I’m sure Erick is smart enough to figure this out but if everybody posted on here only what they thought others didn’t know (or couldn’t think of) the site would be without comments.

Old Dog

At another website I commented on the possibility that we are having trouble understanding Obama because as Americans we have a virtue which can also be a curse and that is we always try to find the best in other people. We do it personally, professionally, and sadly, politically.

I’ve read and listened to all sides of the centrist to right to far right arguments. (I can’t do the left, they are simply insane.) When Charles Krauthammer gave his opinion about Obama, I saw that he did his best to wring out the good qualities Obama had; intelligent, charming, driven, blah blah blah. Krauthhammer and others excused Obama’s missteps as “rookie-ness”, tried to explain his comments and his acts as having a bad staff or a poor understanding of history or diplomatic manners. Everybody is quick to trot out the tired and worn out excuse that all new Presidents make mistakes.

Yet, as we move into his fourth quarter of his first year the missteps are getting harder and harder to explain. The Russian/Poland deal, his backhanded slap to the Iranian protesters, his love affair with all that is Chavez, and now Honduras.

Many people are confused and frustrated in trying to put the square peg of our past experiences with presidents into the round hole we are seeing that is Obama’s behavior. I don’t know how many times intelligent, thinking people I know have scratched their heads and wondered out loud how Obama could think he was doing the right thing when he committed some bizarre action. For example, the speech to the children; many said other Presidents did it before, as they ground that square peg down, but they didn’t address the worksheet and the details of the initial speech, before he got caught and modified it. (Speaking of getting caught, ask yourself what his presidency would look like if there were no checks on his behavior and agenda. Would it resemble more a Chavez administration?) Then there was the hiring of far left radicals, well known far left radicals to boot. People we all read about, but figured no one would seriously consider them for a powerful government position. Yet, there they are. Why?

At some point you have to put aside the tried and true explanations used as an attempt to quantify Obama and look outside the box. In my old business of catching bad guys, I always took the time to study motives. Why do they do what they do? Often it gave insight as to who the bad guy was, and what he might try next.

With Obama you look at his actions and you find yourself bending over backwards to make sense of it. I suggest you stop. Let what you see guide you to the motive and the man. What kind of man embraces Iran and shuns Israel? What kind of man is raised by a radical liberal, surrounded by radical liberals and communists, went to school and sought out radical liberals and communists, worked with and was picked promoted and presented to us by radical liberals with communist/socialist backgrounds? He is the total sum of his life. He is what he is, and nothing in his life to this point has forced him to change that.

If you take Barack Obama and look at him clearly, not with you hoping for the best, what do you see? Would his actions fit the mold of a socialist/communist better than a simply misguided leftie? Why do we think the best for Obama and acted surprised when he brakes and turns hard left every chance he gets. If we had elected Bernie Sanders from Vermont, a committed socialist, and he acted like one, we wouldn’t be shocked. If we elected David Duke back in his heyday and found him shopping for white sheets at JC Penny, we wouldn’t say, “Didn’t see that coming.” If by some freak accident we elected a clone of Ahmadinejad and he started railing about the Jews, we wouldn’t have expected anything else.

So why are we surprised over Obama? Because he told us he is post racial, post partisanship, the new era of politics? I think now, after all we have seen and all Obama has said that wasn’t true, we can draw at least one conclusion- he lies.

Obama is who he is. The quicker we grasp that the better we can begin to resist the direction he will have to lead us in. He can’t help himself, it is his nature.

There is an old fable I use to try and explain this to people who still want to believe the best in all of humanity. It goes like this;
There was a terrible rain. The water in the river was rising and all the animals were trying to flee the island they were on before it went under. There was a rabbit, a turtle, a fox and a scorpion. They all started to swim across except the scorpion for he could not swim. He asked the rabbit if the rabbit would let him ride on his back. The rabbit said no, worried that the scorpion, who was mean by nature, would sting him. The scorpion cried out saying he would not. The scorpion asked the turtle and the turtle refused. The scorpion asked the fox and the fox at first refused, but the scorpion said, “Fox, ask why I would sting you? I cannot swim, if I stung you, you would die, and then I would surely drown. That makes no sense.” The fox, who thought himself smarter than the others decided the scorpion must be telling the truth. So he let the scorpion climb onto his back and they both began across the river. About halfway across the scorpion stung the fox. The fox, dying, rolled over and looked at the scorpion in shock and horror. “Why”, he asked, “did you sting me? Now I will die and you will die!”
The scorpion looked at the fox and said, “I couldn’t help myself. It’s my nature.”

My advice to you with Obama is simple. Be careful or you might find yourself stung as well.

There are 1,849 contacts, many of which are not current. That being said, the only way to gleam meaningful information from such a huge list is to narrow down the relevant contacts. A contact that hasn’t been updated in “x” amount of time, say since the 2006 election cycle, who gave money during that campaign might be a red herring. It bears looking into possible connections and trying to see if there is a relevant way that such contacts might be meaningful but you have to assume that not every contact is a conspiracy in the making.

It makes perfect sense that Lewis would have WFP AND ACORN contacts as she is chair of both. But it makes sense for 1 of 2 reasons. 1) She just happens to be chair of both. 2) She is chair of both to cast doubt on the connections.

Lewis is going to lie about anything that could cast a shadow on ACORN and WFP. That being said you have to narrow down how people are involved. ACORN and WFP have to get their money from somewhere. Erick has a list of ACORN contacts, he can filter that through somewhere like OpenSecrets to see if they gave money to WFP or got money from them. It’s not that it’s “that simple”, it’s just one more avenue to search for meaning in a web that wraps around the country.

Basically, know your the next move your enemy plans and act accordingly. Lewis will say “x” contact is because they gave money or met at “y” event. Find something deeper and coincidences can be dispelled with the likelihood of criminality being exposed.

I said the other day that there wouldn’t be a meaningful investigation of ACORN, nor will they actually cut off their funding. They got their splash by doing it now they’ll put it back in and nobody will know but us right wing nuts that listen to Rush and Beck and type in our bathrobes. Though today, we’re out of milk, so I’m actually dressed now and am heading for the store.

Now what he’s doing is he knows that NOBODY outside Bezerkley would want to even be associated with some of these people and even most of the lefty Democrats wouldn’t want a vote on record.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/19/1621/75381

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/17/181643/881

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/9/3/133158/8694

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

‘Course, communist thug that he is, Comrade Obama is doing it as much to give some of his “oppressed” buddies a fancy salary and title just to spite the honky dogs as he is for any real expertise they might have. What the Republicans would find if they were to try actually forcefully opposing these people is that they are not at all formidable. The only places that unions and lefties can prosper is in places where there is no opposition. These punks and thugs have never had any opposition in places like Chicago, SFO, and NYC. I mean they thought they were showing power to “the man” when they shook down businesses in those places, but actually the businesses knew that they could get neither justice nor support from the Democrat government, so they just paid – or moved if it got too bad.

The Democrat Knowles Administration ran a lot of this same playbook, it’s a union playbook and AFSCME was calling the shots here. Except, they only had the Executive Branch, the Republicans held both bodies of the Legislature. One of the things they did was completely wipe out the State’s central personnel and labor relations functions. The devolved it all away to the operating departments and ran all the skilled hands off. That way it was safe to make nice Democrat patronage hires into any job and at any pay anywhere in the government without any of those stinking qualifications and stuff getting in the way. With no meaningful L/R, the unions didn’t need to actually negotiate and administer labor agreements. The Administration’s labor policy for the first six years was “ask the union what it wants.” They didn’t need to arbitrate grievances. First there weren’t many because the union was free to intimidate supervisors, so they didn’t much supevise. Second, they didn’t really even need to file grievances and take the case to arbitration when all they had to do was call a commissioner or the Gov’s Office and they’d get what they wanted. Even after they got tired of the constant demands and after I came back in ’99, it was all too common to have a case set to go to arbitration when suddenly a signed resolution totally against the State’s interest would come down from the Commissioner’s office.

Before this becomes a book; Democrats always think that they’ll never lose and election and will be in power forever, so they never think about what the other guy will do. When we took over in ’02, we were very quickly able to restore basic functionality in these functions that the Ds had tried to destroy. But the unions in eight years had essentially forgotten how to do the hard work, not that any of them were very good at it to begin with. Frankly, clamping down on them was like hunting in a baited field. We’d find the same thing now if any of those fat comfortable old men in Congress had a pair.

If we are to meaningfully weaken Comrade Obama and the Democrat Politburo, we must take out members of Congress. Rahmbo beat us into the outer darkness by out-conservativing us in Republican districts. He took out a crop of mostly born-again Republicans who were basically gladhanders glomming on to the Republican ascendancy of the ’90s. They didn’t believe in anything but getting elected and being an R was the way to get elected at the time. They became a part of the get-along, go along, bring home the bacon crowd that along with GWB’s ineffectiveness left a smoking hole where the Republican Party used to be. We need to mercilessly attack every Democrat elected since ’04 in a Red-leaning district.

As much fun as it is to pull Comrade Obama’s tail, he can’t pass legislation. We need to first make members of Congress afraid to vote with him, then take those members out in ’10 and ’12. Maybe by ’12 we’ll have somebody who can meaningfully challenge Comrade Obama, but even four more years of BHO won’t be unendurable if we have at least one and preferably both bodies of Congress in his second term. We’ll have to listen to him drone on endlessly, but in victory, we can be magnanimous and applaud politely.