Evening sets in; there’s time for reflection out in West Marin. Dinner talk swings from the Pride Parade, to explaining away Biden’s latest gaff, finally to Obama. In their own little hearts can these types see or come to acknowledge a lack of regard for the responsibility that goes with American citizenship; can they acknowledge their lack of zeal to self inform; can they acknowledge their dismissal of American and world history, dismissal even of the message of the Founders themselves as little more than an irritant? For how else could they have voted for Obama?
That is, can they admit they made a major mistake - not publically naturally but perhaps at dinner time - and if they can admit that, can they learn? This is the key to the rest of us. Because if they have not learned we are destined to repeat the cycle. This is the anchor which retards progress in the free world. We ratchet up a little bit at a time, sure; major strides however are ruled out because of the general amnesia of the left.
Many of those who voted for BO are “disappointed.” (There are plenty of bumpers out there minus the H & Change sticker, just a stripe of glue remaining.) But “disappointed” in Obama is disappointment misdirected. It was a failure of scholarship that led to this disaster.
As we have highlighted in detail in past blogs - BO is acting perfectly in character. He’s genuine. He wore a sandwich poster in earlier times; because our lefty friends failed to read it, they are “disappointed.”
Are today’s left unique to world history? Naturally not. A group of faculty lounge types (whom Stalin fondly called his “useful idiots”) fell hook, line and sinker for the utopia of communism. Bounce ahead a few years and witness another group made of the same stuff, taken in by another cult figure this time bent not on a communist but a statist agenda. It’s all the same and always and everywhere goes to the same place - control. Lacking an acquaintance with Hayek, von Misses, Reagan and others most lefties simply cannot believe that Hitler started just like Obama. There was a recession; folks were desperate; they fairly elected this guy; he used health care as his first hook, then gradually took control of the rest with the aid of a compliant media. Genocide is not the point; control is the point and it starts with a lot of people who are too naive or stupid to know better.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Another $50Bln for the Culprits?
What? BO wants to spend another $50 bln of our $ to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters”? That is exactly what we need, layoffs of teachers and firefighters, and “massively.” It is this bunch in complicity with their unions who are responsible for cratering local gov’t in the first place for goodness sake.
This Obama is one dangerous guy.
Robert Craven
This Obama is one dangerous guy.
Robert Craven
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Pride of Ownership
“Hey, all you do is criticize our president. For a change why don’t you help the guy? At least print something constructive,” we’re admonished by the nursery crowd; which is to say, ok, we lefties got all of us into a fix, just as you predicted but we want you to help clean up the mess anyway and guide this guy to his next term.
Are you kidding me? Why should we lay off this guy? The Founders put a system in place that will take care of it over the near term.
We stated flatly last year that BO does not understand 1) Americans or 2) America. Others have come to see this truth. Johan Goldberg tags Obama quite accurately as, “A creature of elite universities with a progressive’s love of technocrats; Obama is most comfortable leading colloquia of perfect-SAT-score propeller heads.”
Indeed, earlier we highlighted a portion on an interview, where BO explained, “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care. . . . But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.” Oh, these miserable democracies! This clown is at the helm?
Dorothy Rabinowitz calls BO, The Alien in the White House. “A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House...”
Geoff Hunt writes in the American Thinker, wondering why the free fall, why the “deer-in-the-headlights” at the WH. “It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task --- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us, and, whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant, and his notions of how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.”
So no, we’re not being petty, throwing shots from the cheap seats. We have understood all along that there is nothing there.
Obama may be an citizen on paper,yet all but the willfully blind now understand that he has no pride of ownership.
Robert Craven
Are you kidding me? Why should we lay off this guy? The Founders put a system in place that will take care of it over the near term.
We stated flatly last year that BO does not understand 1) Americans or 2) America. Others have come to see this truth. Johan Goldberg tags Obama quite accurately as, “A creature of elite universities with a progressive’s love of technocrats; Obama is most comfortable leading colloquia of perfect-SAT-score propeller heads.”
Indeed, earlier we highlighted a portion on an interview, where BO explained, “I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, academically approved approach to health care. . . . But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately, what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.” Oh, these miserable democracies! This clown is at the helm?
Dorothy Rabinowitz calls BO, The Alien in the White House. “A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House...”
Geoff Hunt writes in the American Thinker, wondering why the free fall, why the “deer-in-the-headlights” at the WH. “It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task --- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us, and, whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant, and his notions of how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.”
So no, we’re not being petty, throwing shots from the cheap seats. We have understood all along that there is nothing there.
Obama may be an citizen on paper,yet all but the willfully blind now understand that he has no pride of ownership.
Robert Craven
Thursday, June 10, 2010
In Character
Highlighting the other day Obama’s broken campaign promises, his politics-as-usual WH, his string of foreign policy failures, his stealth leveraging of race, his constant whining about how tough he’s got it, our nursery friend responded: “I still like him. I hate Dick Cheney.” (Ask this guy about the weather, his band, the time of day, same answer - “I hate Dick Cheney.” Not the Muslim thugs who would shoot him on sight, not his own Dodd and Frank who triggered the financial crisis, no, only Cheney.) Of course as most of us understand, what’s this have to do with bo’s failures?
Those two sentences, both designed to camouflage, reflect the foundation of retreat for this group. Cheney kept their hind ends safe for 8 years during which time all they did was criticize him for the effort. But since BO has now disappointed even his most ardent supporters, best thing is to pull out the Cheney-foil as cover, even 18 months later. That, and the racist tool are both past their once high altitude of fashion; it’s only the far left who haven’t caught on. And the rest? Chuckling.
And why are they surprised? Why for example does the old lefty Dan Ellsberg respond as follows in appraising his on-time hero, BO - “He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. ...... his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs,"?
Why do these people suffer so? Do they ever read anything but Cosmo and Time? We imagine ‘ol Dan has progressed from that. Then why are he and the rest of the chatterers surprised? BO is acting perfectly in character. He holds forth as if in a fish bowl, unable to comprehend, or not wanting to comprehend the consequences of his radical agenda - a perfect reflection of his radical past.
We have never blamed Obama; we have blamed those who pulled the trigger - for their lack of scholarship.
Robert Craven
Those two sentences, both designed to camouflage, reflect the foundation of retreat for this group. Cheney kept their hind ends safe for 8 years during which time all they did was criticize him for the effort. But since BO has now disappointed even his most ardent supporters, best thing is to pull out the Cheney-foil as cover, even 18 months later. That, and the racist tool are both past their once high altitude of fashion; it’s only the far left who haven’t caught on. And the rest? Chuckling.
And why are they surprised? Why for example does the old lefty Dan Ellsberg respond as follows in appraising his on-time hero, BO - “He's a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he's just taking advantage of the office. ...... his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs,"?
Why do these people suffer so? Do they ever read anything but Cosmo and Time? We imagine ‘ol Dan has progressed from that. Then why are he and the rest of the chatterers surprised? BO is acting perfectly in character. He holds forth as if in a fish bowl, unable to comprehend, or not wanting to comprehend the consequences of his radical agenda - a perfect reflection of his radical past.
We have never blamed Obama; we have blamed those who pulled the trigger - for their lack of scholarship.
Robert Craven
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Violation
We no longer have to make the case for the Israelis in the recent turn of events.
Let’s move on. Moving on may mean moving sideways, perhaps even backwards. We refer of course to Barak “Deer-In-The-Headlights” Obama. Or have we been a tad hasty? “Give the guy a chance,” some say.
OK. Let’s be fair, objective; let’s shed any party affiliation for a moment; it won’t kill us. Let’s, both sides, have the courage to self assess. Just like our conversation at the nursery - there is respect, there is listening, there is in some cases reappraisal, some growth, both parties, both left and right. Let’s give it a go here.
It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats and take shots at the guy in the arena. Teddy told us that. We’ve seen the left do it repeatedly, something they readily admit - Bush’s library comes to mind. (Bush has read more books than any 15 of the chattering class will ever read in a lifetime.) And it was not Bush who said “nucular” or “corpseman” or “Cinco de Quatro”. Too much. But let’s take the high road.
Let’s look at the obvious - BO’s promise to change politics, to screen out the sleazy stuff; the reason perhaps most of the cool aide crowd voted for him. Well, to us he’s added to the mess. Are we wrong? He’s violated a major commandment of his campaign. A mortal sin. Isn’t this true? Didn’t BO just offer two Dem candidates jobs if they would drop out of their respective races? Yes? Although this may not be the stuff impeachment is made of, it is as Rich Lowry puts it actions, “that are remarkably ham-handed instances of the transactional, bullying politics in which Obama’s team specializes, despite working for the most sanctimonious man in America.” We all agree?
Or what about race? BO promised a post racial era. That was a farce. No? Recall the good rev Wright, recall “typical” white people, those who “cling” to guns and religion; recall police who in racial stereotyping act “stupidly.” How about BO’s guy Van Jones’s racist remarks; how about Holder’s “cowards” smear and Sotomayor’s lectures about the superiority of a “wise Latina?” Had enough? Know what? BO does not like whites nor Christians. Think that is a crude statement, not pr? Well, we happened to read his book, Audacity of Hope (horribly edited we might add). We do recall one line which goes as follows: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A comforting thought.
Finally, we post a comment received on the last blog,from one CL: "Liberalism seems closely linked to alcoholism in that it's a disease of denial. One indicator of this is the reaction you get when you try to help either type of person with the facts or objective realities of their condition - congnitive dissonance erupts fanned by emotional fury." Indeed.
Robert Craven
Let’s move on. Moving on may mean moving sideways, perhaps even backwards. We refer of course to Barak “Deer-In-The-Headlights” Obama. Or have we been a tad hasty? “Give the guy a chance,” some say.
OK. Let’s be fair, objective; let’s shed any party affiliation for a moment; it won’t kill us. Let’s, both sides, have the courage to self assess. Just like our conversation at the nursery - there is respect, there is listening, there is in some cases reappraisal, some growth, both parties, both left and right. Let’s give it a go here.
It’s easy to sit in the cheap seats and take shots at the guy in the arena. Teddy told us that. We’ve seen the left do it repeatedly, something they readily admit - Bush’s library comes to mind. (Bush has read more books than any 15 of the chattering class will ever read in a lifetime.) And it was not Bush who said “nucular” or “corpseman” or “Cinco de Quatro”. Too much. But let’s take the high road.
Let’s look at the obvious - BO’s promise to change politics, to screen out the sleazy stuff; the reason perhaps most of the cool aide crowd voted for him. Well, to us he’s added to the mess. Are we wrong? He’s violated a major commandment of his campaign. A mortal sin. Isn’t this true? Didn’t BO just offer two Dem candidates jobs if they would drop out of their respective races? Yes? Although this may not be the stuff impeachment is made of, it is as Rich Lowry puts it actions, “that are remarkably ham-handed instances of the transactional, bullying politics in which Obama’s team specializes, despite working for the most sanctimonious man in America.” We all agree?
Or what about race? BO promised a post racial era. That was a farce. No? Recall the good rev Wright, recall “typical” white people, those who “cling” to guns and religion; recall police who in racial stereotyping act “stupidly.” How about BO’s guy Van Jones’s racist remarks; how about Holder’s “cowards” smear and Sotomayor’s lectures about the superiority of a “wise Latina?” Had enough? Know what? BO does not like whites nor Christians. Think that is a crude statement, not pr? Well, we happened to read his book, Audacity of Hope (horribly edited we might add). We do recall one line which goes as follows: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
A comforting thought.
Finally, we post a comment received on the last blog,from one CL: "Liberalism seems closely linked to alcoholism in that it's a disease of denial. One indicator of this is the reaction you get when you try to help either type of person with the facts or objective realities of their condition - congnitive dissonance erupts fanned by emotional fury." Indeed.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
