February 4, 2009

Obama’s true colours are showing

By Ted Belman

James Lewis in The American Thinker suggests Obama may become a disaster

    The appointments of Samantha Power and Susan Rice bode ill for the entire Middle East. A meeting with Hugo Chavez — to negotiate what, exactly? Forthcoming recognition of radical Islamofascist Iran on their terms, not ours, are all ominous straws in the wind. [..]

    The so-called stimulus bill is pure political payoff to Democrat city machines, the teachers’ unions, and faithful leftwing armies like ACORN. Those 1.17 trillion dollars are not designed to stimulate normal economic activity, defined as products and services that Americans want and will work for — which is what “supply and demand” really means, after all. [..]

    Future generations are being burdened with this second trillion dollar payoff in a few months — after the first trillion bucks for TARP. But fear not. The O administration is promising yet more trillions in spending, under the mad delusion that the New Deal didn’t spend enough on things people didn’t want. [..]

    Vladimir Lenin pioneered a double-layered style of control by Soviet Party Commissars. Every government official and military officer was doubled by a Party Commissar, who wielded the real power. Obama is using a similar strategy by directing Samantha Power to go wherever new SecState Hillary Clinton goes.

    Those two ladies hate each other, even before Power called Hillary “a monster” during the primaries. Power will report on Hillary to the White House. The Obamas are introducing a parallel staff for the major departments in the White House, to keep a jealous eye on its own appointees.[..]

    A lockstep alliance between government and the big media is a marker of radical Leftist rulers. Putin just had a couple of more journalists murdered in Moscow. That is not likely to happen here, but then, it wont be necessary. The big media are already PR flacks for the Left. Well, just to make that relationship of buyer and bought explicit, a Boston Globe journalist has just proposed a special Federal bailout for newsies who have utterly destroyed their own audiences. Somewhere in Hell Jozef Goebbels is smiling. [..]

    Obama’s no-lobbyist rule is now a public joke. [..]

    The appointment of radical Greenies to positions like the “Science Czar” — a huge self-contradiction — are sending very bad signals to the giant Federal research establishment.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 10:08 am | 12 Comments »

12 Responses to Obama’s true colours are showing

  1. h peskin says:

    We can all admit that two weeks is an adequate amount of time for an objective assessment on the work performance of President Obama.There is a general consensus that he is not up to the task at hand.

    Regarding President Bush, we must allow the full passage of time- around 50 years to provide the historical prospective for making a judgement as to how good or bad a President he was.

  2. Bill Narvey says:

    Peskin, you really are a sleazy disingenuous critic.

    Stating the obvious is no answer to the thrust of Lewis’ article.

    Obama has been very busy placing signposts on the various domestic and foreign affairs paths he intends to take America down.

    Some of those signposts hint or even strongly suggest change for the better is in the offing, but some of those signposts hint at trouble ahead.

    Lewis, like other analysts are simply crystal balling based on what is known of Obama and his views before and during the election campaign, his words and speeches during his brief stint in office and the people he is appointing to high office and as his advisers.

    What these people like Lewis are seeing in their crystal balls are darker times ahead for America as regards America’s readiness to not only stand firm against her Islamist enemies, but to have the courage to identify her Islamist enemies. That would have to include nations such as the Saudis that have played America in a double game. The Saudis have co-operated to an extent with America in America’s battle against Islamists, especially where those Islamists endanger the Saudis directly.

    The Saudis however have done far more to create, nurture and support Islamists both in open confrontation with America and Islamists in America, either immigrants or Western Muslims who have transformed into Islamists.

    These Islamists constitute a huge pool of already operating and potential 5th columnists against America just as Islamists in the EU have worked against the EU nations whose transformation into Eurabia is now almost complete.

    So Peskin, if you are going to condemn or criticize Lewis’s positions, do so within the context within which those views and positions are being asserted.

    It is not responsive or even cricket to try to dismiss Lewis’ views by mockingly stating the obvious that Obama has only been in office a short time that is just too short to know for sure just what Obama is about, where he is going and what are the prospects for success.

    You always seem to take this approach to discussion or debate with people you disagree with. You are thus a very disingenuous, cocky and exceedingly uninformative adversary. You are however batting 1000 when it comes to being annoying.

    Why not use your intelligence intelligently Peskin?

  3. h peskin says:

    Bill Narvey:

    Some of those signposts hint or even strongly suggest change for the better is in the offing, but some of those signposts hint at trouble ahead

    Please forget the signposts,the crystal gazing, the conjecturing,the predictions, all of which means nothing-it is results that count,and given the absolute mess that Obama has inherited it will take some time to see some progress.

    But the hatchet men of the extreme Right (much of Israpundit) were attacking Obama from the first day that he announced his decision to run for the Presidency.Fairness and objectivity was thrown out the window and to be very frank, most of those who are criticising Obama have no real interest in seeing him succeed. Their hatred of liberalism and progressives supercede their concern for America’s well being.

  4. rongrand says:

    Peskin, if you haven’t you should read Bill O’Reilly’s “Culture Warrior”. Liberals and the secular-progressive are causing more damage to the American landscape. The U.S. was founded on Judeo-Christian principals and it helped our country to grow into one great nation and a defender of freedom.
    Government is become too huge to feed anymore. We don’t need government to look after us. The government’s main function is to provide for its protection. Our military is second to none in the free world. The men and women serve at a great sacrifice to make it safe for all of us.
    Bureaucracy creates agencies that employ many with sky rocketing cost and the benefit to the public as a whole is very minimal to say the least.
    For one, we all pray that Pres. Obama succeeds. We can always disagree with some of his policies.
    However, unfortunately he is a rookie with very little administrative experience, a Chicago politician, a great speech writer without substance. He has surrounded himself and his administration with a bunch of Clinton rejects and knuckle heads. He has political debt to pay to the unions, various minority groups and the liberal congress. This is all one hell of a large baggage to carry.
    If he actually believes he will be able to sway the Iranian Hitler and the mullahs who pull the strings from their objective to rule the Middle East and destroy Israel and the possibly the U.S., he believes in the tooth fairy. This rouge nation is bent on our destruction, no ifs or buts. They are for real and they are not going to listen. Realizing this Iran welcomes his administration with open arms and they see this as smooth sailing ahead to reach their gold of a nuclear arsenal. Then look out. God forbid.

  5. yamit82 says:

    But the hatchet men of the extreme Right (much of Israpundit) were attacking Obama from the first day that he announced his decision to run for the Presidency.Fairness and objectivity was thrown out the window and to be very frank, most of those who are criticising Obama have no real interest in seeing him succeed. Their hatred of liberalism and progressives supercede their concern for America’s well being.

    You are right but we learned the lesson from the left when Bush was running both times especially the first time. Should I or need I post how you guys vilified him even as a candidate and worse when he got in? You are a … hypocrite.

  6. Ed D says:

    Ron, you are a breath of fresh air, one who in a gentlemanly manner can call a person an a-hole and make it sound like a complement. You are intelligent, knowledgeable and, I believe, someone I could call a friend.

  7. Ted Belman says:

    Pesky
    We attacked Obama during the campaign for good reason. Our worst fears are being realized so we continue to attack.

  8. Bill Narvey says:

    Peskin, again you brainlessly accuse those who criticized Obama before and now as extreme right wing hatchet men, many of whom you say are at Israpundit.

    Your name calling is not instructive or enlightening. It is petty and emotive only.

    You say that Obama’s critics threw fairness and objectivity out the window. Really?

    I recall many articles and comments appearing on Israpundit that concluded Obama was deserving of condemnation in one respect or another. Unlike your comments Peskin that are filled only with pettiness, emotion, accusations and snide commnets, these articles and comments set out the facts upon which the writer applied logic and reason to reach the view they did. One could perhaps take issue with their conclusions, but no one could accuse them of presenting a dishonest view or argument or an argument that was not fairly and objectively presented.

    I do not recall any of your comments displaying the qualities of fairness and objectivity that you accuse critics of Obama as not possessing.

    As I said before Peskin, the way you express yourself does reveal you are intelligent fellow, albeit soured, arrogant, petty, unfair, subjective and emotive.

    I ask again that you use your intelligence intelligently.

    I ask you to be fair and objective in your comments. I ask you to make cogent arguments. Finally I am asking you to stop foolishly resorting to your arrogant sarcasm and snideness, your unfair and unsupported accusations, and emotional reactive expressions.

    Is that too much to ask of you Peskin?

    I am confident Peskin that you really are better then what you have portrayed of yourself over the last few years.

    All I ask is that you work with me to be that better person.

  9. h peskin says:

    Ted Belman:

    Pesky
    We attacked Obama during the campaign for good reason. Our worst fears are being realized so we continue to attack.

    Surely you jest. It is Obama’s 16th or is it 17th day on the job and already you are all over him. He has hardly had time to make himself comfortable at his desk or take out his blackberry and you are concerned. Come on Ted, a file clerk or office boy would be given at least a month to prove himself. “our worst fears are being realized”- He has not had the time to do anything of consequence for you to have any fears and I think you know that. Your fears are in the area of phobic aversion of anything relating to the left or liberalism. It is nothing rational or suggested by any action taken by Obama-it is rather his political stance or who he is that bothers you.

    Ted, Obama might become America’s greatest president but you know that would not matter not a whit.

  10. Ted Belman says:

    I really think the signs are all there. You wrote,

    Their hatred of liberalism and progressives supercede their concern for America’s well being.

    This is key. These values are not mutually exclusive but mutually supportive.

    We are very concerned with America’s well being and that is why we reject big government and big spending as proposed by liberals and progressives. In essence they want to change America and we like it the way it is. That is not to say that there are no problems. There are many but they don’t warrant the change Obama is attempting.

  11. rongrand says:

    Ed D you can certainly call me a friend, and a friend of Israel at that. With respects to the other two accolades intelligent and knowledgeable I could show this to my wife and she would get hysterical.

    Certain things you don’t tell the wife and there are those you better know:

    NINE WORDS WOMEN USE

    (1) Fine: This is the word women use to end an argument when they are right and you need to shut up.

    (2) Five Minutes: If she is getting dressed, this means a half an hour. Five minutes is only five
    minutes if you have just been given five more minutes to watch the game before helping around the
    house.

    (3) Nothing: This is the calm before the storm. This means something, and you should be on your
    toes. Arguments that begin with nothing usually end in fine.

    (4) Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don’t Do It!

    (5) Loud Sigh: This is actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A
    loud sigh means she thinks you are an idiot and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here
    and arguing with you about nothing. (Refer back to # 3 for the meaning of nothing.)

    (6) That’s Okay: This is one of the most dangerous statements a women can make to a man. That’s okay
    means she wants to think long and hard before deciding how and when you will pay for your mistake.

    (7) Thanks: A woman is thanking you, do not question, or faint. Just say you’re welcome. (I want to
    add in a clause here – This is true, unless she says ‘Thanks a lot’ – that is PURE sarcasm and she
    is not thanking you at all. DO NOT say ‘you’re welcome’ . that will bring on a ‘whatever’).

    (8) Whatever: Is a woman’s way of saying F— YOU!

    (9) Don’t worry about it, I got it: Another dangerous statement, meaning this is something that a
    woman has told a man to do several times, but is now doing it herself. This will later result in a
    man asking ‘What’s wrong?’ For the woman’s response refer to # 3.

  12. IF only Obama would do the right thing!

    It’s apparent Obama dropped the hot potato of Jeremiah Wright to win the election, aided and abetted by ACORN, conservative cowards and massive foreign aid (unaccounted for and much of it undoubtedly illegal), but most importantly: Obama has failed to prove he is a natural born citizen.

    Adding insult to injury, Obama has suspiciously sealed his records in the United States and Kenya, and disrespects those who ask legitimate questions concerning this key Constitutional issue instead of being open and honest. So to wimply and simply say, “He’s the president now” – to sheepishly resign oneself to accept a possible African coup in America (due to identity theft and terrorism) since it’s a done deal, a backroom deal, a president usurper due to treacherous irresponsibility and collaboration of many, is inexcusable.

    Although I consider the Gentile African, Barack Hussein Obama, illegitimate to hold office here for biblical reasons – Israelites were never to empower Gentiles to rule over them (Deut. 17:15), and Gentiles ruling over Israelites is considered a curse (Deut. 28:43) – IF Obama would prove he is a natural born citizen, as required by our Constitution, I would then submit to the fact he is our legitimate political president and encourage him to rule this Republic righteously, in peace and harmony with the Word and Will of God (Isa. 55:7-9), loving God and his neighbor as himself, and would gladly embrace Obama and pray for him as he humbles himself daily to read and heed what’s written in the Bible (Deut. 17:18-19), so help him God.