Only a Liberal…

I have no illusions about the general demographics of my small audience… conservatives and liberatarians. But for this post, I will pretend I am speaking to the reasonable wing of the Progressive/Statist/Liberal movement.

I warned you. I told you he was not only radical, but perhaps the most radical senator in recent memory. Decades in Reverend Wright’s church not only made the man a friend and a mentor, but a father-figure to Barack. After all, Barry’s dad was the bum father of all bum fathers. I know Barack seemed so nice and clean (to quote Biden) but he is as angry and radical as Jeremiah.

Yes, Barry Soetoro was 8 years old when Bill Ayers took part in the bombings of the NYPD, the Capitol, and the Pentagon. But Barack Obama was 34 years old when he met Bill Ayers and started working for him, and he chose to continue working for him until he was 42 years old. Barack Obama was 36 when he wrote a rave review of Ayers’s book. Bill Ayers founded the Chicago Annenburg Challenge and hired Barack Obama as the first chairman. The notion that they were casual acquaintances requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are enough for me, but the list doesn’t end there, and the man’s own words are plenty evidence. A white Massachusetts police officer arrested a black professor friend of President Obama, and admitting he didn’t know the facts labeled the white police officer as having “acted stupidly.” Without his trusty teleprompter, he told the world and Joe the Plumber that everyone is better off when you redistribute wealth, which is just a cute way of saying “steal money from productive people and give it to unproductive people.”

He naively announced he would seek a global ban on nuclear weapons which is as childish as a global ban on alcohol. It is silly to bring it up as a regular citizen, and dangerously irresponsible as a national politician, let alone one with Presidential aspirations. He is the most inexperienced person in any room he walks into. He associates with racists and Marxists and Communists.

His predecessor set new deficit records with the help of Congress and his response has been to accelerate those records like a child on PCP behind the wheel of a car. Pundits on both sides have admitted there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell he would have been elected had he not had a black father and yet everyone acts surprised when his lack of a resume results in him acting incompetently. He is not incompetent because he is black… he is incompetent because he is incomeptent. He was merely elected despite his incompetence because of the romance Americans felt with electing someone with a darker skin pigment than the previous guys.

Barack Obama does not have a CLUE what he is doing. If he does, he should be charged with treason, because every action he takes is an attack on America. I do not say these things lightly… I choose my words very carefully. He demonizes just about everything that is American, attacks the most productive members of society, celebrates the least productive, allows his underlings to let racists off the legal hook, impedes the actions of private companies that would clean up the oil spill, continues to hire and nominate radicals of the highest order, and hems and haws his way through interviews like a nervous 12-year-old. He is an embarrassment.

No question he is the anti-Bush. A well-spoken radical leftist with a disdain for this country and its military. And quite possibly the most unqualified and incompetent moron to set foot in the White House.

I thought electing Obama would change our enemies’ opinion of us. That’s what we were told. Evidently, Venezuelan Dictator/President Hugo Chavez didn’t get the memo. “Chavez said he “still” smelled sulfur after President Obama made a keynote speech at the Copenhagen climate conference Friday.” (Fox News)

Chavez followed that up with this gem:

“The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir.”

I guess they never hated Bush. They hate America, even when the golden boy, Barack Obama, is running things.

I wish I could take credit for thinking this up, but I have to attribute it to my father, who may have gotten it somewhere else. The White House has decided, since they’re getting killed in the polls about health care thanks to Fox News spending most of their time tearing it apart with analysis and video of town halls and tea parties, that rather than engage Fox in a debate, they will simply get Fox News to talk about something else. So Obama and his administration have blatantly started whining about Fox News, and Fox has taken the bait. Wall-to-wall coverage about how much the administration whines about Fox News, all the while spending less time on real issues.

I have to give the White House credit. Its a brilliant tactic. No one can doubt the political talent of the Obama team. They are many things, but political ignoramuses they are not. Why bother debating Fox News about issues when you can get Fox to change the topic of discussion by playing on their own vanity? Genius, pure genius.

The flip-side is that while Obama and Axelrod and Emmanuel and Anita Dunn spend their time playing Fox like a fiddle, they are not spending time running the #$%&* country. The right thing to do would be to argue with Fox News about the merits of nationalized single-payer health care, which all evidence shows is their goal. Obama wants single-payer… he has said so before. If they had outdated stuff like “facts” and “logic” on their side they could simply debate Fox News and win the debate.

How is it that the greatest politician in recent history, Barack Obama, is unable to debate simple Fox News reporters on an issue he so adamantly supports? If its so “clear” that a government run plan is the right way to go, why is he so incapable of convincing the masses?

On top of all that, Obama pretends he won’t deal with Fox News because they’re not really news, but he invites Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow to briefings. Olbermann, who nodded agreeably when Janeane Garafalo said those who protest higher taxes are racist, and Rachel Maddow who furthered the racist quotes FALSELY attributed to Rush Limbaugh. Its a free country… you’re allowed to be partisan, but Mr. President, don’t sell us a bag of crap and tell us its full of daisies. We can smell it.

I agreed with the assessment of many political commentators that Obama was only going to Copenhagen to argue for the Olympics taking place in Chicago because he had already secured them, and this was just a part of the deal. We were totally wrong. The Obamas and Chicago were served a crap sandwich this morning when Chicago was eliminated in the first round of voting for hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics.

From Hotair.com -

The One wouldn’t dare risk his political capital on a completely needless humiliation. You’re a bigger sucker than I thought, champ.

I am just amazed. Barack Obama is many things, but I didn’t think he would be dumb enough to put himself in a situation like this. Evidently, he is so full of himself, so convinced of his “gift” to be able to woo anyone with words, that he thought marching into Copenhagen with his wife and the Oprah and a well-written speech would easily get his beloved Chi-town the 2016 games. He is otherwise a political genius… don’t believe the claims of puppeteering by Axelrod and others.

It is evident that while he is more politcally savvy than most politicians in recent history, if not all, his political chops are dwarfed by his monstrous ego. Perhaps its not a surprise that a man who dreams of a “world without nuclear weapons” thinks he can just talk the whole world into doing whatever he pleases, including host the Summer Olympics in the city of his choice. Even though Chicago is located in the evil country that started an “illegal war” and “committed atrocities” and all the other drivel that has oozed out of the left over the last few years, and yet Obama assumed his presence or inauguration would somehow clear the waters for the country his party spent years destroying in the eyes of the international community.

If this story is covered by the main news media (NBC, CBS, ABC), it will do immense damage to the Obama administration. Barack… what were you thinking?

I have seen liberals on the internet defend Obama’s poor numbers as still better than when Bush left office. Talk about apples and orangutans. Here is an apples-to-apples analysis:

Slipping below 50% before November of the first year in office would represent “the third-fastest drop” since World War II, Gallup reports. Republican Gerald Ford slipped below 50% in his third month as president, Democrat Bill Clinton during his fourth month.

It took Republican President Eisenhower five years to fall below 50% in the public’s eye, Gallup notes. It took both Republican George Bushes about three years. It took Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican Richard Nixon more than two years. (Hotair.com)

That’s right. The incompetent, bumbling, illiterate George W. Bush took 3 years to drop below 50% approval, while Obama is on pace for 7 or 8 months. Yes, you can argue that any President will look good right after an attack on this country where they do anything in retaliation, but don’t go around bragging about Obama’s great poll numbers. Bush had a terrorist attack on this nation, and could have handled it in a way that would have been devastating to America’s opinion of him, but he excelled. Obama has an economic disaster on his hands, and he is failing miserably.

Obama’s poll numbers are tanking, faster than any President since the second world war except Clinton and Ford.

President Obama commented today on the arrest of African-American studies professor, Henry Louis Gates, stating that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.” So what exactly happened?

Gates arrived at his home and found he couldn’t enter. So he and his driver broke into the house, including using a shoulder to break the door in. Naturally, an observant neighbor called the cops to report a possible break-in. Sergeant James Crowley responded to the call, and according to police reports, observed someone through a window at the front door, and calmly asked to speak with the man, who was Crowley. Let me clarify, at this time, all Crowley knows is that two black men may have broken into this home, and the man in the window was black. When Crowley told Gates he was there investigating a possible break-in, Crowley answered the door and said, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?”

Before I continue the story, I would like to address this nonsense. A white cop approaches the home of a black person, and IMMEDIATELY, the assumption is racism. Aside from the fact that the officer who responded to the call is an expert on racial profiling, appointed by a black police commissioner, this pernicious garbage is the primary reason racism still exists today. Black racism, not white racism. I’m not calling all black people racist, but there is a disturbingly high number of black racists of prominence, namely Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, whom are celebrated rather than scorned. I welcome any and all to name a prominent, powerful white racist in America.

Back to the facts of the case… Gates reportedly continued yelling and whining about the racism of Sgt. Crowley. Eventually Gates produced ID confirming he was the owner of the home, at which point, Crowley attempted to end the confrontation. Gates would have nothing of it. Gates continued to yell as he followed Crowley outside. At this point, Crowley warned Gates that he was acting disorderly. Gates ignored him. Crowley took out his handcuffs, and again warned Gates. Gates ignored him and continued to yell, at which point Sgt. Crowley placed Gates under arrest.

It doesn’t matter whether you think a man in his 50s with a cane needs to be handcuffed. People under arrest are always handcuffed for the safety of citizens and police officers. The only reason race became an issue in this instance was due to the preconceived racism that Gates projects to police officers.

President Barack Obama, without knowing all the facts of the case… simply pontificating on the subject based on his cursory knowledge of one version of the story, decided he would comment on a local police matter solely based on the fact that he knew the person arrested, and the race of the parties involved. A police officer did his job, but because he arrested a friend of the President who happens to be black, Obama’s first reaction is to play the race card. What the hell does the arrest rates of blacks and latinos throughout history have to do with this case? Do we have to address historical statistics every time a non-white is arrested?

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know, separate and apart from this incident, is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. And that’s just a fact.” He added later that the incident was “a sign of how race remains a factor in this society.”

Barack Obama has illustrated, once again, that he is black first, American President second. It was more important to him to quickly comment on the case of a black man being arrested in Cambridge by a white cop than to wait for the facts of the case to be determined, and for local law enforcement to handle the situation. This incident was none of his business, but because it involved race, he was incapable of remaining silent. The problem is race was not made an issue by the officer, but by the arrestee.

Obama’s knee-jerk racist reaction has understandably angered police unions (see story). Personally, I have about as much use for African-American Studies professors as I do white studies professors.  I am so sick of this constant, incessant race card playing by prominent blacks, including the half-black President. Professor Gates acted like a prick in his home, and then in public, and rather than calm down and behave, he decided to continue being disorderly. I submit, as did Rush Limbaugh, that Gates partially wanted to be arrested so he could create this controversy out of thin air. A cop came to make sure Mr. Gates’s home wasn’t being broken into, and Gates repaid him by accusing him of racism. And President Obama reinforced this behavior. It was unpresidential, and more importantly, racist.

And enemy combatants. And a couple other things, but who’s counting.

It appears the Obama honeymoon is near its end for the Press. In this video, a reporter calls Obama on his pledge to not raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s answer is SO lame the press corps laughs at him.

Barack Obama is a lying scumbag. He promised he wouldn’t raise taxes one cent for people making less than $250,000 and couldn’t make it 6 months before breaking his promise.

And from the Washington Post:

Obama administration officials are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

See his promises on video. So he lied about raising taxes, he lied about giving Gitmo detainees their day in court, he lied about letting Americans look at legislation online for 5 days before voting, he lied about preventing congressmen from slipping in pork barrels. To quote Ted Kennedy, “lie after lie after lie after lie.” Senator Kennedy, Obama would like you to know, yes we can.

Two stories have inspired me to write a post concerning the difference between a right and a privilege. The first is a column by Bernie Sanders, the “independent” democratic socialist senator from Vermont, titled “Health Care is a right, not a privilege.” The second is a court ruling in France, where their Constitutional Council declared internet access a “basic right.” I will ruin the ending by telling you I strongly disagree with both.

A passage from Sanders’s column:

“First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?

I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Before you can dispute his conclusion, you have to dispute his premise…

“the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection”

The fact that every other “major” country treats healthcare as a privilege is irrelevant to the debate. It is clear as day that the United States is unique, and should only follow the lead of other countries if those countries are more successful at that particular policy.

The notion that education is a “basic need” is also a fallacy. That’s a whole other debate. On top of that, comparing healthcare to education, police, and fire protection is also ridiculous. We have police and fire protection for general welfare. Police enforce the rule of law, an important reason for the success of America. If your house catches fire, that fire can spread extremely quickly to other houses. The only analagous healthcare situation would be an epidemic. We have the Center for Disease Control to handle that.  Other than epidemics, healthcare is infinitely more similar to a grocery store than a fire department. Each individual has extremely unique wants and needs in regard to healthcare. Healthcare is not one-size-fits-all situations.

Also, Bernie’s assertion that Obama’s election shows that the American people have decided healthcare is a right is also fallacious. There is no indication that Americans voted for Obama because of his quest for universal healthcare. If that was the case, Hillary would have likely won the primary.

“The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Here, Bernie has jumped straight to the conclusion he supports without any supporting evidence. Even if you think healthcare is a right, the notion that it should be run by the government is ludicrous.

“Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world.”

And Bernie’s solution is to have the government run it? His argument is the government won’t be costly, wasteful, complicated, or bureaucratic. Anyone with a brain understands how ludicrous this assertion is. My slow, inefficient car doesn’t make me happy, so I’m going to buy a slower, more inefficient car to solve the problem. Its silly.

Is healthcare a right? If it is, is food a right? Is water a right? Should every American own a car? Does every American have the right to employment? Does every American have the right to an internet connection?

The American Constitution has defined rights very strictly for a reason: to protect the citizens from a tyrranical government. We have laws to protect one citizen from another. Rights as defined by the constitution are primarily concerned with protecting citizens from the government. Giving the government power over the recurring, unique needs of each American individual is removing freedom from every citizen to choose their own healthcare. That’s aside from the fact that government is more inefficient and more wasteful than any private organization has ever been.

The more important “right” that Americans have is the right to freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose which healthcare provider they want, which type of coverage and payment plan they want, and ALSO the right to NOT get healthcare. The socialist argument that allowing people to not have healthcare costs everyone more money may be true, but putting it under the control of the government would AMPLIFY that problem. Car insurance is not provided by the government, yet everyone with a car is required to have it. I could be persuaded that all Americans should be forced to have health insurance to prevent high costs, but the notion that universal healthcare would solve all the problems with private healthcare is idiotic and willfully ignorant.

The only time a government should reduce the individual’s freedom is when that freedom infringes on the freedom of others. My healthcare through my wife’s employment does not prevent anyone else from getting their own healthcare. Because of that fact, it is none of the government’s business where or how I get my healthcare, same as its none of their business how often I go golfing.

The fire department prevents one individual’s fire from affecting other citizens. The police department enforces laws that prevent one citizen from infringing on the freedom of another. Disease epidemics are analogous to fires, but other than that, healthcare has more in common with a grocery store than a fire department.

I know I may piss off my Republican fans, but the fact of the matter is, the only use I have for Republicans is the opposition to Democrats. Only a Republican can defeat Obama in 2012, but I fear the formula necessary to do it will not be implemented by anyone.

The unfortunate reality is our election for President is now a student body election. Being smart or on the right side of policies matters little if at all. Liberal democrats oppose gay marriage vehemently, yet they didn’t blink when they pulled the lever for Barack Obama.  It could seem reasonable if perhaps they voiced their objection, but voted for him anyway, as many conservatives and Republicans did for John McCain. But the vast majority of Obama voters really did not even acknowledge it. How does that happen?

The Democrat party has been extremely successful in their ability to partition society into groups, aka identity politics. Convince the leadership of a group to only vote for one party, and that leadership will get impressive results. Part of this process has been to convince large amounts of Americans that Republicans are insensitive at best, and vicious bigots at worst.

These generalizations CAN be defeated in political discourse, but the Republican party often refuses to. They opt for short term solutions and screw themselves in the long term. Apologizing for a racial comment would be one example. I didn’t say racIST; I said racIAL. Mentioning a mistake by an individual that happens not to be white is not racist, but many liberals pounce on any racial comment and declare is racist.

A month ago, I would been able to name three people capable of combatting the success of Democrat identity politics. The first would have been Newt Gingrich. He has been more eloquent than most about explaining fiscal conservatism and contrasting it with fiscal liberalism or socialism. In other words, he has had the balls to take the Democrats head on concerning multiple issues. He left his balls at home when he apologized for calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, which she is. He has proven he can’t go all the way in a long, arduous campaign.

The second person is Dick Cheney. The guy ran circles around Obama a few weeks back concerning interrogation, etc. Just demolished him, despite Keith Olbermann’s best efforts to tell people otherwise. Cheney has been steadfast (as far as I’m aware) about sticking to his guns and not backing down from any debate, even if people call him names. Unfortunately, I fear he has been so damaged by the many myths about him and Halliburton that he is unelectable. I would also file Sarah Palin under this category, at least in the short term. (Update 7/2/09 - Krauthammer agrees with me)

The third person is Mitt Romney. I fear he is the last hope of defeating Obama in 2012. Barack Obama thanks his lucky stars that Romney didn’t get the nomination, because if he had, the economic crash of September would have played right into the hands of Romney, an extremely successful businessman who has shown he knows the economy. I don’t pretend Romney is the biggest expert on the economy. Again, this is a student body presidential election, so he is as close as its gonna get.

Romney has the look, the voice, the gravitas that has a chance with the pop culture vote that Obama courted in 2008. I know Obama supporters that love Romney. Now for anyone out there that follows politics, you might wonder how the hell one person could simultaneously like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The answer is simple, albeit irritating. It’s because Presidential elections have ceased to have anything to do with being qualified and having experience. It doesn’t matter that Romney and Obama disagree on virtually every major issue. They’re both likeable to the ignorant masses of voters. Yes, I am calling voters ignorant. Not all of them, just 90% of them.

Romney is the guy. Moral purists like myself will just have to ignore Romney’s occasional flip-flop if they want to replace the Marxist Barack Obama. I think the situation is so dire that the lesser of two evils has become absolutely necessary if we don’t want to spend decades cleaning up Obama’s mess.

There are other people out there who have potential besides Romney, but until they become bigger celebrities, they won’t have a chance against Obama’s pop culture vote. The next Republican has to tap that demographic to have a chance, and Romney is the current front-runner for accomplishing that.

The only other way is to have someone blacker run on the Republican ticket. I’m not in favor of picking a candidate because they’re black, but in the discussion of how to beat Obama, that would be one possible way. Clarence Thomas, Ken Blackwell, JC Watts… I dont know much about Blackwell or Watts, but they’re both young and black enough to grab a lot of 2008 Obama voters. Again, I only point this out in a political context. Come to think of it now… Clarence Thomas would wipe the floor with Obama if there was a snowball’s chance in Al Gore’s melting Arctic that he would step down from his lifetime appointment to be viciously attacked again. He won’t.

Like I said, Romney’s the guy.

***Click here for FREE updates from OnlyaLiberal.com.

Three disadvantaged Somali teenagers were executed by American military snipers after a desperate attempt to improve their lives by capturing an American sea captain just to get a little ransom. President Obama refused to exhaust all attempts at a diplomatic solution to this crisis, instead opting to brutally execute them in a surprise attack. Much like the execution of Oscar Grant on New Year’s in Oakland, Obama is continuing America’s tradition of racial crimes against minorities.
President Obama proudly took credit for the executions as a response to the “rise in privacy” in the region. He then warned Somali privates not to misunderestimate him again. As usual, the lack of diplomacy caused other Somalis to vow revenge, resulting in an American lawmaker’s helicopter being fired at. Angering these Somali minorities simply to save one white guy has only made matters worse.

In case the sarcasm hasn’t dripped sufficiently off this post, let me assure you I have not lost my mind. Framing this story with liberal pacifist insanity is perfect for illustrating the suicidal beliefs of the appeasement left wing. Picture this scenario a year ago… how would the media be treating it? Not only is Obama getting credit as though he fired the sniper rifles himself, he is also getting a pass from everyone, save Sean Hannity I’m sure, about saying “privacy” instead of “piracy.” Would you hear the end of it if Bush did this?