The Bizarro President
72 hours after the Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253, Barack Obama finally checked in with the American people — while still on vacation in Hawaii. With millions of anxious eyes fixated on television screens, the president emerged onto the tubes with an unpresidential look that suggested he had just finished filming a nightclub scene with Eva Mendes from the sequel to Hitch.
After assuming his familiar position behind a microphone, Obama assured the country that “we (his administration) will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” but this was just the president paying lip service to national security in an obligatory speech. It was just last month that he said, “I will not rest until all Americans who want work can find work.” Unemployment is still over 10% and the small decrease to the overall rate we’ve seen since then was attributed to the holiday hiring season.
Meanwhile, the president has managed to find plenty of time to hit the links and work on his golf game. So when the president uses the phrase “I or we will not rest” until something is done, does it really mean anything?
[More]
Popularity: 8% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Joe Says:
I’ve said from the the get go that Obama is not his own man. He was a blank slate (no history) pretty face (first black) that could read the message on the teleprompter. All the socialists in America were promised a utopia and all the regular folks were overwhelmed with positive messaging from the media. He won the election with out a clue as to what he wanted to do in office except look big and important. Unfortunately for Obama his handlers are inept and he will be lucky if he finishes his first (only) term.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 9:58 am
nomdeblog Says:
Agree Joe that the TelePrompTer is simply in it to feed his narcissism. He isn’t well read enough and is too lazy to be a socialist. He just does whatever his stage managers want to allow him to strut on stage.
“Unfortunately for Obama his handlers are inept and he will be lucky if he finishes his first (only) term”
But what if his handlers are not inept? What if they are like Hollywood producers and just using Obama to read their script and when Obama becomes like the pathetic Norma Desmond in the movie Sunset Boulevard, then they will attempt to cast him off by promoting him to some faux/noble position in the UN which Obama will like because he thinks of himself as being above America anyway. He’s a ruler, a King; not a servant of the American people. His only motivation is to get constant adulation. Soon he will turn on the American people (like Norma Desmond did on her gigolo/screenwriter) because they are slowly onto him . Then his handlers will have to get rid of him, he will have served their purpose to socialize the American economy
If these stage managers get control of 1/6th of the economy in Health and then Cap and Tax ; they will Europeanize America. That America has sunk this low is stunning. So I’m no longer confident the Tea Parties will take back America in 2010. That’s the worry.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Joe Says:
“That America has sunk this low is stunning.” Yeah but not at all surprising. I witnessed some commercial exchange between an Alberta based company and a US based company. The Alberta company was much freer to make its decisions according to good business practices whereas the American company had to comply with a bunch of Federal and to a much lesser extent State regulations that had nothing to do with good business.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Cynapse Says:
There’s no such thing as a “sudden” change in the lumbering US landscape. How come onone of you partisans were so worried about debt when Reagan slashes taxes simultaneously to skyrocketing spending? Where were your cries about frrrreeeedom when Bush introduced the patriot act?
If “Barack Obama” hadn’t been elected there would be no tea parties and America would be continuing down the same path.
Every time you go hysterical about terrorism, the government will snatch that much more power. Why haven’t you figured out the game yet?
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Undecided Voter Says:
Well nothing could match Bush Jr’s bad record on things like fighting terrorism. And how bad was it, well since you ask, it was so bad that hes not defending it even in retirement.
Must make al Qaida happy since Bush/Cheney decided to invade Iraq & and Afghanistan instead of going after them. The West should not be involved with tribal warfares but must concentrate on those who would hurt them.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
nomdeblog Says:
“Reagan slashes taxes simultaneously to skyrocketing spending? “
Because tax revenues went up, they always do when you cut taxes. Also because “the rich” actually ended up paying more, because their deductions were removed. Also because deficits run up to fight the Evil Empire were minuscule as a percentage of GDP. Whereas Obama’s are the largest since WWII. It is about proportions which are now insanely out of whack. This is by hypocritical Democrats who ran against Bush’s deficits and then tripled them with more to come.
As to the Patriot Act; first in a state of War some freedoms go. Second, I have yet to hear a case where there was abuse, third we know of wire tapings that saved lives. The Detroit bomber should be in Gitmo , we are at War; he should not be in a civil system.
“Why haven’t you figured out the game yet?”
The game is being figured out by Americans who see the incompetence of this regime on Foreign Policy. Letting Gitmo prisoners go to Yemen where the prisoners who attacked the USS Cole have already escaped and are back with al Qaeda is leaving everyone speechless. Ditto the political correctness about ignoring the Fort Hood murderer.
But since Obama cannot control the War he refuses to admit we are at War. He’s in denial of that. He will not confront what he cannot control. The Tea Parties are un-American for Obama, he ignores dissent, he ignores FOX etc. But ignoring al Qaeda is a major mistake for Obama; they seek attention just like he does. They will do something to get his attention.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Cynapse Says:
Because tax revenues went up, they always do when you cut taxes. Also because “the rich” actually ended up paying more, because their deductions were removed. Also because deficits run up to fight the Evil Empire were minuscule as a percentage of GDP
I have yet to hear a case where there was abuse
How is that possible when debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed between 1980-1990?
The ACLU has documented quite a few Patriot Act abuses. Perhaps you’re not seeing them due to moral exclusion? The rules aren’t the same for Muslims because 19 Muslims blew up the WTC, isn’t that how it goes?
The game is being figured out by Americans who see the incompetence of this regime on Foreign Policy. Letting Gitmo prisoners go to Yemen where the prisoners who attacked the USS Cole have already escaped and are back with al Qaeda is leaving everyone speechless.
No, the game they’ve figured out is that security is only a problem when the Democrats are in charge. When the GOP stirs the hornets nest abroad by killing thousands of civilians to catch a handful of terrorists simultaneous to cracking down locally on any organization that doesn’t exhibit WWE levels of gaudy patriotism, these people have nothing to say. It’s an agenda driven by fear and bigotry – the same mindset that led to previous calamities like the Oklahoma Riots on the Japanese internment. Small surprise that Michelle Malkin has already come out calling for internment camps – to very little opposition from these “freedom” loving patriots.
This is just history repeating itself, and anyone who speaks out against it is a Communist, … oops I meant Negro-lover … mistake, I meant Jap sympathizer …. dag-nabbit I meant terrorist Muslim supporter.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Lee Says:
Well, dam, Cynapse. You have forced me to disagree with you.
You cannot boil all this discontent down to a matter of race.
Could you not bring yourself to agree that the radical policies of the present administration have something to do with the “tea party” phenomenom? To be fair I think it is the whole of congress that is in disfavor now. Much of what i read indicates that the approval of congress is something in the low teens. Congress is composed of all parties and many different races.
What you are seeing is an awakening.
The policies being brought forward now may have been brought forward under a different administration, and the voters are beginning to see the troubles that lie ahead. The Tea Part has problems with the Republicans as well as the Democrats.
This president was elected by the good will of the people, who hoped for a better world.
He had the backing of a majority.
He has squandered away that backing and good will.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
nomdeblog Says:
“How is that possible when debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed between 1980-1990?”
1. Entitlements growing like crazy until Clinton ( with nudging from Gingrich) ended “welfare as we know it” , temporarily slowed them down.
2. As I already said, it cost money to fight the Evil Empire, and it worked, thus a good investment.
3. Define “skyrocket”, it’s 13% now.
“When the GOP stirs the hornets nest abroad by killing thousands of civilians”
Actually the civilians being killed are mostly Muslims killing Muslims plus Muslims blowing up hotels and train stations in Mumbai and Bali and Spain and Londonistan.
But you are right, maybe it is time to leave and let the killing fields really open up again like the Taliban herding women into soccer fields by the thousands. Maybe Darwin has to do his work. It seems that anything we do to stop it , we get blamed by Jack Layton for not playing by the Geneva Convention.
BTW Muslims are not a race.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Cynapse Says:
Lee,
I don’t think race is at the center of the government’s agenda at all. IMO, it has much more to do with circling Iran and piping oil from the Caspian sea. They were well ready to work with the schoolgirl-hating Taliban on these objectives until they refused to give up Bin Laden (who convinced them to back away from the pipeline deal).
Convincing people in a broke democracy to support a trillion dollar war for such narrowly-defined objectives isn’t easy. But terrorism is a surefire way to do it. So when Al Qaeda attacked New York, that was pretty much a blank cheque. The “racism” part is just to fire up the right-wingers. Nationalism, fear of invasion, etc would have all worked just as well.
As for Obama … I’ll have to agree to disagree with most of this site:
1) I don’t think he has that much say in the flow events
2) He’s much more of a centrist than his rhetoric lets on, but primarily he’s a “nice guy” who knows what to say to win people over
3) He’s not doing anything fantastically different than Bush
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
The ACLU? LOL
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Joe Says:
I agree with Cynapse. There can be no doubt that Haliburton paid Caliph Omar to capture Jerusalem back in 637. I personally think that that Vlad the Impaler was also in the pay of Haliburton when he induced the Caliphate to attack him. Of course it is well known that the Crimean war was GWB’s idea of how to get oil from Russia. Of course you know that the “moon landing” was staged in the desert, that fire doesn’t melt steel and that Al Gore proved the world will both burn up and drown in rising seas.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Cynapse Says:
So … you didn’t understand a thing I said then, nor did you follow the link.
Or do you actually believe the US paid $1 billion per day to chase a handful of horsemen in the mountains, who randomly attacked the US because they hate the West’s education women and bikinis? Frankly, that sounds much loonier. But whatever makes you feel like the proverbial “reluctant hero”…
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Cynapse Says:
The ACLU? LOL
Yeah, the last group that cares about actual freedom, not just the right to stockpile arms and re-enable hate crimes (a sinister pair of goals if ever one existed).
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Joe Says:
“IMO, it has much more to do with circling Iran and piping oil from the Caspian sea.”
IMO is standard leftist boilerplate for “Haliburton did it”.
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Cynapse Says:
Actually it stands for “In My Opinion” and I’m sure anything that does not cast you mighty nuclear warriors as “reluctant heroes” who were attacked for no reason other than your superior culture and natural intellect is considered leftist boilerplate.
Haliburton is one of many contractors who benefit from imperialism. The only reason you’ve even heard of them is because they’re tied to Dick Cheney, whom you, as a right-wing stormtrooper, are bound to defend at all costs.
But hey, if you think I’m the loon, let’s compare notes. I’ll go down the list of wars fought over control precious resources; you can make a list of wars fought over treatment of schoolgirls and bikini jealousy. Deal?
Posted on December 30th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Joe Says:
But what about wars fought to protect oneself and one’s society? You know like the Americans during WWII. Or how about the wars fought to help your allies when attacked? You know like Canada in WWII. Or how about wars started to protect innocent civilians? You know like the Balkans. Of course if we completely ignore the downing of the World Trade Centre then maybe the only motive for fighting bin Laden et al in Afghanistan was a pipeline.
Where your logic falls completely apart is the cost of pursuing said resources militarily. Given the cost of the war it would have been cheaper just to buy the oil from Canada or open the oilfields in the US. If there was no oil available except in that which lies behind Afghanistan and the only way to extract that oil was through Afghanistan you argument makes sense. But since the world’s largest reserves are in North America fighting for oil in Afghanistan makes perfect sense.
Posted on December 31st, 2009 at 12:25 am
Cynapse Says:
But what about wars fought to protect oneself and one’s society? You know like the Americans during WWII.
There are numerous examples of fighting wars to protect one’s society, but America’s was never in question during WW2. They stayed out of it until Pearl Harbour, which was of course on a remote island filled with inhabitants that were more Japanese than American historically speaking. The Japanese attack was also a preventive measure, designed to stop the advancement of the American fleet into SouthEast Asia (where Japan was fighting Britain). The Japanese never planned to take over the USA.
Hitler didn’t even punch his way out of Europe so we shouldn’t have to discuss them. Relating all this to today, the Taliban or Al Qaeda do not rule one single nation and lack the firepower/organization/funding to be anything other than high-level terrorists. Europe would CRUSH any westward ground advancement and since the Islamists have no air power … US sovereignty is not in question. Their puppet regimes in the Middle East may have to worry but that’s about it.
….
The Balkan war was about preventing pro-Soviet advancement, not helping Muslim civilians.
…
As for the oil, we Canadians are prospering from world unrest because if the oil prices were still at $20-$30 Alberta would remain a backwater in all senses. When the cost of oil passes $60 or so, it makes sense to extract from tar sands (which last I heard cost about $42/barrel for extraction). Sure America “likes” us but they like cheap oil much more. A steady supply of the stuff from the Caspian sea is both cheaper and more economically acceptable. It would also be defacto American (barring a puppet regime), as opposed to them having to deal with a standalone nation eye-to-eye.
The rest of the major oil spots …
Enemies: Russia, Iran, Venezuela
Unstable: Nigeria, Mexico
Would Consider Europe First: Norway
Posted on December 31st, 2009 at 2:32 am
Joe Says:
If you ignore the VAST untapped reserves in southern Sask. and the Dakotas, Alaska etc etc etc you would be right. In fact you ust be right they building the pipeline as we speak! No? Why not? Micheal Moore’s Haliburton too broke from doing government work in Iraq? Last I saw Mikey’s Haliburton was bleeding red ink from their losing contract with th US government.
Posted on December 31st, 2009 at 9:28 am
nomdeblog Says:
Conservatives need to adopt Sarah Palin’s attitude on Big Oil. I got her book from the kids for Christmas and interestingly learned that the kids of some very senior Liberals really like Palin too … now there’s HopeyChangey.
Oil is propping up despots who prop up tribalism because they fear democracy which is the only method of governance that will work in large populations. Islamism will collapse eventually but the toxic combination of oil funding in the hands of ME despots who have hijacked countries as their playground and use these countries to train terrorists ; all of this is part and parcel of the fact that oil is indeed political.
Oil is cheap energy, upon which the West depends particularly in the face of cheap labour in China and India. Those are simply economic facts which only the radical fringe like the NDP or the Greens would ignore.
But America is not imperialist about oil, it is happy to pay market price for it. However globally commoditized oil must keep flowing until we replace it with nuclear or maybe natural gas or some other technological improvements. Oil must flow or our society will cave in. China and India increasingly need oil flowing too because low cost energy is going hand in hand with their low cost labour. Thus the Bush Administration’s move to cozy up to India because our interests were aligning was one of the most important strategic moves of the USA this decade. Our interdependency is the best shield we have until the Islamists implode.
Ohh.. .back to Sarah ( who I regret saying isn’t ready for being President without adding that neither were Obama , McCain nor Biden) … she spent most of her time as Governor fighting Big Oil. Oil is a very tough subject and we need to become less emotional about it and just face the facts .. .we still need lots of it.
Posted on December 31st, 2009 at 9:40 am