Yup, that was another stupid expensive idea I never liked."

And it works the same way with the media. You probably wonder how and why the White House would choose a boring stammerer like Robert Gibbs to be the president's daily spokesman; why they would throw an inarticulate fumferer in front of a crowd of glib, highly-trained and experienced interrogators every day.

Well, with the majority of the media already in the tank, all Gibbs has to do is bore a few critical reporters to tears with his Ummms, Ahhhs and interminable droning before he finally snaps them all out of it with a "Times up!" announcement.

Speaking of real drones, while the Dear Leader dithers about troop strength in Afghanistan he sent the Secretary of State to do some heavy lifting in the region.

One reporter in a crowd of Pakistani journalists (they not only know how to ask hardball questions, but they have the stamina to stay awake until they are definitively answered) asked the First Lady of Pants Suits how she would define terrorism.  "Is it the killing of people in drone attacks like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week?" 

Hillary's quick reply: "No." 

The FLOPS also said, before a group of newspaper editors during a meeting in Lahore: "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to." She even admitted that "there is a war going on," and implied that the Obama administration is committed to helping Pakistan defeat the "insurgents and terrorists" who threaten the stability of that nuclear-armed nation.

Isn't this the same kind of indelicate, bellicose rhetoric that Obama has taken pains to decry and apologize for on most of the earth's populated continents?  How could an avowed progressive even dream of saying these kinds of antithetical things in the era of change?

It appears that while the drones keep droning on the Queen is setting up her own hive. 

eddobloggo home/archive

...when you know Obama can just appoint a V-chip Czar and try to tax rich Conservatives out of the media business.     

 

from eddobloggo.com      
At very least, and In keeping with their Marxist model, a tax or penalty could be assessed against local cable providers who wish to retain what the administration considers to be offensive networks. The cost of such penalties would be passed along to consumers who might then be forced to think twice about watching so much of un-American FOX versus its competitors who so unswervingly toe the patriotic administration line.

However,  it could end up being a lot more difficult than White House thugs believe to silence the powerful voices heard on high-wattage AM radio stations.  Aggressive jamming of radio signals, as was done continuously behind the Iron Curtain, would eventually put a forced end to talk radio as we know it, forcing relentless critics of the administration to develop an underground alternative to their current on-air activity.

Rather than being silenced and outfoxed the alternative would, perhaps, look something like this...

Far-fetched? Extreme?  Ridiculous?

No more so than an administration crying  "unfair" and demonizing a highly-rated mainstream TV network.  No more so than the White House crying "un-American" whenever they are criticized.  No more so than attempting to fine-tune the First Amendment.

In real world America it is the right that needs a Fairness Doctrine.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com According to Gallup Poll®  Americans’ approval of the job that Congress is doing is at 21% this month, down significantly from last month’s 31% and from the recent high of 39% in March 2009.  This is dismal performance no matter how you slice it.   Congressional approval had risen sharply in the months after President Obama’s inauguration -- from 19% in January to 31% in February and 39% in March. Approval then began to slip gradually, dipping to 31% by the end of the summer before falling precipitously in October.

"Throw whatever you want at me -- keep it coming!"

The percentage of Americans who approve of the way Congress is handling its job fell to 21% in October from 31% in late August with the biggest decline coming among those who identify as Democrats, 

Similarly, Gallup has tracked the president's approval since day one.  His approval reading today is at 52%, down from 69% on Inauguration Day.  More significantly, the percentage of those who disapprove of Obama's performance has skyrocketed from 12% to 42% during his nine months in office.  The biggest decline coming from those who identify as Independent.

While Congress consists of many more Democrats than Republicans at this time, the House of Representatives and Senate nonetheless remain bi-partisan entities, save for a handful of Independents.

The White House, on the other hand, is occupied exclusively by one party at a time.  However, it is often independent voters who get any given president elected, as was certainly the case in Obama's non-landslide victory over McCain last year.

Given the precarious position in which both the Democrat majority in Congress and the president currently find themselves, wouldn't it make more sense for all of them to be more attentive to the concerns of those who rate them so poorly? 

Instead we have Obama raving and ranting about how tireless he plans to be in getting each and every one of his socialist/environmentalist big-spending programs pushed through Congress.

"Throw whatever you want at me -- keep it coming!" he now grits his teeth and points a threatening finger at his critics.  Who didn't didn't know that his agenda can be passed into law any time he can get the Democrat majority's quackers in a row?

Depending upon the website at which you read this column, reaction to it will range from "Right on!" to "Get over it loser!" to "You need to be on a watch list!" (as if the Fishy Czar isn't already checking in from week to week).  If you are one of those who is still capable, crunch the numbers yourself and decide what you would do if the president's shoe were on your foot.

The Dear Leader says you should keep on throwing stuff at him.  That's one presidential suggestion that makes all the sense in the world, so don't let him bully you into quitting now.

from eddobloggo.com

It has been my assumption from the start that Obamacare, at least some watered-down somewhat de-socialized version of it, would squeak through Congress even if it takes a power-abusive nuclear option play to get the Democrats' ball into the end zone. 

So when it happens, no one will be able to say "I told you so".  Neither will they be able to accuse this renegade scribe of avoiding the political realities of Troika Amerika.

On the other hand, as a result of relentless protests and warnings about the president's proclivity to try and make each of his initiatives as expensive and socialistic as possible, even the Dear Leader has been forced, for many weeks now, to defend his rapidly devolving universal health care program(s) du jour. 

Socialized medicine is now being described as deficit neutral, waste-reducing and as conservatively priced as any complete overhaul of any system that accounts for 17% of a nation's economy could possibly be.

Unfortunately, with Congress' return to the Capitol after its summer break, town hall meetings and in-their-face rallies have come to a crashing halt.  The momentum has shifted slightly back to the Democrats who, despite their belittlement of a spontaneous movement that was able to take Obama's poll numbers down to reality as quickly as he could appoint three dozen czars, have seen a small up-tick in approval of their socialized medicine efforts.

The good news is that where there was zero accountability and transparency before the town hall meetings and protests there is now a token bi-partisanship (Obama realizes that blue dogs can be RINO's too) and an effort to be a tad bit more specific about the terms and cost of Obamacare.

The bad news is that while the success of protests against complete overhaul of the present system may have peaked, the farthest-left Democrats are reunited and are being buoyed by their komrades' encouragement. 

As the next wave of protests and media campaigns are being ramped up, Congressional Democrats appear to have forgotten the August shouts of their constituents.  They obviously need to remain in their comfort zones for as long as possible after their harrowing town hall experiences.

But on November 2, 2010 (start the countdown) Conservative, Republican, Independent and Libertarian voters with long memories will be just as eager to vote as Donald Duque and Minnie Mauss were the last time around.

Unafraid of the news media continuing the interrogations begun by those highly organized extremist astro-turfers, disgruntled neocon fringers, gun-toting nazi terrorist and the rest of the vast right wing conspiracy (at least the Clintons aren't afraid to admit it), they are once again able to bask in the light of the president's perpetual propaganda flame and the flailing of hands that spreads the smoke of obfuscation at Joe's and Nancy's inane press conferences.

During this weekend dedicated to a brave voyage of discovery, take heart in the words of Christopher Columbus and determine to continue your efforts in this fight against irresponsible spending and governmental overburdening despite the odds that are so strongly against our complete success...

"By prevailing over all obstacles and distractions, one may unfailingly arrive at his chosen goal or destination."

In these threatening times we do not need to re-discover our great nation and we certainly should not go along with those who would arbitrarily overhaul everything in it for an agenda that, since its inception, has been foreign to the United States of America.

The greatness of America has already been discovered and built upon.  All we need to do now is take it back so that the greatness can be preserved.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

It makes me wonder whether the votes were tabulated before or after Obama dissed the Dalai Lama in favor of  preserving good lender/debtor relations with our militaristic Mao anniversary-celebrating Chi-Com benefactors. 

Was it before or after the administration's latest re-pledge that the ongoing "good war" in Afghanistan will never be abandoned and that a ramped-up troop count is, at this very moment, under consideration?

We know for sure that the voting occurred some time after that day in April when the president went to church and played with his kids and their new dog as Navy Seals were allowed to blow the heads off Somali pirates in order to rescue a captured US ship's captain.

My own list of Barack H. Obama's accomplishments thus far -- smooth oratory, beer summits and heart-tugging photo ops excluded -- contains but one item.  It was the permission he gave for military professionals to do their thing in the tricky aforementioned rescue of Maersk-Alabama Capt. Richard Phillips. 

Such a decision by someone also known as "Commander-in-Chief" is not exactly part of the qualifications you would expect from a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Then again, there was a Nobel Prize given to Yassir Arafat who was rarely seen out of uniform.

Another thing that makes you go hmm is whether that recent trip to Copenhagen was more about being on the Scandinavian sub-continent while his Nobel Prize was being announced than about upstaging his wife's Chicago pitch to the Olympic Committee.  It could have turned out like their summer vacation in Cape Cod that coincidentally enabled the president to be on the spot as Ted Kennedy breathed his last and the memorial ceremonies for the life-long universal health care advocate unfolded.

Perhaps the skyrocketing price of gold, due in large part to the US Dollar's decline under Obama's watch, had something to do with delaying the prompt minting of his Nobel medal.  On the other hand, the cash prize is no longer worth what it used to be when Al Gore won it.

Even if Al Gore is one of your heroes, it would be a big stretch to try and turn his global warming claims and pro-environmental advocacy into a world-renowned fight for peace.  However, like Barack Obama, Gore has been an outspoken critic of President George W. Bush and can even boast of beating Bush fair and square in the popular vote in the 2000 election. 

International Bush hate/vindictiveness appears to be a big motivator for Nobel Committee members who had over 200 other candidates from which to choose.  Obviously, many of those who were snubbed in favor of Obama's world-wide recognition factor and anti-Bushness are long-time peace activists with extensive accomplishments to show for their efforts.

Of the early comments about the Nobel anomaly, South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Rep. Gresham Barrett said it best.  "I'm not sure what the international community loved best -- his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran," Barrett said. 

Other commentators have taken this ridiculous situation and made it even more ridiculous by insinuating that the Nobel Committee was eager to select Obama because he is the first African-American president.  In 1964 that same body selected the very brave and well-credentialed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  Playing the race card in this case, therefore, is unproductive and misguided.

Plain and simple, Obama makes these internationals feel good for the very same reasons that he made the majority of American voters feel good.  He says what they want to hear and he makes promises that they believe he can fulfill.  But despite Obama's rhetoric, look around the world and ask yourself the question that each Nobel Peace Prize Committee member should have asked himself before casting their votes for Barack Obama:

Is the world a more peaceful place than it was on January 19, 2009? 

eddobloggo home/archive

Jackson opined that "children deserve safe passage to school" while Farrakhan called Derrion Albert "a special young man." Thus far, the president has said only that Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who once led the Chicago Public Schools, will travel to the Windy City "to talk with local officials."

At this point, Chicago is as much a war zone as Afghanistan.  Since it is so much closer to the doorstep of every American's home, renewing law and order there should be an extremely high priority.  Black-on-black crime in particular, largely composed of murderous gang activities, is completely out of control.

Not to specifically blame long-time Chicago residents like Rev. Jackson, Minister Farrakhan or Arne Duncan for not doing more to help make Chicago a safer city, but to date their efforts have had little impact on shifting the crime and violence paradigm. Likewise, the community organization skills of Barack Obama and the remaining Daley Machine's social workers and academics have not improved the lives of those who live in the inner city.

That poll in which 62% of surveyed adults responded that the quality of their kids' lives will not be as good as their own speaks volumes about the condition of our nation.  In large measure, the state of the union is due to the failings of our politicians, educators, social engineers and religious leaders and their fear of advocacy for the values that even recent generations had been allowed to be taught.

Given the president's history, popularity and influence in his adopted home town, flying to Chicago on the overused Air Force One to make a pitch for better behavior there and in all urban American quarters would not be objectionable -- even to critics, like me, of Obama's gratuitous travel.

Even in the absence of an invitation to Derrion Albert's funeral, Obama's nearby presence and an impassioned speech filled with warnings, suggestions and imagery inspired by this young man's violent death would certainly be a more effective way to address Chicago's problems than the PC, legalistic, backroom conferences the USAG and his entourage will be attending.

Simply stated, if parents want the quality of their children's lives to be at least as good as their own, they need to get back to teaching -- and advocating for the teaching in our schools -- of the values that enabled their own parents and grandparents to provide an improved life for them.   Derrion Albert's upbringing somehow enabled him to succeed in the inner city.  His grandfather, Joseph Walker, told WLS-TV that his grandson was a good kid who didn't deserve to die.

Rest in Peace, Derrion Albert.

"He was in Bible class this Tuesday night. Church on Sunday," Mr. Walker said.  "I have no trouble out of my grandson whatsoever. This thing that happened to him is so horrific that we just don't know what we're going to do. We lost a really dear friend in my grandson. He was a blessed child."

Joseph Walker and Madelyn Payne Dunham (Barack Obama's late grandmother) help to make my point about returning to the values of previous generations.

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

 

So, you don’t think we're moving towards socialism -- it’s a crazy idea, right?  Before you dismiss the thought entirely, just take a look at these points.  It's not a Democrat vs. Republican or Liberal vs. Conservative issue.  It's a freedom vs. bondage issue.  Please take notice!

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848.  In it they described how the proletariat can take power from the bourgeoisie.  There were ten commandments in their manifesto which, if implemented, would bring about the full realization of the communist utopian dream -- the most advanced form of socialism. Present-day facts follow each commandment:

1. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. (Taxation and eminent domain powers are in place to do just that.  Eminent domain is already being enforced regularly to take private property for public good.)
   2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (A graduated tax system is already being used to re-distribute wealth.)
   3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (The inheritance tax system is in place to raise them to whatever gets passed by the politicians.  They could make them as high as they want; eventually leaving little or nothing nothing in the estates of the deceased.)
   4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (This is a reference to police power.  If you rebel, you will be locked up.  Rebelling, of course includes not paying your taxes, in which case they will take your property to “make them whole” and take you away.)
   5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.  (No need to elaborate on this one.  The banks did NOT need to be bailed out! Many might have gone out of business but the system would have survived and remained independent.)
   6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. (There is more and more talk of the Fairness Doctrine, or taxing radio stations as much as 100% on programs that don’t include promotion of the government’s agenda.  Obama’s Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd has said that he believes Hugo Chavez does a good job handling a media.  Doesn’t that scare you?
   7.  Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (Government takeover of the largest US auto maker...the healthcare industry is obviously next on the agenda.  Once they control insurance, manufacturing and other business segments won’t be far from takeover.  Could you have imagined anything like this happening just a couple of years ago? Be honest.
   8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (Unionization; pushing card check so employers and dissenting employees won’t have a choice about whether to be unionized.  Unions are beholden to the ruling party and vice versa.)
   9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. (Most of the population once lived in rural areas.  Now, most people live in cities.  The process is moving along in the “right” direction.)

2. 10.   Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. (Free education…hmmm.  Who chooses the curriculum?  Khrushchev told Kennedy that the Soviets would not need missiles to bring communism to the U.S.; it would be done though the schools via indoctrination.  You cannot help but notice that many of the thirty-somethings are thinking in a way that was unimaginable not too long ago.  Could their education have had something to do with that?)

Making people completely dependent on education, health care, housing and as many other aspects of government as possible is the way that tyrants gain power over the population.  

Obtaining "free stuff" actually comes at a very high cost -- loss of choice.  Of course, you will also be taxed up to 90% to enable you to get all of that "free" stuff.  Once WE THE PEOPLE lose the power of choice, we lose our ability to have a voice.  If you can choose one company over an other; one school over another; one politician over another, you have power.  Without it you are powerless.  You still have the power to choose... what'll it be?

Saul Alinsky, admitted communist and the “father of community organizing”, incorporated these ideas into his teachings.  The actual techniques included assimilation and non-exposure of one’s true beliefs. 

Concealed to the greatest extent possible, Barack Obama was a student of and taught in one of Saul Alinsky’s schools.  Hillary Clinton wrote her thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinsky. 

You might be right if you think that recent events are all happening by coincidence.  However, it is undeniable that they are happening!  Not one of my stated points has been made up. 

Please don’t make this a Republican/Democrat issue because I did not post this to get a Republican elected.  Rather, this is a plea.  I'm pleading with you to pay attention to someone who has been through this before.

 

DON'T JUST LET IT HAPPEN!

---

Today's [edited] commentary was originally posted as a reader blog by Livia Sappington at the Palm Springs Desert Sun website.

---

About the Author:

Livia Sappington was born in Budapest, Hungary and was raised in its soviet-style socialist system. In 1973 Livia illegally left Hungary via the former Yugoslavia and eventually crossed the border into Italy where she and her fiance spent a year in a refuge camp. If captured, Livia would have spent many years in a Hungarian prison. With the help of the IRC (International Rescue Committee) Livia arrived in New York City in 1974 -- unable to speak English -- with a bankroll of $60. Later, through self-education, reading, and hard work, Ms. Sappington built a couple of businesses and was instrumental in bringing German equity into the USA for shopping center development.

eddobloggo home/archive

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com 

The last time they turned the mic over to Hugo Chavez at the UN he opened with a slapstick routine about the room smelling of sulfur. George W. Bush had addressed the General Assembly earlier from the same podium, so Chavez' shtick drew big laughs from fellow America haters by his equating of the President of the United States with el diablo.

 

Three years later: "It doesn't smell of sulfur here anymore.  It smells of something else. It smells of hope," the Venezuelan dictator told the UN on Wednesday.  Earlier, Libya's strongman Muammar Qaddafi had declared to the same gathering that "We'd be content and happy if Obama can stay president forever."

 

Speaking of staying as president forever, Qaddafi has held his position since 1969 while the relative novice, Chavez, has been Venezuela's top dog since 1998.  If Obama wants "re-election" advice, these guys and the similarly supportive Castro brothers, with 50 years of Marxist/socialist dictatorship under their belts, are just the crowd to be hanging with.

 

Of course, the American left is ecstatic over these dictators' acknowledgments of the hope and change they have found in their president.  On the same day as Obama's UN teleprompter drone-athon (perhaps daily professorial philosophical lectures are still a bit of a novelty to foreigners whose press coverage is, shall we say, a bit more limited than our own) a video of happy American school children singing the Dear Leader's praises hit YouTube. 

 

The dictators' love raises the question: Had Qaddafi, Chavez and the Castros pronounced Obama so sweet-smelling a year ago in the final days of the campaign, would their glowing propaganda endorsements have helped or hurt the president on Election Day? If not, we're in far bigger trouble than anyone could ever imagine.

 

In any case, our nation's case of buyer's remorse is revealed in Obama's continuing decline in the polls and in the growing coalesced protest movement that has created more true neo-cons than the smug left ever imagined possible -- especially after such a resounding Conservative defeat not quite a year ago.

 

But it's not just right-wingers who see through the Obama hypocrisy.  The ultra-left is pretty upset about his limited prosecution of their anti-war, socialized medicine, gay rights and environmental agendas. 

 

We're even hearing from the Gitmo prisoners that he pledged to support with American citizens' rights and the immediate closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.  Ahmed al-Darbi, a 34-year old Saudi who is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism, told the court in December that he hoped Obama would "earn back the legitimacy the United States has lost in the eyes of the world,"

 

In a note passed to his lawyer, al-Darbi now says that he is disappointed the Guantanamo prison remains open and the military court still holds hearings.  "I say to him now that he has gone astray," al-Darbi lamented.

 

So what does "hope" smell like?  No one really knows.  But oddly the stench of sulfur emanating from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was never reported by any of the aforementioned. 

 

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, was overcome by the Holocaust denier's disgusting smell and he plainly said so. To their credit, dozens of delegates from most of the European nations, Canada, Australia and the United States got up and left during Ahmadinejad's speech, but the diplomats who remained applauded as the Iranian political leader continued his address.

 

Despite surprisingly strong subsequent statements by European leaders regarding Ahmadinejad's ramped-up nuclear development program, our own president apparently wants to stay sweet-smelling to those who matter least by remaining idealistically and unrealistically professorial, speaking about "the goal of a world without nuclear weapons" and of the legalistic breaking of rules and sanctions.

 

The next time they visit the UN, Qaddafi and Chavez could sing a little duet with some second-graders from New Jersey as their backup...

 

Barack Hussein Obama

He is so very clever

We would be content and happy if he were president forever

mmm, mmm, mm!

 

Barack Hussein Obama

He does it all so well

The UN has been cleared of Bush's sulfur smell

mmm, mmm, mm!

 

Then again, our enemies' song will probably be very different by then.

 

eddobloggo home/archive

 from eddobloggo.com

The following is an Obama-on-Obamacare media blitz quote excerpted from today's ABC TV interview: 

 

"Now there are some who are, setting aside the issue of race, more passionate about the idea of whether government can do anything right, and I think that that's probably the biggest driver of some of the vitriol."

 

Reading a statement like this, I can hear fellow Conservatives and allied libertarians and independents saying things like "Who didn't know that?" and "You're preaching to the choir, Mr. President" and "Hey Martha, I think he finally gets it."

 

But then there's that word "vitriol" right at the end of his carefully-prepared, well rehearsed talking point. 

 

So as the opposition to Obamacare is suddenly absolved of the outright hatred of which we had previously been accused (such labels as nazis, racists, right-wing extremists, brown shirts and the Lunatic Christian Right  Fringe to name a few of the applied epithets), this long-awaited acknowledgment that our criticisms are not founded in personal or racial animosity may seem refreshing to some. 

 

That, of course, is the desired effect.  Obama wants you to come over to his side as a result of this validation that it's only your disenchantment with government and your disbelief in its ability to properly execute even the simplest of programs.  That's all that has you riled up about his efforts to establish a huge multi-tiered bureaucracy of big government-run health care that will eventually morph into socialized medicine once privateers opt out of the program. 

 

He wants you to stop being so riled up and vitriolic.  He wants you to believe that because you know that he knows what really drives your opposition, he will be so careful not to allow your worst fears to become reality. 

 

I can hear the gullible saying things like "We can chill out now" and "We can cut Obama some slack" and "Hey Martha, I think he finally gets it." 

 

But what they would be forgetting is that they never heard the president play the race card or label them with hate-filled terms in the first place.  They never heard the president hurl epithets or bring his opposition's religious beliefs into the argument. 

 

Even when called a liar in front of all of his partisans, Obama graciously accepted Rep. Wilson's apology.  Despite the color of his own skin, the president continues to go out of his way to distance himself from those like Jimmy Carter and Bill Cosby who have used the R-word so egregiously since he emerged on the American scene.

 

All along it has been the administration's shills, led by Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and Howard Dean, who have hate-mongered and fear-mongered against the right's coalition of opposition to the president's health care initiative. 

 

It has been ultra-libs and outright socialists who have tried to counter the groundswell of opposition to Obamacare and smear those in the non-traditional media who have spearheaded the largest American protest movement since those aforementioned shills took to flashing peace signs at everyone they knew on and off-campus. 

 

At the same time, they have also chided the president for not being socialistic enough and for appearing willing to compromise with Conservatives in order to insure passage of at least a watered-down version of his bill. 

 

What you didn't hear during today's media blitz was an acknowledgment that the left's belief that only government can do anything right is the biggest driver of their vitriol and their intense hate for anyone who chooses to believe otherwise -- including the president himself, at times.

 

Thankfully, I can hear Martha saying "Hey George, if you believe that media blitz stuff you heard on the news today you'll also believe that Obamacare won't add one dime to our deficits."

 

eddobloggo home/archive

from eddobloggo.com

What if, as was the case exactly a year ago when Joe the Plumber inquired of then-candidate Obama "Your new  tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" Joe the Congressman had interrupted the president's speech to a joint session of Congress the other night to blurt out a question instead of a declaration?

It might have sounded like this: "Was that last statement about no coverage for illegal aliens really truthful, Mr. President? Not according to the wording of H.R. 3200 Section 246."

The part of this story that is so similar to last year's Joe the Plumber episode is that Obama had come to the congressman's neighborhood just as uninvited as when he showed up on Samuel Wurzelbacher's block in Toledo last year. Among other things, the assistant plumber was branded a racist and a fear monger for daring to question the black candidate right in front of his own home.

Similarly, as a result of the legislative branch's Democrat majority and continued media coddling, the president was just as un-expectant of interrogation and/or confrontation, a year later. That, despite months-long criticism and protest of his policies by the sleeping giant whom he had awakened as much by making noise as often possible as by his unabashed socialism and out-of-control spending.

You'd think that one so adept at delegating, one who was able to appoint nearly three dozen czars to do his bidding without confirmation or oversight, would be smart enough to lay low in times of controversy, allowing the still-slobbering media and his eager shills to do the heavy lifting for him.

After the speech (Joe the Congressman's outburst, of course, made it somewhat memorable) any contradictory wording in the Obamacare bill was quickly amended to add credibility to its namesake's claim that no benefits for illegal aliens would be included.

That clarification, apparently, was due entirely to Rep. Wilson's breech of decorum. Therefore, whether the congressman's censure was necessary after a prompt, unequivocal apology to the president, taxpayers will owe a debt of gratitude to Joe Wilson if the bill ever becomes law.

As a result of this incident we have learned that calling the president a liar can be a censurable offense. Most of us were unaware of that fact as censure or rebuke were never prosecuted when Democrats applied the L-word to the previous president within the halls of Congress.

However, you might wonder if Joe Wilson had blurted out a pointed question instead of "You lie!" would he have met with any less Democrat hostility, particularly as that applies to the accusations that Joe the Congressman is a racist.

It might also make you wonder what hostile term liberals would apply to the growing number of persons of color who disagree with the president's agenda and have grown sick and tired of his hypocrisy, duplicity and condescending attitude.

Perhaps that is why Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday, in response to a question about the Jimmy Carter assertion that criticisms like Wilson's are "based on racism and rooted in fears of a black president," that Obama doesn't think that the criticisms of his policies are based on the color of his skin.

It is easy, especially in the case of Republican southerners like Congressman Wilson, for liberals to play the race card whenever a white Conservative takes a stance that opposes the president.  If you are white and speak out or blog out against Obama's policies someone is sure, sooner or later, to suggest that your complaints about the first president of color are racially motivated.

New York's African-American governor, David Patterson, pathetically tried to co-opt those DNC Talking Points sentiments in an effort to explain away his dismal 25% approval rating in one of the nation's most liberal, non-racist Democrat states.  To his credit, the president rebuked Patterson personally for going there and sent the message through Gibbs, yesterday, that Carter is off-base, as well. 

eddobloggo home/archive