Is There Nothing That Obama Can’t Do?

The One 44 Comments

A don’t miss, by Daniel Greenfield;

There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

h/t EBD

44 Replies to “Is There Nothing That Obama Can’t Do?”

  1. For the first time that I am aware, the American government risks fiscal default. And should that occur, the results will be catastrophic to Americans, Canadians, and much of the rest of the world. The last recession will look like a Sunday picnic in comparison.
    Do Americans not see this tsunami bearing down on them? Are they completely oblivious?
    That alone should drive any American with two neurons to rub together to turf the current administration.

  3. I had a long discussion a couple of years ago, with a very successful and intelligent black man.
    He explained that Blacks, in general, have such an intense hatred for Whites, that their goal was the destruction of Whitey’s world, regardless of how much additional misery they themselves would suffer. And that Blacks would give everything up, in furtherance of that goal.
    My correspondent was as dismayed by this as I.

  4. That pretty well sums it up. It’s not about good government, it’s about hate. Zero will do harm to those his supporters hate and in fact will supply the people to hate.

  5. If anyone has the ability to get even wider circulation of this clip from Daniel’s book, get it out there it’s a telling piece of writing.

  7. This is nothing new divide and conquer has been a strategy in politics since the very first election and what they are doing is not undemocratic. Democracy is just mob rule. The whole point in an election is to buy, blackmail, scare, etc. a bigger mob to vote for you than the other guy. Theft by one person is immoral and thus against the law. Theft by the majority is the essence of a democracy. Obama is a very bad leader but very good at playing the game of politics.

  8. That alone should drive any American with two neurons to rub together to turf the current administration.
    ~rabbit
    Pure greed.
    If a white Rethuglian H8r has 2 neurons that means there’s a black Democrat voter somewhere who doesn’T even have one!

  9. Sounds a bit like Ontario what with McGoofy ahead in Vaughn according to polls. What the hell is wrong with people?

  10. Kevin wrote: “This is nothing new divide and conquer has been a strategy in politics since the very first election and what they are doing is not undemocratic.”
    Lest we forget, this is PRECISELY what Trudeau & the Liberals did so effectively for about 38 years in Canada. They divided West & East and Minorities from Non-Minorities. The strategy worked very well and will have echoes for at least the next century.

  11. Part of the reason that this technique is so effective is that it’s use is not obvious to the average voter. Most people are working and raising a family, not analyzing election tactics. Having it put in words, as Daniel has done will go a long way towards reducing it’s effects.

  13. Patsplace, I used to think that just getting the truth out would change things. But you might be surprised at how many seemingly intelligent and good people aren’t the least bit interested in the truth. They’d rather stick with the facile lies fed to them than know the difficult reality. Like most of us here, I’ve lost friends when I’ve exposed them to facts they’d rather not hear, even if I inform them intelligently and reasonably.
    So, yes, it’s a good thing for people to be exposed to Greenfield’s fine analysis. But, if they don’t want to be informed, they won’t be!
    This election is so crucial, I’m sending some $$ to the Romney campaign via an American relative: money order to him and he’ll make the donation. Others might consider doing that too!

  14. Good point Lookout. I’m going to send them a few bucks too. I’ll find someone in the US and get them to forward a bit of money on to Romney/Ryan.

  15. Robert W – thanks for the link to VDH’s excellent commentary on Obama’s deliberate incitement and use of racism to both gain and retain power.
    Obama has only one agenda: power for Himself. That’s it. And that involves destroying the ability of others to be independent and free.

  17. Obama galvanized the world with his promise of change and a better way of life for all, 4 years ago. Great speech writers and teleprompters can work magic. Since that time we have seen what the man can do and the end result is, he can do nothing except steer the economic bus over the cliff while still stepping on the gas instead of the brakes. Frozen at the wheel. I’m not Mitt Romney and I approve this add.

  18. When Obama settled an old Kenyan Score against Sir Winston Churchill by rejecting/returning the WH bust of Churchill to England he showed a petty
    tribal bent.. He does not think as an American.
    NBC’s Olympics coverage on Saturday Aug 11 (Prime Time) had a hour long tribute to Churchill hosted
    by Tom Brokaw. In your Face Obama!
    Note: NBC also broadcasted a Shooting, US female, Long Form clip prior to Tom’s Tribute.
    When does MSNBC go dark?

  19. Hahaha, always good for a laugh, this place.
    Obama’s suddenly too divisive, you say. And divisiveness is suddenly ugly and harmful, you say. Seriously, do you never, ever look around? Almost every thread on SDA is, in one way or another, a rant against some group or entity or activity that you disdain. What is SDA, and the bazillion other “political” blogs like it in the US, Canada, and elsewhere, if not a proud part of a rabidly hyper-partisan machine dedicate to the 24/7 production and reinforcement of divisiveness?
    The post immediately following this one calls for Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada. Two down is a post complaining (yet again) about the “left-wing mainstream media.” SDA features regular posts attacking the news media, elementary school teachers, high school teachers, universities, public sector unions, private sector unions, young adults, immigrants, Muslims, black “culture”, liberals, Liberals, NDPers, Democrats, “the Left”, feminists, human rights activists, environmentalists, climate change researchers, green energy developers, the Humane Society of America, Quebec, California, Tony Blair’s Britain, David Cameron’s Britain, France, Europe, China, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. You despise so many things about and so many people in Canada, N. America, and the world that you’ve managed to spend over 8 years gleefully complaining about them virtually on a daily basis.
    But sure, Obama is the divisive one.

  20. Davenport
    Progressives like you attack everything white and western. Your group attacks everything this culture excels in and produces for what you enjoy and take for granted. We attack everything that tries to tear it down.

  21. Davenport – Kate is not the President. You seem to think that an individual or a group of individuals having a point of view, and even, heavens, critcizing certain people and things, rather than, I guess, running a blog about puppies or something – you seem to think this is the equivalent of a corrupt American President formenting what amounts to a kind of “cold civil war” (phrase stolen, don’t remember from whom) to abet his re-election. Do you really not see the difference?
    Do you:
    a)believe that there’s nothing to Greenfield’s analysis, and Obama is a real uniter
    b)accept that Obama is acting as Greenfield describes, but believe that that’s normal and healthy?

  23. Kevin, an important distinction is that the American founding fathers formed a republic, not a democracy, intending to stave of the “mobocracy” that statists so often delight in. Jefferson made some remarks about there being no intention of elected despotic regimes.
    The Constitution was created to protect against such outcomes; Obama is clearly no fan of the constitution & believes himself more capable than the men who created the nation.

  24. Rev – no, I won’t hold my breath. Davs used to stick around for these exchanges but she’s very drive-by these days.

  25. Davenport, this blog has a basic set of points of view. It’s critical of, for example, AGW, of socialism, of identity bloc politics of ethnicity, language, gender, etc, etc.
    That is its right; it’s a private blog and is encouraging debate and argument.
    Obama is not running a blog. He’s the President of the United States. This means that he’s the President of ALL the people, and must acknowledge their right to have diverse points of view.
    Instead, what Obama does, is, he CHOOSES which point of view is ‘the right one’ and then, he sets up these views as adversarial to other views.
    So, he tells blacks that they are under attack by white people who are criticizing Him, not for his policies, but because he is black.
    He tells illegals that they are under attack by legals and in particular, by the GOP.
    He tells hispanics that people, eg, Arizona, are trying to deny them ‘their rights’ and that they must ‘fight the enemy’.
    He tells women that the GOP is waging a war on them.
    He tells the poor that the rich are waging a war on them.
    He tells women that the religious, in particular, Christians, are denying them ‘their rights’.
    You cannot be so ‘head in the sand’ that you don’t know that Obama has made these arguments, in public, many times.
    This is not the rhetoric of a president but of a partisan, of someone who wishes to set the population up into adversarial groups filled with hatred for each other, and focusing only on Obama as their ‘savior’ from these assumed vicious attacks.
    I’d suggest you try for a better analogy than the fallacious one you’ve set up.

  26. I think it’s beyond the point for liberals/leftists to pretend that finding fault in Obama’s deliberate actions/incompetence is “racist” or in some other way reactionary. This backlash against the Romney camp now isn’t your typical leftist bashing; it’s a struggle against their own pride in their own failed ideas and visions. It’s hard to admit you’re wrong sometimes.
    Just my thoughts.

  28. Davenport sez:
    “Hahaha, always good for a laugh, this place.”
    That works both ways. Your incoherent musings are in themselves a wellspring for derisive laughter.

  29. KVB, the US is both a republic and a democracy. The two are not opposites but refer to different systems.
    The US is a republic because its head of state if not hereditary but elected.
    The US is a constitutional democracy because its decisions are made by majority vote within its elected legislatures and following the rule of law.

  30. ET – “Obama is not running a blog.”
    I doubt he’d be up to the task.
    Thanks syncro 🙂

  31. Black Mamba asks, “Do you accept that Obama is acting as Greenfield describes, but believe that that’s normal and healthy?”
    That depends. If by “as Greenfield describes,” you’re referring to the tiny and rather banal kernel of truth that all politicians rhetorically pander to their base during election campaigns, then my response would be, “Duh. Show me a pol who doesn’t.” If, however, you are taking Greenfield’s screed literally, and wondering if I too would agree that every last Obama supporter sincerely believes that “he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate” and that he “will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell,” then my response would be, “Wow, are you really so unhinged that you can’t see the hyoerbole in Greenfield’s words or the partisan motives behind them?”
    And yes, to answer your earlier question, I am aware that Kate isn’t running for President, and that there is a difference between running for office and running a blog. But let me ask you this: exactly what sort of president DO you want then? Because you, and ET, and Kate, and the Tea Party, and the right-wing of the Republican Party all claim that divisiveness is out, that it’s un-presidential and un-American, yet also demand that any Republican presidential candidate be equally divisive through his or her unwillingness to compromise any sacred conservative principles even in the face of the realities of governance.
    Or am I wrong? Would you in fact prefer a Republican president who’s willing to find a middle ground on, say, abortion, or same-sex marriage, or raising taxes to fund social security and Medicare, so as not to be divisive against the roughly half or more of Americans who believe abortion should remain legal, the roughly 50+% of Americans who support legalizing same-sex marriage, and the 60+% who oppose cuts to those key social programs? Perhaps you actually support Romney’s ideologically moderate, politically pragmatic governing history rather than view it with suspicion and disdain? Maybe SDA’s rallying cry isn’t “No compromise!”, and maybe it doesn’t really believe that “Pleasing your enemies doesn’t turn them into friends.”
    I doubt it, though, given everything that’s ever been written or linked to on this site. No, your problem with Obama isn’t that he’s divisive; it’s simply that he’s not divisive in the ways that you’d like.

  32. Davenport, with regard to the issues you mentioned, Americans tend to be more pro-life and traditional marriage than you give them credit for. Also, do not forget that Obama has made $700 billion in cuts to Medicare for prop up the unpopular Obamacare while Paul Ryan’s plan at least extends its life and gives more choices to the recipient.
    With these facts, and the plethora of ways in which Obama has ruined the economy, ect, what does Obama have to offer other than division? Artificial divisions serve as a distraction from the real issues.
    Dyed-in-the-wool supporters are too proud to admit that they are wrong about Obama hence the mud-slinging. I’d start worrying about these useful idiots than someone energised by Romney’s new VP pick.

  33. Of course in some ways it’s a matter of degree; any politician has his base. But comrade Obama is engaged in demonizing The Rich, and Whitey, and executives (Romney gave that lady cancer!), and any institution that declines to bow to his totalitarian demands (poor brave Sanda Fluke, a Catholic institution won’t buy her cond*ms, how positively dickensian), and gun owners (remember “bitter clingers”?), and one could certainly go on. Did Bush do things like this? Can you think of an example of Bush sticking a “kick me” sign on any group of Americans?
    And we’re not talking about finding a “middle ground” politically, i.e. making strategic concessions or just being spineless on matters of policy and conscience. That’s something else. We’re talking – Greenfield is talking – about a deliberate plan to Emmanuel Goldstein large segments of the population.
    (Yes, I have been sitting on this thread for 6 hours, swigging vodka and hitting the refresh button every 2 minutes when my little beeper goes off, thanks for asking.)

  34. None of it is going to matter if Americans get their country back. And , they are about it in more serious ways than 2010 to be sure. Romney told the prez today to take his campaign of hate and division and thug off to Chicago. And the sooner the better.
    Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are going to kick some serious democrat and lefty A** come Nov.
    Obama and the dems are running scared. Which makes them as dangerous as a cornered cobra.

  35. Osumashi Kinyobe: “Davenport, with regard to the issues you mentioned, Americans tend to be more pro-life and traditional marriage than you give them credit for.”
    And what’s that claim based on? Wishful thinking? Your personal experienced? Here’s what Americans actually say:
    – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion
    – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
    “Also, do not forget that Obama has made $700 billion in cuts to Medicare for prop up the unpopular Obamacare while Paul Ryan’s plan at least extends its life and gives more choices to the recipient.”
    Ryan’s plan also includes $700B in Medicare cuts:
    – washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how
    – washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/

  36. Snowbunnie: “None of it is going to matter if Americans get their country back.”
    Ah yes, the Tea Party rallying cry to “Take our country back.”
    Since we’re on the topic of divisiveness, pray tell, whom exactly are they taking the country back from?

  37. Snowbunnie: “None of it is going to matter if Americans get their country back.”
    Ah yes, the Tea Party rallying cry to “Take our country back.”
    Since we’re on the topic of divisiveness, pray tell, whom exactly are they taking the country back from?

  39. this is one of the best piece I have read in a long time!
    ( for what it is worth) I read on average for about 10 hours a day
    Daniel Greenfield is brilliant!

  40. davenport, wikipedia is not a reliable statistical or opinion site.
    Therefore, your data on pro-choice versus pro-life is debatable. You are ignoring that public referendums in the US on same-sex marriage rejected it in the majority of states; you are ignoring the support for such as Chick-Fil-A; you are ignoring the support for the lawsuits filed by the churches against Obama’s contraception.
    Your Ezra Klein article’s content doesn’t support its title. Ryan doesn’t remove over 700 billion from Medicare; the funding remains the same for the next ten years. Klein doesn’t mention this.
    Klein also doesn’t mention that the current Medicare is unsustainable.
    The cuts to Medicare then come, not from removing money from the fund, but from reducing the input money and setting up a competitive situation where users choose a second-lowest bid, a bid that it obviously lower than current costs. If they choose a higher bid with more services, they pay a higher premium. Klein doesn’t mention this.
    Furthermore, Klein’s juxtaposition of medical care versus defense is a deliberate political tactic of frightening people and using the ‘who needs war’ meme. False.
    The savings go to the debt and not to any particular program. Furthermore, Obama’s plan to reduce the debt by raising taxes has been condemned by most economists, as a trickle that won’t solve it, and that will, however, greatly harm the ability of the private sector to INVEST in new jobs. Klein doesn’t mention this need for Investment that Obama is destroying.

  41. davenport – Obama IS divisive. You have totally changed the meaning of our debate here on his divisiveness.
    No-one is talking about having a different opinion or belief; that’s not the divisiveness any of us are referring to. Obama’s divisiveness focuses not on beliefs but on genes or history. Race, ethnicity, gender, wealth. These have nothing to do with beliefs! Got that?
    So, he divides the American people by race, and claims that if you reject his opinions, it’s not due to your reason but your bigotry; you reject his ‘race’.
    He tells hispanics that they must fight ‘the enemy’, defined as ‘white people opposed to illegals’.
    He tells women that the GOP have a ‘war on women’.
    He tells the poor that they are poor because the rich have stolen all the money.
    He tells the wealthy that they are wealthy not because of their work and brains but only because they are greedy.
    These are NOT divisions over beliefs but over genes or other causes. NOT over beliefs!
    Obama is deliberately setting people up into ‘identity blocs’ that are adversarial to each other. That is unacceptable in a president.
    There is no middle ground in abortion or same-sex marriage. These are either-or beliefs. The decisions must rest with the people. Not with the government.

  43. Take Arizona. Obama sics his (corrupt, indeed criminal, and racist) justice department on the state for enforcing legitimate border laws. If his motive here isn’t a]sc*w you honkey (in many ways the man hates America, western culture etc.) and b]import enough illegals to try to swing the elections (Arizona is “purple”), because after all enforcing voting regulations is racist – well, what’s your theory?
    A lot of Americans want to “take the country back” from this banana republic $h*t.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation