Story Of Obama
- Thread starter Yannis
- Start date
Obama: the real radical
By: George Will
CHARLOTTE, N.C. â Four years ago, Barack Obama was Americaâs Rorschach test upon whom voters could project their disparate yearnings. To govern, however, is to choose, and now his choices have clarified him. He is a conviction politician determined to complete the progressive project of emancipating government from the Foundersâ constraining premises, a project Woodrow Wilson embarked on 100 Novembers ago.
As such, Obama has earned what he now receives, the tribute of a serious intellectual exegesis by a distinguished political philosopher. In âI Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism,â Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College rightly says Obama is âplaying a long, high-stakes game.â Concerning the stakes, Obama practices prudent reticence, not specifying Americaâs displeasing features that are fundamental. Shortly before the 2008 election, he said only: âWe are five days away from fundamentally transformingâ America. Tonight, consider Obamaâs acceptance speech in the context that Kesler gives it in the American political tradition.
Progress, as progressives understand it, means advancing away from, up from, something. But from what?
From the Constitutionâs constricting anachronisms. In 1912, Wilson said, âThe history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power.â But as Kesler notes, Wilson never said the future of liberty consisted of such limitation.
Instead, he said, âevery means ⦠by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of governmentâ should be used so that âindividual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.â Rights âadjusted and harmonizedâ by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the âNew Freedom.â The old kind was the Foundersâ kind â government existing to âsecureâ natural rights (see the Declaration) that pre-exist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress. The pedigree of Obamaâs thought runs straight to Wilson.
And through the second transformative progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, who counseled against the Foundersâ sober practicality and fear of government power: âWe are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the idealâ and are making government âan instrument of unimagined powerâ for social improvement. The only thing we have to fear is fear of a government of unimagined power:
âGovernment is a relation of give and take.â The ârulersâ â FDRâs word â take power from the people, who in turn are given âcertain rights.â
This, says Kesler, is âthe First Law of Big Government: the more power we give the government, the more rights it will give us.â It also is the ultimate American radicalism, striking at the roots of the American regime, the doctrine of natural rights. Remember this when next â perhaps tonight â Obama discourses on the radicalism of Paul Ryan.
As Kesler says, the logic of progressivism is: âSince our rights are dependent on government, why shouldnât we be?â This is the real meaning of Obamaâs most characteristic rhetorical trope, his incessant warning that Americans should be terrified of being âon your own.â
Obama, the fourth transformative progressive, had a chief of staff who said âyou never want a serious crisis to go to waste.â More than a century before that, a man who would become the first such progressive said a crisis is a terrible thing not to create. Crises, said Wilson, are periods of âunusual opportunityâ for gaining âa controlling and guiding influence.â So, he said, leaders should maintain a crisis atmosphere âat all times.â
Campaigning in 1964, Lyndon Johnson, the third consequential progressive, exclaimed through a bull horn: âI just want to tell you this â weâre in favor of a lot of things and weâre against mighty few.â He learned this progressive vernacular from his patron, FDR, who envisioned âan unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress.â Poet Archibald MacLeish, FDRâs choice for librarian of Congress, exemplified progressivesâ autointoxication: America has âthe abundant meansâ to create âwhatever world we have the courage to desire,â and the ability to âtake this country downâ and âbuild it again as we please,â to âtake our cities apart and put them together,â to lead our ârivers where we please to lead them,â etc.
In 2012, Americans want from government not such flights of fancy but sobriety; not ecstatic evocations of dreamlike tomorrows but a tolerably functioning today; not fantasies about a world without scarcities and therefore without choices among our desires and appetites but a mature understanding of the limits to governmentâs proper scope and actual competence. Tonightâs speech is Obamaâs last chance to take a first step toward accommodation with a country increasingly concerned about his unmasked determination to âtransformâ what the Founders considered âfundamentals.â
By: George Will
CHARLOTTE, N.C. â Four years ago, Barack Obama was Americaâs Rorschach test upon whom voters could project their disparate yearnings. To govern, however, is to choose, and now his choices have clarified him. He is a conviction politician determined to complete the progressive project of emancipating government from the Foundersâ constraining premises, a project Woodrow Wilson embarked on 100 Novembers ago.
As such, Obama has earned what he now receives, the tribute of a serious intellectual exegesis by a distinguished political philosopher. In âI Am the Change: Barack Obama and the Crisis of Liberalism,â Charles Kesler of Claremont McKenna College rightly says Obama is âplaying a long, high-stakes game.â Concerning the stakes, Obama practices prudent reticence, not specifying Americaâs displeasing features that are fundamental. Shortly before the 2008 election, he said only: âWe are five days away from fundamentally transformingâ America. Tonight, consider Obamaâs acceptance speech in the context that Kesler gives it in the American political tradition.
Progress, as progressives understand it, means advancing away from, up from, something. But from what?
From the Constitutionâs constricting anachronisms. In 1912, Wilson said, âThe history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power.â But as Kesler notes, Wilson never said the future of liberty consisted of such limitation.
Instead, he said, âevery means ⦠by which society may be perfected through the instrumentality of governmentâ should be used so that âindividual rights can be fitly adjusted and harmonized with public duties.â Rights âadjusted and harmonizedâ by government necessarily are defined and apportioned by it. Wilson, the first transformative progressive, called this the âNew Freedom.â The old kind was the Foundersâ kind â government existing to âsecureâ natural rights (see the Declaration) that pre-exist government. Wilson thought this had become an impediment to progress. The pedigree of Obamaâs thought runs straight to Wilson.
And through the second transformative progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, who counseled against the Foundersâ sober practicality and fear of government power: âWe are beginning to wipe out the line that divides the practical from the idealâ and are making government âan instrument of unimagined powerâ for social improvement. The only thing we have to fear is fear of a government of unimagined power:
âGovernment is a relation of give and take.â The ârulersâ â FDRâs word â take power from the people, who in turn are given âcertain rights.â
This, says Kesler, is âthe First Law of Big Government: the more power we give the government, the more rights it will give us.â It also is the ultimate American radicalism, striking at the roots of the American regime, the doctrine of natural rights. Remember this when next â perhaps tonight â Obama discourses on the radicalism of Paul Ryan.
As Kesler says, the logic of progressivism is: âSince our rights are dependent on government, why shouldnât we be?â This is the real meaning of Obamaâs most characteristic rhetorical trope, his incessant warning that Americans should be terrified of being âon your own.â
Obama, the fourth transformative progressive, had a chief of staff who said âyou never want a serious crisis to go to waste.â More than a century before that, a man who would become the first such progressive said a crisis is a terrible thing not to create. Crises, said Wilson, are periods of âunusual opportunityâ for gaining âa controlling and guiding influence.â So, he said, leaders should maintain a crisis atmosphere âat all times.â
Campaigning in 1964, Lyndon Johnson, the third consequential progressive, exclaimed through a bull horn: âI just want to tell you this â weâre in favor of a lot of things and weâre against mighty few.â He learned this progressive vernacular from his patron, FDR, who envisioned âan unlimited civilization capable of infinite progress.â Poet Archibald MacLeish, FDRâs choice for librarian of Congress, exemplified progressivesâ autointoxication: America has âthe abundant meansâ to create âwhatever world we have the courage to desire,â and the ability to âtake this country downâ and âbuild it again as we please,â to âtake our cities apart and put them together,â to lead our ârivers where we please to lead them,â etc.
In 2012, Americans want from government not such flights of fancy but sobriety; not ecstatic evocations of dreamlike tomorrows but a tolerably functioning today; not fantasies about a world without scarcities and therefore without choices among our desires and appetites but a mature understanding of the limits to governmentâs proper scope and actual competence. Tonightâs speech is Obamaâs last chance to take a first step toward accommodation with a country increasingly concerned about his unmasked determination to âtransformâ what the Founders considered âfundamentals.â
â2016: Obamaâs Americaâ Movie Is Disturbingly Necessary
by Scott Paulsen, CBS
This past week, â2016: The Movieâ about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see.
While some talk show hosts sounded like they were genuinely impressed with the documentary and honestly endorsing the film, there were those who were obviously reading a commercial script which was not coming across as sincere to the regular listener â at least not to this often-skeptical listener. Perhaps, in future promotions of the film, it would be wise to have pre-recorded commercials done by the professional commercial-makers rather than having the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity doing script after script to promote the movie. After all, the listeners arenât stupid and resent any attempt at being conned. After many reads by the talk show hosts, the readings of the commercial script were no more enthusiastic than another Life-Lock commercial read â another commercial that ought to be professionally done.
Yet, Iâm glad I saw the hyped-film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nationâs trust in him with the Oval Office.
To watch this movie and realize â or simply be reminded of â all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romneyâs taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current presidentâs past?
The man influences the entire globe, but liberal Americans want to know how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes in the past rather than learn about the man who they have entrusted with the country. Unbelievable.
The movie undeniably links Obama to persons of suspicious-interest due to their past actions and statements, such as former radical activist and Chicago educator Bill Ayers. While the media and blinded-liberals cast such facts aside, the movie does not. No, this portion of the movie is not propaganda â it is the display of factual information about relationships between people that cannot be denied. Yet, the âleftâ does deny the facts that are right in front of them.
Quite disturbing is the talk of the United States economy in the film. The current national debt which has increased two-fold during Obamaâs presidency and the horrendous economy is suggested to be part of the plan to strip the nation of democracy â reasonable cause to make citizens totally dependent on the government. The âleftâ is aghast at this suggestion of the current economy. They actually believe that Obama is unintelligent enough to let this economy just happen. Ironically, itâs many of the people on the ârightâ who know Obamaâs not stupid, and much of what has happened to the United States in the past four years is part of Obamaâs plan.
How could one so-highly educated and intelligent as Obama not know what he was doing when he incurred such debt? I left the movie thinking more strongly than I had in the past that the current debt and this economy was part of Obamaâs plan all along. Increasingly making Americans dependent on the government is the plan. Whatâs more, he knew his blind followers would believe it was not the plan and, of course, was all Bushâs fault.
He must be laughing at his blind followers all the way to the ânew Americaâ theyâre allowing him to create. My belief is that Obama continues to prey on his die-hard followersâ stupidity to accomplish his personal goals for America.
The most disturbing part of the film to me was the interview with President Obamaâs half-brother George Obama from Nairobi, Kenya. How can Obama claim to want to help people when he has done absolutely nothing for his own family? It makes me wonder if he really cares about anybody if he canât find it in his heart to help his own family.
As the closing credits started to role upward across the screen, the audience applauded. Me, I just walked out â reasonably upset.
Those who have already decided to vote for Obama will probably not even see the movie. Itâs sad but they probably donât want to know the truth when it is laid out so clearly for them in this documentary. The independents who are still deciding who they are going to vote for ought to see this film. Iâm quite confident that any undecided voter who sees this film will know who to vote for after viewing this documentary. If you know youâre not going to support the âleftâ in this coming election, see the film out of interest if you like. But, fair warning, itâs disturbing â and quite frightening â to say the least.
by Scott Paulsen, CBS
This past week, â2016: The Movieâ about President Barack Obama opened in the Chicago area, and I chose to get more of an education about Obama by seeing the movie. After the inundation of canned hype for the movie on conservative talk shows across the Chicago radio dial that sounded more like commercials than honest endorsements of the movie, I was skeptical of what I was going to see.
While some talk show hosts sounded like they were genuinely impressed with the documentary and honestly endorsing the film, there were those who were obviously reading a commercial script which was not coming across as sincere to the regular listener â at least not to this often-skeptical listener. Perhaps, in future promotions of the film, it would be wise to have pre-recorded commercials done by the professional commercial-makers rather than having the likes of Mark Levin and Sean Hannity doing script after script to promote the movie. After all, the listeners arenât stupid and resent any attempt at being conned. After many reads by the talk show hosts, the readings of the commercial script were no more enthusiastic than another Life-Lock commercial read â another commercial that ought to be professionally done.
Yet, Iâm glad I saw the hyped-film because it was more informative than I had thought it would be and included less propaganda than I had predicted. If anything, it was nearly too informative as there was an enormous amount of information condensed into the nearly one-hour-and-a-half documentary. Fact after fact is put forth which shows that President Obama definitely has many skeletons in the closet that have not been released prior to the nationâs trust in him with the Oval Office.
To watch this movie and realize â or simply be reminded of â all that is unknown about President Obama is of concern. Much of the information has been ignored by the American media totally. When appropriately reminded as to what is still unknown about Obama to date, one has to ask: How can any logical-thinking person give a damn about Romneyâs taxes while not asking any questions regarding our current presidentâs past?
The man influences the entire globe, but liberal Americans want to know how much Mitt Romney paid in taxes in the past rather than learn about the man who they have entrusted with the country. Unbelievable.
The movie undeniably links Obama to persons of suspicious-interest due to their past actions and statements, such as former radical activist and Chicago educator Bill Ayers. While the media and blinded-liberals cast such facts aside, the movie does not. No, this portion of the movie is not propaganda â it is the display of factual information about relationships between people that cannot be denied. Yet, the âleftâ does deny the facts that are right in front of them.
Quite disturbing is the talk of the United States economy in the film. The current national debt which has increased two-fold during Obamaâs presidency and the horrendous economy is suggested to be part of the plan to strip the nation of democracy â reasonable cause to make citizens totally dependent on the government. The âleftâ is aghast at this suggestion of the current economy. They actually believe that Obama is unintelligent enough to let this economy just happen. Ironically, itâs many of the people on the ârightâ who know Obamaâs not stupid, and much of what has happened to the United States in the past four years is part of Obamaâs plan.
How could one so-highly educated and intelligent as Obama not know what he was doing when he incurred such debt? I left the movie thinking more strongly than I had in the past that the current debt and this economy was part of Obamaâs plan all along. Increasingly making Americans dependent on the government is the plan. Whatâs more, he knew his blind followers would believe it was not the plan and, of course, was all Bushâs fault.
He must be laughing at his blind followers all the way to the ânew Americaâ theyâre allowing him to create. My belief is that Obama continues to prey on his die-hard followersâ stupidity to accomplish his personal goals for America.
The most disturbing part of the film to me was the interview with President Obamaâs half-brother George Obama from Nairobi, Kenya. How can Obama claim to want to help people when he has done absolutely nothing for his own family? It makes me wonder if he really cares about anybody if he canât find it in his heart to help his own family.
As the closing credits started to role upward across the screen, the audience applauded. Me, I just walked out â reasonably upset.
Those who have already decided to vote for Obama will probably not even see the movie. Itâs sad but they probably donât want to know the truth when it is laid out so clearly for them in this documentary. The independents who are still deciding who they are going to vote for ought to see this film. Iâm quite confident that any undecided voter who sees this film will know who to vote for after viewing this documentary. If you know youâre not going to support the âleftâ in this coming election, see the film out of interest if you like. But, fair warning, itâs disturbing â and quite frightening â to say the least.
A Foreign Policy And Its Consequences
by Fred and Jeri Thompson
Once again, on a beautiful September 11, Americans must absorb outrageous, deadly, radical Islamic assaults on fellow citizens. These particular citizens were representing America in Egypt and Libya.
Apparently there are two things in the world we now live in that are inevitable. First, any nutcase with a camera can get immediate worldwide attention if he is sufficiently provocative. Second, Islamic crazies will use provocation and any other excuse available to attack the United States and her citizens.
We do, however, have control over our own governmentâs response to these facts of life. While they are now backtracking under withering criticism, it appears that our embassy in Egypt apologized for the film that apparently incited the attack; that apology came before the attack took place. It was that apology â drawing attention to said film â that encouraged the mob.
When will the Department of State and our president understand that weak, apologetic responses to atrocious behavior do nothing to discourage radical Islamic fanaticism â and in fact do just the opposite?
This is part of a bigger picture. The U.S. has been weak-kneed before Russia and China as they build and expand their empires. We sit on our hands as innocents are slaughtered in Iraq and Syria. We are in the process of giving up hard-won victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, by the way, we continue to be slapped by the Afghan government on our way out the door. We leave behind only the blood spilled by our brave men and women and our financial aid.
So far, this has all worked for Obama politically, with a citizenry tired of conflict. The military is all that anyone wants to cut. But we cannot continue down the road with a growing and manifest weakness of American will and spirit without serious consequences. A scaled wall and a burned American flag in Cairo and dead ambassador and diplomatic officials in Benghazi planned for and perpetrated on 9/11 are small indications of what tragedies lie ahead.
by Fred and Jeri Thompson
Once again, on a beautiful September 11, Americans must absorb outrageous, deadly, radical Islamic assaults on fellow citizens. These particular citizens were representing America in Egypt and Libya.
Apparently there are two things in the world we now live in that are inevitable. First, any nutcase with a camera can get immediate worldwide attention if he is sufficiently provocative. Second, Islamic crazies will use provocation and any other excuse available to attack the United States and her citizens.
We do, however, have control over our own governmentâs response to these facts of life. While they are now backtracking under withering criticism, it appears that our embassy in Egypt apologized for the film that apparently incited the attack; that apology came before the attack took place. It was that apology â drawing attention to said film â that encouraged the mob.
When will the Department of State and our president understand that weak, apologetic responses to atrocious behavior do nothing to discourage radical Islamic fanaticism â and in fact do just the opposite?
This is part of a bigger picture. The U.S. has been weak-kneed before Russia and China as they build and expand their empires. We sit on our hands as innocents are slaughtered in Iraq and Syria. We are in the process of giving up hard-won victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, where, by the way, we continue to be slapped by the Afghan government on our way out the door. We leave behind only the blood spilled by our brave men and women and our financial aid.
So far, this has all worked for Obama politically, with a citizenry tired of conflict. The military is all that anyone wants to cut. But we cannot continue down the road with a growing and manifest weakness of American will and spirit without serious consequences. A scaled wall and a burned American flag in Cairo and dead ambassador and diplomatic officials in Benghazi planned for and perpetrated on 9/11 are small indications of what tragedies lie ahead.
Making up stuff like this?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Q1PVOIqQAns" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
We are worried about 'The Cow' when it is all about the 'Ice Cream'
Adapted from the writeup of a teacher in the Nashville area
"The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics thesestudents should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first.
He had several specific ideas about how to make our class a better place for everyone. He ended by promising to work with everybody and do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream."
She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...
Jamie and his plans were forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide."
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth during his last campaign he offered ice cream and 51.4% of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48.6% know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess, but what can they do?
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else. Our supplies are really thin after four years of free ice cream. Are you really going to vote for more of that this time around, and pretend, again, that you care about the cow?
Adapted from the writeup of a teacher in the Nashville area
"The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics thesestudents should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot. The class had done a great job in their selections. Both candidates were good kids.
I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support. I had never seen Olivia's mother.
The day arrived when they were to make their speeches. Jamie went first.
He had several specific ideas about how to make our class a better place for everyone. He ended by promising to work with everybody and do his very best. Everyone applauded and he sat down.
Now is was Olivia's turn to speak. Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream."
She sat down. The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."
A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word. Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know. The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...
Jamie and his plans were forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide."
Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth during his last campaign he offered ice cream and 51.4% of the people reacted like nine year olds. They want ice cream. The other 48.6% know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess, but what can they do?
Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else. Our supplies are really thin after four years of free ice cream. Are you really going to vote for more of that this time around, and pretend, again, that you care about the cow?