Second link needs an "h" to work. Great writing by the ex-carny though.

Merci!

It would seem that "team Obama" is panicking by attacking their critics anywhere/whereever.
The democratic critcs are indicative that despite a nominal control of congress----that grip is slipping fast.....perhaps things won't wait until 2010........

Hey, a fire-eating buffoon's always my go-to guy for sage political analysis.

I wish "staggering incompetence" and "sinister (plotting)" were mutually exclusive, but in fact they tend to go hand in hand. Il Duce, for example, wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but once he was in a position of power, his dumbness was sinister, and the thousands of plots he executed against his opponents were really effective, until his necktie got a little too tight.

Suppose, hypothetically for the sake of argument,that a particular person in a position of immense power take actions that don't appear to make sense, and which risk crippling the longstanding system of government he's been elected to oversee. At first glance he's incompetent, but if damaging that system was his goal, his grinning fecklessness might just be evidence that he is accomplishing that which he wishes to do, rather than evidence of his unfitness.

I think there's reason to consider the possibility that there is a strategy, if not a plot, in Obama's plan to stress the system with massive spending. Robert Chandler, a former White House strategist, who worked for the the Departments of Justice, State and Defense, wrote in the Washington Times, last October:

"The 2008 financial crisis has all of the earmarks of a Cloward-Piven strategy assault against the capitalist system. Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center recently explained that 'community organizers' (1) 'intimidate banks into making high risk loans to customers with poor credit,' (2) 'occupy private offices, chant inside bank lobbies, and confront executives at their homes,' and, through these thuggish tactics, (3) compel 'financial institutions to direct hundreds of millions dollars in mortgages to low-credit customers.' 'In other words,' Mr. Kurtz explained during a presentation at the Hudson Institute's Bradley Center for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, 'community organizers help to undermine America's economy by pushing the banking system into a sink-hole of bad loans.'"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/the-cloward-piven-strategy/

If Obama's "incompetence" damages and changes the American system in a way he specifically wanted, how incompetent is he, really?

It would be paranoid to accuse a leader, without evidence, of undertaking to undermine the financial system. But if that leader is heavily influenced by those who strategized to do just that...

In my opinion there are far too many truly odd connections between Obama and people whose stated goal, and clearly enunciated strategy, involved -- to put it in brief -- overloading the government spending, and the American financial system, until it collapses, at which point government becomes all-powerful.

All quite hypothetical, really, and yet... For those interested -- and this is just kind of looking at things, factual things -- this piece from American Thinker is tough slogging, but well worth a read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html

Well written EBD - the 'intellectuals'/msm (of the Liebral ilk) like to identify with seemingly 'harmless' leaders because they LOVE to prosecute real achievers without appearing to be the under-miners of the working people (who pay the bills - who work for achievers)) or the people on welfare (who vote for the largest 'handout' group). A seemingly not to bright a leader appeals to people who wish to be more important than they know they are, hence the lazy and underachievers will see easy hope for themselves in a seemingly dozy leader.

Regan had the appeal of 'a fellow well met' and the American people loved him for his easy manner and his fabulous sense of humour (of course the prima donnas of the intellectual - Liebral - ilk could not stop sneering and whining about everything he did). Regan was a genuinely intelligent man and he brought the America (and Canada)from it's knees into prosperity because President Regan loved people and he loved his country and he had the brains and know how to fix the problem in government to enable the American people to prosper.

The new President has appeal but he has the appeal that people who really love themselves have (Paris Hilton type appeal). He is, perhaps, the front man for the people who hate the success of United States/Regan. He seems to be 'free ad easy' like he has not a care in the world, when in public. He has a perfect template to follow (President Regan) if he had any compassion for the people of America but he is not compassionate. If the focus falls from himself, he is empty. Enemies of America hated President Regan and President Bush, with just reasons: they were in office to serve the people of America. Enemies of America do not fear or hate the new president because he appears to be in Office to admire himself.

ET had an interesting analysis of Mr. Owe under one one of Kate's past posts - I agree with her analysis - and I share your apprehensions for the motivations behind the actions of the new president, EBD.

An iPod!?! The Grinch would be better at this stuff. What's next, a pair of socks for the Dalai Lama? A pack of smokes for the President of Israel?
Doesn't he even have a secretary?

And why can't all the aggressive, proselytizing atheists be like Penn Jillette?

Oh, and nobody would make himself President of the United States just to wreck the place, along with the world economy, would he?

My last sentence wasn't rhetorical. I'm just baffled.

mamba: read ebd's post above.

The iPod gift sounds like an aprilfools gag but it like the DVD gift to brown is not. This seemsto be like nouveau riche crassness / narcissism on the part of the white house being applied to the diplomatic functions. GWB was Dean Acheson by comparison.

Fresh prince of the G20

Giving the Queen an ipod... I guess the Americans know how Canadians felt when ever Jean Crouton went on the world stage. Embarrassed to say the least.

An ipod for Chr*st sakes, didn't he know her majesty really wanted a skateboard and a ball cap that doesn't fit properly?

Fresh prince of the G20

Even though you were thoughtful enough to post it twice Gord, each time I read it, I see "Fresh Prince of the Goo"

Posted by: bleet at April 2, 2009 1:41 AM

"Hey, a fire-eating buffoon's always my go-to guy for sage political analysis."

Just an excellent example that a so-called "fire-eating buffoon" has more political and economic sense than the typical liberal.

You cannot spend you way out of debt to avoid the skidding economic crash. Pretty basic. So one can only conclude that THE ONE is either catastrophically stupid or malevolently evil.

I don't think the i-pod is an error. After the fallout from the DVD's if it was not intentional he would have made sure they didn't screw up again. To my way of thinking he is either showing contempt or wants to be underestimated. The underestimation would give him some slack. Sort of what can you expect from your dumb cousin. The advances to Iran and subsequent rebuffs tells me the boy thinks he is the most important person in the world and can do without the old alliances. I fear that as people fall off the O wagon he will become more unpredictable. The good thing is I don't think the military will follow him.

Y'all realize what this means don't you, the crappy gifts that they are giving to dignitaries???

The Obamas are re-gifters!!

The IPod struck me as odd but apparently the gift was worked out with the palace, as long as that is true there is no story here.

There is so much else that needs to be focussed on with this administration that gettign distracted by boneheaded gifts, if it were true, is really not where one should focus their energy.

The balancing act harper has to run at this summit is far more interesting. He isnt eager to spend more money, nor is his friend the iron chancellor merkel....but Harper doesnt have the domestic constituency to flat out reject, nor can he be seen to be peeing publically on Obama.

The gross amounts of dollars being spent that don't solve the problem are where we should be focussed. This spectre of economic collapse will not leave till the bad assets are laid bare and plan to wrtie them off is being transparently executed. Anything else is a palliative moriphine hit.

Maybe the Queen should give Obama a summary of her 50 plus years of experience, including her speeches. I doubt that he would think that he could learn anything from her - because he is after all the Obama - but it might be worth a try. However I think the Queen has way too much class to need to do something like that.

I remember when people complained that intelligence tests were culturally biased, because one of the "which of these things goes with the other questions" was "teacup and saucer", and hey, poor/black people supposedly didn't know what cups and saucers were...

That came to mind today when I heard that Michelle Obama touched the Queen.

Doesn't the Federal Govt apparatus include a Protocol Office?

More importantly:
Doesn't everybody just automatically KNOW you're not supposed to touch the Queen?

Isn't that just the sort of information you simply acquire, like mental lint, as you travel through life?

Not the life the Obama's have led, apparently.

Stephen is correct: "nor can he [PM Harper] be seen to be peeing publically on Obama."

Goldstein is "peeing publically on Obama."
We can do the same.
O's fascist-corporate State is a disaster.
...-

"Obama's disaster in the making
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Few things are as frightening as governments that don't want to be confused by the facts because their minds are made up.

So it is with U.S. President Barack Obama and most Democrats, who, determined to create a domestic carbon cap-and-trade market, which Canada will inevitably be forced to join, are rushing into this useless and discredited "tool" for addressing man-made climate change, like lemmings going over a cliff.

It's not as if we don't know what's going to happen.

Based on the experience of the world's largest carbon trading market -- Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), created in January, 2005 -- we know exactly.

First, electricity prices paid by already hard-hit North American consumers are going to rise even higher and faster than they are now.

Second, giant energy utilities, hedge fund managers and speculators are going to make a fortune on the backs of ordinary taxpayers, from the moment the government puts a price on emitting carbon dioxide.

Third, emissions by major industries -- which cap-and-trade is supposed to reduce -- will continue to rise under normal economic conditions, as they did in the ETS from 2005 to 2007."
urlm.in/calb

Apparently, Obama's ipod gift to the Queen contained photos of her 2007 visit to the US (as if she sits and goes over the pictures of the thousands of visits she does per year)..oh...and several videos of guess what. Think...what would a pathological narcissist want someone else to focus on? Hmmm. Himself?

The ipod also contains several videos of Obama! And his speeches! Gosh - can you imagine. Just what the Queen wanted.

What is interesting is that Obama, as a narcissist, fails to realize that he is Head of State. Oh, he realizes this in the sense that he feels Empowered. He's 'Da Boss'. But he doesn't realize it in the historical sense.

He has no, and I mean no, sense of his embedded nature in the American nation. He has no sense that he represents America. He feels no connection to America. I think this is important. He doesn't feel himself a part of America. He feels..only Himself. That's his narcissism. It's also something else - that alienation from America. Certainly, Michelle Obama is alienated from America; certainly the Rev. Wright is alienated. And so is Obama.

His gifts ought to represent, not him, but America. They ought to represent the history of America. Instead - he gives her pictures of herself..and videos of himself and his speeches.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at April 2, 2009 9:15 AM

"Doesn't everybody just automatically KNOW you're not supposed to touch the Queen?

Isn't that just the sort of information you simply acquire, like mental lint, as you travel through life?

Not the life the Obama's have led, apparently."

I firmly believe that Barry and wife actually believe that they are so transcendent that historical protocol does not apply to them.

To embrace protocol would be beneath their elevated stature.

What you are seeing is not ignorance, nor is it a lack of the existence of available protocol advice. It is pure, purposeful arrogance.

Kathy,

I think there are more important things to focus on and protocol says if the Queen offers or touches you first then you may touch the Queen.

The video shows the Queen putting her arm around MO first.

I don't think this or Ipod gate is where the criticism shoudl be focussed. More importantly, if this is all there is to criticize about what Obama is up to, it isn't, then he must be doing a good job from a conservative point of view.

Nothing bad happened and this is a petty distraction. I would be more concerned with his budget than where his wife puts her hands.

"if this is all there is to criticize about what Obama is up to" That's right. Up to now, we had nothing.

Regarding Penn's column. You constantly see people claim that we spent our way out of the depression by fighting a war.

Well.

- At the end of the war, all the new government employees had to go home and get real jobs.
- We were the only advanced industrial nation in the world left standing, so there was plenty of work for the former military contractors.
- The government set about paying its new debts immediately.

At the end of Obama's proposed spending, we will have a similar mountain of debt.

- Millions of new government employees that will never go back to work in the private sector, and the attendent

- A climate change program that basically amounts to a clamp on economic growth. All of those "green jobs" will be filled by people who otherwise would be increasing the GDP and the general wealth. It is the same as if we just abandoned our perfectly good house and set about building a new one to live in so we would "have jobs."

We are screwed.

Don't worry about Social Security though, it will fix itself when the new fascism, err, I mean progressive corporatism kicks in.

Tim in Vermont, we were screwed when Rove tried to ram that Amnesty Travesty down our throats.

Apparently, the European leaders see Obama as 'style without substance' and are ignoring Obama's requests for 'more stimulus spending'.

That's a key identitifcation of Obama - style without substance. He himself is interested only in controlling others; if he can't control them, he will either attempt to destroy them (CEOs) or, he'll utterly ignore them.

Substance? I maintain that Obama is a puppet, ideologically, of backroom Democratic agendas for socialism. Obama himself is not involved in analysis of infrastructure, long term national formation..any of that. His focus is on himself and his control of how others interact with him. He's a socialist only because socialism is all about controlling others.

The G-20 group seem to be ignoring him and his suggestions. I feel that without his teleprompter, Obama on his own has no understanding of economic or foreign policy and therefore, can make only the most superficial comments.

Islam = submission, obedience to Mohammed/Allah.

O commits treason.
...-

"Obama bows down to Saudi King
Clarice Feldman

I am quite certain that this is not the protocol, and is most unbecoming a President of the United States."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2220709/posts

The Obomination is so hidebound by ideology, he probably wouldn't notice things going off the rails even if he cared to look. Look at AGW. All four metrics of global temperature are dropping, now for over a decade, but the true believers don't see it. The warming is "in the pipe", they say, despite the fact that the oceans are cooling as well. Faith based religions are immune to actual evidence.

So it is with the Obamidiot, salvation is around the corner, so long as we reamin faithful to our dogma. This fool and his gang of infantile, ivory tower lefties are probably some of the only ones left who think "pure socialism" hasn't been tried and will work. The great part for we Canadians is that so long as we can maintain some sanity, previously unaffordable chunks of what used to be the US will be on sale for a fraction of their current price.

Not to mention; here's another Liberal Poll gone horribly wrong out on MSNBC.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093
,

ET,
You have it dead on.

Yoop said,

"THE ONE is either catastrophically stupid or malevolently evil."

Both Yoop, he is both.

Obongo's time in office will be taught in the future as America's most embarrassing and destructive period.

I used to think that the civil war to free the black slaves was a good thing. I used to think that over the last fifty years as blacks in
America achieved civil rights and equality with white society, that was a good thing.

When I look at Obongo and his personal army, Acorn and his rabid supporters in Universities, Mainstream media, and the evil side of the Blogosphere ...I don't think that anymore. I think given enough time black people will turn America into something that more closely resembles Africa. Perhaps that is the nature of the Negro.

The impoverishment phase has already begun and the thuggery is growing. All that's left to complete the circle is the suspension of elections in order to deal the many emergencies facing The Great Obongo.

Ok, so its now Apr 02 209.
But the ipod thingy is still here, so it not a joke?
Is it really true that Pres Obama gave her an ipod with his speeches on it?

He has the social grace to give an ipod of his 'nobody/footnote of history' speeches to THE Queen, a woman that has met probably every leader/head of State in the world for the last 60 years?
Like people of real importance and accomplishment.

What frigging arrogance!

I resolved to call him by his proper title of President but some of his doings are making it incredibly hard to keep it up.

I don't know whether to laugh, feel embarrassment for Obama, the Queen or what else. But the last time we had a man as VAIN as that in the White House, he had the same initials as Jesus Christ.

Labour lost the British empire in one term in the 40's I'm sure Obama can do similar damage to the south.

Maybe he can take some economic advisement from Robert Mugabe.....

ET: "I maintain that Obama is a puppet, ideologically, of backroom Democratic agendas for socialism."

You may be right that he's not an ideologue himself. I've wavered about this, and I'm still not sure. His past is murky, so it's hard to discern a pattern.

More important, though, is your assumption that others are pulling the strings for him. Who are these people? I don't see his various appointments as obviously left-wing radical, which is the kind of agenda we're talking about here. Summers, Geithner, Holder, Clinton, Gates, Sibelius, Emmanuel etc? Plenty of negative things can be said of many of these people and others, but I don't think "left-wing-radical" is one of them. And even if that characterization isn't what you have in mind, I'm not sure that these people are particularly ideological either (thuggish, vain, ambitious, vindictive, overreaching, incompetent etc. maybe).

So who exactly is pulling the strings of the Obama puppet? I'd like to be able to hear some names so that I can say "yes, that fits" -- or otherwise.

The whole story on the iPod is here and your post is not fair and accurate... I'm no fan of the left, as you can see from my post just above but... really, you gave the impression that His Majesty's speeches were the only thing on the iPod.

And when the Queen visits the white house she can expect to receive either a Shamwow or Slapchop.

From Kate's last link above:

"Alinsky's 1971 book, "Rules for Radicals," is a favorite of the Obamas. Michele Obama quoted it at the Democratic Convention."

Never heard of it before, so googled it. It adds a little depth to "community organizer".

From Vancouver:

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html

Oh yes, Shaidle

The Harvard-educated Obama has travelled in such lowly circles...

Not like you with your Hamilton-white-trash-failed-"poet"-reborn-as-a-racism-barfing-Coulter-wanna-be resume.

But your bigoted musings, along with MacMillian's, are to no avail - no-one has problems with the Obama's conduct except right-wing loons trying to make an issue where there's no issue - yet again.

Back to the drawing board kids! Look for another 'issue' where you can mumble racist epithets as you impotently shake your fists at the dust in Obama's wake!

Token-in-Chief

Oh yea, thanks for reminding us that if we disagree with a half black half white president we must be rascist.
If I disagree with his policies/philosophies and only vote for him because he is half black, what does that make me? Just wondering bleet.

Momar: "I used to think that the civil war to free the black slaves was a good thing. I used to think that over the last fifty years as blacks in
America achieved civil rights and equality with white society, that was a good thing. ...I don't think that anymore."

So, Momar, let me get this straight: you think that the end of slavery in the US was a bad thing?

Bleet,
You know the saying "a racist is a conservative who is winning an argument with a liberal"?
That's you, buddy. Kathy is making a very valid point against your Messiah and the only thing you have to say is "racist!".
My my my...you are a perfect poster child for liberals with a limited intellect. But, of course, that is an oxymoron. Sorry, you may want to look up that word...it does have more than 4 letters...slightly above your pay-grade.

On a 'late night talk show' from the U.S. last night, a lot of the callers were angry that Obama had bowed to the Queen.

Liberal spouse loving the coverage from original home town London-my home town also.

I shall be so glad when the whole bloomin' thing is over.
One never hears any discussion of these things down at Hortons in the morning.

The weather the first priority. When the heck is summer going to get here?

Laughs.

Andre, go blow it out your ass

McMillian's title to her post, the 'Affirmative action president' and Shaidle's reference to poor/black' etc., are expessions of racism towards Obama - andthey are intended to be.

If there is legitimate criticism of the president, that's one thing. But to bring race into a conversation where it has no place, as a manner of diminishing him, is the definition of racism.

Your attempt to deny self-evident realities makes you look ridiculous.

"If there is legitimate criticism of the president, that's one thing. But to bring race into a conversation where it has no place, as a manner of diminishing him, is the definition of racism."

Sorry bleet,

Obama's race was used as a marketing tool by him and his supporters throughout his campaign and the election. Race has always been in the conversation.

Following ET's analysis and conviction that Obama only stands for himself and lives only to be worshiped, it is important to state this which reinforces ET's rational:

Answering questions with Brown to the media yesterday Obama exclaimed he was anxious to meet the Queen. In the context of the importance of the G20 submit for the world, I again find it odd that Obama put so much emphasis on spending precious and limited time visiting a royal symbol. The Queen has no political power but certainly has lots of adulation.
Remember how Obama fell for Michael Jean and even invited her to the white house. Again, Jean has no power, her position solely exists to represent a tradition of the past: Royalty.
The only other thanhimself Obama is going to pay credence to is other famous personality. Regular politicians don't count because they are more criticized in general than worshipped. Celibrities are mostly worshipped. They are also mostly ignored instead of being criticized or simply unknown. That fits Obama's psyche perfectly. In other words O should be royalty, a famous actor, artist or sport champion and not a politician.

The iPod with Obama's speeches reinforces the whole theory that Obama is truly an extreme dare I say, deranged narcissist.

Anybody seen the movie "300"?...The muslim king reminds me of Obama to the tee.
"Go down on your knees and worship me".

If Narcissus should not be a politician what will he turn into when the honeymoon is over?

I am very worried for the USA and the world.

RHTT: "Anybody seen the movie "300"?...The muslim king reminds me of Obama to the tee."

Muslim king? In "300"?

bleet - you are using fallacious arguments.

First, to say that Obama is 'Harvard educated' is irrelevant because you cannot claim that IF one goes to Harvard, THEN, you are wise. So, don't try to make such an invalid assertion.

Second, Obama has provided no indication of any analytic capabilities, any capacities for analysis of political, economic and societal structures. In his entire career, we have no evidence of any articles, any legal work, any Senate motions. He has done nothing other than to 'oversee' the Harvard Law Review, while others did the actual work; act as 'community organizer' to merely motivate people to feel victimized, and vote 'present' in the Senate. Nothing else.

Therefore, what do you base your esteem on? There is no factual evidence to warrant such esteem. Obama has no record of executive experience, no record of fiscal experience, no record of government experience, no record of analytic capacities. None.

Therefore, it is entirely valid to wonder how Obama was able to be elected, because it could not be based on his record!

As noted by Chairman Kaga, Obama himself - and not only his supporters but Obama himself - brought up the race issue numerous times in his campaign; the agenda was obviously to heighten and use 'white guilt' (my grandmother was afraid of big black men) and to attract black victimization emotions.

Now, we see clear evidence that Obama, himself, hasn't any understanding of long term infrastructure - in economics, in foreign policy, in industrial infrastructure. None. He cannot answer any ad hoc questions on any topic other than about himself. That's why he goes to Leno and 60 Minutes rather than a valid press conference. His press meetings are all carefully scripted, with pre-selected audience and pre-selected questions..and the answers are on the teleprompter.

As for his policies, the majority of experienced people consider them disastrous. In Europe, he's blasted as incompetent. In the US, people are up in arms about him.

Who supports him? The Democrat Party - for one reason only. They want Power; since he's won, then, they plan to get through their socialist agenda asap, before the country realizes what has hit them. They are using him as the Poster Boy, carefully scripted and managed, while they do the Backroom Deals to socialism.

Obama is empty-headed..and a pathological narcissist.

"Anybody seen the movie "300"?...The muslim king reminds me of Obama to the tee."

TOTUS reminds me of the Emperor in Star Wars:

"I am the Senate" - Darth Sidious SWIII

BO = Darth InSidious

ET: "The Democrat Party .... They are using him as the Poster Boy, carefully scripted and managed, while they do the Backroom Deals to socialism."

Maybe so. But to say that "the Democratic Party" is doing this -- handling him as a puppet, as you put it earlier -- isn't very enlightening. There are, after all, elected members of the Democratic Party who voted against the stimulus bill and the budget, and are unhappy with the prospect of further "stimulus" spending.

Don't we need names to attach to this backroom work and socialist agenda? If it's a behind-the-scenes job, as you argue, some people must be involved. Are you thinking of Emmanuel? Clinton(s)? Holder? Pelosi and Reid? Others?

Simply to say that "the Democratic Party" is pulling Obama's strings doesn't get us very far.

Posted by: ET at April 2, 2009 2:17 PM

"... pathological narcissist."

There is nothing else but that. Nothing.

Everything he has done, everything he is doing, and everything he will do, is driven by that.

The actual power brokers in the Democratic Party, and the string pullers behind the curtain, fully recognize what he is, and will use that to the fullest extent possible.

MJ - yes, I agree; just saying 'the Democratic Party' is too ambiguous. I'm not sure exactly who is in The Group.

Certainly, the entire Stimulus Package was written by Pelosi and Reid. Obama obviously didn't read it before signing it. Neither did anyone in the House or Senate. They voted on party lines.

As for his budget, I'd suspect that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Geithner..and...? How involved is Soros? I don't really know who is in the Back Room, but most certainly, Obama isn't there with them. He's only in the front room, vacuous and empty-headed, blithering on about 'well, spending equals stimulus' - one of the more ignorant statements I've heard anywhere...and his usual 'hope and change'. Oh..and fear and outrage.

What about the disastrous way he dealt with AIG bonuses?? They were legal; he ought to have known that. And to try to take them back would have been both illegal and unconstitutional. Instead of, as the President, telling the public this, he instead actually went on national TV and helped set up mob lynch hysteria.

He told the public how 'outraged' he was. And 'we'll get it back'..and then, allowed talk of '90% tax' on those bonuses. All of this was illegal, all of it was unconstitutional. Yes he said it; he promoted it.

And the result of his 'anger'? Lynch mob hysteria resulting in death threats, in Obama's buddy ACORN sending busloads of protesters out to AIG executive's homes, in threats against the children of AIG executives. And he thinks he's the President? Promoting illegal and unconstitutional actions?

He's not capable of any analysis of cause and effect, not capable of understanding banks, finance, economics..and not capable of understanding foreign realities. Not once in his entire career has he shown any evidence of analytic capacity. Not once.

And - he hasn't shown any loyalty to America. he seems, in a strange way, detached from any attachment to his country, to its history, its constitution, its views. His focus is only on himself and his actions of controlling people.

ET: "As for his budget, I'd suspect that Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Geithner..and...? How involved is Soros?"

I don't think Geithner is any kind of ideologue, and certainly no puppet-master. The possibility that Pelosi, Reid and Frank are the "brains" behind Obama? This gives them far too much credit; I think it's completely implausible.

Soros is an interesting suggestion, but I don't think there's any evidence for it. Speculation, suspicion, maybe, but no evidence. I don't give that idea any chance.

Is Obama himself the ideologue? He's the one treating America as a giant community to be organized. Really, his ideas don't have to be well-formed or very sophisticated for him to deserve that characterization. This seems to me the simpler explanation, rather than positing unnamed (and apparently un-nameable) wizards behind curtains.

Maybe Obama's comment to Joe the Plumber that "spreading the wealth" is a good thing is all we need to know about his world-view. You can't spread the wealth unless you're holding the cash, even if it's the next generation's cash.

"Obama bows down to Saudi King".

Saudi King said:

""It also leads to bowing, which is a violation of God's law. The faithful bow to no one but God."
...-

Flashback:

"Saudi King Bans Kissing of His Hand
September 12, 2005

The new Saudi king has ordered citizens not to kiss his hand, saying the traditional gesture of respect is degrading and violates Islam.

"Kissing hands is alien to our values and morals, and is not accepted by free and noble souls," Abdullah told a delegation from Baha, in southwest Saudi Arabia, which came to the royal palace to offer congratulations on his accession. "It also leads to bowing, which is a violation of God's law. The faithful bow to no one but God."
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/sep/12/world/fg-briefs12

MJ - no, I don't see Obama as the ideologue. He has never given any indication of being such a person, i.e., someone who works according to analyzed ideas.

He operates only within a personal emotional pychological template that sets him up as the Controller of how you act towards him and that puts you in his control. Period.

He moves with the socialist political group because such an ideology enables him to Control, because it sets him up in the Elite Controller Class... so idle comments like 'spreading the wealth' are indicative only of his socialist membership, not his analysis of that societal structure.

Pelosi and Reid are the authors of the Stimulus Package; Geithner and others of the Budget. But Obama, in my view, is not driving either agenda, other than approving the socialist big government approach...because it puts him in power.

Since this leaves, effectively, a gap in the theoretical leadership in Washington - with my claim that Obama is not capable of leadership since he doesn't think analytically but only emotionally - then..who is the analyst?

Are the agendas of the current White House government ONLY driven by the leftist agendas of the Democratic Party? Is there no long term plan?

If there is a long term plan, then, who is its author? Again - it can't be Obama. His long term plan doesn't move beyond everyone cheering him.

If it is short-term and idealogical..i.e., the normal leftist Democratic agenda of Big Government, Big Spending and etc..then..it's the hard core socialists in the party.

That's as far as I've gotten in my musings. I reject Obama as the driving force. Either it's a long term plan - and who is its author. Or, it's contextual and normal leftism in the Congress.

Don't be so stupid, ET (or disingenuous)

My reference to the Obamas' Harvard education was based on Shaidle's attempt to attack them from a class perspective. I merely pointed out that their history is a little more impressive than her...well, less than impressive history.

As for your defence of Shaidle's and McMillan's racism in their attacks on Obama, well, I'm afraid that reveals a little more about you than you intend to...

And as to the rest of your intemperate rant? Gee, the Obama presidency is really taking a toll on you, huh? Relax - lie down. Drink some herbal tea or something. You're getting scary...

ET: I don't think your analysis of Obama's motives is provable or can go beyond the level of speculation.

More to the point, I think that you expect too much from ideologues. They don't all have well and thoroughly developed belief-systems. In fact, I think that most of them don't.

That's why they're ideologues. Ideology is a substitute for thinking, and especially for the constant confrontation of one's beliefs and opinions against new problems and changing circumstances. It's characteristic of ideologues that they hold fast to their opinions and conclusions even when new facts show them that they're wrong.

That may be a good description of Obama, who clings to the script on his teleprompter. I'm sure we'll know soon enough.

MJ - I think that you and I have a very different understanding of the term 'ideology'.

Using the Merriam Webster, the term means;
1. visionary theorizing
2. a systematic body of concepts, usually about human life or culture; and 'a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group or culture; and 'the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program'.

In my use, the term ideology fits in with any of the above definitions and is most definitely NOT a substitute for thinking but is the result of thinking. That is, one arrives at certain ideas about 'how should a robust industrial global society operate'..as the result of thought. These ideas..form one's ideology.

Your interpretation of the term is that it provides 'ideas' ..I'm not sure where from but certainly not from oone's own analysis and thought..and that one accepts these ideas without thought. My term for such behaviour is 'dogma' and such behaviour is 'dogmatic'. But I've seen this use of the term 'ideology' (ideas that one has without having thought of them)..elsewhere in the press etc.

So, in my view, ideology is not a substitute for thinking but represents the result of thought. Dogma is a substitute for thinking. These differences in our use of the terms may be minor - but, they are hindering our discussion.

Anyone see Richard Loncraine's 1995 movie of Richard III?

ET: you wrote that "Obama moves within the socialist political group because such an ideology enables him to control." I think you're right. But -- and this is key -- history teaches us that the connection between the level of control he desires and the particular ideology you refer to cannot be separated. His personal/psychological motives don't obviate either the primacy or efficacy, under his watch, of his ideology; quite the contrary. You're probably right that doesn't have a "plan" in the usual sense of a highly detailed, step-by-step series of carefully plotted executions, but if one has in mind a crude strategy, as charted by Alinsky and his bastard-children, to overload the capitalist system by placing impossible demands on it, it's not necessarily critical to carefully institute any particular action; all you need, when you're in power, are people "cheering (you) on" -- abetting you -- while productive (to the cause) actions are undertaken.

You're right, IMO, about what motivates him -- his own power -- but, again, to say that Obama "is not capable of leadership since he doesn't think analytically but only emotionally," is to not sufficiently take into account that his personal attributes -- including his lack of grasp of consequences -- are not only in service of, but stem from an ideology of the great leader which characterizes communist-type thinking. If one's plan is intendedly destructive in the short term, and undertaken in the interests of a reconfiguration of a system at the end of it, one needn't have a "plan," not in the way that someone looking to improve a current situation, within the current framework, would need it.

As MJ put it, "you expect too much from ideologues" -- in this case, a detailed plan, as opposed to an end result. To whatever extent an end goal is destructive (crippling of a system), a careful, minding-the-books plan isn't necessary, and the lack of a detailed, step-by-step plan isn't necessarily a disadvantage.

Are we feeding the bleet troll?

Ok, here's my tidbit, bleety. Anybody who gives the Queen of England a frickin' ipod with HIS speeches on it, for a state visit no less, has shown us all we need to know about his class, his intellect, and his upbringing.

I have no inherent objection to a black president in so far as my Canadian opinion is of any moment. But I could wish they'd have picked one with a functional brain. Jesse Jackson, race hustling deadbeat scumbag that he is, would have been a better choice.

That's a very interesting analysis, EBD.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that yes, Obama doesn't have a plan, in the sense of a detailed, step by step plan, but he DOES have an agenda or end result goal - the destruction of the current capitalist system and the introduction of a socialist system.

Whereas, I'm still saying that he not only doesn't have a plan ( step by step) - and I assure you, I never meant having such a detailed outline - but he doesn't have an agenda, i.e., a socioeconomic or political agenda.

Obama, in my view, only operates psychologically. His interactions are to ensure that he controls other people. Period. He 'exists' and I mean exists only superficially, within the socialist ideology because it is a controlling ideology. He himself, as a narcissist, couldn't care less about any ideas, political theories or whatever. His focus is only on himself. He's 'above' ideologies.

The actual agenda, and that can include a step by step plan, of changing the US socioeconomic infrastructure into a socialist system, doesn't lie with Obama, in my view. But with some hardcore Democrats..and others..I still maintain that there is a 'BackRoom Set' that is behind this massive restructuring of the US.

It isn't Obama. He's the upfront Performance Guy who is being used to hie the real agenda, misrepresenting it as 'it's good medicine for you'...I frankly doubt that he has a clue about the results...and his only interest is in the adulation and subservience of people.

ET, to whatever extent Obama's psychological makeup is defined as the overarching matter at hand in a discussion, his ideology vanishes-- is non-existent and not a threat -- within that context. I suggest, though, that 1) Obama's personal motivations (and I agree with your assessment of them) don't, in my opinion, obviate that he has an ideology; 2) regardless of how inchoate this ideology is, or how secondary it is in his own mind to his own narcissistic pleasure, it still fully exists, inasmuch as he's obviously not going to oppose others within his team who set out to implement policies consistent with that ideology; 3) If you look back on the last century, Obama's personal attributes -- taking here your description at face value -- make his ideology not less dangerous, or less of a factor, but more.

I don't think his ideology, in other words, is off the table, or irrelevant, or a non-factor, because of his particular psychological attributes. Mussolini was a narcissist of the highest order; so is Kim Jong Il.

You mentioned the "back-room set," as being the engine-room of the massive restructuring, and yet none of them (as far as I'm aware) are as connected to the Alinsky-type strategies (Acorn, etc) as Obama is. What I find a bit unsettling, in a niggling way, is that IF one were to assume that Obama's (and others, of course) plan was to overload and cripple the financial system, in order to bring the well-being of the people into the arms of the -- ahem -- strong leader, then the (nascent) actions undertaken so far would be consistent with that goal.

I don't disagree in the slightest with your assessment of Obama, in terms of what moves him personally, it just seems to me that the great collectivist leaders in the last century also existed within their respective ideologies because they were "controlling ideologies," as you put it, which provided a place for these individuals to put their mark on others. The psychological attributes of those leaders weren't created by the ideology, as you allude to in your analysis of Obama; rather, the ideology was a home for certain sorts of men. But those men ended up having a devastating effect that they couldn't have had without the force of the ideology, even if the details of the given ideology was incidental to the pleasures of the great leader.
Socialism, as you've noted many times, is about enormous power in the hands of the few.

I'll grant you that the notion that Obama isn't thinking it through in strictly ideological terms, is almost certainly true. But again, in the early stages of collectivist "great societies" the "ideas" behind the plan or strategy were similarly pompous, blunt tools, and ultimately self-serving for those looking to lead. When put in motion in the, ahh, corporeal realm, though, those ideas were endlessly forceful, even if the motives of those who promoted and enforced the ideas were entirely grounded in their own psychological makeup.

In short, I largely agree with you about Obama's mindset; I just think that his ideology is a lot more significant in effect -- more manifest -- than you do, and that his psychological attributes don't reduce it's significance, but rather magnifies it.

Momar at 11:41AM -

Lucy, is that you?

A very good discussion, EBD and ET. I find myself agreeing whoeheartedly with EBD on the matter of his ideology, and have said so here on several occassions. He's a marxist, plain and simple and ugly. And he is a cold blooded hard-core America-hater too, make no mistake about that. Jackie Mason had me laughing with his remark about much he seems to be enjoying himself: "the worse it gets the happier he seems". Bingo. I said to a friend a while back, "this cat is having a ball".

Remember his breezy remarks about seeking out all the marxist profs and structural feminists. I also suspect too that IF he's "the smartest guy in town", the reason all his university records are sealed might be due to some hard left radical writing.

The key point EBD makes is the direct link to Alinksy through a protege. Obama is a brilliant Alinskyite. EBD is absolutely right: when you understand his objectives, this man is highly competent, hugely so. And there's no doubt he's using the Cloward-Piven (sp?) strategy.

This man has big backing (Soros, and others) but is NO PUPPET. His hard left radical history has too long a pedigree for that. He's a marxist revolutionary adapting the methods to the institutional realities of the US of A.

The DEM party is the puppet.

me no dhimmi - no, I don't agree with you about your analysis of Obama as first, driven by ideology. I don't agree that Obama is a Marxist or anything. I think he's embedded with the socialist ideology because it's the only place where he feels comfortable - because it enables him to control others. He himself may think he believes in it but he 'believes' in it because it enables him to, psychologically, exist.

I agree with EBD's point about the importance of the ideology. In fact, I think that EBD and I are really saying similar things. I don't think that socialism as an ideology is irrelevant to Obama - he requires it as his base. But it is irrelevant to him 'in itself'. It is only relevant as it empowers him.

I do agree with EBD that this, as i see it, alienation makes him more dangerous. And his pushing through this ideology is more dangerous because he doesn't think through or care about, its effects.

I don't see the Alinsky tactics as an ideology but as a methodology - and Obama uses them to great effect. Competent? No, I don't think so. He showed no competence in his community activist years or in the Senate. He's shown no competence in foreign affairs; he's shown no competence in dealing with AIG.

He's enabled by a fawning uncritical MSM and by a population tired of war and tired of being hated. That's what has set up the 'phase of Obama' and as the critical analysis widens and deepens, I think that this view of him as 'competent' will disappear.

Excellent discussion from all, and thought provoking.

One thought that keeps bugging me though. What if Obama never thought he was actually going to win? He may have just started the campaign as an ego trip, on other people's money.

Then he won.

What if he is actually, fundamentally, much more inept than we even realize?

He may just be flailing away in a general, ideological direction, hoping something, anything, works. Note the near aimless wandering from pillar to post while tripping over the obvious.

Just a thought.

Obama is funny and our monkey is a joke.

sarge here damn desperate times at SDA sarge thinks more than herbal tea they cry out for benzodiazepine sedation

"Obama is funny and our monkey is a joke." -- ok4ua

"like the Special Olympics" -- Tonight Show with Jay Leno, March, 2009.

"... our monkey is a joke." Which is why we re-elected him. Dobry vechir, ok4u.

On another thread, two minutes earlier:

"Don't you wish we had a leader as smart as Obama. It takes more brains to be funny than to be an ***hole."

Smart. Like:

"10,000 people were killed in a tornado" -- Campaign rally, August, 2007.

"57 states" -- June-July, 2008

Giving PM Brown 20 DVDs in NTSC format, not PAL. Real smart.

----------------

"they cry out for benzodiazepine sedation" -- sarge

Tell that to the guy in the mirror, sarge.

Posted by: ural at April 2, 2009 12:12 PM

Alinksy was one of D'ohbama's mentors. As was a terrorist, a convicted felon, a half-insane, racist, mouthbreathing, america-hating "preacher", a likewise america-hating priest, and who knows how many more?

Rule #12 of Alinksy's "Rules For Radicals" was used by the whitehouse to go after Limbaugh:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Oops - apparently that tactic backfired.

ET, your overtures to bleet are simply throwing pearls before swine. He/she/it refuses to let go of the feel-good crush on obama, and it blinds them to the catastrophe that's unravelling:

- Trillions of private wealth eliminated with the stroke of a pen
- complete ineptness and incompetency of the country's SecState, who is being visibly scored by the russians and iranians
- obama's incitement of class warfare on the home front between the producers and the takers
- systematic dismantling of the American Experiment by the government: nationalizing of industries, setting of private salaries by the government
- the continual attack on the importance and rights of the individual versus those of the collective

This is probably the most ill-experienced and dangerous person to ever inhabit the White House. Period. If this slide is not checked, America as it was known for the past 233 years may cease to exist.

Conservatives and Republicans don't see race as an issue in these disastrous policies, but bleet does: any criticism of obama is "racist", or recognition of the plain truth that the left used obama's race to shoehorn him into POTUS is "racist". Obama's race only matters to bleet and his ilk; anyone with half a brain recognizes that anyone in the White House with these same policies - man, woman, black, white, asian, etc. - would be equally damaging to the US. Skin colour matters more to the left; ideas are of more importance to the right.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

gosh, you're dumb, MHB

Why else would you misrepresent what I said on the same thread where your lies can be so easily disproven?

I didn't say any criticism of Obama is "racist" at all. By all means, go to it! Judging by your imtemperate rant it seems that you, like ET, feel you have lots to criticize about him. Go for it!

I do object to SDA's statement that Obama is an "affirmative action president". That's bringing race into it when it has no place. I object to Shaidle's reference to "poor/black" perspectives on testing. That also brings in race where it has no place.

Both instances, plainly put, are racism - and they're intended to be.

If you guys have enough to criticize him on the job he's doing as president you wouldn't need to bring up the racial aspect continually. I consider it telling that you - SDA as a whole - do.

In the year 2009 I don't see the kind of repulsive racism at large that I see on the threads here, by posters like cal2. How do you feel about this type of conduct by your ideological brethren?

bleet, are you able to breathe unassisted?

You're about as dense a poster as I've seen on this blog, and considering the leftards that lurk here, that says something.

Read any of my posts on obama where - just once - I criticize his performance because of the colour of his skin. Or anybody else on this thread, for that matter. The man is totally incompetent; completely unsuited and inept for the job, as we're seeing more proof of same, every day.

As I noted above, I'd call out anyone no matter of skin colour for pulling the blunders obama has done. I will say this once, for you, bleet, and once only, using little words so even you will get it:

obama is incompetent and dangerous because he IS, and this is not a skin colour issue.

If you had half the brain you like to think you do, you'd note the "race-based" comments you wrongly allude to aren't directed at obama, but at the left and the MSM, who collectively decided that race trumped gender in the democrat race and railroaded hillary clinton from the ticket. The democrats worried obama wasn't "black enough", not the Republicans. They - as well as all conservatives - concentrate on his moronic policies and unsuitability for office. It's those on the left like you, bleet, who compartmentalize people by demographics: african-american, asian-canadian, etc.

And as for racism, who's to say whether or not obama isn't the racism-free saint made out by the left? He spent 20 years in the pews of that hate-filled racist "Reverend Wright": what were obama's views when wright declared America invented AIDS to keep the black man down, and chortled over 911 ("america's chickens are coming home to ro-o-o-o-o-ost!!")?

If you can't see the derision on this site is focused on the moronic left who fell in love with the idea of electing a black man POTUS, regardless of his lack of qualifications, rather than at the race of the man himself, then that's your issue, bleet. You're either to be pitied, or perhaps studied, I'm not sure which.

mhb

MHB

You said:

"Conservatives and Republicans don't see race as an issue in these disastrous policies, but bleet does: any criticism of obama is "racist""

I showed that I did not say that 'any criticism of Obama is 'racist'', as you claim I did.

I also have not claimed that you have criticized Obama based on the colour of his skin - as you infer here.

In both these cases, you are lying - why, I don't know, since your lies are readily refuted on this very thread.

The criticisms I have cited here are most certainly racist - seeking to denigrate Obama based on racist stereotypes. Just like the frequent posting of racist cartoons here under the title 'Frankly My Dear...', they are designed to appeal to the racists who frequent this site for communion with those who share their beliefs.

I should think that you, who have an apparent laundry list of non-racial criticisms of Obama, would shrink from associating with them.

Glad to hear that the Cobourg farm is planning to produce power for 4000 homes--and not 400. I was surprised, because all our radio media (I live near the area) said 400. That's what people were talking about around the water coolers.

Anyone think it actually will work?