Comments on: Obama: the double-down-on-disaster President

By: When You’re On A Roll…. | 'Splodieheads

When You’re On A Roll…. | 'Splodieheads — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:53:44 +0000

[...] how often, and in how many ways, the Bo D. likes to use that gambling metaphor. I will find it. Here’s a hint (- the vid is [...]

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:04:08 +0000

“ Its intellectual and moral character, like that of modern government itself”

Imagine to yourself how hard a hit that power base would take if 50% of its members just up and got themselves killed, for one reason or another. Then ask yourself how much would it hurt them if you beat them at a few elections in comparison.

I’m not that confident “elections” are going to do much against this entrenched evil, not given how deep it has sunk its roots into the US soil.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:00:59 +0000

Aptly said, Mike. I suspect Obama’s connections to Islamic Jihad comes from his Black Panther connections and ethnic race connections. Being black, a murder, and Muslim is quickly becoming “synonymous”.

By: gpc31

gpc31 — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:26:03 +0000

Mike,
I agree with just about everything you said. I was too cryptic by half in my original post. The guiding metaphor I had in mind was that Obama is a like a bomb launched by something or someone else, destined to cause great societal damage on impact. A projectile mistaking its own rise for self-propulsion, only to be mystified by gravity on the way down. It’s been well documented on this blog and elsewhere that Obama’s intellect is mediocre, and his self-assessments ludicrously overblown (“I’ve got a gift…I’m better at policy than my policy analysts, a better speechwriter, etc.”) My point about “luck” was that as the ultimate affirmative action baby, Obama has never been held truly accountable to reality-checks; and moreover, as an absurd believer in his own destiny, he will of course double down on failed policies.
That said, Obama’s delusional ego to IQ ratio is almost beside the point. Maybe the failed policies are the point. What matters is how he came to power and how he can be removed. That, as you expressed so well, is not a matter of “luck”.
In my gloomier moments I find it hard to refute the circumstantial evidence offered by Angelo Codevilla in this article: http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1852/article_detail.asp
Excerpt as follows:
In our time, asking how a young man of scarce achievement got into position to win the Democratic Party’s nomination for president courts the contemporary synonyms for “impious”: “birther,” “conspiracy theorist,” and, of course, “racist.” Granted, to inquire into what formed a president is not as important as to understand what he does. Nevertheless, because fully to know where anyone is going requires grasping whence he comes, let us open ourselves to wonder how, minus miracles, a 10-year-old boy without obvious talent who had lived in Indonesia since age six ends up with an eight-year scholarship to Hawaii’s most exclusive school; a scholarship to Occidental College; a transfer into Columbia University; acceptance into Harvard Law School, and editorship of its law review; and how he goes from job to prestigious job without apparently mastering any of the previous ones. No wonder some of Barack Obama’s supporters treat him as if he were anointed by an extraterrestrial power.
No less an object of awe and curiosity is the seamlessness of Obama’s mentality. Without marbling or inconsistency, it is serviceable as a definition of contemporary American leftism, and leads one to wonder what earthly environment could have produced such a pure specimen.
Intellectually, Obama has always been a consumer, having left no record of formulating new ideas or of penetrating old ones. Politically, he is a follower and figurehead: having grown up in the ever branching stream of socialist voluntary organizations, he surfed its leftward eddies, never forming or leading a faction. He was handed a safe seat in the Illinois state senate, a nearly safe one in the U.S. Senate, and was surprised when Harry Reid informed him that influential Democrats wanted to run him for president. The Democratic campaign of 2008 pushed against an open door. As president, he rides his party’s center of gravity.
In short, Barack Obama himself is not that remarkable. He can give a rousing political speech, of course, but that is usually not sufficient to get oneself elected president. So, since he seems to have been reading from a teleprompter all his life, and since words certifiably his own are both few and opaque, it is most fruitful as well as relevant for us to focus on whom and what he has been following.
What accounts for his smooth, unlikely ascent? Both his advancement and his character seem most likely attributable to the network into which he was born, and out of which he never stepped for an instant. That network’s privileges, wealth, and intellectual-social proclivities always depended to some extent—and nowadays depend more than ever—on its connection with the U.S. government. Its intellectual and moral character, like that of modern government itself, has always been on the left side of American life and, as such, has undergone splits and transmogrifications surely the most important of which in our time combines upscale social norms with radical disdain for the rest of America. Barack Obama came of age through these.
Unfortunately, that liberal Establishment has placed key facts about itself beyond public scrutiny—more in the fashion of Chicago Sicilians than of Roman pontiffs. Here we examine some of the books and other research that shed light on Obama’s origins, note at least as many questions as answers, and try to distinguish between facts and spin. The results are necessarily conjectural, because of the nature of the available evidence.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 05:16:33 +0000

gpc31 says in #7:
> He doubles down because he mistakes his nonexistent skill for the luck that abetted his parabolic rise. Gravity’s rainbow, in a different sense.

I don’t know that it is all just “luck”, gpc.
Whenever Obama has faced a formidable challenger during his rise, something happened to that formidable challenger to destroy his or her political fortunes – leaving the path, for Obama, free and clear.

Examine the case of Alice Palmer, a Democrat opponent during Obama’s first Illinois Senate campaign.
Examine the case of Jack Ryan, the Republican opponent during Obama’s 2004 Illinois Senate campaign.

We know what happened to the McCain/Palin campaign during Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign: The housing and financials liquidity crisis that was triggered in September 2008. The crisis was going to happen at some point, but it is interesting that it happened precisely WHEN it happened. I have no evidence that powerful players in the international finance community pulled the trigger deliberately, to force the crisis to occur exactly at that point in time, but I continue to find it very suspicious.

In 2010 there was widespread repudiation of the Democrat Congress; the Democrats lost the House, and notably there was a huge shift within the state Governorships as well. But none of this ties directly to any election for Barack Obama, and it can therefore be viewed as being allowed to happen.

So now Obama will be running a re-election campaign for the 2012 Presidency. Suppose August comes and goes, and Obama is struggling. What black swan is going to appear in September or October, giving Obama a boost in yet another troubled campaign against a formidable opponent. (Assuming the GOP candidate turns out to be formidable…)

Obama’s behavior, all this doubling-down, are the actions of a man who does not feel threatened by the political climate. It’s almost as if he knows something. It’s almost as if he knows he’s got a lot of hidden powerful cards to be played, that none of us know about yet. He’s acting as if he knows about September/October surprises that will guarantee his re-election, surprises that are well-planned and ready to be launched, if needed.

It’s going to be a fascinating campaign.

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 04:08:47 +0000

Ymar, I am with you on this one (#6). I’ve decided that Obama is *not* merely stupid. He is actively malicious towards the interests of the United States.

I don’t know if he is following his own personal vision, or if he is merely a figurehead who is being directed in this manner.

But when you look at the sum of all of his actions, they all point in one direction: When Barack Obama leaves office, the U.S.A. will be a significantly weaker player on the global stage, in many different ways. You could say Obama is pulling our teeth, leaving us as toothless as he can. Now, he can’t GUT our military capabilities; he can’t GUT our foreign policy influence; he can’t GUT our ability to have choices with his massive increases in national debt. But he can leave us incredibly weaker in all areas, and having far fewer options to act in our own self-interest.

This benefits the U.N., and it benefits the “international community”. You could also say it benefits the radical Islamist jihadist movements, but I’m not sure where Obama stands on their murderous terrorist activities. I do know he is a proponent of the U.N., and I definitely know he is in the internationalist movement. He sees the U.S.A. primarily as a roadblock in the way of getting his things done his way.

Weakening the U.S.A. while he is in office would definitely be one of Barack Obama’s main goals.

By: gpc31

gpc31 — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:49:26 +0000

He doubles down because he mistakes his nonexistent skill for the luck that abetted his parabolic rise. Gravity’s rainbow, in a different sense.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:39:52 +0000

Bush didn’t want to tap the Strategic reserves, because that’s intended to keep our military running if anyone thought they could cut our oil pipelines in the middle of a war. Now we have no reserves, and what will the next President do? Bluff? Yeah. You ever realize that destroying the Strategic Oil Reserves gives the Left a mighty fine way to prevent America from waging wars against the Left’s allies in the Middle East?

By: SADIE

SADIE — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 01:00:26 +0000

I left the comment below on another thread and later in the day (after a nap) recalled the Prof. Gates beer summit, which was a warm-up act prior to the election of Scott Brown in Mass. Once, maybe a coincidence, but twice (doubling down) to take your theme from today’s thread is no coincidence – it’s a tactic and manipulation from the bully pulpit, formerly known as the Oval Office.

“MSLSD is a preview of tactics and talking points that will and do emerge from the WH. I would hope that GOP operatives would be listening closely for clues. It is no coincidence that Jeb Bush is being sullied in the very same week of chatter that he may be the VP choice. It is no coincidence that the events that have been flamed by the WH are intended to weaken Florida (Rubio is the other name being bandied about for the VP slot).”

By: SADIE

SADIE — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 17:47:30 +0000

He's the antithesis of the Wrigley Double Mint Twins. http://youtu.be/F7hwvWIK1eM