From Bob Cesca to Bill Maher

I doubt Bill Maher will ever read what I write. After all, I'm a pleb, and he's a starfucker celebrity talking head. But earlier this year, in October, to be exact, Bill Maher told a blatant lie about the President. He said that President Obama lied about closing Guantanamo Bay, and no one on his discussion panel corrected his error.

But then, these days, the Professional Left rule the airways. They can get away with everything from racism to sedition and then hide behind the comic's mask.

Today, for the fourth time, Congress voted in favour of continuing detention at Guantanamo Bay. Get that? Congress. Congress, not the President; because the President does not legislate; and it's a perfidious piece of deliberate misinformation when the likes of noted pundits or fundits or asshats or whatever you want to call them, continuously seek to apportion blame to the President of the United States, at the same time giving Congress a bye.

Please. Buy a book of Civics and read about how our government operates.

In the meantime, Bob Cesca, in my opinion, the best political blogger in the business, has brilliantly and simplistically delineated exactly what happened in the vote to continue this heinous institution.

I would like to offer this for Bill to read, considering it's not difficult to comprehend. I would also like to see Bob Cesca sitting on one of Bill's discussion panels, but I doubt he'll be asked - he'd be too likely to call out Bill's bullshit.

Please read and cogitate for future reference:-

For the fourth time since President Obama took office, congress voted in favor of continuing indefinite detention yesterday, and a by-product of that will be the continued operation of the prison located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

WASHINGTON — The polarized US Senate on Tuesday beat back an attempt to set aside proposed rules on detention of terrorism suspects, defying a White House veto threat and criticisms from the FBI and the Pentagon.

By a 37-61 margin, senators defeated an attempt to strip the proposed regulations from a vast annual spending bill that has yet to pass but is seen as a sure thing because it affects US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I’m beginning to feel like a broken record, but it needs to be repeated.

President Obama signed an executive order the day he took office to close Guantanamo. Since then, Congress has voted no less than four times to continue policies that keep Guantanamo open. Congress has voted unanimously against civilian trials for detainees, voted against funding the closure of Guantanamo, and voted for indefinite detention.

In this case, President Obama has issued a threat to veto the legislation, but because it is attached to an overall omnibus defense bill, it’s difficult to veto without adversely effecting servicemen and women deployed around the world who have nothing to do with the antics of congress. An obviously cynical congressional ploy.

The idea that President Obama lied about closing Guantanamo Bay irritates me more than possibly any other political meme out there, because saying that means you are willfully overlooking and excusing the actions of congress.

Presidents do not rule by fiat.

If you cannot be bothered to read the whole thing, just reading the last line will suffice. The emphasis is my own, because that's really the whole gist of the article.

Douchebags International, British Division

There was a one-day general strike in the UK today. It only concerned public sector workers - teachers, nurses, firefighters, ambulance crew, some police, civil servants. Schools were closed, hospitals couldn't admit or do routine surgical procedures. People travelling to the UK from abroad found delays because customs and border control were understaffed.

The public sector unions are striking because their pensions are being altered, and the retirement age will be raised to 67 in the next fifteen years. In the UK, public sector people are poorly paid. I know. I married a civil servant. Mostly, however, these people are given very generous retirement pensions in lieu of having been paid well below the national norm throughout their working lives. That's why people stay on in the public sector - for the pension.

This morning, local BBC radio interviewed a woman called Ann Widdicombe. Most Americans wouldn't have heard of her. She's a recently retired Member of Parliament, a Miss Marple spinster type who speaks with a cutglass accent. Needless to say, she is a Conservative. She branded the strikers lazy, greedy and weak. Considering the fact that Widdicombe comes from wealth, enjoyed a healthy salary and now a good pension from her service as an MP, retains the MP's private healthcare program, has had two bodice-rippingly bad novels published on name recognition alone and commands five-figure speaking and appearance fees, that's a pretty rich accusation to level (pun intended).

Today, over 2,000,000 union members either walked out or quietly and non-violently picketed. They'll be back at their posts tomorrow, minus a day's pay, but there was a point and a purpose to their protest.

Now, witness one Jeremy Clarkson, pictured below in the clip from an afternoon talk show broadcast on the BBC. Keep in mind that the BBC is state television and radio, funded by a licence fee, which everyone in the UK has to pay, if you have a television. The fee is roughly about the equivalent of 300 dollars per annum. If you're a pensioner or if you're blind, you are exempt. The UK has special "licence-detector" vans which patrol neighbourhoods and who can detect which households don't have television licences. If you're caught, you can either get fined the equivalent of $1600 or you can go to jail.

This is correct: In the UK, you have to have a licence to own a television. You pay $300 a year for that licence, and all of the proceeds, all of the proceeds, go to the BBC. Think of that - a network funded by 60,000,000 households at a rate of 300 bucks a household. You can imagine the BBC's budget, and you can imagine what it pays its biggest stars.

Clarkson is one of those biggest stars. He hosts the weekly boys' toys show about fast cars and assholes (like him) called Top Gear. On the talk show today, however, he and his hosts were talking about the general strike and the strikers in general. Have a listen. You'll be enlightened.



Presented as satire, this is, however, exactly how Clarkson feels about the people striking. That they should be summarily executed in front of their families. Oh, I know that was bluff and bluster and hyperbole, but make no mistake - Clarkson cannot abide the little people who take it upon themselves to protest what they consider to be one of the inherent rights which went along with the profession they had chosen.

According to Clarkson, these people - the people who don't teach his children (because his kids go to private schools), the nurses who don't stitch up Clarkson's cut pinkie (because he has the BBC's private healthcare cover and wouldn't, literally, be caught dean in a National Health hospital with the plebs) and all the rest of the factota of general society, employed on the public tick - should just shut the fuck up and stop whining. They get a bloody good pension for doing nothing (in his opinion). Some people, he sniffs, such as himself, actually do a day's work.

We should all be so happy in our work as Jeremy Clarkson, who bears the burden of a seven-figure salary and who gets sent, first class and with an expense account, all over the world, testing the latest in luxury high-speed vehicles. It must be so hard.

But then, Jeremy Clarkson should remember that those poor work-shirking bastards who went on strike today all have to pay a licence fee, monies from which help to pay Jeremy Clarkson's hefty salary.

It might humble him to consider that if any of that striking hoi-polloi don't pay their licence fee, they could very possibly be imprisoned.

It should humble him, but it won't. And he should also remember that he's speaking as an employee of the BBC on a BBC program.

Now, spot this douchebag.

Eminent Democratic Wunderkind Sage David O Atkins Begins to Grow Up and See Sense

They say one of the first steps toward adulthood is the ability to admit you were wrong and to take responsibility.

David O Atkins almost does that in his latest blog for Digby:-

Democrats took a lot of heat and made a lot of progressives really angry when the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended by the Obama Administration. But it's important to remember that the Republicans were holding many other priorities hostage in exchange for those cuts, including the START treaty and unemployment extensions. Commentators can argue endlessly over whether the trade was a good one to make (I happen to think it wasn't), but it's deeply unfair to say that Democrats, including President Obama, don't want to kill the Bush tax cuts for the rich. They do. Most Democrats, given the wherewithal to do so, will create a more progressive income tax system just as Bill Clinton did.

Make no mistake: Boy David is an EmoProg, a South-hating Southerner who wants to wipe his homeland's political existence off the map as relevant, throw us all to the pie dogs to be gobbled up by the GOP.

So it worries me when David and others in the Democratic Party harp on and on about the middle class, which is the most important demographic to both political parties and the winning talking point by which one measures one's relevance as a politician or a pundit. Face it, Arianna Huffington, Katrina vanden Heuvel and Bill Maher seek to champion the middle classes, and they'd all three run a mile rather than consort with one of them other than to tell them to park their car or shake their booty; and as Atkins is a Southerner who hates Southerners, Maher is a child of the white suburban middle classes who disdains that demographic as losers.

You see, the Democratic Party is the party of the working classes and the champion of the poor. Sure, they're baffled at the moment that this tranche seems to be in thrall enough to the Republicans that they vote against their interests every time, but that bafflement is easily remedied.

All they have to do is engage with them. Talk. And talk with, not down.

Maybe there's hope for our lad yet. Much of his blog and his tweets lately have concerned pondering the never-ending quest to find proof that the Democrats, led by that cur, Barack Obama, plan to cut, snip, pare and totally dismember Social Security and Medicare as we know it. I mean, that had to be true ... Adam Green earned spent so much money propagating the idea that this was going to happen, so it must be so; why, MSNBC, even Lawrence O'Donnell, invested so much time in punting Green as a viable political voice ... It couldn't have been a lie.

Could it?

Well, David O Atkins has this to say:-

It looks like the payroll tax cut doesn't harm the Social Security trust fund after all: the money is mandated to be paid back from the general fund. This is all a big semantic game, of course. It's all money going into the federal system and then coming back out again. But it's important to quell Republican talking points that Democrats are "weakening Social Security."

As I said, if politicians want to continue to fund Social Security at its current levels, they can find a way. The rest is posturing and political gamesmanship.

By Jove, I think he's got it. Now if he really wants to gain my utter admiration, he'd man up - yes, I said that - and call out Adam Green and his merry gang of grifters for the liars they are and the irreparable damage they did, not only to the President, but also to the Democratic Party and Progressives in general, for propagating such a foul lie.

And, by the way, David, for future reference, it's President Obama.

Surprise, Surprise! David Sirota Misses the Point Entirely about Ron Paul

Concern troll EmoProg Ninja Salon writer and head boy at the Glenn Greenwald School of Sock Puppetry and Scream-Infested Bullying, David Sirota has discovered Ron Paul.

Like the rest of the EmoProg Left, whose tactics and emotions play closer and closer every day to the Tea Party fringe.

Politics are circular; thus if one moves further to the Left, he risks coming out on the Right, and Sirota's probably at a hat shop in downtown Denver right now being measured up for his tinfoil one.

Sirota's little love piece about Paul told me something I already knew - that Paul draws huge support from voters aged between 18 and 29. That's been obvious from disclosures that Ron Paul is the only politician in whom any of the young people participating in the Occupy movement are interested.

That's not only oxymoronic, it's scary and ignorant.

Here I thought OWS was all about the interests of the 99% - all of us plebs together, universal health coverage, peace and all that caring for your fellow man an kumbayah moments. The stuff of hippies.

Well, Ron Paul is Libertarian to the core, the most selfish of any political philosophy, and caring for your fellow man at the government's expense is not on Ron Paul's agenda. Neither is "taxing the shit out of the rich" as one fervent Paul supporter at Zuccotti Park stated.

Libertarians hate taxes. They hate government. In fact, if Libertarians were British, the motto of their party would be, "I'm all right, Jack, fuck you."

No, indeedy, David Sirota fluffs past all that. Commenting on the fact that the oldest candidate for President appeals to the youngest (and most fickle, inept and intellectually bereft) tranche of voter, Sirota dispels as myth one of the things that makes youngsters cleave so closely to Paul's politics: the fact that he wants all drugs legalised.

That's undoubtedly one of Paul's attractions to young voters - ne'mind the fact that Paul's attitude to drug use is that if a person makes himself deathly ill over drug use or addiction, the outcome is down to him. Don't expect the government to pay for any medical care.

"I'm all right, Jack, fuck you."

They never think to look at the other side of the equation; but then, neither does Sirota:-

This degrading mythology ignores the possibility that young people support Paul’s libertarianism for its overall critique of our government’s civil liberties transgressions (transgressions, by the way, now being openly waged against young people), nor does the narrative address the possibility that young people support Paul’s drug stance not because they want to smoke weed, but because they see the War on Drugs as a colossal waste of resources.

Well, you know, I understand the mystique of turning forty. I understand the mystique of turning fifty. You are no longer young, and so here we have not only Sirota, who's a graying, middle-aged, fortysomething man, who joins the pathetic throngs of fiftysomethings (yes, I'm looking at you, Bill Maher, Joan Walsh and Michael Moore, who pimp your brand and tout for relevance amongst people young enough to be your children and grandchildren). Sirota's just another in a long line of affluent, white privilegist, borderline racist ueber Progressives, who've suddenly discovered a police brutality that's existed for decades as experienced by the African American and Latino communities, but who have only bothered to speak out about this injustice when it affects a movement that's over 90% white and very middle class in make up.

Why didn't he speak out before, one wonders?

As for the War on Drugs draining our resources - a point on which I agree, by the way - Ron Paul never seemed to mention this at all when asked about his support for legalising drugs an prostitution by Chris Wallace in a recent GOP Candidates' Debate, which you can view here.

Instead, Sirota, showing his minions that - hey -he's cool and he's on the side of youth, reckons that most people credit youth's support of Ron Paul because young people are "just dumb idealists, hedonistic pot smokers or both."

Probably both. Because I cannot figure how anyone who professes support of Ron Paul as a candidate, would be so totally repulsed by his son, Senator Rand Paul, as most of these people are. After all, Rand is a carbon copy, politically, of his father.

In point of fact, Sirota points to Ron Paul's foreign policy as being the defining factor in attracting so many young voters, and Sirota makes no secret of the fact that he admires this also:-

Paul, of course, is one of the only presidential candidates in contemporary American history in either party to overtly question our nation’s invade-bomb-and-occupy first, ask-questions later doctrine and to admit what the Central Intelligence Agency acknowledges: namely, that our military actions can result in anti-Americanism fervor and terrorist blowback.

This is true. Ron Paul calls for all American military personnel to be withdrawn from all foreign territory. Ne'mind the fact that the majority of these personnel will be summarily discharged upon return - taxes, which Paul hates, would still have to pay for the upkeep of a military too large for our needs, if that be the case. But don't expect Paul's government to look after the scores of recently redundant ex-military people.

"I'm all right, Jack, fuck you."

And, lest he sound too excited and wet-knickery over Ron Paul, Sirota hastens to assure you that he is in no way endorsing Ron Paul. Why?

Because Sirota has some "serious problems" with Paul's economic policies.

Really, David? Is that all? Sirota's uneasy with Paul's fiscal philosophy, but what about his social and domestic policies? On that front, Ron Paul lets rip with a choice few stinkbombs there, as Gail Collins points out in her Times article.

As Sirota doesn't mention Paul's social doctrines, one has to assume that Mr Denver EmoProg agrees with the following positions endorsed by Candidate Paul:-

- that global warming is a myth, and even if it wasn't the government shouldn't do anything about it.

- that there should be no gun control.

- that hate crime legislation is unconstitutional.

- that there should be no campaign finance reform.

- that Roe v Wade should be repealed. (In fact, Paul agrees with personhood).

- that FEMA should be disbanded. Anyone living in a place at risk from inclement weather should have sufficient insurance.

- that the Department of Education should be disbanded. (Odd, that, for Sirota, considering the little conflict of interest and smear campaign with which he was involved recently in a particular school board campaign).

Oh, and there's this little observation Gail Collins makes. (It's a gem!)

Paul is the only person running for president in either party who seems determined to be consistent, come hell or high water. The only time I ever saw him dodge a question was when somebody asked him if he preferred letting people die in a ditch to government-financed health care. But, even then, you could tell that he really did prefer the ditch.

So, in the words of another Leftwing icon, you'd better not get sick under a Paul Presidency; but if you do, you'd better die quickly.

"I'm all right, Jack, fuck you."

But the worst of all omissions by David Sirota, is the one which is systematically ignored by all the Paulists on the Left - the fact that Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. Quite succinctly, Ron Paul thinks private enterprises should be allowed to serve/employ/minister to only those people they wish and deny service/employment/ministration to those whom they do not want. Jim Crow, by any other name. You can watch Paul defend his stance to Chris Matthews (when Matthews was enjoying a sane moment) here.

And to prove the point that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you can watch Rand Paul reiterate that same point to Rachel Maddow here and here.

The term that both Pauls use to justify their disagreement with the Act is "property rights."

In case David Sirota or the kids he champions as Paulbots aren't aware, "property rights" is a phrase that got thrown around a lot in the decade before the Civil War. It was the euphemism Southern orators and politicians used as a rationale for secession. "Property" didn't just mean pots, pans and horses. "Property" meant people. People of the darker hue who gained freedom as a result of that war.

"Property rights" is the clarion call, not only of Libertarians today, but also of neo-Confederates as well, and Ron Paul has a long association with neo-Confederates and a history of racism, himself. Ron Paul, Sirota - being Jewish - should note, is endorsed by Stormfront, the American Nazi Party.

Sirota should be suitably horrified by that.

But he's not.

Here is the man (Sirota) who openly referred to the President's supporters as comparable to the KKK. Here is a man who dripped venom and condescension, laced with subtly racist remarks when Professor Melissa Harris Perry wrote an opinion piece for The Nation, wondering if a subtle veneer of racism was the root of white liberal abandonment of the President.

Of course, amidst the snark and hateful attitude, Sirota's retort was the same old same old soundbyte the Professional Left always use when confronted with evidence that their dislike and distrust of this President is everything to do with his melanin (as well as his obvious intellect) and nothing to do with his political beliefs. "Policy" has entered into the lexicon of the Lee Atwater Thesaurus of Euphemistic Dog Whistling.

As the PragProg blogger, Amptoons,observes, sometimes the EmoProg Left can be extremely erudite in their messaging, saying:-

Obama’s a corporatist lackey who really doesn’t want to improve things for anyone, and who harbors a very-well-hidden authoritarian streak. He’s to the right of Reagan, and anyone who doubts that just hasn’t read enough articles on FDL and Truthout.

Because they're just too cowardly to say, "Obama is black."

Or they could just start discussing "property rights," like their hero, Ron Paul.

For EmoProgs Who Think The Grass Is Greener Elsewhere ...

For all of you who think Europe is better educated, more sophisticated and tolerant, here's a racist rant on a London tram, complete with classic British vocabulary. Who said Americans were stupid?



This scene is being played out daily in French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, German, Italian and Greek.

Oh well, at least she's got healthcare ... for the moment.

Newt Gets Cocky

The President thanks you very much, Newt, for your generous offer to let him use a teleprompter.



And just to show his gratitude, he's willing to let Arianna Huffington suck your cock backstage beforehand. That'll be like old times in the 90s at the Mayflower Hotel, wouldn't it? You railing at the immorality of a Democratic President whilst a media whore clamps her mouth around your member.

Newt Gingrich ... the only Republican who makes Mitt Romney look good.

Headupassitis Contest: Who's the Biggest Asshole?

Contestants are: Glenn Greenwald, David O Atkins and his bub Dante Atkins (who comes to rescue baby bubba).



Verdict? Greenwald kicks ass and eats the Atkinses lunch.

OMIGOD! DAVID ATKINS ALERT! SPOT THE CONCERN TROLL!

I've lived in England too long. Every time I see David O Atkins has written a new blog for Digby, British alarm bells sound in my head - like air raid sirens:-



IT'S THAT MAN AGAIN!

This time, like the other Professional Lefters whose tits he sucks relentlessly whom he's trying to impress, he's doing his best boy efforts at crawling showing them how much he disdains big, bad, know-it-all show-off Jonathan Chait for writing that icky piece that's given Joan Walsh and others the vapours. (Just don't stand downwind).

Now, we all just know that David's somewhat of a political wunderkind. He's the self-hating Southerner (Texan, no less)who advocates for seceding the South. Make that abundantly clear - he doesn't want the South to go voluntarily, he wants to secede us because we're just too damned pigshit ignorant that we won't understand any Progressive philosophy. He's a twentysomething firebagger who just knows that much more about political history and strategy than anyone with Jonathan Chait's background and experience, who's one decade older. You can compare Chait's credentials here to Boy David's here.

If you're interested, you can read Babb-eh David's snarky takedown of Chait here and here's where I spew my Ovaltine:-

So if progressives are upset that Obama's Affordable Care Act doesn't go far enough, it's not our grousing opinion. It's because we know it doesn't--and all we have to do is look north of the border at Canada, or to most any country in Europe, or to the social democracies of Asia to prove it. If progressives are upset that campaign finance laws are woefully ineffective, it's because we have examples overseas of less corrupt electoral processes to prove it. Europe's financial system has also been remarkably stable for decades until the Anglo-American-caused economic crash combined with the misguided adoption of the Euro.

(Cough cough).

First off, the ACA went as far as it could based on (a) the number of Democrats resident in the Senate and (b) the type of Democrats they were. As only now is the truth coming out about the lies propagated at the time about the so-called public option, coupled with the fact that there was a Blue Dog Democratic presence which literally had to be hog-tied and appeased before the vote, Atkins should rein in his assumptions, especially since he was probably part of the dynamic that believed Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of Medialand was his Progressive friend, all the while she was tree-hugging Newt and cosying with Darrell Issa.

As for the "less corrupt political practices" overseas ... sunshine, I live overseas. If there are 50 ways to leave your lover, there are 100 ways to bung a politician of your choice some extra dosh in his kitty to enhance his victory chances. Do you seriously think Liliane Betancourt, the CEO of L'Oreal was lugging cosmetics to Carla Bruni everytime she visited Sarko's office with a briefcase and conveniently left it behind?

And the European crisis wasn't manufactured by the Anglo-British banking alliance at all, but by the fact that Greece, Italy and Spain used deceptively creative accounting practices to insure that the European Central Bank thought their coffers were fuller than they were, coupled with the fact that Europe has an ageing population, which isn't reproducing itself enough to replenish the benefits' system - too many pensioners, not enough people replacing them in the workforce. Add to that a burgeoning immigration problem - both legal and illegal - and ... IT'S THAT MAN AGAN! ... you got trouble in River City.

And Wonderboy's final remark to Chait reeks of condescension and utter ignorance:-

So yes, Mr Chait. Liberals are always--and increasingly of late--frustrated with our Presidents. That's because we have every reason to be.

This asshole is supposed to be the prodigy of California politics? Pray for the earthquake to be swift and just. Any kid from Rock School can tell you ... you want a liberal President, elect a liberal Congress he can work with, but hey ... David ... it's always better to blame the black guy ... like a true Texan out visiting Niggerhead.

But that's not all ... he comes back with some wittering garbage linking the President to Americans Elect and Thomas Friedman, save my soul!

I fear for the future of the Democratic Party, if children like this miscreant is let loose. I fear for California, as I'm certain that there are only nine people left in that state with any modicum of common sense and critical thinking ability.

And I also blame David O Atkins's parents for not raising him better. If your mamma won't tell you, Davy, I am ... It's President Obama. The only people to address him by his surname are people who have trouble accepting a man of colour as our President.

It certainly wouldn't look nice having to add racist to your resume', would it? Either way, I'd say you're pretty much what the Italians would call a maleducato.

This one's for you, Davy-poo:-

The Professional Left Would Rather Fart

I told y'all, but y'all wouldn't listen. I told y'all two years ago that Europe was veering precipitously to the Right. Every time an election was held in a major EU country, the conservatives would prevail:- the UK, Ireland, Holland, Germany, Denmark, now Italy and Spain. There's an election in France next year, and whilst Sarko is a centre-Right politician, his main rival will be Little Miss Le Pen, who makes Sarah Palin look Progressive.

Wanna know how far to the Right she'd be? Well, suffice it to say, when the Allies liberated France, if Mlle Le Pen had been hunkering around, her compatriots would have shaved her head for her.

Nicholas Kristof, writing in yesterday's New York Times blames the economies of those countries. I would say he's right, but I'd also add an immigration problem as well. In Europe, especially in Scandinavia, racism is the new black (pun intended).

Well, here's Kristof's words of wisdom to the Democratic Left:-

In this economic crisis, Obama will face the same headwinds. That should provide a bracing warning to grumbling Democrats: If you don’t like the way things are going right now, just wait.

President Obama came into office with expectations that Superman couldn’t have met. Many on the left believed what the right feared: that Obama was an old-fashioned liberal. But the president’s cautious centrism soured the left without reassuring the right.

Like many, I have disappointments with Obama. He badly underestimated the length of this economic crisis, and for a man with a spectacular gift at public speaking, he has been surprisingly inept at communicating.

But as we approach an election year, it is important to acknowledge the larger context: Obama has done better than many critics on the left or the right give him credit for.

He took office in the worst recession in more than half a century, amid fears of a complete economic implosion. As The Onion, the satirical news organization, described his election at the time: “Black Man Given Nation’s Worst Job.”

The administration helped tug us back from the brink of economic ruin. Obama oversaw an economic stimulus that, while too small, was far larger than the one House Democrats had proposed. He rescued the auto industry and achieved health care reform that presidents have been seeking since the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

Despite virulent opposition that has paralyzed the government, Obama bolstered regulation of the tobacco industry, signed a fair pay act and tightened control of the credit card industry. He has been superb on education, weaning the Democratic Party from blind support for teachers’ unions while still trying to strengthen public schools.

In foreign policy, Obama has taken a couple of huge risks. He approved the assault on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan, and despite much criticism he led the international effort to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi. So far, both bets are paying off.

Granted, the economic downturn overshadows all else, as happens in every presidency. Ronald Reagan, the Teflon president, saw his job approval rating sink to 35 percent in January 1983 because of economic troubles. A faltering economy sent the popularity of the first president Bush into a tailspin, tumbling to 29 percent in 1992.

By comparison, President Obama has about a 43 percent approval rating, according to Gallup.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois tells me he thinks that liberals will eventually unite behind the president. “It’s never going to be the first date we had four years ago,” he said. “But I don’t question the fact that he’ll have the support of the left.”

Still, it’s hard to see how Obama will replicate the turnout that swept him into office, or repeat victories in crucial states like Florida and Ohio.

Then again, Republicans face a similar enthusiasm gap with their likely nominee, Mitt Romney. (Republicans keep searching for any other candidate who they think would be electable, when they already have one: Jon Huntsman. They just don’t like him.)

Earlier this month, I asked Bill Clinton — who has a better intuitive feel for politics than anyone I know — about Obama’s chances for re-election. “I’ll be surprised if he’s not re-elected,” Clinton said, adding that Obama would do better when matched against a specific opponent like Romney.

Clinton said that Romney did “a very good job” as governor of Massachusetts and would be a credible general election candidate. But Clinton added that Romney or any Republican nominee would be hampered by “a political environment in the Republican primary that basically means you can’t be authentic unless you’ve got a single-digit I.Q.”

The credit Kristof gives the President for his achievements is grudging at the least. First, yes, the stimulus was smaller than needed. It had to be. At the time it was achieved, the President simply didn't have the 60 votes needed to secure the amount desireable. He was short of this magic number by three votes: Al Franken's victory was still under scrutiny and Ted Kennedy was ill. At best, had they both been seated, there would have been a necessity for one Republican to cross the aisle. This time they needed and got three - the two women from Maine and Arlen Specter (who re-became a Democrat shortly after this). The stimulus had to be reduced or they would never have secured Collins's and Snowe's votes. At any rate, it ultimately saved/created 3,000,000 jobs, so it wasn't that much of a failure.

Secondly, I wish the media would disabuse themselves of trying to convince people that the President is not a great communicator. He simply is. If one doesn't understand what he's saying, one's either stupid or letting one's white privilege deafen one's ears.

It's worth looking at the President's accomplishments, especially in light of the fallacious meme being pushed forever by Professional Left-troublemakers-cum-ratfuckers like Bill Maher, who consistently states that the President doesn't represent any real Democratic policies. That's a blatant lie and Maher knows it. I know his ilk are bored stiff with Lily Ledbetter, and of course, Bill conveniently forgets the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Act or the fact that DADT has been repealed. Smell like pretty Democratic policies to me - oh, along with healthcare too.

As someone else said, if George Bush had accomplished everything this President had achieved, they'd be carving his face on Mount Rushmore right now. Still, Kristof's suitably pithy, even though he actually admits that this President was given a hellacious task.

But then, Kristof makes a statement that only convinces me that headupassitis is now a bona fide pandemic:-

I’m hoping the European elections will help shock Democrats out of their orneriness so that they accept the reality that we’ll be facing not a referendum, but a choice. For a couple of years, the left has joined the right in making Obama a piñata. That’s fair: it lets off steam, and it’s how we keep politicians in line.

No, sorry, Nick. That's neither fair nor wise. For the past three years, initiated by Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of Medialand, Arianna Huffington, and aided and abetted by such cleverly disguised racists and assorted grifters as Bill Maher, Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald, Adam Green, Michael Moore and Joan Walsh, there has been a constant barrage of wanton criticism, snark, ad hominem and just general bullshit levelled at this President to such a degree as to be unbelieveable.

Yes, the Left did join with the Right in wantonly criticizing literally everything this President did or didn't do. We aided and abetted the Opposition in a way I've never seen the Democrats or anyone from the Left do. When a high-profiled Leftwing media figure joins hands with Grover Norquist, effectively, to kill healthcare legislation because it wasn't to her specific liking, when she makes the rounds proudly on Fox News to do so, one has to wonder at the dynamics of such a reaction.

Further on, especially since such well-known Leftwing voices such as Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh make and are called out for their racist statements, you almost know what's actually at the root of all this "helpful" criticism of the President. It's certainly not constructive, it's condescending and patronising.

It might be how one keeps politicians in line in general, Nick; but in practice, with this President, y'all are dog whistlin'.

And helpful?

That "criticism" levelled down to a major league host of an MSNBC political commentary show, Ed Schultz, actually telling people not to vote in the Midterms. You can actually listen to Ed spewing this line here, and you can listen to a woman confronting him about it and Ed lying his way out of it here. (And aren't you surprised by how much Schultz actually sounds like Rush Limbaugh?)

When you've spent the entire length of the President's (hopefully) first term calling him names like "quisling" (Olbermann), "moron" (Cenk Uygur), "dick" (Mark Halperin) and "pussy" (Bill Maher); when you've gone on Twitter and gone viral, asserting that supporters of the President who question your opinions are Republican trolls on Andrew Breitbart's payroll (Joan Walsh), you really have to wonder what the so-called liberal media's motives are. After all, as the real Progressive blogger Milt Shook points out, such wanton and unnecessary criticism is not only detrimental to the President, but to Progressive politics, in general.

Finally, Kristof magnanimously concludes:-

But think back to 2000. Many Democrats and journalists alike, feeling grouchy, were dismissive of Al Gore and magnified his shortcomings. We forgot the context, prided ourselves on our disdainful superiority — and won eight years of George W. Bush.

This time, let’s do a better job of retaining perspective. If we turn Obama out of office a year from now, let’s make sure it is because the Republican nominee is preferable, not just out of grumpiness toward the incumbent during a difficult time.

How white of Nicholas Kristof! What he needs to do, if he has the courage, is to call out, name and shame the culprits responsible for this dilemma. Maher and Moore trolled the country passing the meme, in 2000, that Bush and Gore were the same - best vote for Nader. Now, when they're not making racist jibes at the President and hiding behind the comedy of the situation (haha), they're pushing the subtle message of not voting.

Media Whoreanna purrs that she just might vote Republican, as long as the Republican is responsible - just not Romney (Mormon), Perry (Southern) or Cain (black). She never mentioned Ron Paul, however, or her former snugglebunny, Newt.

The truth is - but Nick Kristof would never acknowledge it, because it would mean breaking ranks with his brethren in the Fourth Estate - we could have been in so much a better situation for re-election if we'd only had half the support the liberal tranche of the media gave Bill Clinton.

But instead of breaking rank and being honest, Kristof, like others of his ilk on the Professional Left, would rather break wind like the big farts they are.

Headupassitis II: Ron Paul Is OWS's Cafeteria Candidate

There are a lot of things which concern me about the Occupy movement - the ideas which participants hold indicating that voting isn't worth the effort or that both political parties are the same.

The first idea is not only stupid, it's being insidiously played and touted to these people as a viable stand by celebrity media talking heads, each with their own personal agenda, many of whom are pimping publicizing books, and several of whom touted Nader as a viable candidate to the young, naive and stupid who voted in 2000.

We all know where that got us.

But what totally gobsmacks me the most about a lot of the participants in the Occupy movement, is their fervent embrace of Ron Paul as the candidate of their dreams. Time after time, I've read article after article stating that many of the Occupy Wall Street supporters were turning to Ron Paul, as the only candidate of real change and stating that both the Democratic and Republican parties were mirror images of each other.

I can only hope that such protesters making such remarks are either very young and very naive and need to learn to read and think for themselves, but I suppose there are more than enough disgruntled older people who think they know as much about governing and government as the next person, but who, sadly, don't. And these people, let loose, are dangerous.

Be that as it may, if any of you are still propagating that myth about both parties being the same, well, I'm sorry. I don't suffer fools gladly, but just to save yourselves my ire (and this goes out to all OWS protesters who think this way), Milt Shook does an excellent assessment of why and how the parties differ from each other. You can read that here.

Now, about Ron Paul.

It never fails to amaze me how some protesters bewail Ron Paul as the saviour of their movement based on only a sketchy knowledge of the candidate and the principles for which he stands. I wrote about the cognitive dissonance in young people protesting channelling Paul. You can read that here or you can read The New Yorker's excellent interview with eight OWS protesters.

Particularly frightening were the comments of a twenty year-old protester, Hank Norton, who - sadly - hails from my neck of the woods in Virginia. Norton is a Paul supporter and sounds, for all to hear, very much the budding Libertarian:-

I’m observing this more than anything. The main demand is for change in the distribution of wealth. We need a coherent and cohesive message because a lot of people are yelling and that’s where we alienate people. We need three goals. I think they should be tax the shit out of the rich, regulate, and downgrade the military, almost to the point of dissolving it. I want Ron Paul to get more attention because he’s the only Presidential candidate who offers true change.

(snip)

None of what he (Obama) promised during the election has happened. There’s been no real change. Ron Paul is our only hope.

Hank, as I previously pointed out, is only twenty years old and, so, has never voted in an election before, but there are others in this protest, who seem to want free single-payer (oxymoronic, I know) healthcare and housing and Ron Paul on the ballot.

People, let me tell you ... if you want government-funded healthcare and housing, you ain't gonna get it with Ron Paul in the Oval Office. And if you seriously want to "tax the shit out of the rich," Ron Paul ain't the man who'll do that. Libertarians hate taxes; that's why so many of them signed Grover Norquist's piece of paper.

Ron Paul is the cafeteria candidate for the young and the politically foolish.

Cafeteria candidate? Well, that's like a cafeteria Catholic - Catholics who pick what suits them about their faith and let the rest of the stuff fester by the confession booth. So the people reckoning themselves politically hip, take those Paul ideas who appeal to their liberal ideas and ... just pretend the ugly stuff in which Ron Paul believes just doesn't exist.

Ron Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve, and to many in the OWS movement, that's just fine; because, you know, it was the wicked, evil Fed who started all our financial problems, lost all our money and jobs and homes. A lot of OWS people believe this, probably bolstered by Alan Grayson's braying cry to audit the Fed, but Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve for reasons which are diametrically the opposite of those concerns of OWS.

Paul is a Libertarian who subscribes to the liberarianism practiced and preached by Ayn Rand. Her type of libertarianism was a curious mixture of Darwin and Nietzsche. It's an anything-goes-survival-of-the-fittest-no-strings-race-to-the-top, the winners of which are hailed as supermen and deserving of our praise and respect because of their financial wealth. The rest of us are just callow losers. Ayn Rand Libertarians believe that no government should fetter financial dealings. Another person who followed the tenets of Ayn Rany was Alan Greenspan, Mr Andrea Mitchell.

So when Ron Paul wants to end the Fed, he doesn't want to take on Wall Street from OWS's point of view. He wants to give Wall Street the green light with no strings attached.

As an blogger on the actual Occupy Wall Street website explains about Libertarians:-

Push any one that says End The Fed to explain what it means, they will eventually say it means move to a different monetary system, usually the gold standard, a Resource based economy or something in between. This is what Libertarians want, this is Ron Paul.

It's a misleading slogan designed to do exactly that, distract, turn your attention to something else, but achieve a specific goal. If we End the Fed our current monetary system would be in shambles and at the mercy of the world market and they know this. They know if we END the Fed we have to change to a gold standard or similar monetary system.

The gold standard, eh? Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Didn't Glenn Beck want a return to the gold standard? Isn't that what some Tea Party people wanted? Answers? Yes, and it's what Ron Paul wants too; in fact, Paul - a staunch believer in States' Rights - also believes the States should have a right to mint their own currency too.

Gail Collins, writing in The New York Times today, does a pretty good job enumerating things of which Ron Paul disapproves.:-

“Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom” has more variety. It’s full of essays, mostly about things Paul disapproves of, from abortion to Zionism.

It’s quite a list. Paul says he believes that the federal government (“the wealth-extracting leviathan state”) shouldn’t be doing anything that’s not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, which once caused him to vote against giving a Congressional medal to Mother Teresa.

He doesn’t really believe in global warming, but, even if he did, he doesn’t think government is smart enough to be able to do anything about it.

He also doesn’t believe in, well, let’s see: gun control, the death penalty, the C.I.A., the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag-burners, hate crime legislation, foreign aid, the military draft under any circumstances, campaign finance reform, the war on drugs, the war on terror and the war on porn. Also the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Taxes are theft. While his fellow Republican candidates fume about gay marriage, Paul thinks the government should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely. (“In a free society, something that we do not truly enjoy, all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.”)

I've highlighted a few things which I think might compromise Occupiers in their slavish devotion to a Paul candidacy. Another thing in which he doesn't believe is abortion. In fact, for a man who believes the United States government's involvement in its citizens' lives ends at the Tenth Amendment, he contradicts himself because he says the government should dictate what occurs within a woman's womb. Why? Because of his Christian faith.

"Life comes from our creator, not our government," Politico reported Paul as saying. "Liberty comes from our creator, not from government. Therefore, the purpose, if there is to be a purpose, for government is to protect life and liberty."

Paul's stance on abortion won him the endorsement in 2008 of none other than "Jane Roe" from the landmark Roe v. Wade legal case of the '70s.

"Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a pro-life advocate a decade ago and supported Paul in the last presidential election specifically because of his views on abortion. "I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v. Wade," McCorvey said. "He has never wavered ... on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn."

There you go. Not only does Ron Paul get the support of Norma McCorvey, whose case sparked the Roe v Wade decision, McCorvey correctly defines Ron Paul as actually being in favour of personhood - putting a zygote's rights ahead of the living being incubating that.

A Ron Paul presidency would mean no gun control legislation, but women being policed about pro-choice rights; it would mean no environmental legislation. You could get all the formerly illegal drugs you could buy, but if you get ill because of your addiction, don't expect any help from the government. The quality of your education would depend on the state in which you lived, and there are some states today, who are surreptitiously seeking to end free public elementary and high school education.

Ron Paul wants to take the country back - back to the time when if a person got sick to the point of hospitalisation and had no money, he'd be dependent on the charitable organisations for the indigent and poor or the churches to foot his expenses. It's even thought he'd want to take us back to the the times of the original Constitution - the 18th Century, as Collins observes:-

Basically, Paul seems to want to revert to the 18th century, when every bank could set its own monetary policy and every community ran its own schools — presuming, of course, the community wanted to pay for them.

“The founders of this country were well educated, mostly by being home-schooled or taught in schools associated with a church,” he reasons. Those of us who were not born in the gentry could presumably go back to sowing and reaping hay.

Maybe that's what a lot of these kids want, but I'll wager they're not thinking past the "End the Fed" slogans, the ending of all wars and bringing the troops home and the legalisation of drugs and prostitution. The banks would have a free-for-all, discharged veterans would be on their own and addicts and prostitutes could expect no help or support from any government health agency. There wouldn't be any.

If you support Paul for those three tenets, you're just as ignorant and irresponsible as those so-called Progressives who only voted for Barack Obama because it was cool to vote for the black guy. In fact, if you were old enough to vote in 2008, you probably are those people. And if so, of course you'd know all about Paul's famous aversion to the Civil Rights Act.

Here he is talking about that:-

“I believe that property rights should be protected,” Paul stated. “Your right to be on tv is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. so right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property.”

If you don't think anything is wrong with this, then you seriously need to read some US history - specifically, the part dealing with the period from 1850-1860. You see a lot of references to "property rights" there. It's what most Southerners venturing Westward whined about when wanting to make sure the "property" they took to Missouri or into the Oklahoma territories would still be their "property" after they'd made the move.

That's "property" as in "slaves."

So when anyone nowadays brings up "property rights," especially in relation to private business owners deciding which types of people with whom they'll do business or serve, it's a euphemism for "segregation."

If you're still in doubt about Ron Paul's attitudes towards race, have a listen to this endorsement of Paul by none other than Stormfront, the American Nazi Party. And whilst the endorsement is playing, take a gander at the pictures of all the members of the American Nazi Party and the Klan with whom Ron Paul has knowingly posed.



Just a final observation in the inanity of the EmoProg Left in their embracement of Ron Paul: these selfsame people abhor Ron's son Rand - for all the reasons listed above; but Ron and Rand are one and the same as far as beliefs go. In fact, people were appalled when Rachel Maddow revealed Rand's aversion to the Civil Rights Act.

Why is the father different from the son when he's not?

Someone needs to learn the art of critical thinking, because support for Ron Paul is not like being a cafeteria Catholic.

We Might Be One Nation, But We Ain't Under God

Many thanks to my Twitter bud, Gotta Laff, who - along with my schoolfriend Betsy Lumbye - rank as the two smartest women in California, for pushing me in the direction of this:-



If you can get past all the dross and sorority girl patter, the Valley Girl accents and the cigar-based testosterone of the man in the suspenders, you'll ascertain that no less than Bush babe, Dana Perino, is defending the fact that President Obama failed to mention the word "God" in his Thanksgiving address.

No big deal, says Perino. Even her old boss, Dubya, didn't mention the Big Deity's name in his last Thanksgiving message.

For all the bluff and bluster and the consternation that some mention of "God" should have been part and parcel of the address, the hanging question is, simply, why?

Forget the brunette bimbo who keeps whining about the secular Left, the fact remains - and it cannot be disputed, really - that this was a nation actually founded by a bunch of secular Lefties. Of all the Founding Fathers, George Washington - he of the "moving" Thanksgiving message - was probably the most religious and the least educated. The whole religious ethos idea behind the establishment of the United States is that there is none.

We were the first nation not to be constrained by a common religious belief. The French persecuted Protestants. The British classed Catholics as second-class citizens. The Mediterranean countries of Spain and the Italian nations were Catholic and nothing else. Even the German nations were divided by the Protestant ones of the North and the Catholic ones nearer Austria.

We had no state religion, because our Constitution recognised that religion was a matter of personal conscience, even stating that a person should not be denied employment based on his following or his non-following of a religious faith, even unto the office of President of the United States.

God doesn't come into any Presidential or political message, and if it does, it shouldn't. The President's tactful omission of the Deity lends us the liberty to be thankful to whomever we think is responsible for the goodnesses we receive.

End of.

Headupassitis

So The New Yorker - that's a pretty serious magazine, right? - took to the street and found eight random OWS protesters and asked them five questions.

Maybe they asked the wrong people the wrong questions, but what came across is that the two older people totally get the President of the United States and appreciate what he's trying to do, whilst the six who are under thirty, do not. They so do not understand or appreciate this President to such an extent that I wonder what planet they're on, ne'mind what country. I also wonder if they understand how our government is supposed to work - how Congress relates to the President in terms of power and how the Supreme Court can hold sway over the other two sections. I wonder if they are familiar with the Constitution, other than to know that the First Amendment grants freedom of speech and that the Second Amendment is all about guns.

Too many people like this garner their ideas from the Professional Left, amongst whom many of the more knowledgeable have proven that they don't understand a lot of government procedure at all, as Jonathan Chait recently indicated in his seminal essay which has a lot of sniffy Professional Lefters chewing nails and pissing rust.

But it's the youngsters, the politically inexperienced and naive whom the Professional Lefters try to influence. Occasionally, Bill Maher makes a pretty apt and pretty perspicacious remark. The last time he did this was two years ago, in an interview with hack Howard Kurz, when he remarked how shocked he was, when visiting college campuses, how intransigent young people were and how many of them actually were veering in a direction which wanted to see prohibition of freedom of speech.

Well, Bill's one of the Pied Pipers who love having young disciples hanging on his every word (and on his arm, if they happen to be female). Creepy Uncle Keith - he who reads the Thurber bedtime stories and calls the President "quisling" is another "voice." Then there's Cenk, the rude fortysomething "young" Turk. Soccermom white privilegist Joan Walsh is another. Auntie Arianna, the Queen Mother of Ratfuckers, loves young people, dahlink ... they work for nothing.

If the twentysomethings The New Yorker found are indicative of the driving force behind OWS, it deserves to fail; because they came across as entitled, sulky, spoiled and entirely clueless - especially about the President. Scariest of all is their propensity to cling to the candidacy of Ron Paul, which proves they know absolutely, positively nothing about politics or critical thinking. Let's look at them.

First up is Paul Lemaire.

Paul is twenty, and it says he's from Brooklyn, but Paul says he came from France in August and applied to go to school in January. However, he says he's not going to go. Instead, he's going to "dedicate himself to the movement," but he's running low on money and needs to find a part-time job so he can work part time and hang out with "the movement" the rest.

So ... I don't get this. Is he a French student here on a visa? If so, doesn't he kinda hafta sorta go to school?

When the reporters asked him what his specific demands were, Paul replied:-

I don’t have a specific demand. I want to cut the crap. If I were to have a demand of how we can change things, I want more democracy and to cut the corporate influence on politics.

So, Paul doesn't really have a demand. He just wants to "cut the crap." What crap? Be specific. Well, when he's specific, he pulls out the standard soundbyte of wanting "more democracy" and "wanting to cut the corporate influence on politics."

Now, I'm against Citizens United as much as the next guy, but not many people know that some of the organisations classes as "corporations" are entities people on the Left would support and would want to see them contributing more to political parties and candidates. Entities like the NAACP or unions or the Scouts.

Then Paul's asked how President Obama is doing and we get this interpretation of his Presidency:-

I don’t know how he’s doing. For what I thought he was in the beginning, he’s terrible. He’s not delivered on any of his policies. He’s consolidating the destruction of democracy.

So ... let me get this straight. The President has been terrible for America. He's "consolidating the destruction of democracy." Were I the reporter, I'd want to know how. Press this smarmy, little bastard. DADT is repealed. That would never happen with a Republican. The US has the start of what eventually will be universal health coverage. OK, it's not ideal, but if Paul would care to get out a history book - you know, facts - and read it, he'd find that Social Security, initially, would have been unrecogniseable today. It's a foundation upon which one builds, but since Paul's obviously had everything handed to him on a plate and has had enough of his old man's money to live off OWS for the past two months, I'd say he's suffering from terminal instant gratification. He wants his Maypo, and because he's not getting any of what he wants, the President hasn't delivered on any of Democratic policies. Again, were I the reporter, I'd have asked him to specify, or maybe the gist of the article is to show the utter ignorance of these people who want to defend what's increasingly becoming the right to camp out.

After all, as Paul says, they're "unstoppable."

Well, to Paul, I'd say va t'en.

Next up is Melinda Kashi from Staten Island. She's twenty-nine, almost thirty, but she hasn't learned much.

She's a student, but she finds it difficult to go back and forth to school because "student loans are killing her." But her demands are just as vacuous as Paul's, and she's almost a decade older.

My demand is to change the way corporations are working. I like to create change and I can’t do it by myself. That’s why I’m here, to have a positive effect on the world. I want people to realize that the world isn’t right.

Uh ... yeah, right. In case Melinda didn't know, the President actually signed a couple of laws which do change the way corporations work - one was the Dodd-Frank Act, which slaps regulations back onto Wall Street - not enough, mind, but, again, it's a start. When the President spoke a couple of months ago in response for various people demanding that Wall Street fat cats have their day in court, he pointed out that what the bulk of these people had done was immoral, but it was not illegal. Melinda should, like Paul, read some history, and she'd learn that in the past thirty years, literally all of the Wall Street restraints and regulations imposed by Franklin Roosevelt had been deconstructed by Ronald Reagan and William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat.

The rest of her demands are just tripe. The President pointed to all of us and said that change begins with us, but Melinda whines that she can't do it alone, and she's there to have a positive effect on the world.

I'd say to Melinda, "You're twenty-nine, love. Time to grow up."

Oh, and her assessment of President Obama?

I don’t have a personal opinion on him. He has a lot of issues to deal with because he didn’t do anything in the beginning.

So, the President sat around on his ass for three years until he suddenly realised he had "a lot of issues" to deal with. This sounds like she's accusing him of having Lazy Negro Syndrome. It's all the more oxymoronic, considering Melinda is a person of colour ... hey, there's always Herman Cain.

It gets better. Here's "Dean Moriarty" (the quotation marks are his, so I'm assuming he's incognito), who's twenty-five and from Glen Cove, New York.

Dean lives on Long Island, so he flits back and forth to the Movement. He's just doing PR for OWS, until he can get an MFA in Script Writing. So, he's a graduate student. Since finance for graduate degrees is virtually nil and always has been, one has to assume that "Dean" is living off his parents' penny.

Well, his assessment of the President is certainly the most pejoratively colourful by far:-

Fuck Obama. I hate Obama, he’s part of the problem. Anyone here who supports Obama doesn’t know what they’re talking about. He appointed Geithner and let Larry Summers tell him what to do.

"Dean" is twenty-five. The last time Larry Summers was in any sort of governmental position was during Bill Clinton's second term. In 1997, "Dean" would have been ten years old. You have to be some kind of genius to understand what Summers did, who he was and what he accomplished for the Clinton administration (a balanced budget)if you were ten when Larry Summers sat in the Cabinet. I daresay, "Dean" had never heard of Summers before the President appointed him and Tim Geithner. I would venture to say that a lot of this tripe sounds like the shit Whoreanna Fuckington was spewing early on in the Obama Administration, and if so, this is living proof that people under the age of thirty are virtually brain dead when it comes to thinking and reasoning for themselves.

First of all, let's say "Dean" stays with "the Movement." Suppose during that time, he's sleeping outside in the extreme cold and wakes up with severe frostbite - so severe, he has to go to hospital. "Dean" is twenty-five, so if "Dean's" parents have healthcare cover, thanks to President Obama, whom "Dean" thinks is part of the problem, "Dean's" got healthcare via his parents to cover his frostbite or the boil on his ass. Shame it won't help his mental faculties.

His demands?

For starters, having public trials for people who have committed treason, war crimes, fraud, and larceny. Demilitarize the N.Y.P.D.

Like WOW.

Next up is Hank Norton, who's twenty and from Virginia. And, Lord, the fruit don't fall far from the trees in my Commonwealth. I'm actually beginning to think I should start a campaign to mow down all the apple and peach orchards in Virginia, thanks to Hank's words of wisdom. Suffice it to say that I rank Hank right alongside such Virginian greats as Eric Cantor, Ed Schultz and Lynddie England.

Hank has a job, so he only comes to OWS at night; but, heck, it's not as festive as in the daytime. Like, it's a party, right?

And did I mention Eric Cantor? Well, there's something not quite right about Hank. Here's what he's got to say about "the Movement."

I can’t really relate to people here who can’t find work. I’ve already had two jobs since I came to New York two months ago. The first job I had paid half of minimum wage and I stuck with it. The second job is not sufficient income, but I’m taking it seriously, trying to get more money, trying to please my boss. It’s about working hard. A lot of people think that they’re entitled to a job.

(Cough, cough!)Is he talking sense? Here's someone who's willing to work at something, anything as long as it's work, a job. But just as quickly, stupidity sets in. His demands?

I’m observing this more than anything. The main demand is for change in the distribution of wealth. We need a coherent and cohesive message because a lot of people are yelling and that’s where we alienate people. We need three goals. I think they should be tax the shit out of the rich, regulate, and downgrade the military, almost to the point of dissolving it. I want Ron Paul to get more attention because he’s the only Presidential candidate who offers true change.

The bold type is mine, because he's showing how abjectly ignorant he is about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not about taxing the rich. Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Libertarians are not about taxing at all. If anything, they're about a flat tax, which would hit Hank harder than it would ever hit any of the one per cent. He's a Ron Paul fan because Paul wants to legalise drugs and bring all the troops home. He doesn't realise Paul doesn't give a shit about people who get sick off drug binges or that de-militarised personnel might not have a job or a home. That's their problem. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Hank doesn't realise that ol'Ron's preaching "property rights," if Hank even knows what that phrase means. Hank should talk to old people in Virginia. They'll put him right.

It gets worse. His opinion of the President?

None of what he promised during the election has happened. There’s been no real change. Ron Paul is our only hope.

I am really wanting to know what smoke this kid is on or where the hell he's been since 2008 - then it dawns on me. He's twenty years old - like the first doofus, Paul. These kids would have been seventeen when Obama campaigned and was elected. They've never voted. And they honestly cannot see anything the President has accomplished? Why? Because they're not gay and serving in the military, they're still being, largely, supported by their parents, and Obama didn't turn out to be the Magic Negro? And they think Ron Paul is our only hope?

I want to know where in New York City this kid worked for half the minimum wage, because that's illegal already; but at least he's experienced this, so it won't hurt him psychologically when his instrument of change, Ron Paul, wipes the minimum wage from the law books as unconstitutional.

When I come home in March, remind me to start tearing up my daddy's apple orchard. We can't spawn too many Hanks in the Commonwealth.

Now meet Michelle Thompson, who's twenty-two, from Connecticut and pregnant. Michelle is finding OWS hard, simply because she is pregnant and can't find a loo in the night. She babysat for a decent wage, but can't really do that now, because she's protesting fulltime. And even though it's hard because she's pregnant, some sacrifices are worth making.

Pardon me while I SCREAM. Woman, you are now responsible for another life. You made the decision to have this life, and most likely, you made the decision to get pregnant, for whatever reason. This ceases to be about OWS or you now, and starts to be about your child. Go home. Send them good vibes, but go home and see a doctor. Jesus Christ.

Michelle's demands?

For women to get paid the same amount as men. It’s 2011! It’s ridiculous that men get paid more for the same jobs. We have to keep fighting. Also, a lot of my friends lived here and when the raid happened, everything was taken from them. There are many empty high rises in New York City, why don’t they just let us live there? They already take our money for taxes.

First of all, Michelle ... the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I suggest you read up on it. It's the law that women get paid now as much as men. And since when does anyone take your money for taxes, sunshine, because you don't work, remember? You're asking for free housing? Check out Democrat and white man, Bill Clinton. He ended welfare as we know it.

Her assessment of the President?

He expects Americans to pay for health care. How will we pay for health care if we don’t have addresses and it’s so hard to get shelter and a job? Give us somewhere to stay and give us a job. It’s simple.

I'm banging my head on the table now. Is this woman for real? I mean is she, like, special needs or what? Americans have always paid for health care, and I'll let you in on a little secret, Michelle, even the fabled single-payer healthcare is not free. People pay higher taxes for free-at-source healthcare in the UK, where I live. Significantly higher. Like 30 percent. You're asking for the President to give you shelter and give you a job and free healthcare to boot. Just what do you think he is, Michelle? Do you know what the President's powers are? Do you know that he doesn't make laws, Congress does? And if he gave you a job anyway, as you say, you couldn't do it, because you're pregnant. Besides, he broadened criteria for eligibility for Medicaid, so you could have health cover immediately - paid for by the taxpayer, of course. On the other hand, if your parents have health cover, you could still be included on that too, thanks to the man you think does nothing.

Go home, Michelle. Just go. I pity your child's future.

And last, but not least, of the youngsters, here's Russ Runyeon, who's twenty-five and a teacher from Nashville.

Now, either Russ has lost his job or he's given it up, because he's been in New York since OWS started, and that ain't teaching school in Tennessee. Still, his demands are coherent enough:-

My personal demand is to unify this movement and establish defined, clear goals. Specifically, I’m concerned with socializing health care, affordability of a college education, student loans, and bank and trade regulations in order to stabilize American businesses.

Reasonable and clearly-defined goals, but what he doesn't realise is that all of those goals can only be accomplished legislatively, and that means getting out to vote. Russ also takes a pejorative view of the Presidency:-

Obama is a celebrity. He’s become less genuine in reference to the proposals he made during the campaign for Presidency.



On a good day, I don't know what Russ teaches, but I sure hope he doesn't teach history, because he needs a lesson in Civics 101 badly. Russ needs to be reminded of what exactly the President has achieved in his first term in office. The divine Milt Shook does an excellent job in listing in great detail what the President has accomplished. Russ and anyone else can read about them here. Milt's even provided links.

That's a pretty impressive list. In fact, he's accomplished more in three years than FDR did in his first term and just as much as Johnson did in his only term. Has the President faced obstacles? Of course, he has; but Russ and the rest of these kids need to disabuse themselves of the notion of an Imperial President. Obama's not a dictator. He doesn't legislate and he has to work with the Congress he's given. Unfortunately, that means working with Blue Dog Dems like Bill Nelson or Michelle Thompson's Senator, Joe Lieberman. Unfortunately, considering the fact that Russ and "Dean Moriarty" probably heeded the Progressive moose call led by Ed Schultz in 2010 and didn't vote in the Midterms, the President has to deal with, arguably, the most ignorant, most recalcitrant House in the history of the United States.

In short, Russ can sit on his ass in New York all he wants. If he wants a President to move Leftwards, he needs to get out the vote and get rid of people in his home state like Lamar Alexander. Because if he doesn't vote, he's going to get Senator Alexander's party in the White House, and that would be very bad for Russ, indeed.

But then, we get some glimmers of hope.

Meet, first, Artie Ravitz. Artie's seventy-two (that's right) and from Pennsylvania.

Artie comes up about once a week. He's retired and financially secure, having owned his own toy business. Artie keeps busy by working for the President's re-election and for the Democrats.

That's right. A grassroots organiser.

His demand is beautifully simple:-

My demand is to correct the system because it’s skewed in favor of the rich and against the poor. My feeling is that Robin Hood was right.

And his assessment of the President?

I like Obama. He means well and he’s trying hard. The party of “no,” the Republicans, are against him. If he said he was in favor of motherhood, they’d be against him.

Brilliantly put. Artie should talk to the previous protesters, but it's debatable whether they'd listen to someone like him. These are the same people who refused to allow John Lewis a word at Occupy Atlanta, who heckled the President and were drowned out by his audience of everyday people, and who rejected any advice from Van Jones, but who embrace the Ayn Rand philosophy of Rand Paul on the one hand and flock to be filmed on camera with one percenter hypocrite Michael Moore, whose own racism has been exposed.

It doesn't make sense, and you have to, at one time, wonder, fear for and be afraid of these people ... because they are the future of this country.

And lastly, let's meet a pragmatist, Mary Most, who's fifty-six and from Brooklyn. Mary's dropped by everyday, but she can't say much about what's been going on. She works for the city, and Mayor Bloomberg is her boss.

Again, her demands are reasonably coherent, but note that she has a teenager who, somehow, has got the idea that democracy in this country is skewed.

There was so much disrespect for the law yesterday. If I have a restraining order, you can’t keep attacking me while your lawyers deal with the restraining order. They’d made arrangements month ago to take anything that was left here to the Homeless Coalition. A landlord can’t throw all my stuff into a compactor if he evicts me and just say, “Oh well.” That’s not the way an eviction is supposed to work. My teenage daughter is reading “Persepolis” and she told me that this is what they did in Iran. I want to justify to her what’s happening and say we have a democracy. But she thinks the United States quells democracy in action.

Perhaps daughter got that idea from the only Presidential administration with which she's familiar - that of Bush. This President has actually done things by the Constitutional letter. He's made sure Congress legislates, even though it doesn't want to and whines about getting the President involved in matters where he really shouldn't be.

If that's the case, Ms Most needs to tell her daughter that change has to start bottoms up. They seek and work for representatives who reflect their constituents' views and, hopefully, can influence the President.

Her assessment of the President, however, is a bit oblique.

He’s a conservative Democrat who’s never going to make the left-leaning Democrats happy. I’m a pretty radical Democrat and I didn’t expect to find any elected official to represent my beliefs, so I’m not as disappointed in Obama. He’s done extraordinary things. I think Occupy needs to claim some victories because rarely do environmental or political movements gain victory.

Firstly, I don't think that the President is conservative. I think he's a Left-leaning pragmatist who understands the lay of the land on Capitol Hill and also within his own party. He practices the conciliatory policies of Saul Alinsky and understand that the democratic process involves compromise. And as for Ms Most's last comment, I'd ask her what, exactly, was the Civil Rights' movement and what did it achieve?

Reading this article, made me think instinctively of Chris Matthews's cleverly disguised race rant last Saturday on Alex Witt's show, when he mimicked the President for being so smart (read: "uppity"), for accusing him of telling the American people to go home and let him sort the mess out.

That was wrong. The President has always said that the change we could believe in comes from us, and that we had to begin that change. Most of the above - well, six-and-a-half of them - didn't listen to the President. I guess, even for the young, it's hard to listen to a black man who isn't part of your radical stereotype. The President did not fail us. We failed him. He didn't tell us to go home, although Chris would like to believe that. We went home of our own volition. We went home, vegetated into couch potato status and waited for the Magic Negro to wave his wand.

It's always easier to blame the black man, isn't it?

The Man Who Would Be King

Make no mistake. If the GOP win the White House in 2012, here's the de facto President:-



OK, EmoProgs, think you can live with that? Because I can't.

OWS, You Really Don't Want to Do This ...

Yesterday, during his speech at a local high school in New Hampshire, the President inadvertantly encountered members of the Occupy Wall Street movement, who used their human mic as a means of heckling him. Watch:-



You have to assume that the people in that audience attended this event in support of the President, that most - if not all - of the local people attending this were Democrats. Their reaction to the chanting protest of the Occupy people tells me that, whilst liberal, ordinary and small town America might sympathise with some of the stated concerns of Occupy Wall Street (namely income inequality), they are not overly enamoured when the protesters pull stunts like this.

First of all, you're barking up the wrong tree when you assail a President like this - chiefly, a President who, within the constraints of a particularly opstreporous Congress, is working for your interests and your benefits - far more the only admitted political hero of the Occupiers, Ron Paul. Paul might legalise pot and bring the troops home, but he won't lift a government finger to help you when you OD on something nasty or when the Army discharges you and you're homeless. If you're hit by a natural disaster, you'd better have insurance. If you're a woman, get used to practicing celebacy because birth control and right to choose will be a thing of the past. And then, there's the little matter of "property rights ..."

These people need to realise that a lot of what they want changed can only come through legislation, unless they want to cast off this form of government to one more dictatorial in nature. Many of these protesters are piping the meme that voting is of no use whatsoever, that it accomplishes nothing, that both political parties are the same.

I say ... wake up and smell the bullshit being served you by your "iconic voice," Michael Moore. Most of these people were probably too young to remember or maybe they're choosing to forget that Moore propagated that tripe in 2000, and look what it achieved.

Quite frankly, if OWS thinks to target Obama with protests, they may as well become card-carrying Republicans now, because it's the Republican party behaviour like that aids and abets. That's what the GOP wants.

If you have to protest politicians, target Congress or, specifically, your Congressman or Senator. Voting is the real way to make your concerns known and to effect change.

If you think, as well, you're emulating some romantic notion of the protests which occurred in 1968 - the ones being spun has having "brought down a President," then think again. Lyndon Johnson chose not to run, and the people you're trying to channel turned on Hubert Humphrey, arguably the most liberal and populist Democratic candidate since the second World War. Humphrey really was for the 99%. He was part of that dynamic.

But the protest movement turned on him. Within five years, their successors were turning on the unions and the Southern and Midwestern working classes. It was the beginning of everything you see now - political movement to the Right, the depiction of anyone no the Left as idealogical, weak on defence, weak on crime and - in the case of their patron saint, Gary Hart, morally weak, also.

The protest movement of the 1960s was instrumental in creating Nixonland, Watergate, Reaganomics, Trickledown and George W Bush. Believe me, what OWS's naive protest of Democratic events will unleash a whole generation of rabid Republicans, who will make Nixon and Reagan look like babes in the woods.

If nothing else, let the reaction of yesterday's audience, who ultimately drowned you out, tell you one thing you need to know: this President is not your enemy.