Obama Says Anything — And Does So, Again and Again

The Obama File

Hugh Hewitt says said the caller from Atlanta said, “I have seen more of President Obama than I have of my wife, and I’m a newlywed.”

Funny.  And true.  And sad.  Stung by his defeat in Massachusetts after a personal appearance on behalf of Martha Coakley and a long speech telling Massachusetts voters why they had to send her to Washington, Obama seems intent on punishing the entire nation with speech after speech after speech.

We are to be cajoled into submission.

It isn’t working.  “He talks and talks,” Mark Steyn said on my show Thursday.  “And the more his rhetoric is detached from reality, the more he’s actually devaluing his only currency which is words.”

Obama’s meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday is the perfect example of the political cul-de-sac he finds himself in.  He is trying to use words to change the political weather, but the more he speaks, the more ridiculous his arguments appear.

He told the senators that “they needed to get out there, get out of Washington, out of the echo chamber.”  This is laughable when this past August is recalled.  Democrats went home to their states and districts and found town halls jammed with ObamaCare opponents.  Then Obama urged them to disregard the voters.  They did so, and their political peril is palpable.  Now he is telling them to hold more town halls.

That’s not amazing as Obama’s rewrite of budget history, which somehow ignores that the budget deficit was $161 billion in 2007 and now stands at $1.6 trillion, a staggering number that is spooking markets.  “We’ve also got to get back to fiscal responsibility,” he told the senators, and the listeners outside the room howled.  Not only is Obama not persuading the public of his ideas or his leadership skills, he is shrinking before their very eyes.  It is a poor impersonation of Jon Lovitz, with Obama thinking, “that’s the ticket!” with every paragraph he utters.

Obama does seem to realize that blaming President Bush, which was never very presidential to begin with, has become almost a sign of adolescence.  He is thus pivoting from blaming his predecessor to blaming the Congressional GOP.  Obama told the senators that they had had to face more filibusters in a single year than all of the filibusters of the 1950s and 1960s combined, and blamed the Republicans for obstructionism.  Of course this is nonsense.  Not a single successful partisan filibuster was mounted in 2009, which is not surprising because after Arlen Specter’s switch, the GOP totaled 40 votes.  A handful of Obama nominees languished because significant numbers of Democrats joined Republicans in opposing them, but the idea that obstructionism prevailed throughout 2009 is risible, and Obama who claims 60 votes is just not enough is risible as well.

The entire meeting was comedy though it was intended as drama, and Obama left thinking he’d had another great day, just as he thinks he won his debate with Republicans the Friday before.

While Obama pats himself on the back, however, the unemployment numbers climbed, the budget deficit shocked, the markets tanked and Iran threatened.  Obama is in a bubble of words and surrounded by “advisors” who are clearly overmatched by the world.  Even Republicans have to hope a shuffle is ahead for the senior staff, and that some experienced leadership is brought to 1600.  The country is in a difficult place, and unlike a debate tournament, losing a few rounds has enormous consequences.

We have to hope that Obama recognizes that his speech offensive has become offensive, and that what really needs to be done is some work.  Beginning with a red pen and his absurd budget.  When he asks his party to do anything remotely difficult –and that does not include demanding ruinous taxes on the small businesses they so obviously disdain and in some cases despise– people may begin to listen again.

Or perhaps not.  Obama may already be in reruns in most voters minds, which makes for a long three years ahead.

Source:

The Constitution, Nazis, and the Corpse Man

Canada Free Press

By Jim O’Neill

Recently I’ve noticed several things that the Progressives are having trouble with.  Well, actually a LOT of things, but this article will focus on just a few of them.

First of all, Obama, like most Progressives, seems to have a problem identifying the U.S. Constitution.

In his State of the Union address, Obama stated that “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal….”

Darn near made me want to stand up and salute, (something our POTUS could use some lessons in, by the way).  There’s a problem here, however.  It turns out that “the notion that we are all created equal” is not “enshrined in our Constitution”—it’s from the Declaration of Independence.

Doesn’t say much for Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence

This mistaken attribution is an understandable faux pas for your average “Joe six-pack,” but Obama’s supposed to be a Harvard-trained Constitutional lawyer.  It doesn’t say much for Harvard Law School, or Obama’s grasp of the Constitution, when he confuses the U.S. Constitution, with the Declaration of Independence.

(Note to the White House (and Harvard Law School): they are two totally different documents, with different wording, and different purposes.  They are not interchangeable.  I know—bummer).

One can imagine Obama’s final exam on Constitutional Law:

Harvard Law professor:  “Mister Obama, what are the opening words of the U.S. Constitution?”

Obama:  “Uh, ‘When in the course of human events….’”

Harvard Law professor:  “Close enough!  You pass!”

No wonder these folks have so much trouble following the Constitution.

If I may, let me make a suggestion to the Progressives (and Harvard).  The Cato Institute sells a small book that contains a copy of both the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.  It’s inexpensive, so there’s really no excuse for you not to have one—as a handy reference, you know.

No need to thank me, it’s what I do.

Next, I would like to discuss the Nazis—again.

The Progressives, and their Islamic buddies, are still showing a fondness for equating conservatives with Nazis.  It has been repeatedly pointed out to them, that conservatives are not Nazis—that if anyone’s a Nazi, it’s them.  All to no avail.

Disparaging a conservative, by calling them a Nazi, is no doubt insulting, but it’s also misleading, misguided, and nonsensical.  Nazis are a Far Left phenomena all the way, but this obvious point is simply not registering with the left-wing.

So once more unto the breech, dear friends.  I will write this slowly so our Progressive friends can follow along, and hopefully, finally see the light.  (It’s worth a try, right?)

To understand the roots of Nazism is simplicity itself.  NAZI is an acronym (in German) for Adolph Hitler’s political party, the “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  Take out the words “National,” and “German,” and you’re left with the “Socialist Workers Party.”

The “Socialist Workers Party.”  Hello?  That is unequivocally NOT a conservative outfit, folks—that’s as Far Left as you can get.  I can easily picture a “Socialist Workers Party” being a voting bloc at a Democratic convention—but at a Republican convention?  Puh-leeze.

Adding the concepts “National” and “German,” is what makes Nazism a fascist, as opposed to a communist, variation of Marxism.  The German Nazis (like Mussolini’s fascists) practiced a National brand of Marxism, as opposed to the Russian communists, who practiced a Global brand of Marxism.

It’s illustrative to look at the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.  The Iran-Iraq war was not between different theologies, but between differing interpretations of the same theology, (Sunni Muslims, versus Shi’ite Muslims).

In much the same way, the war between Hitler and Stalin, was basically a turf war between two differing interpretations of the same ideology.

Fascism and Communism are closely related, and Progressivism has links to them both.

So you Progressives can take back your swastikas, Hitler moustaches, and “Sieg heils.”  They’re yours, and always have been.  Here—don’t forget your arm-bands.

The inextricable link between the Nazis and Progressives, helps to explain the Progressive’s fondness for abortion, euthanasia, and population control.  It’s nothing more than the “same old, same old.”  The same old Nazi song and dance, hidden behind new names, new “clothes,” and the passage of time.

It is no coincidence that George Soros, the most visible of the puppet masters behind the modern Progressive movement, and founder of “Project Death in America,” was once a Nazi collaborator.

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance

The Progressive’s link with the Nazis also helps to explain their ever-increasing anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist stance.

If you doubt that anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism is rampant, and growing, in Progressive Europe, then you haven’t been paying attention to what’s going on in “Eurabia” these days.  I strongly suggest that any Jews who consider Progressives to be the best thing since sliced matzah, reconsider their position.  Excepting those with a taste for masochism and suicide, of course.

Study some history—preferably from a history book not written by a Western civilization hating, Judeo/Christian-culture despising, capitalism deploring, left-wing Progressive academic.  You’ll have to search far and wide for such a book, but it’s well worth the search.

In closing, there’s one last thing I’d like to touch on.

The other day Obama repeatedly referred to a U.S. military corpsman, as a “corpse-man.”  The use of such a misnomer needs to be nipped in the bud, before it catches on.

Yelling out “Hey, I need a corpse-man over here!” in the thick of battle, would not only prove unnecessarily alarming to any wounded, but would be detrimental to troop morale as a whole.  Someone needs to inform the POTUS that corpsman is pronounced “core-man”—with the “p” and “s” being silent.

In all seriousness, Navy corpsmen (and Army/Air Force medics) have historically been among some of the bravest people in the U.S. military; often putting their lives on the line in order to help others, and at times paying the ultimate price for doing so.  Many vets, and serving personnel, are alive today only because of some corpsman’s heroic and timely efforts.

The POTUS would do well to read up on some of the many corpsmen who have won the Medal of Honor over the years.  At the very least, the CIC (Commander in Chief) should learn how to pronounce the honorable name of “corpsman,” properly.

Source: