The Blogzkrieg Bots

splashAxelrove must’ve sensed a disturbance in the force because I believe the Blogzkrieg Bots are back at work in sites where the Obamessiah’s economic message has been questioned.  Most of the frontpagers and bloggers that I know were chased off various blogs when they harshed the Obama mellow or dared suggest that Hillary’s campaign was better, not racist, and worthy of support. Recently, a set of anonymous email exchanges were released at Liberal Rapture.  One writer of the exchange has self identifed themself (James Kunstler) and verified the authenticity of the exchange.  Those of us who have dealt with the spam filter and comments in moderation can give our take on the Blogzkrieg under taken by the Obama campaign which apparently still is in full force to stop any potential anti-obama Buzzkill.  Here’s the relevant exchange from a former Obama supporter that I’d like to reference.

I can also say how shocked I became at the really dishonest tactics he used, from race-baiting to caucus fraud to paying cyber stalkers to terrorize pro-Clinton writers and website owners.

The cyberstalking continues.  Yesterday, I blogged about CNBC’s Kramer.  I have to say that I’m a value investor, unlike Kramer, and do not follow any of his individual stock picks.  I do think the man has an excellent grasp of and background in market psychology.  I started listening to him more when he came out on Ellen as a  Hillary supporter.  He made it clear he thought she’d be best for the economy. So yesterday, I wrote on his rant on cnbc.  This wasn’t his first rant but one the most eye-popping to date.  All last week he was talking about Obama-proofing your investment portfolio.

Read the rest of this entry »


Who thinks they have all the answers without knowing the question or the facts?

Wouldn’t it be just wonderful to have all the answers without really knowing the questions or the facts before hand?  It appears the we now have a replacement for the Great Karnak.  Okay, for those of you, including my kids, that didn’t grow up with this hilarious Johnny Carson character, I’ve included a youtube below so you can get the drift of the rest of this post.  For those of you that remember him, I’ve included the youtube below so you can get all nice and nostalgic and hopefully, be very afraid.

So, here’s my shot at the schtick.

The answer is:  the Great Obama.

And the question in the envelope?  Who thinks they have all the answers before knowing the facts or even the question?

I just made my post dinner, wine-thirty, rounds of favorite blogs.  No Quarter is always high on my list.  I did this right after speaking to my dad who lives in Seattle and is a true-red Republican, fox-watching, member of the greatest generation kinda guy.  Maybe it was because we were just talking about my evolving attitude towards Fox News, but we were discussing Britt Hume’s coming retirement, media bias, and the election.

My dad insists that Obama has some kind of personality disorder that is causing him to think that he is already elected president.

So, this interview was posted at No Quarter.  I started synthesizing all of these discussions into a more coherent framework since this is one of the occupational hazards of being a social scientist.

Does Obama really think it’s just a matter of waiting out a few inconvenient months?  Has he become the Great Carnak or is he exhibiting some kind of personality disorder?

Here’s the interview that got me thinking that maybe my Dad wasn’t all that off base.

The Answer is:  The Great OBAMA.

And the question in the envelope?  Who thinks he’s already elected president AND knows all the answers to the questions that reporters may ask and concerns that generals may have.

Transcript . Barack Obama ABC Interview . July 21, 2008

ABC’s Terry Moran: “And then we sat down with [Barack Obama] to talk about what has become an open disagreement between military commanders here and Obama, over his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a 16-month timetable. Did General Petraeus talk about military concerns about your timetable?”

Barack Obama: “You know, I would characterize the concerns differently. I don’t think that they’re deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se. There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions. And this is what I mean when I say we play different roles. My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Their job is just to get the job done here. And I completely understand that.”

Moran: “But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I’m going to try to pin you down on this.”

Obama: “Here let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know “

Moran: “How do you know what I’m going to ask?”

Obama: “Well, then if I don’t get it right, then you can ask it again.”

Moran: “All right.”

Obama: “Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”

There are two things I jumped on immediately.  One is that Obama presumed to know what the Reporter was going to ask.  The second is the all-telling “I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”

My first instinct, was to think, this guy really does think he’s already got the presidency in the bag.  I thought the seal was over-the-top.  I really thought the entourage to Europe and the Middle East was a bit staged.  The acceptance speech in the stadium is outrageous!  The speech by the Brandenburg gate was trying to channel the Kennedy vibe.  Michelle’s even been known to deck herself out like Jackie.  But, sheesh, I’m beginning to gather enough evidence that I really think he MUST think he has this in the bag.  He’s already president in his mind.  It’s a done deal, in his mind.  He even thinks he knows what other folks want and are going to ask now.  I think that it’s gone beyond just staging Obama to look presidential and Kennedyesque.

The Answer is: The Great Obama

And the Question in the Envelope:  Who believes his own hype beyond the point representing sanity and the safety of our country?

UPDATE:  I guess even the candidate’s advisors think he’s already president too!

At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.

SOURCE:  http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1059249


Send in the Greyhound fleet! NY Times Now UNDER THE BUS!!!

EXTRA!  WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS:

Bush’s Third Term

July 2, 2008; Page A12

“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

[Bush's Third Term]
Getty Images

Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.

Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.

Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.

Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.

Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.

This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.

* * *

All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.

Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.”

It’s getting surreal out there folks!!! Let’s just disinter Salvador Dali and let him explain it to us!!!

Source:  source:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html


Obama’s Life Story: Just One Long Series of Easily Debunked Myths

It’s just one Forrest Gump moment after another in Barrack Hussein Obama’s Life.  You would think after so many instances of his ‘autobiography’ winding up in the urban myth sites that he’d quit making up details of his life.  Well, folks here he goes again.  This week’s selection from  Moments of My Metaphorical Life by Barrack Obama is watching astronauts in Hawaii from Grandpa’s shoulders.

Obama said in his speech yesterday:

“One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii.

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25479276/

Let’s talk about what is wrong with this memory.  FIrst, the astronauts arrived aboard the USS Hornet in July 1969.  Obama claims he moved to Indonesia at the age of 6 and returned to live with his grandparents in 1971.  Unless Obama was spending summers with his grandparents there is no way he could have seen the USS Hornet arrive in Hawaii.

Second,  I can’t imagine the petite me at 10 on my granddad’s shoulders.  Obama’s grandfather must have been lifting weights for years to handle the slightly chubby Obama.

However, let me make my major point.  This is just the latest in a series of stories that Obama weaves about his mythical childhood. Many of these stories are easily debunked by facts.  His staff calls them metaphorical.  While my mother would have rinsed my mouth out with soap for lying , my University would pull my job for publishing things as facts that are proven untruths.   Remember this one?

“Selma got me born!” On the march anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama,  Obama fondly spun this yarn about his parents.

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.

Uhhh, Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”

Then there was THIS whopper on Memorial Day Weekend.

Even the MSM didn’t let that one drop.  There were two major problems.  Obama has no uncle and Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets.

Don’t forget this made-up memory.  During the same ‘metaphorically’ enhanced March of last year, the Chicago Tribune reported another faked autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:” Obama  says his racial awakening occurred at age 9 while reading Life Magazine.  He described an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin.  Life magazine’s own historians say the article and the photographs don’t exist.

So, can some one with a background in psychiatry please explain these behaviors too me?


Obama Throws the First Amendent under the Bus AGAIN!

Well, here I am sucking up my morning coffee before heading to a frosh seminar to torture my students on the National Income accounts. I just finished responding to a friend supporting Obama that criticized my last post asking why Obama hates the constitution and decrying him as the real Dubya third term when this news pops up from the AP wire:

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

Obama to expand Bush’s faith based programs

“CHICAGO – Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

“The challenges we face today … are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “We need all hands on deck.”

Obama’s announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday’s Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.”

The Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law (on Leave) appears to not respect the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.  He just continues to make my arguments for me.  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I was heavily criticized for comparing Obama with Cheney.  So, will some one explain to me how expanding Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives is not in keeping with my assertion that Obama is looking like the one that will be Dubya’s third term? This quote is from the same AP article.

Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticized Obama’s proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined civil rights and civil liberties.

“I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” he said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.”

I have to tell you, that because of these kinds of things I have a difficult time voting for ANY Republican.  Now I get to watch a Democrat trample the same First Amendment rights with no shame?  I’ll just leave you with a Monte Python clip, because if the Obama campaign get’s any more surreal, I’m going to think we’re living a Monte Python Movie.  What’s next?  Bill Richardson as head of the Ministry of Silly Walks?

I want to add this quote because it seems so relevant on this still unfolding story.

Beliefnet gives Obama’s proposal a 9 out of 10 on its “God-o-Meter.” Editor Dan Gilgoff writes:

“That’s why Obama’s announcement today…is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups. In effect, he’s out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President’s specialty areas — connecting faith and public policy.”