Marginalizing Obama

In a 22 November Washington Post opinion column David Swerdlick argued that President Barack Obama is a conservative. Of Obama’s Presidency he wrote:

“The former president was skeptical of sweeping change, bullish on markets, sanguine about the use of military force, high on individual responsibility and faithful to a set of old-school personal values. Compare that with proposals from his would-be successors: Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal, free college, a wealth tax, universal basic income.”

“…the former president, going back at least to his 2004 Senate race, hasn’t really occupied the left side of the ideological spectrum. He wasn’t a Republican, obviously: he never professed a desire to starve the federal government, and he opposed the Iraq War, which the GOP overwhelmingly supported. But to the dismay of many on the left, and to the continuing disbelief of many on the right, Obama never dramatically departed from the approach of presidents who came before him.”

“There’s a simple reason:”, wrote Swerdlick, “Barack Obama is a conservative…”

“To be conservative, as philosopher Michael Oakeshott, a movement hero, once put it, “is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.” The former president channeled the sentiment faithfully when he said recently that “the average American doesn’t think that we have to completely tear down the system and remake it…He believes, fundamentally, that the American model works – even if it hasn’t been allowed to work for everyone.”

Ignoring the obvious that Obama proudly championed “fundamentally transforming AmericaObama is anything BUT a conservative. He is precisely what his resume told us he was as a presidential candidate, a radical Saul Alinsky “community organizer”.

As the Blaze’s Giancarlo Sopo observed, Swerdlick isn’t the first to make the outlandish claim that Obama is a conservative, and those claims were soundly disproven in the past.

“Variations of the “Obama is a conservative” argument were made in 2008 and early in his presidency. New York Times columnist David Brooks famously claimed in 2009 that “Obama sees himself as a Burkean” and compared him to Edmund Burke, the 18th century Anglo-Irish statesman considered by many as the progenitor of modern conservatism.”

There is a key difference though between 2008’s claims of conservatism and todays. Circa 2008, the intent was to make Obama more acceptable, or at least palatable to republicans in the hopes of peeling off some of their votes, and gaining their support. Swerdlick, and I predict a growing chorus of Minion Media talking heads, makes the claim to marginalize Obama and blunt his critiques of the Democratic Presidential field.

In recent weeks, Obama’s come out of hiding and warned democrats, to avoid extremism. I would add that he’s really signaling them that it is far better to cloak their intentions as he did.

On 15 November, the AP’s Brian Slodysko wrote “Former President Barack Obama on
Friday warned the Democratic field of White House hopefuls not to veer too far to the left, a move he said would alienate many who would otherwise be open to voting for the party’s nominee next year.”

“There are a lot of persuadable voters and there are a lot of Democrats out there who just want to see things make sense. They just don’t want to see crazy stuff. They want
to see things a little more fair, they want to see things a little more just. And how we approach that I think will be important.”

The claim that Obama is a conservative is laughable, yet also insulting, from the
democrat party intelligentsia’s view. For years countless left leaning pundits labeled conservatives as racist, bigoted, homophobic, anti-Semitic and every other vile adjective that popped into their heads at the time. In the Saul Alinsky model, they were giving conservatives the “pick a target, freeze it, isolate it, and polarize it” treatment.

Is Swerdlick’s labeling of Obama as a conservative the beginning of a similar treatment to
marginalize him and thus dismiss his warmings? Or, has the Democrat Party moved so far left that from their new position on the ideological spectrum they actually see radical Obama as right of center?

 

Please follow and like us:
error

High Profile Deep State Conspirators and The Minion Media

Three times since June, high profile witnesses, including deep state “Russia Hoax” conspirators testified in front of Congress and the “Minion Media” went apoplectic promoting other stories to dominate the national narrative.

  • 19 Jun DOJ IG Michael Horowitz testified in front of the House Intel Committee About His Report on the Hillary Clinton server investigation
    • On 15 Jun media hysteria over child separation at the border blew up and overshadowed Horowitz.
  • 12 July Disgraced FBI Agent Peter Struck Testified, followed on13 and 16 July by his disgraced Justice department lawyer lover Lisa Page.
    • On 16 July the Trump Putin Summit sent the Media into orbit.
  • 28 August Disgraced ex. Justice Department #4 in command Bruce Ohr testified
    • McCain’s passing on 25 August provided ideal opportunity to bash President Trump. Nothing cooked up here, but over the top, week-long coverage fitting the death of a sitting President dominated all media to the exclusion of Ohr’s testimony.

Do You Remember the Hyperbolic Coverage?

First came the border hysteria. President Trump was blamed for enforcing the law. President Obama’s administration separated children from their parents, without protest. The double standard is undeniable.

Next came the Trump/Putin Summit. Democrats would only have been happy if President Trump had started a war with Russia. I’m no fan of Russia, or Putin, but America needs to get along with them. Far better to find common ground than to go to war. The “collusion” lie cooked up and spread by the democrat party formed their outrage’s foundation. Here’s the real reason behind the collusion hoax.

Most recently Senator John McCain’s passing, and unending love fest (from the very people who tried to destroy him in 2012’s presidential campaign) gave pretext to avoid Ohr coverage that would damage the Russia Hoax narrative.

Each over the top democrat party/”Minion Media” frenzy corresponded with testimony on the Hill. Sure, it’s possible these are coincidences, but with each event, that becomes much less likely.

Now, the Nation is waiting for President Trump to declassify and order the release of critical documents, including un-redacted pages from the FISA Warrants, that reporters like Sarah Carter claim contain damning evidence of FBI/Justice Department coordinated corruption and efforts to frame Donald Trump.

What will the media use as cover to overshadow potentially the most important news story of deep state treachery in our lifetimes? Hurricane Florence is ongoing. Democrats and the “Minion Media” successfully attacked George W. Bush for federal Katrina response, so no doubt they will try and create armageddon from Florence. They will seek every potential angle to damage President Trump’s administration. Mark my words!

The President is best served holding the release until after the storm passes. Don’t give the media an easy out. The American People must hear the full story of the conspiracy involving the DNC, Hillary and her Campaign, the Obama Administration, and swamp treachery. We have clear evidence of a deep state black operation fitting of the KGB orchestrating a Central American coup, here in America!

Please follow and like us:
error

A Sense of Belonging Why Trump Resonates

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

Humans are a social species and are ingrained with a need to belong, and its one of the reasons Trumps campaign is so powerful. Belonging is essential to humanity. We crave the others companionship, and form nearly infinite groups to soothe that craving.

Churches, national citizenship, sports teams, law enforcement organizations, the brother hood of arms, PTA, trade organizations, political parties, unions, civic organizations, political organizations, fan clubs, and rod and gun clubs name but a few.

The importance of our need to belong cant be overstated. Democrat Politicians are masters at using the same desires to belong to divide the country. They try to push each American into ever-smaller groups and to pit those groups against each other. White vs black, haves vs have-nots, LBGT vs non-LGBT, law enforcement vs oppressed, religious vs secular, majority vs minority, working vs unemployed, business owners vs employees, citizens vs immigrant, and the list goes on.

Instead of using groups to divide, Trump is harnessing that need in his quest to become President by uniting Americans. His campaigns slogan is Make America Great Again. So far, its gotten him past a Republican Primary field as large and talented as any in history. Why does it resonate?

First, any American who loves this country wants it to be great.

Second, most Americans recognize that the Democrat Party has been assaulting our country’s greatness for many years. Barack Obama just accelerated that assault, on both social and international levels.

Third, any US citizen who identifies as an American first feels that powerful unifying identity to belong to a group, other Americans.

Fourth, just like NFL football fans unify around their teams draft picks, new star players, and fresh coaches because they want their teams to win, Americans who love our country want it to win. Donald Trump hits that note in his message. You will get tired of winning once Im President because we will win at everything.

Americans love to win, and we love our Country. Trump does to.

Please follow and like us:
error

What Did President Obama Just Say?

Some things just don’t need an explanation:

I never thought that I’d see an American President see communism, socialism and capitalism on the same moral level. Mr. President, Communism doesn’t work anywhere! Unfortunately, Obama isn’t alone in the Democrat Party.

Some Other Disappointing Democrat Party Marxist Data Points:

Please follow and like us:
error

What Rubio Failed to State in Response to Christie

Conventional Wisdom is the Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday's debate.

Conventional Wisdom is that Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday’s debate.

Marco Rubio got hammered in the media, and by many of the GOP candidates because of his poor debate performance Saturday. Criticism stems from his so-called robotic responses in the debate. Ironically, what Rubio said is exactly right, and its right on two levels. He said:

And let’s dispel once for once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Rubio said essentially that same statement three more times. Admittedly, each one seemingly more out of place. The fourth time he said it was in response to a challenge by Governor Chris Christie that Marco doesn’t have the experience necessary to be president. Marco Rubio reverted back to that same comment:

I think anyone who believes Barack Obama isn’t doing what he’s doing on purpose doesn’t understand what were dealing with here.

As mentioned, there are two messages in that phrase.

The first message is precisely what Rubio stated.

  1. Barack Obama meant the harm that he’s inflicted on America!

We all know that before he was elected Obama ran on fundamentally changing America. He had to dislike our country to feel compelled to fundamentally alter it. You have to fundamentally change it from something into something else. He ran on passingObama care. He wanted to do that. It was intentional. Hillary Clinton tried and couldn’t get it done. Bill Clinton tried and couldn’t did get it done. Barack Obama did. He’s done immense damage to our military. He’s done immense damage to our relationships with our allies. He’s elevated our enemies. He made a deal with Iran essentially insuring that they’re going to get a nuclear weapon. It’s only a matter of time. He’s done immeasurable damage from his executive orders, to the $10 trillion that he’s added to our national debt, to setting back race relations 50 years. These are leftist progressive ideological results, based upon clear intent as taught by radical leftist Saul Alinsky.

The second message in Rubio’s 4 statements must be inferred because unfortunately, to Marco Rubio’s detriment, he didn’t come out and state it. Perhaps he will in a future debate? Regardless, it’s absolutely as true as 1 above and would have rebutted Chris Christie’s attack that Rubio shouldn’t be president since he wasn’t a governor with executive experience.

  1. Barack Obama was neither a governor nor an executive. He never formally led anything. He was barely a US senator for more than about 179 days before he started running for president. Despite no qualifications beyond being a “community organizer” Obama was wildly effective in instituting his radical agenda.

I think what Marco Rubio was trying to say is that he has every bit, if not more experience than Barack Obama had when he took the oath of office. He is every bit as committed ideologically in opposition to Obama, and will be just as effective in undoing the damage Obama inflicted and will put America back on the right path.

I’m not a Rubio supporter. He’s not my number one pick, but if it was a choice between Marco Rubio and any of the other establishment candidates it’s not even close.

Please follow and like us:
error

Who Is The Real JV Team?

IMG_0543

President Obama Speaking to DHS Employees.

On 7 January, 2014 President Obama made his now infamous and grossly inaccurate remark about the Islamic terrorist organization ISIS:

The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,

The Presidents JV team continues not only to expand its territory, recruiting, funding and brutality but also the length of its deadly reach. They blew up a Russian Airliner killing 244 people and just over a month later murdered 129 people in Paris. The President stated the day before the attack that his strategy had them contained. The problem here is two fold. First, no foreign policy expert from either party knows what President Obamas strategy is. Second, whatever the strategy is doing, it certainly isn’t containing ISIS.

Perhaps the Presidents foreign policy advisors are really the JV Team. In this case, to take from the President, they may be wearing Lakers uniforms, but that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant!

Does the President have his JV team scouring the internet for the reason ISIS attacked Paris. Im sure that if they scrub YouTube long enough the State Department can find the video responsible. If Obama can catch the disgusting video’s maker, and also put them in jail, maybe ISIS will live and let live…but of course they won’t!

Please follow and like us:
error

The American Republic Under Assault

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

The United States is a representative republic founded on the principle that multiple parties are essential to maintaining freedom, ensuring counterweights to oppression within our society. But what if one of our parties decided that they wanted to eliminate the other as a viable competitor. How would they do it? What would be their strategy to eliminate political competition within the United States and established a one party system? There are really only two options that would be viable within the context of the United States. Violent overthrow, the most commonly used method for power consolidation would never happen here, so it must be done in one of two other ways.

Option One: The most reasonable course of action, and the one that most Americans see occurring every day, would be to attempt to convince enough Americans of the power of that party’s ideas and its policies such that on a national, state and local level the ideas and policies of the opposition party would receive little support. There’s a clear historical ebb and flow in the United States that shifts power from party to party. At times Republicans at other times Democrats win the White House and/or the Congress only to lose that power at some point down the road. We’re talking about an option in which there is no down the road and one party maintains its power base in perpetuity. This is very hard to achieve, and unlikely to happen naturally, so it brings us to Option Two.

Option Two: The second option, unlike the first that is open to public debate and decisions, requires subterfuge and disguise in order to succeed. Rather than convincing the electorate of the power of the party’s ideas, this option involves making voters who oppose it irrelevant in the context of local state and national elections. It requires ensuring that more votes get cast for the party than would be cast against it at all levels. How?

1. Import voters who support it, adding them to the existing supporters who when aggregated outweigh and outvote the opposition party. Illegal immigration is one means to achieve this by bringing in millions of people from outside the country, using the power of the federal government, and taxpayer money, to disperse them throughout the country, in all states, counties and cities. The inevitable goal of this illegal immigrant seeding would be to make them American citizens and grant them the right to vote as soon as possible. These millions of voters would likely overwhelm the opposition party.

2. There is a potential however that this tactic alone might not work, and so a second parallel effort would seem like insurance. Another method of buying votes and ensuring long-term support would be to go to the prisons were large numbers of minorities are incarcerated. By using Presidential Pardons to free these prisoners and changing policy within the United States allow felons to vote once they’ve served their time, another guaranteed pool of supporting votes would be in hand.

3. The above two tactics would seem very viable means of ensuring electoral support, but why stop there? What if a party could also use the federal government to resettle vast numbers of voters (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) from party strongholds into opposition States, Counties and cities and in so doing swing the vote of those counties? Such a policy has never existed in this country in the past, the closest thing being forced busing. In this case it is meant as a long-term resettlement plan at the expense of the taxpayers in the counties into which minorities get moved.

4. A fourth tactic would be icing on the cake. A policy of enabling voter fraud, when exploited by a political party, would further tip the scales. Enabling this policy would require opposition to voter ID laws and the expansion of voting from election day to as many days leading up to the election as possible. It would also be important to expand absentee voting to allow party supporters the opportunities to multi-vote in every election.

Option Twowould be opposed if Americans knew it was underway, so it would require subterfuge, disguise and the cloaking of the policies within lofty terms of morality and fairness, Saul Alinsky 101. It would need cleverly tested statements such as voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and are racist attempts to return to Jim Crow laws (instituted by Democrats by the way). Comments about expansion of voting opportunities enabling the maximum amount of participation in the democratic system, an essential element to any thriving democracy, would also certainly be thrown about. Resettling people from high-density minority areas to other parts of the country would be touted as righting discrimination and slavery. False statements made while stealing away America’s republic.

As far-fetched as this hypothetical Option Twois, I submit that it is in fact well underway. President Barack Obama and the Democrat party are using tactics mentioned above and probably many others to completely eliminate any viable GOP opposition. What would be the end state if they succeeded? What could possibly be the good that would come to America by creating a single party state? Given the progressive desire to force-feed their way of life and their way of thinking it’s clear what the intent is.

It’s also clear what must be done in opposition. The truth of this effort must be spread, understood and exposed to the light of day. It must be vehemently opposed by every freedom loving American. The rule of law must be upheld, and that starts with securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws. The Progressive coils must be unwound. We are at a crossroads America. The future of our Republic depends upon the actions of the American people. The 2016 presidential election is a GOP must win. Freedom is down to it’s last out, in the 9th inning. The future of our country and liberty depend upon it!

Please follow and like us:
error

More Radical Lessons from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Part 2

Picture of Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky

This is Part-2 of my 3-Part series on Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Alinsky Part 1

Alinsky Part 3

Alinsky Infographic

What is an Organizer? Alinsky writes that “The organizer is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach-to create, to be a “great creator, to play God.”

“The function of an organizer is to raise questions that agitate”

“He is challenging, insulting, agitating, discrediting. He stirs unrest, dissatisfaction and discontent.”

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy”.”

Given Alinsky’s own words, it isn’t hard to see why so many on the left considered then Senator Obama a savior. As a self-professed professional “community organizer”, an Alinsky acolyte, Obama was, in leftist circles, literally a “great creator”.

Alinsky teaches that there are three types/groups of people in the world (Alinsky’s Words in Bold and Italics):

The Have-Nots” Democrats exploit this group of Americans the most, advancing progressive policies designed to make and keep them dependent upon government. Minorities, women and children top their list.

“The Have-a Little, Want-Mores” This group of Americans is basically the middle class.

“The Haves” During the Obama administration Democrats branded these Americans as the “1%”. President Obama himself seems to believe that you become the 1% when your income grows to $250K/year. Most of the Democrat Political leadership (Clintons, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Deblasio, Gore, etc.) is extremely wealthy, as are their donors (George Soros, Hollywood Actors/Actresses/Directors, Union Bosses, etc.). As shown in my previous Alinsky post, there is no such thing as hypocrisy to Alinskyites.

Look for progressive policies couched in these three groups. It’s essential that they be pitted against one another, agitated, insulted, discredited and stirred up for the organizer to move his/her agenda. Division, not unity, is Alinsky’s calling card.

COMPROMISE: The clarion call of the progressive, and an essential component to a successful radical. How often do we hear politicians, in both parties, talking about compromise, as if that is the only thing that matters. Compromising where one’s principles must be abandoned, one’s security is diminished, or one’s country weakened, isn’t a good deal at all. Obama’s Iranian negotiations stand as a prime example.

“to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.”

CONFLICT:

“Conflict is the essential core of a free and open society.” Alinsky teaches how to create it. Ferguson, MO is a case study in how it’s done, and how devastating its effects can be.

“Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil. He knows that there can be no action until issues are polarized to this degree.”

My final blog in this Alinsky series will contain the specific tactics Alinsky teaches organizers to employ.

Please follow and like us:
error

Hypocrisy, Obama and Israel

IMG_0552Barack Obama is well know for having returned the honored bust of Winston Churchill to England, which was proudly displayed in the White House when he took office. Obama returned it because he is also known for disdaining colonialism, and that starts with England. He does not respect America’s past either, believing that our prosperity was illegitimate, gained by taking from smaller countries, which could not resist our pillaging ways.

It’s fascinating then to look at the way that the President is treating Israel and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The President is using the very power that he despises from the colonial era to bully Israel into supporting Obama’s Iranian policy, and treaty negotiations. In this case, Israel’s very survival is at stake, where Obama is worried about padding his legacy.

Another ironic hypocrisy playing out involves President Obama’s Middle East philosophy. He would not allow American leadership in Libya, saying that it wasn’t our place in the world and that other countries should stand up. He insists that the Iraqis step forward and lead the defense of their country against ISIS, and yet when Israel tries to defend itself, he tells them to sit down and allow America to dictate the terms of Israel’s security.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Obama!

Please follow and like us:
error

Obama: Why He’s Losing on the Global Stage

Capital Building, Washington D.C.

Capital Building, Washington D.C.

President Obama largely gets a pass on his domestic policy.  He receives near unlimited top cover from the American “Minion media” and pop culture who restate and reframe his mistakes, and distort legitimate policy and ideological criticism.  Why are things so different on the foreign policy stage?

First, the fawning adulation President Obama receives from the domestic media is largely missing in the rest of the world.  In fact it’s often the case that you’re better off following BBC reports to get accurate coverage of U.S. domestic news than reading the NY Times or watching CNNNBCCBSABC…

Second, President Obama and his foreign policy team are out classed.  President Obama learned his leadership skills at ACORN.  He’s up against people like Vladimir Putin who were schooled by the KGB, or the Iranian Ayatollahs. This is the equivalent of pitting a pop warner football team against the super bowl champions.  President Obama has a ruthless streak, but it only comes out when dealing with the GOP, conservatives, TEA Party Patriots, police or America’s allies. The latest embarrassing example is the President’s bullying attacks on Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.  When it come’s to America’s enemies, his ruthless streak is Missing In Action.

Third, President Obama’s domestic adversaries play by the rules.  They obey the laws and adhere to basic rules of decorum.  Obama is more and more unilaterally re-writing laws, ignoring those that he doesn’t like and using executive orders and regulations to create laws when he can’t get them through Congress.  His latest power grabs include using the FCC to control the Internet, and ATF preparation to ban ammunition, in violation of the 2nd Amendment.  America’s international adversaries don’t play by the rules, and it seems that Obama can’t keep up, anticipate or deal effectively as a result.

Progressivism is a kindred ideology to communism that seeks a lesser degree of the same, authoritarian government.

Latest:

 

Please follow and like us:
error