Tag Archives: Barack Obama


Before you can answer the question “What is the European perspective of the United States” you need to ask “Which Europeans?”.  Those who lived behind the infamous Iron Curtain have a very different view from those that were never trodden into de facto poverty under the Marxist Socialist Soviet boot.  They see where we are going because they have been that route.  Thanks to the PowerLine here is a sample of a common view from Eastern Europe.

An editorial from the Czech newspaper Prager Zeitungon:

The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.  The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America.  Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.  The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.

This sentiment is nowhere to be found in countries like Germany, France or Spain.  If you have been there and suffered it, you know it when you see it.  If you haven’t, you don’t.


About a year ago President Barack Obama was caught on an open mic saying to then Russian President Medvedev that he, Obama, would have more flexibility after the election.  What the Russian leader heard of course was – Russia will have more flexibility if Obama is re-elected.  And so they have.  And so has Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt and the whole Muslim Middle East.

Fifty two Americans were held hostage for 444 days during Jimmy Carter’s presidency.  The day Reagan was sworn in replacing Carter as President, Saddam Hussein knew he had lost his flexibility and immediately released all hostages.  Less than a week after Obama’s re-election Syria launched rockets into Israel’s Golan Heights.  It is the same Golan Heights that Syria invaded and started the 7 Day War in 1967.  Now Assad knows all he has to fear is a demand from the U.S. that he stop annoying Israel and a request for negotiation.  America isn’t the only nation that lost the election; Israel lost too.


President Obama often asks the voters to understand that he inherited a very bad economy, and he did. But in many ways it was not as bad as the economy Reagan inherited from Carter.

On Reagan’s Election Day in 1980, unemployment was at 7.5 percent and headed for 10.8 percent; inflation was at 12.5 percent, headed for 13.6 percent, and interest rates were at 15.5 percent, headed for 21.5 percent by Christmas, well before Reagan was sworn in.

Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 6.8 percent and no inflation problem. Inflation was only 1.1 percent in comparison to the crushing 21.5 percent left by Carter. By the time Reagan was sworn in in January business men, farmers and home buyers (if you could find one) were paying 23 to 24 percent interest rates on loans.

Reagan wasted no energy on blaming Jimmy Carter. He approached the problem by lowering marginal tax rates in gradual steps over three years. He eased the regulatory burden on businesses, making it simpler to open or expand a business. His infectious optimism reminded people “the best is yet to come.” America was still “the shining city on the hill,” and Reagan reversed the country’s mood from a Carter-induced “malaise” to a can-do spirit.

In stark contrast, Obama did just the opposite with predictable results. He increased the regulatory environment increasing the cost and difficulty of opening or expanding a business. He introduced new law burdening business with new costs that are significant and beyond measurability at the same time. He fought for a return to higher taxes before acquiescing. Obama made his belief clear that America never was a shining city on a hill; it was a country in need of complete transformation. For America’s leader to wear a flag pin on his lapel was to honor a nation that was undeserving of such respect, a country that was in no way exceptional.

Reagan’s policies worked. By the end of his first term, inflation was down, employment was up, the economy was in good shape again and the mood of the nation had gone from morose to bright and cheery. In the bid for a second term, Reagan won every state with the sole exception of Minnesota.

Today we are where we are because of the president we picked in 2008, not because of what he inherited.

This post was adapted on an article by Peter Hegseth.


For Veterans of the U.S.Navy (Veterans spelled with a capital V for respect) are familiar with those three words.  When “Now hear this” was broadcast throughout the ship over the squawk box you knew some significant announcement was about to take place.  It didn’t have the urgency of the raucous man-your-battle-stations alarm, but it usually was something important like “The number two evaporator is back on line so the showers will be operational again from oh six hundred to oh six thirty tomorrow morning.”  Or it might be the announcement of the name of the movie that would be playing in the mess hall that night.  Whatever it was, it was usually something you wanted to know.

Now hear this.  Andrew Klavin may be seen, actually we should say may be read, on the internet right now.  Best known for his entertaining message filled films and video productions, Klavin is no slouch with a pen either.  His prose production is entitled A Fantasy Election, an Imaginary Man and the tagline is Barack Obama has always been less real than a dream—a media dream.  It’s about an empty man in a real chair.

The Army has a phrase too; it’s “Listen up!” which is usually followed by a command.  So whether you are a soldier of the earth or a man of the sea, listen up and now read this.  It’s not an order but it’s better than most of the movies they play in the mess hall.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF – Chapter 10 – The Obama Administration

This post continues the series of chapter by chapter summations of the book Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.

Chapter 10
The Obama Administration
The modern socialist movement in America has abandoned its open and militant ways of that were so evident in the sixties.  That approach might work to bring the sought after revolution and change in an impoverished nation but not in a democratic, free and prosperous country like the United States.  Socialist scholars like Saul Alinsky and Michael Harrington convinced other movement leaders a long time ago that the only workable strategy for transforming the United States into a Marxist socialist government is a combination of stealth and incremental advance.  That’s the course followed by Obama and his administration today.

Stealth was evident in the way the health care plan was handled.  The stakes were high because single payer health care would bring 16 % of the national economy under government control.  That was Obama’s real objective.  Every measure was taken to avoid scrutiny which is why there was such a rush to get the bill passed as rapidly as possible.  The “public option” originally proposed was designed to lead to single payer, government only, healthcare over time…  Obama denied the single payer objective claiming the public would always have a choice; the government would simply be offering an additional option in fair competition with private insurance companies.  It should be obvious to anyone that private industry must remain profitable to survive and cannot compete with government that, supported by taxpayers, can operate indefinitely at a loss.

Barack Obama ran his presidential election campaign on promises of a post-partisanship and an open style administration.  Once in office, it turned out to be quite the opposite.  He stirred controversy, for instance, by attacking the Fox News network, calling them illegitimate and attempting to bar them from press conferences to which the other networks were invited.  He attacked the Supreme Court while speaking as President of the United States before the entire Congress and to the entire nation by television.  These are not steps toward healing; they are overt acts of division.

Naive voters may think the increased partisan hostility is a failing.  But, to a trained community organizer it is an objective.  The generation of animosity and division is the ground work laid for the conditions that prepare people to accept, even demand change.

To a community organizer, polarization is a strategy.  Creating division is the first step in the path to transfer of power.


First it was a spontaneous eruption by a few members of a group of demonstrators and it was mere coincidence that the raid happened to occur on the 11th day of September.  The Libyan people were horrified and even helped carry Ambassador Chris Stevens to the hospital, so said Hillary Clinton in the Secretary’s first public statement about the attack.  Then the details morphed a few times until now we are at “Al Qaeda did it”  and the ambassador’s body was paraded through the streets in triumph.  What was so difficult about saying this was an operation planned for September 11th and carried out by a brand of Islamic extremists whose work is all too familiar to us?

It would not reflect well on Islam, of course.  It would place full responsibility for the atrocity on certain elements from the Muslim world and not hold the United States in any way accountable for the overrunning of its Libyan embassy and the murder of its own ambassador.  Any other administration would have said something like that.  But not this one.

The bombing of trains in Madrid, subways in London, a night club in Bali and the World Trade Center in New York are atrocities in plain sight.  They cannot be denied.  And these may be the least of it if you add up all the local killings by Islamists that have occurred over the years in schools, airports, markets and even on military bases.  If such inhumanities are not acknowledged as an element of the Muslim world, then the only alternative is they must be the Muslim world.  That of course is not the case.

Obama’s father was a Muslim.  Obama spent some his early formative years in a Muslim country attending Muslim schools.  It is understandable that he would be sympathetic to the plights and beliefs of Muslim believers.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In fact he is in a unique position to bring some understanding between people of the Muslim and Western worlds.  But it has to start with acknowledgement and unqualified severe condemnation of Islamic militant Jihad and terrorism.  Only then can understanding begin.  Sadly, Obama won’t do that.


President Barack Hussein Obama

One of the first things Barack Obama did upon occupying the Oval Office was to remove the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House and send it back to the people of England.  It was a deliberate insult, equivalent in diplomatic circles to the secular act of attending a cocktail party and walking up to one of your best and oldest friends and saying straight to his face “I now despise you.”  It was an incivility unbecoming of any person, beneath the dignity of a world leader and confirmation that we had elected our first un-American president.

Common wisdom says Obama’s act of returning the sculpture was the product of an unsatisfied rage over Britain’s history of colonialism, particularly with respect to Kenya.  And that is probably correct.  But there is another reason why Obama might harbor a great bitterness toward Churchill.  Winston Churchill stood strong against Barack Obama’s chosen style of deep Socialist government.

Sir Winston said,

You may, by the arbitrary and sterile act of Government—for remember, Governments create nothing and have nothing to give but what they have first taken away—you may put money in the pocket of one set of Englishmen, but it will be money taken from the pockets of another set of Englishmen, and the greater part will be spilled on the way.

And another,

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill is no longer with us and no man of his stature is alive to speak for us today.  The job is left to smaller voices, like this very small one, to convey messages of success in place of failure, common sense in the face of ignorance, messages of love and ambition to counter the gospel of envy and to tell the story of virtue inherent in a system that leads to the sharing not of misery, but of prosperity.

RADICAL-IN-CHIEF – Chapter 9 – State Senate Years

This post continues the series of chapter by chapter summations of the book Radical-In-Chief by Stanley Kurtz.

Chapter 9
State Senate Years
Obama has managed to keep much of his past under wraps, however, his years of work in the Illinois legislature are a matter of public record. And the record shows him to be someone who is “profoundly race conscious, exceedingly liberal, free spending even in the face of looming state budget deficits, and partisan”. He is careful not to put his true ideas out before their time lest he get too far ahead of the electorate.

Rashid Khalidi is one of the people who hosted a fund raiser at his home for Barack’s congressional campaign against Bobby Rush.  Khalidi is a professor at the University of Chicago, the founder of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) and a friend and associate of Bill Ayers.  Obama returned the favor by channeling money to Khalidi’s AAAN from the Woods Fund where he and Ayers served at various times on the 7 member board of directors.  Rashid, Bill and Barack were frequently acted for the mutual benefit of each other.

A study was done at Southern Illinois University showing that Obama worked almost exclusively on social welfare legislation while in the Illinois Senate.  The fact that the state was deep in debt and facing a financial crisis did not temper the Senator’s drive for ever more expansive social programs.  Obama endorsed a plan to borrow against an anticipated one-time windfall from a tobacco lawsuit to pay for permanent social programs.

Obama’s method in the Senate was to move toward a goal in small increments, first with one toe in the door, then another and another until the full objective was achieved.  His approach of asking for more than he expected allowed for apparent compromise on incidentals along the way that could be claimed to be “bi-partisanship” without jeopardizing the overall plan.

Chapter 9 is filled with anecdotes and bits of information that are trivial in themselves, but like a mosaic they form a clear picture when seen in total.  We offer here just this one example among many.  Bill Ayers held the view that “America’s prison system is a racist plot to clear the streets of kids most likely to make a socialist revolution.”  He wrote a book entitled A Kind and Just Parent proclaiming this notion.  Obama lent his support for Ayers work by writing what the New York Times called a “rare review”, not a full review but a warm endorsement.


Once in blue moon a post bears repeating in its entirety.  Back in May, Random Thots published a list written by an Obama supporter of the President’s accomplishments since taking office.  It was a well written and impressive list.  I did a little research to see how accurate the writer was in his claims.  The Rebuttals are the result of the research.

One thing I would point out is how the truth can be used to convey a lie.  In the first example the author’s claim was absolutely true as he wrote it.  But it conveyed the idea that a higher level of standards relating to the lobby industry had been established and followed by Obama and his administration.  That was a lie.  The signing of the law turned Obama’s previous legal use of lobbyists (use that he continued) into an illegal one.  All others including his opponents were now subject to new restrictions while the President de facto set himself above the law by not complying with it even though he was the one who signed it..

Here is the original post.



Posted on May 31, 2012

There is a list going around the Internet outlining an extensive number of things the President has accomplished since coming into office.  The author seems to be addressing Obama supporters who are disappointed in the President’s performance.  It’s an impressive list, well documented and straight forward in it’s presentation.  I thought I would check it out.

Here is an example from the middle of the list.

He signed an order banning anyone from working in an agency they had lobbied in previous years. He also put strict limits on lobbyists’ access to the White House.   http://nyti.ms/gOrznV

REBUTTAL. He did sign the ban, but continued to hire former lobbyists to serve the White House. Mega lobbyists Steve Ricchetti, Broderick Johnson, James Heimbach just to mention three.

Not to cherry pick, I started from the top.  Here are the first seven.  They are enough to tell the storey.  Here’s a link to the full list.

Legislative Prowess
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.  Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%.   http://n.pr/i3d7cY

REBUTTAL. True. With Democratic control of the House and the Senate, Pelosi, Reid and Obama had a radical’s field day.

Fiscal Responsibility
Within days after taking office, he signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse.   http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5

REBUTTAL. True. The Order added the requirement for contractors to disclose their political party affiliations when applying for government contracts making it easier to reward those who had done political favors for the President and his party. 

Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money.   http://n.pr/hcgBn1

REBUTTAL. True. But his appointee to initiate the post never served due to her personal income tax problems.

On his first full day, he froze White House salaries.  http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx

REBUTTAL. Not really. On his first full day it was a proposal and not a freeze.  And it didn’t stop federal employees from getting increases in their income.  It only stopped raises within grade. Increases could still be given as bonuses or the raising of pay grades without the need for promotions.  The proposal was more fanfare than substance.

He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov

REBUTTAL. True. Each government agency already had a Chief Investment Officer. The creation of this new layer of oversight provided the means to control all of the agency career CIOs by one czar appointed by and beholden to the President.  It also added and an unnecessary expense

He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system.  http://bit.
ly/hOw1t1     http://bit.ly/fz8GAd

REBUTTAL. Defense Secretary Gates called this a controversial move.  I am not qualified to judge the advisability of it. However one thing is clear; it dismissed one third of private contractors, replacing them with civilian government workers.

Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  http://bit.ly/hwKhKa

REBUTTAL. This is better known as the Erskine-Bowles commission.  The Commission made many recommendations for the President and the Senate to include in the Federal Budget.  None were adopted.  Harry Reid’s Democratically controlled Senate hasn’t presented a budget in 3 years, contrary to law.


Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations told ABC News the attack on our embassy was a spontaneous eruption by demonstrators; it was not a pre-planned event.  Her statement is in direct contrast to that made by Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif who not only said the event was pre-planned but added that the Libyan government warned us about it three days in advance.

These statements are in direct conflict with each other so there can be no question but that one of the two nations is not telling the truth.

A pre-planned attack on the United States by a Muslim faction in Libya does not bode well for Obama who has Muslim roots and has trumpeted his ability reduce hostilities and bring understanding between the modern day Barbary Pirates and the United States.  The administration is trying to characterize the killing of Ambassador Stevens, the parading of his body through the streets, the burning of American flags around the world and the storming of our embassies as something other than hostility against the United States.  This is absurd enough on its face, but pre-planned attacks make the claim even less credible.  The role of an ambassador is to convey the position and policy of the leader of the nation they serve.  Ambassadors are given little discretion to make critical pronouncements of their own.  Susan Rice was appointed by Barack Obama.

To be a spontaneous reaction we must believe that demonstrators routinely carry enough weapons to breach our security of the Libyan embassy, capture and kill the ambassador and destroy two buildings within the compound.  Susan Rice’s statement defies common sense.

Truth is becoming ever more difficult to discern.  There was a time when in a case of conflicting claims between Libya and the U.S. we felt comfortable with the judgment that our spokesperson was the one far more likely to be telling the truth.  We no longer have the luxury of making such assumptions.

UPDATE:  One thing admirable about Susan Rice is she is uncomfortable when she is lying.  It shows in the video of her statement.