Views on the News

December 17, 2011


Views on the News*  

Barack Hussein Obama is a man who was swept into the Presidency with the thinnest résumé of any in the nation's history, one who many believe is in reality a "front" for shadowy special interests like George Soros and who knows whom else, public service labor unions, and crony capitalist backers.  When "The One" mesmerized voters with oratory and slogans, he hadn't much of a record on which to be judged, and much of that was murky and hidden from public view.  We know that he smoked pot and bummed around in college, although we don't know his grades, courses, or anyone who remembers him personally from those days.  We do know that, as president of the Harvard Law Review, he published nothing in that journal, a highly unusual record.  He was a lecturer for a while at the University of Chicago Law School and spent a few desultory years as an Illinois state senator, during which time he became best-known for regularly voting "present."  Next on to the U.S. Senate, where he did little or nothing remarkable for less than a full term before being whooshed into the White House.  Now he has a record, and it's a very bad one.  From the January in which Obama took office until right now, his has been a totally failed Presidency.  In foreign policy, he has mismanaged every relationship, insulting our friends and feeding our enemies' bad feelings toward America.  In domestic matters, there has been a sharp and dangerous run-up of national debt, failed attempts to ameliorate high unemployment, and obstructionism regarding development of energy resources available to lower fuel costs and reduce our dependence on unfriendly foreigners.  There have been extensive moves to exercise regulatory powers as a means of bypassing the legislative authority of Congress; dozens of appointed "czars" unaccountable to anyone; and massive expansion of government control and micromanagement of large sectors of the financial, banking, automotive, food, and pharmaceutical industries.  Add to that the forcing through Congress of the disastrous ObamaCare legislation, still not fully understood by anyone and against the clearly expressed will of the American people.  What has continued to fail us now is that Obama's own policies, the exact opposite of Reaganomics in every detail, have failed to produce any timely real recovery from the last recession.  How should he run on such a record?  Obama has made it clear through a buildup of statements denouncing the "millionaires and billionaires," giving a wink and a nod of approval to the "Occupy" mobs in Zuccotti Park and elsewhere, and his speech in Kansas, that class warfare will be the central them of his bid for a second term.  Obama and his henchmen believe that the only shot they have at winning is to gin up anger among the 50% or so of American families who pay no federal income taxes and/or are receiving federal bounty.  He has a great track record with the class warfare ploy; and he's lousy at everything else.  He has created a huge population section with little or no skin in the game, and his politicians have promised them that they are entitled to all sorts of freebies from their government, from a college education to food stamps, and all sorts of things in between.  The bottom line is that it's President Obama, who fundamentally doesn't understand his own country, that doesn't work.  This is the election that can change America's social and financial structures into a European-style "social democracy" far beyond all that the New Deal did in the '30s and '40s.  It all adds up to a brew for another recession in 2013, unless the American people force a change in course in 2012.

(“Obama’s Not Changing His Spots” by Richard N. Weitz dated December 10, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/obamas_not_changing_his_spots.html

Our Marxist Wizard of Oz” by Peter Ferrara dated December 14, 2011 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/14/our-marxist-wizard-of-oz )

Barack Obama keeps looking for a Presidential identity not his own, because he has no legacy or even a personality that will endure over time.  He has tied to channel a number of previous Presidents hoping that some of their charisma would rub off, and could be used as a campaign theme:

·    John F. Kennedy - Obama is often referenced as a youthful and charismatic figure supposedly similar to JFK.  Caroline Kennedy tried to assure us that Obama had the same Kennedy zest, and she flirted with a Senate run to help restore the lost age of grandeur. He even tried to electrify Europeans with another Ich Bin Ein Berliner speech.

·    Ronald Reagan - His supporters swore that he had the same sunny disposition and eloquence. Soon he was talking about being the same “transformative” President, as long as we understood that Obama was going to be Reaganesque solely in the way he campaigned and soared with “hope and change” rhetoric.

·    Abraham Lincoln - When he won the election, Obama referenced the Civil War, slavery, and the civil rights struggle as he became the Great Emancipator to finally bind up the nation’s wounds. He even chartered a slow train from Springfield to DC in December 2008, to remind us that it had been 148 years since a similar messiah had trained from Illinois to Washington to save the Union.

·    Franklin D. Roosevelt - Obama emulated the crisis of yet another Great Depression to justify the scope of change needed, including ObamaCare.

·    Bill Clinton -Obama flirted briefly with a Bill Clinton identity. He gave signals that he would be another triangulator by announcing that these recessionary times were not the right moment to raise taxes on anyone.

·    Harry Truman – He then tried “Give ‘em Hell” Barry crisscrossing the country in campaign mode, damning another do-nothing Republican-controlled Congress that had tried to stall the fair deal.

·    Teddy Roosevelt – Now Obama is crusading against the modern equivalent of trusts, monopolies, and John D. Rockefeller zillionaires, and this from the largest recipient of campaign cash in Presidential history, and the first candidate to renounce the public financing of presidential campaigns.

·    Jimmy Carter - Obama has tried on every mask except one that naturally fits him.  Carter railed about luxury boats and three-martini lunches, as if that kind of indulgence had sent the economy into 8% unemployment, 12% inflation, and 15% interest rates. Beneath the utopian Christian caring was the mean streak and petulance; Carter loved humanity but not humans. We also see a return of Carter’s foreign policy disasters: the reach out to leftist enemies, the suspicion of Israel, and the drift away from Europe.

What we are left with is empty soaring rhetoric of the day, as the President without an identity desperately searches for one about every three months.  The world has disappointed Barack Obama and he will keep reinventing himself, endlessly trying on new Presidential masks and blasting “them” who were not so charmed, since there is nothing else a man without an identity do.

(“The President Who Never Was” by Victor Davis Hanson dated December 8, 2011 published PJ Media at http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-adolescent-presidency/ )


Obama’s December 8th speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, revealed to anyone paying any attention that the President is a Communist.  Despite the White House’s narrative, Obama is not a defender of the middle class but has been its mortal enemy.  His policies have impoverished working-and-middle-class Americans.  Obama’s history is testimony to the fact that he is a Communist and the only reason this remains clouded to many Americans, has been the shameful failure of the Fourth Estate, the liberal mainstream media, to expose it.  He remains in office due to the failure of both the media and the Republican Party to cite the Constitution’s prohibition against anyone holding the office who is not a “native-born” American.  Obama’s father was a Kenyan, a subject of Great Britain.  He should not have been on the Democrat Party ballot and he should not be in the Oval Office as this is written.  As a youngster he was mentored by Frank Marshal Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA.  Of his early college years, Obama said in his memoir that at Occidental, “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully: the more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”  Obama’s political career began with a fund-raiser in the living room of two dedicated, self-identified Communists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.  Obama sought out his relationships with the Alinsky organization, the Ayers-Dohrn radicals, the scandal-ridden Tony Rezko, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.  At the time he wanted these leftist ties, but during his 2008 campaign he rejected all efforts to tie him to these individuals.  The appointment of the many “czars” to oversee and guide the actions of government departments and agencies became the subject, first of ridicule, followed by the realization he was infiltrating the government with known radicals of different stripes.  The one that quickly gained attention was Van Jones, an avowed Communist.  When that became known, Jones resigned.  The Osawatomie speech was classic Obama.  The views he expressed were a combination of class warfare and an attack on Capitalism.  Obama was and is the first Communist President of the United States of America.  We have a President who rails against “millionaires and billionaires”, Wall Street, corporations, and all other aspects of our Capitalist economy.  We have a President and a Democratic Party that have tipped their hat to the Occupy Wall Street radicals.  We have a President and a Democratic Party totally aligned with the unions in America, some of which put the auto industry in jeopardy, others in the public sector that have plundered state treasuries with sweetheart deals for pensions and health plans, and who we have seen thuggishly oppose the restructuring of collective bargaining.  It is why a close ally of Obama, Andy Stern, the former president of the Service Employees International Union (SIEU), praised the Chinese Communist economic model.  We now have a President who says Capitalism “doesn’t work” and “It has never worked.”  That is utterly absurd, but it reveals his ideology and his goal of fomenting a Communist revolution in America by bankrupting the nation to achieve it.  Obama is a horrid aberration, the result of a combination of the Democrat Party, the liberal media, and the education community to dumb down Americans and make them ready for the Communist America that Obama advocates.  Communism did not die with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  It is alive and well in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam and in Venezuela.  The soft form, Socialism, has brought a number of European nations to ruin and threatens the U.S.  In 2010 Americans returned power in the House of Representatives to the Republican Party, so now we must finish the job in the Senate and in the White House in 2012, but if we do not, America we love will perish. 

(“America’s Communist President” by Alan Caruba dated November 11, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43124 )

The President now resorts to saying politically desperate and intellectually bankrupt kinds of things, because Obama cannot win a debate on philosophy or the merits, so he instead employs the crudest caricatures he can.  In his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama summarized the philosophy of the Republican Party as “Their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules” which is silly because it’s so transparently false and intentionally misleading.  After that, he told us the GOP plan is Dirtier air, dirtier water, and less people with health insurance.”  Given his rhetorical trajectory, Obama will soon be insisting that Republicans favor reinstituting slavery at home and genocide abroad.  The point is that there seems to be no limit, no check, on what Obama will say in order to demonize his opponents, or, to quote Obama’s own words, his “enemies.”  It is Obama who believes he can play by his own rules because for him, truth is increasingly beside the point.  Words are merely tools to be employed in what he believes is a Great Cause.  In this instance, the Great Cause happens to be his re-election, despite the fact that Obama and his team are having the hardest time articulating what exactly he would do in a second term beyond “finish the job.”  The shame is that there is a genuinely interesting and important debate of ideas to be had over the size, reach, and role of the federal government in our lives.  Honorable people have very different views on this matter; some, like Obama, are drawn to a European-like model of social democracy, one that wants to centralize more and more power with the federal government as a means to eliminate income inequality and ensure greater fairness.  Others believe the federal government has dramatically exceeded its Constitutional authority leading us down a path to fiscal ruin, and in the process undermining our civic character.  The great divide between conservatives and liberals today is over equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.  Those are serious intellectual differences to discuss, but Obama apparently wants no part of it.  He would rather turn his opponents into brutish, cartoon characters.  What makes all of this even more farcical is that Obama conceives of himself as a genuine intellectual, the leader of a national seminar.  During his run for the Presidency, Obama created an image of himself as a man thirsting for an honest, high-minded debate.  It was Obama who said, We have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division and conflict and cynicism.”  It was Obama who in an interview declared, ”I want us to rediscover our bonds to each other and to get out of this constant petty bickering that’s come to characterize our politics.”  However it turns out this was a mirage.  The fact that Obama’s Presidency has been a failure and that he is so manifestly inept in his current role has turned him into a fairly unprincipled (and remarkably uncreative) political hack.  He has succumbed to his uglier impulses.  The whole thing is a shame: to watch a Presidency fall apart can be a poignant thing; and to watch a President dishonor himself in the process can be a sadder one. 

(“Barack Obama, Political Hack” by Peter Wehner dated December 8, 2011 published by Commentary at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/08/barack-obama-political-hack/#more-777018 )


The dirty little secret is that the Leftist elite exploits the rich to finance their policies to keep the elites in power and the lower classes dependent and dissatisfied with the status quo.  Wealth is not income.  The income of the middle class comes from hardworking folks; often husband and wife both hold full-time jobs, trying to reach a level of security, comfort, and leisure which people like leftist Senator Jay Rockefeller or Senator John Kerry have always taken for granted.  These leftists do not need to earn money.  They simply preserve their acquired wealth.  Leftists' fear is not that some Americans are miserable and poor or live in dysfunctional families (created by the awful social welfare programs and godless social science of the left).  Their real fear is that some hardworking Americans may be able to join their country club or buy a big home in some swanky and exclusive neighborhood.  Leftists do not want "Hope and Change," they want, instead, glacial immobility.  That is why saving every single species on the planet really matters to leftists, even though species quite naturally die out all the time.  That is why climate change troubles the left so much; climate change, man-made or not, may actually improve our lives, but any real change terrifies the left.  This is also why the left still spouts Keynesian nonsense fifty years after Keynes died and long after this economic theory was empirically disproved, and it explains why Obama still seems to idolize that misanthropic quack, Karl Marx, more than 150 years after his proposed "science."  Almost sixty years after Dr. King's "I have a dream" speech and more than forty years after the "feminist revolution," Democrats still see simmering cauldrons of notional "racism" or "sexism."  Not only do many of the very rich look down on those who work, sweat, and risk in order to become rich themselves, but one of the easiest ways to make money these days is to flack for some risible leftist patent medicine.  Leftist ideology constricts radically the number of permissible ways to get rich so that those who sing the party line rake in the dough.  Leftists today resemble the nabob of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in its hideous heyday.  Solzhenitsyn once said that no one in the leadership of the Communist Party actually believed the claptrap it routinely proclaimed.  The party itself was simply a vehicle for the greedy, corrupt, or perverted to live their ugly lives without moral sanction.  Power, acquired for the ostensible purpose of social justice, is just a scam, just like leftism is also just a scam.  Radical leftism thrives where the rich dwell, because leftism keeps those who are not rich in their place -- no hope and no change. 

(“The Rich Are Not Conservative” by Bruce Walker dated November 11, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/the_rich_are_not_conservative.html )

It’s hard to say exactly when the Occupy Wall Street movement fizzled, but so far it has failed to become the politically potent force that the TEA Party was during the 2010 election cycle.  Occupy Wall Street has not established itself as a working-class or middle-class political movement of average Americans frustrated by government’s failures.  Still largely decentralized, without financial muscle and not yet focused on campaigns or elections, it isn’t even a pale reflection of the TEA Party last cycle.  Occupy Wall Street isn’t really a political movement, it’s a symptom of unfocused angst that Americans feel.  Unlike the TEA Party, which succeeded in presenting itself as a movement of angry taxpayers, senior citizens and middle-class Americans, the Occupy movement has not evolved beyond its leftist roots.  It isn’t surprising that a movement relying primarily on college students and professors, anti-globalization activists, anarchists, professional protesters and a very small slice of organized labor hasn’t become a potent electoral force.  Surprisingly, the OWS movement is a potentially bigger problem for Democrats, many of whom can’t quite figure out how to deal with a movement that reflects some of their concerns about economic inequality, environmentalism and the evils of big business but too often appears radical, confrontational and unkempt.  Republicans can easily dismiss the Occupy crowd as a bunch of radicals, and the more confrontational the protesters look, the better the Republican view will appear.  The Democrat Party’s Congressional leadership and, most importantly, the White House will have to figure out how to deal with Occupy Wall Street in a way that echoes some of the message without forcing the Party to either totally reject or embrace the OWS movement, and all that that includes.

(“Do Democrats Face More Trouble From Occupy Wall Street?” by Stuart Rothenberg dated December 8, 2011 published by Roll Call at http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_71/democrats_face_more_trouble_occupy_wall_street-210865-1.html )


* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections:

·  Philosophy at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/philosophy.php


David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY