Tag Archives: President

It’s AD Oprah!!!

barack-obama-and-oprah-winfreyPlease stop.

I never watch Oprah anymore, but paused a moment while flipping channels. In between drooling over Obama and belittling Palin, Stephanopoulos addressed the BB/AB question. Oprah asked whether politics in America will really be seen as before Barack and after Barack, hence the BB/AB. Stephanopoulos agreed: we’re no longer living in AD; we’re in AB, honey.

Please stop.

For all of us trying to give Obama a break, despite his signaling the return of the ‘Fairness Doctrine’, which would silence his critics in Rush, Hannity and Laura Ingraham, it’s becoming exceedingly difficult with the mindless cult-like behavior exhibited by his followers.

Please stop the insanity.

I’m living in AD, thank you very much.

Obama: a Plant?


A friend forwarded me an e-mail detailing the possibility that Obama could be a plant, by going back through his past and examining various inconsistencies and troubling questions which have gone unanswered. Perhaps many of you have received these viral e-mails, like the one claiming Obama is a Muslim.

Come on. Conservatives need to stop investigating Obama, start looking at the polls and wake up. However entertaining, none of these viral e-mails addresses the real problem: the poll respondents who have him in the lead. Therein lies the problem.

Americans don’t care that Obama is a socialist; why should they care who planted him? Just this weekend, while greeting voters, Obama was confronted by a plumber who said, ‘you’re going to raise my taxes, aren’t you,’ to which Obama replied, ‘I just want to spread it around.’ That’s codespeak for socialism, Marxism and all the other redistribution ideologies that have failed over the last century or so.

The bottom line is this: Americans are ignorant and ill-informed. They believe Obama will be powerless to harm the country or their bank accounts, even though he will have both houses of Congress in his pocket to enact any tax increase he wishes.

Voters will get exactly what they deserve when they elect an anti-American socialist on November 4. Despite the complete and utter failure of the Bush administration, the polls shouldn’t be close. Voters should look at the impressive characters supporting Obama (Chavez, Castro and Ahmadinejad), at his background and philosophies, his past as a street thug intimidating banks to make loans to people who couldn’t afford them and his involvement with Acorn, Ayers and Rezko. And most importantly, they should examine his ideology.

That this election is close is a testament one of two realities: the stupidity of Americans, or their sudden embrace of Marx and wealth redistribution. Neither of the two conclusions is comforting.

In response to the financial crisis of last week, Russia’s communist newspaper Pravda headlined with ‘The triumphant return to the teachings of Marx and Engels.’  Perhaps on November 5, we’ll be staring at a similar headline in The New York Times.

Obama’s Silent European Majority

Presuntuoso. Arrogante. Even if you don’t speak Italian, you can probably guess their English equivalents. Those were the first words my in-laws used to describe their reaction to the Democratic nominee for President. You won’t hear regular Europeans interviewed or their impressions discussed in the American press, but I can tell you, there are many more anti-Obamans present and unaccounted for in the old continent.

Presumptuous and arrogant. He already talks like he’s the President.

Their hunch is spot on. By finishing his world tour at a pep rally in front of 200,000 mostly German Berliners, Obama demonstrated his ability to tear down more than just racial walls. Apparently, protocol is another target. In the past, no other candidate for President has ever given a campaign speech in front of a foreign audience, called himself a ‘citizen of the world’, or lamented America’s misdeeds world-wide.

While most of the American press is drooling over the groundbreaking aspect to Obama’s run, in terms of race, and generalizing Obama’s European reception, they should instead focus on his revolutionary assault on what is acceptable conduct by a candidate for President of the United States.

Obama’s European Vacation

The site of the planned Obama speech in Berlin is generating a significant amount of buzz in the German press. The Obama folks and their socialist admirers wanted the Brandenburg Gate, a controversial choice for both Americans and Germans. As a symbol of German unification, many natives wondered how Obama had helped tear down the wall; after all, he was still a law student at Harvard. And as the site of one of the most historic addresses ever by an American President, many devoted Reaganites felt the mere idea was tantamount to sacrilege.

The Brandenburg uproar forced Obama’s posse to settle on the Victory Column, yet another controversial choice. Deputy leader of the free Democrats argued (from der Spiegel)

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. He saw it as a symbol of German superiority and of the victorious wars against Denmark, Austria and France,” the deputy told Bild am Sonntag. He raised the question as to “whether Barack Obama was advised correctly in his choice of the Siegessäule as the site to hold a speech on his vision for a more cooperative world.”

Historical ignorance aside, the most disturbing part of the speech, is the speech. When has an American Presidential candidate ever given a campaign address in a foreign country? But more importantly, when has a foreign presidential candidate ever addressed an American audience? I can’t think of one, which makes me wonder why Obama has thought it prudent to stand before a European audience to rally admirers, most of whom aren’t eligible to vote.

And memo to the American press who will cover this speech, and who continue to mischaracterize Obama’s European support as widespread and sweeping: Europeans aren’t monoliths. Just because you might have spent two months at a foreign bureau, presumably sharing croissants with American journalists, doesn’t qualify you to make a judgment about Obama’s messiah status in the old continent. Just because Germans are disturbingly obsessed with Obama, doesn’t automatically correlate to an Italian fervor over a McCain defeat. There are many plausible explanations for the German-Obama swoon:

  1. Perhaps as the most racist European country, Germans are suffering from ‘white guilt’
  2. They hated Bush more than other Europeans, so they view an Obama victory as a Bush rebuke.
  3. They heard rumors that Obama likes wienerschnitzel.
  4. The largest portion of Obama admirers are former East German communists and recognize a fellow comrade when they see one.
  5. They fell in love with Michelle Obama after she admitted to not previously being ‘proud of America’.

Wesley Clark: The Audacity of Stupid

From the Politico :

“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron,” Clark said.
“I don’t think getting in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president.”

Had the above criticism come from former Secretary of State Powell or Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf instead of a failed NATO chief whose chronic addiction to Presidential runs has proven tedious, the foolish outburst might have been taken more seriously. But given the erstwhile General’s track record, the disrespectful remarks just fit right in with his arrogant profile and his affection for fantasy.

In 2003, Rush Limbaugh gave us a history lesson, when he compared Clark to another wartime officer in Civil War General McClellan. It was a great psychological dissection, but I was more interested in Clark’s achievements as a prominent military figure in the 90’s.

As NATO chief, Gen. Clark, on the other hand, urged his Pentagon bosses to let him introduce ground troops into the war against Serbia, and he even was willing to use military force to stop the Russians from occupying an airport at Pristina, Kosovo.

But Gen. Clark was badly wrong on both counts. If he had not been overruled by his superior, there would have been unnecessary casualties resulting from the deployment of ground troops. And if his subordinate, British Gen. Sir Michael Jackson, had not refused Gen. Clark’s order to confront the Russian troops–who wound up cooperating with NATO peacekeeping efforts–the outcome could have been disastrous.

In 1994, while nearly one million Rwandans were being slaughtered, Gen. Clark advised President Clinton against America’s intervention, despite the U.N.’s unwillingness to stop the holocaust. But Gen. Clark speaks glowingly of NATO’s success in stopping Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing, for which Mr. Clinton awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. And now, he dismisses the liberation of nearly 25 million Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s murderous rule as a Bush foreign-policy failure.

He reportedly circumvented both Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Henry Shelton on numerous occasions in speaking directly to the media and the president. In fact, the situation got so bad that Gen. Clark was relieved of his NATO position several months before his term ended, and in a major snub, neither Mr. Cohen nor Gen. Shelton attended his retirement ceremony.

Mr. Clark should take a moment of self-reflection before making any further ill-advised attacks. Does he honestly think anyone with an iota of intelligence would believe him over the scrappy, sometimes maddening, but always sincere, war hero who just might defy all odds to become President?

Something positive did result from the interview, however. ‘Face the Nation’, the Sunday show no one watches, might have three viewers next week instead of two.

Obama’s Secret Weapons

Tiger Woods dons a red shirt on tournament Sundays. Michael Jordan never forgot to put on his North Carolina Tarheel shorts underneath his Bulls uniform. The long-standing relationship between athletes and their superstitions, good-luck charms and pre-game rituals is considered largely innocuous by sports fans, rather a side-note to the victories and defeats. Sure they might get a mention during a half-time feature, but for the most part, their pre-match voodoo goes unnoticed and unreported.

We might not care if our athletes or next door neighbors are superstitious, but our Commander-in-Chief, the nuclear passé-partout daddy, carrying around lucky stones, golden monkeys and little eagles for luck?

Are American voters aware that the “yes we can” candidate, is so unsure that he can, he is jiggling some stones in his pocket hoping that he will?

The Global Scelto: Barack Obama

Like I explain in my book, The Absentee Ballot, recognizing traits unique to the United States and Americans became easier after I had been abroad for a while. I didn’t notice our idiosyncrasies because they bombarded me daily.

One of the most glaring American deficiencies is our obsession with acceptance. We are consumed by wearing the latest trend, living in the most beautiful house and driving the best car. I was reminded yesterday when I parked outside of a golf shop and sat in the car while my husband went inside. I watched a man exit the store and open the car door of a late model black Mercedes, with shiny rims and windows with a gangster tint, sitting in the spot adjacent mine. His hair was perfectly coiffed, his clothes spiffy and a diamond encrusted Rolex sparkled on his wrist. My mind then drifted to a Milanese Rolex dealer who once told me that Rolex only makes the diamond face for the American market; Europeans would never wear them. Sure, they might buy a watch costing five-hundred thousand Euros, but it wouldn’t contain diamonds and no one would ever know.

This story does have a point, apart from materialism. The diamonds we wear, the Guccis we carry, and the BMWs we drive aren’t for our benefit. They are for the benefit of the guy at work and everyone else we come in contact with. Like this psychological need to impress, we have become unhinged in our recent desire to re-curry favor in the international community. It’s like there are three hundred million Sally Fields standing on the world stage demanding “like me, really really like me.”

Barack Obama isn’t just the first black American to receive a major party nomination; apparently he’s the only one who can make the world like us again. A Washington Post article starts out by pointing to our tattered reputation abroad. It goes on to explore the global reaction of Obama’s nomination.

From India: Sunila Patel “A black president of the U.S. will mean that there will be more American tolerance for people around the world who are different.”

It’s nice that Ms Patel is concerned about our racial tolerance, but maybe she should worry about the fissures within her own community. Just how tolerant are the Hindus toward the Muslims and vice-versa. And how evolved is a society based on a caste system and one in which males having more value than females.

From Britain. “Obama is the exciting image of what we always hoped America was,” said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, a British foreign policy institute.

What were you hoping America was? Tolerant? Racially diverse? Multicultural? Compassionate? One question. Who was the last black, or nominee of Indian or Pakistani descent to become Prime Minister of Britain? Maybe I missed him or her in my history books. Perhaps Mr. Niblett is simply excited at the possibility of having a fellow socialist in the Oval Office.

From Germany: Obama also has strong support in Europe, the heartland of anti-Bush sentiment. “Germany is Obama country,” said Karsten Voight, the German government’s coordinator for German-North American cooperation. “He seems to strike a chord with average Germans.”

Which average Germans would those be? Is she referring to “evolved” citizens like herself who work in think tanks and universities, or the ones desecrating Jewish graves and inciting racial violence throughout the Fatherland?

I voted twice for Bush, and he has proven worthy of a spot in a ‘who is the worst President in the last hundred years?’ debate. The dollar is a shadow of its former self, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, gas prices have ballooned, relations with our allies have suffered, wages have stagnated, and our federal budget has expanded to unprecedented levels. And for all of the Bush apologists who point to an increase in security, try traveling internationally. While machine gun toting and profiling Italian police roam Malpensa airport in Milan, our security asks us to take off our shoes. I’ve smuggled cheese each and every trip and until they catch my cheese, I won’t admit that the country is safer.

Bush’s poor performance aside, when did a President become a reason to celebrate or despise a country? Do we hate Venezuelans because of Chavez? Are Iranians evil because of Ahmadinejad?

It is too simplistic to characterize a nation based on the election of its President. It is also unhealthy for Americans to elect a President based on a desire to be liked.