Archive for January, 2010

Fox News Most Demonized By Obama, Most Trusted By Americans

January 31, 2010

Fox News is now far and away the most trusted name in news, even according to left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

I didn’t need a poll to know that.

Last week I wrote an article entitled, “In Hindsight Of Massachusetts, Who Presented The Truth: Obama, Or Fox News?”  And my contention was that Fox News was basically the only news organization that was broadcasting the truth all along, while the “Obama media” reported propaganda.

But now common sense is confirmed by polling:

Poll: Fox most trusted name in news
By ANDY BARR | 1/27/10 7:38 AM EST

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

The telephone poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Democrats – who completely rely on mainstream media propaganda to win elections – are panic-stricken.  Here’s what the Democratic Senatorial Committee said in a new pitch:

Republicans think Massachusetts was an endorsement of their stall tactics and personal attacks. A new poll names Fox News Channel as the most trusted news outlet. Sarah Palin has 1.2 million fans on Facebook and is the $100,000 headliner at the national tea party convention. If we don’t fight back, and stand up for America, then their version of America will get the upper hand.

We cannot let that happen. And with your help, we will not.

Republicans “don’t think” here; they simply recognize the obvious.  An unknown Republican running against the Obama agenda pulling out a win against a well known Democrat running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is a no-brainer confirmation of Republican opposition to Obama’s many high-spending boondoggles.

Sarah Palin has such a huge following on Facebook because in a few paragraphs she can destroy an eternity’s worth of Obama mistatement of the union lies.  Palin is routinely slandered as being dumber than a box of rocks, but she saw the failures of Obama a year-and-a-half before the brilliant liberals were able to comprehend the same things about him.

And let’s talk about the Tea Party protesters.

A recent Rasmussen survey ran under the following title: “WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans.”  Which means they are clearly a major force.  But there’s more to say:

The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that’s come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.

More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group. The Tea Party movement gained notoriety over the summer following a series of protests in Washington, D.C. and other cities over government spending and other U.S. economic policies.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which controls both the White House and Congress, has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.

Who nailed that story right from the beginning?  Who charted the progress of the what may very well be the most important political story in decades?  Fox News.  Who completely dismissed it?  Everybody else.

It was the same kind of mainstream media ostrich that buried its head in the sand with the ACORN scandal, in which a couple of kids posing as a pimp and prostitute got ACORN office after office to demonstrate that they were willing to help a couple buy a house and cheat on their taxes  set up a prostitution ring of underage illegal immigrant girls.  ABC network news anchor Charles Gibson hadn’t even heard about the story, it was so low on their radar:

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

And note that in that story I AGAIN lambast the media for refusing to honestly cover the Tea Party events.  I showed the picture of the massive crowds at the event (and you KNOW they would have covered a NOW rally with eight feminists marching in a tight little circle):

The UK Daily Mail reported that one million people showed up for that Tea Party event in Washington D.C. What was the mainline media response?  To either not report the event at all, or to try to dismiss the massive crowds as a few nuts.

Time Magazine didn’t even bother to mention the massive Tea Party movement in it’s ‘Year in Review’ edition.  Like it never happened at all.  Nothing to see here, folks.

Obama trivialized, ridiculed, and attacked both the Tea Party movement and Fox News in one swoop:

So, when you see – those of you who are watching certain news channels that on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security”

He finally met with Republicans after Scott Brown’s victory kicked him hard right in the gonads.  After a full year of completely shutting them out.  In the one meeting he had with them he arrogantly smirked, “I won,” when Republicans tried to share their clearly-in-hindsight legitimate concerns.  And every single one of his “town halls” have been carefully scripted events in which Tea Party people are most definitely not invited.

Obama’s senior media representativesone a self-admitted Maoist – proceeded to repeatedly attack the credibility of what is now recognized to be the most trusted name in news.

I wrote about how the mainstream media ridiculed the Tea Party movement.  Anderson Cooper used the sexually disgusting phrase “tea bagging” to refer to them.  And Keith Olbermann just went to straight rabid frothing hatred of them.  His interview with Janeane Garofalo on the Tea Party was so vile that I quit watching ’24’ as long as she was one it.

Keith Olbermann’s ratings have plunged 44% since last January as people get sick of his rabid lies.  Meanwhile Fox News not only runs circles around Olbermann in the ratings, but runs circles around the circles that they run around him and all the media leeches like him.

Obama is a liar and a demagogue, and he is the leader of a party of demagogues, supported by media propaganda.

Which is why the news organization that he demonized becoming the most trusted name in news is every bit as much of a slap in the face of the tiny degree of credibility he has remaining as it is a justification of Fox News.

Advertisements

Obama Not An Ideologue Just Like Nixon Not A Crook

January 30, 2010

Barack Obama is the most polarizing president in history.

His policies are so radical and that the loss of just one election utterly shuts down the Democrat agenda.

And they are so unpopular that Obama turned Camelot Republican – something that nobody ever dreamed could have happened.

But an ideologue?  Oh, no.  Not Barry Hussein.

Poll Shows Few Americans Believed Obama Mistatement of the Union Speech

January 30, 2010

The Obama deficit of trust in a nutshell:

Deficit of Trust: Most Voters Don’t Believe President’s Assertions About Economy
Saturday, January 30, 2010

During his State-of-the-Union address Wednesday night, President Obama spoke about a deficit of trust between the American people and political leaders. New Rasmussen Reports polling on the president’s speech shows just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

Obama is now pimping his “jobs bill” with the same type of lies he earlier pimped his stimulus.  That said:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 30% of voters nationwide believe the $787-billion economic stimulus plan has helped the economy. However, 38% believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy. This is the first time since the legislation passed that a plurality has held a negative view of its impact.

The number who believe that the stimulus plan has hurt the economy rose from 28% in September, to 31% in October, and 34% in November before jumping to 38% this month. The week after the president signed the bill, 34% said it would help the economy, while 32% said it would hurt.

The Political Class has a much different view than the rest of the county. Ninety percent (90%) of the Political Class believes the stimulus plan helped the economy and not a single Political Class respondent says it has hurt. (See more on the Political Class).

Kind of interesting.  I watched CNN and NBC after the speech, and I got the idea that Obama must have walked on water.

The political class wants more government and fewer liberties for citizens 100% of the time.

There’s an old adage: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Don’t be ashamed that you were stupid.  Get it right now, and start being part of the solution.

It’s time for some hope and change regarding Obama.  Let’s hope that more Americans change their view of Obama and see him for the lying fraud he is.

Obama Publicly Demogogues Lobbyists While Going To Bed With Them Behind Closed Doors

January 30, 2010

A berry, berry good article detailing Barack Obama’s pathological dishonesty and simultaneous demagoguery regarding lobbyists:

Obama’s Lobbyist Slams Masks Big K Street Payday
Posted on January 29, 2010 By Warner Todd Huston

In his State of the Union speech, the president puffed up his chest, fixed his Mr. scornful face, and once again pulled out the populist’s handbook to bash those evil, monstrous lobbyists.

Obama mentioned lobbyists seven times in his address and in every case they were used as a scapegoat to explain away Washington’s inability to get one thing or another done.

Obama promised — again and for the thousandth time — to “end the outsized influence of lobbyists” in Washington. He then praised himself for excluding lobbyists from jobs in his administration and he proposed even more limits on them.

This attack on lobbyists is cathartic and makes for great populist boilerplate, of course, but there isn’t much truth in Obama’s attack on them because the fact is K Street — the D.C. street where many lobbying firms are located — has made more money off the Obama Administration than from any previous president.

And Obama has been pretty blatant about ignoring the obvious disconnect between his populist harangues against lobbyists and his coddling and sidling up to them. Obama’s big paydays to lobbyists at nearly every level has been nothing short of breathtaking. It has been like this since day one.

One is tempted to call the president a prevaricator on the issue.

Obama didn’t even let his TelePrompters get cold before he was snuggling up to lobbyists. The Hill reported that the very next day after Obama attacked the evils of lobbying in the SOTU speech, his administration invited a bunch of them to private briefings.

The Hill quoted one lobbyist’s frustration with Obama’s habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth where lobbyists are concerned. “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers,” The Hill reported this lobbyist as saying.

Meanwhile, back in December, Politico reported that Lobbyists were on pace for a record year. It was estimated that lobbyists would spend $3.3 billion lobbying the federal government in 2009.

“We’ve never had as good a year,” said one lobbyist whose shop deals mostly with financial services and health care issues. “It’s been a tremendously busy year, and it’s going to keep getting that way,” the lobbyist said, noting that both health care and financial reform will remain active as congressional action moves from drafting legislation to implementation to the inevitable fixes.

Never had as good a year? I thought Obama was the veritable Jack the Lobbyist killer?

During the SOTU, Obama wanted brownie points because he “excluded lobbyists” from important jobs in his administration. This has been a longtime refrain from this president. Even as he began his term last year he claimed he was instituting the “strictest ethics rules ever applied” to lobbyists in Washington. The truth, however, shows that his back patting does not quite ring true. As early as February 2 of 2009 it was becoming clear that quite a few lobbyists had, indeed, been hired into the Obama Administration. It was so obvious that Politico began tracking the number of lobbyists that Obama was hiring — and waiving his new “rules” for. Politico discovered at least a dozen had been hired by the end of January, 2009.

The lobbyist’s big payday didn’t end there. In March Chris Frates reported that former Democratic legislative aides were “hot commodities” for lobbying firms as Obama’s new rules became increasingly dense and hard to understand. By May 30 Roll Call was reporting (subscription required) that the Obama Administration was lifting some of its bans on lobbyists so that they could get their hooks more easily into the stimulus spending. Last August Obama even “gave a seat at the table” of healthcare negotiations to a former Congressman turned healthcare lobbyist.

If I can paraphrase Chico Escuela, former faux baseball great, the truth is that Obama has been berry, berry good to lobbyists. So much for the hopinchange and the end of lobbyist’s influence in the era of Obama.

Even the very left leaning MSNBC was easily able to find dishonesty in seven major areas of Obama’s misstatement of the union speech.  The AP points out Obama’s prevarications in eight areas of their own.  The Conservative American goes to town, finding 23 untruths in Obama’s speech.

Obama demonized the Supreme Court in that speech, which was a massive breach of etiquette.  The Supreme Court Justices showed up out of courtesy and out of respect for the three branches of federal government; not to be denounced in a forum in which they had no chance to respond.  You can go back to every single state of the union speech since George Washington’s, and not find such an attack.  And it was largely based on lies: Obama said that foreign corporations would be able to buy elections thanks to the SCOTUS ruling which is simply patently untrue.

You can’t help but think our “constitutional scholar” president would know that.  Which means that Obama’s slander was not a simple mistake: it was transparent demagoguery.

As was Obama’s constant blaming of George Bush for every problem under the sun.  Obama has long-since worn out his “The buck stops with George Bush” paperweight.  It’s long past time he took responsibility for his own presidency.

I’m sick of Obama’s lies.  I’m sick of this man who promised he would be the greatest unifier in history being the worst polarizer in history.  I’m sick of this deceiver congratulating himself for his “transparency” while holding closed-door meeting after closed-door meeting with unions, lobbyists, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies – not to mention all the Democrat politicians who negotiated sweetheart deals for their own districts at the expense of the rest of the nation.

And I’m even sicker of the mainstream media’s refusal to report the truth.

Fox News – the network that the Obama administration has repeatedly demonized – is now far and away the most trusted name in news.  Perhaps the fact that honest media players like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are thriving while the lamestream media slips into bankruptcy will finally force these propagandists to change their tunes and start reporting the truth.

Judd Gregg Explodes On Slandering Media Bias That GOP Would Cut Education

January 29, 2010

It’s getting harder and harder to watch the mainstream media anymore without realizing that they are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  Case in point:

GOP Senator Rips Into MSNBC Host For ‘Absurd,’ ‘Dishonest,’ Statements
By Kyle Drennen
01/28/2010

On the soon-to-be canceled ‘It’s the Economy’ program on MSNBC on Thursday, co-host Contessa Brewer grilled Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg on his calls to reduce out-of-control government spending: “Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Gregg shot back: “What an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make.”

Gregg called out Brewer for her unfair framing of the issue: “…nobody’s saying no money for schools….On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.” He went to explain the kinds of budget cuts he would make: “I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money….I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner….reform our entitlement programs….I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them.”

Gregg was far from finished, he described the big government mentality shared by the Obama administration and the liberal media: “The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.”

Brewer attempted to deny suggesting that Gregg wanted to cut funding for schools: “That’s not what I said.” Gregg continued undeterred: “I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month….And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.”

Fellow co-host Melissa Francis ran to Brewer’s defense: “Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.” Gregg replied: “That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.”

Brewer then attempted to end the interview: “We appreciate your time today-” Gregg kept going: “You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.”

Gregg reiterated: “…you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.” Brewer again denied making that exact  implication: “No, I didn’t.” She then concluded the interview: “Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

2:33PM

CONTESSA BREWER: Let’s bring in now Republican Judd Gregg, the Senator of New Hampshire, the top Republican now on the Budget Committee and a member of the Senate Banking Committee. What do you think about the money the President is proposing to spend on jobs and what [National Urban League President] Mark [Morial] was just saying that it has to go hand in hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills, and certainly educating very young people.

JUDD GREGG: Well, we’re running a 3 point – a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. The government’s going to spend over $3 trillion. All of that deficit goes into the debt, which has to be paid by our children and our children’s children. I think somebody’s got to ask a more fundamental question, how are you going to get the economy going if you run up the debt to a point where we can’t afford our government? That, I think, is a much more fundamental question.

If you want to do something to energize this economy, I think you put in place some plans which control the rate of government, so the people can have confidence that we as a nation are not going to go into some form of fiscal bankruptcy in five to seven years. And that will cause people to be willing to invest, to be willing to take risks, and to be willing to create jobs. Jobs are not created by the government. You know, long-term good jobs are created by a vibrant economy. And you don’t get a vibrant economy when the government and the size of the government and the debt of the government is overwhelming the capacity of the economy to function well.

MELISSA FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, Senator. How would you practically-

GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory.

FRANCIS: How would you – well, tell me-

GREGG: Don’t tell me that it’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Well, tell me how to put it to work. Tell me – tell me very practically-

GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory. What are you – how do you get off saying something like that? Good in theory?

FRANCIS: Because it is good in theory. It is, it’s fantastic.

GREGG: Oh, of course.

FRANCIS: So tell me how to practically – here’s your opportunity, Senator, let me finish, to tell us how to practically put it to work. I’m all for small government.

GREGG: Well, you stop – you stop the spending spree. You stop growing government so fast that you can’t afford to pay for it. You don’t increase the size of the government from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP in two years. You don’t add a trillion dollars of new debt to the – to our kid’s back every year for the next ten years. You don’t pass a budget – the President doesn’t send up a budget which increases – doubles the debt in five years, triples it in ten years. You don’t say that you’re for fiscal responsibility and then propose a whole panoply of new programs which you can’t pay for. That’s not theory, that’s reality. That’s what we’re facing as a nation.

BREWER: So when – when-

GREGG: The reality of a fiscal meltdown of our country which is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives and especially cost a lot of jobs in this country.

BREWER: So my partner, Melissa, Senator Gregg, is really asking for specifics. If you don’t believe that we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you? Do you – and do you side then, with those who say – I mean, you look back at the Great Depression, economists say we landed back into real problems in 1937 when people got onto cutting a deficit and a lot of government spending was pulled back before it should have been.

GREGG: Well, first off nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.

BREWER: Well, I’m asking-

GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make.

BREWER: What we both are-

GREGG: On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.

BREWER: Senator Gregg, what we’re both asking, is which programs you expect to cut?

FRANCIS: Tell us what to cut.

GREGG: I mean do you know how much money we’re spending at the federal government on education this year?

BREWER: Which – Senator, you’re going to be asked to cut certain programs if you’re on the Senate Banking Committee, which programs would you cut?

FRANCIS: Just tell us, what do you want to cut?

GREGG: Oh I have no problem telling you, I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money, which would get us close to $400 billion. I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner, so that we can recover all the money that’s going to be spent outside the window of this recession. And we shouldn’t be spending it and adding it to the debt. I would take a major effort to reform our entitlement programs, in fact yesterday, or the day before yesterday, we had a vote to try to do that under a bill which I proposed with Senator Conrad. I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.

BREWER: That’s not what I said

GREGG: I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month.

BREWER: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.

GREGG: And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.

FRANCIS: Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.

GREGG: No, that’s what she said.

FRANCIS: And I think you answered the question.

BREWER: We appreciate your time-

GREGG: That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.

BREWER: We appreciate your time today-

GREGG: You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.

FRANCIS: She asked you what you would like to cut. She asked you if you’d like to cut schools. You said no. It was a question and answer.

GREGG: No, you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.

BREWER: No, I didn’t.

GREGG: Well, education funding isn’t going to be cut. Yes you did.

BREWER: Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.

GREGG: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

For the record, Contessa Brewer, you did.  Your words:

“Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?”

The video of this all-too-common demonstration of rampant leftwing media bias is available at Newsbusters.

I hope Judd Gregg confronting the liar and calling Contessa Brewer out for the propagandist she is marks a new rule for dealing with the leftwing media.

Sarah Palin Demolishes Obama’s Pretentions State of the Deception Speech

January 28, 2010

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook page:

Today at 2:17pm

While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

– Sarah Palin

She nailed it.

What Obama’s Speeches And The Emperor’s New Clothes Have In Common

January 28, 2010

Like the emperor’s new clothes, Obama’s speeches count on people determining that if they don’t see the wisdom coming out of Obama’s mouth, they’re fools.

When, of course, it’s only fools who think that way to begin with.

By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Hillel Italie, Ap National Writer Tue Jan 26, 12:02 am ET

NEW YORK – As a supporter of Barack Obama for president, former JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen welcomed the young Democrat as a winning, Kennedy-esque orator who didn’t bore the public with “five-point programs” and lectures more fit for campuses than for campaigns.

But as Obama prepares to deliver his first State of the Union address, Sorensen wonders if the president hasn’t become more like the politicians he supposedly displaced.

“He is still a very eloquent, articulate speaker,” Sorensen says. “He is clearly well informed on all matters of public policy, sometimes, frankly, a little too well informed. And as a result, some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.”

Authors, editors and speechwriters interviewed by The Associated Press agree that Obama is indeed a gifted and effective speechmaker, able to set a new tone with the Middle East in his Cairo speech or to turn public opinion, at least temporarily, in favor of changing the health care system after his address to Congress.

But even admirers have a hard time remembering what he actually says.

Ted Widmer, who edited an anthology of political speeches for the Library of America, praised Obama for his “masterful” style, but could not cite a specific line the president said. Similar observations were made by Jeff Shesol, David Frum and Harry C. McPherson, who wrote speeches for presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Lyndon Johnson, respectively.

“The speech he made in Cairo — I remember the intelligence, the breadth and the reasonableness,” McPherson says. “But I can’t tell you, and this is one of the shortcomings of the kind of speech he makes — I can’t quote anything, or cite anything, off the top of my head.”

“His speeches can go for pages without applause lines, making comprehensive arguments about particular issues,” said White House spokesman Bill Burton. “And though people may not remember particular lines or phrases from every speech, when he is done speaking, people always get a sense of who the president is and exactly where he is coming from.”

A distinctive phrase can define, or make history, like Franklin Roosevelt’s calling Dec. 7, 1941, “a date that will live in infamy” because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or President Ford’s declaration, upon taking office after Richard Nixon had resigned, that “our long national nightmare” was over. President Kennedy’s inaugural call to “ask what you can do for your country” helped inspire an era of public service, while President Reagan’s demand that Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev “tear down that wall,” the Berlin Wall, was a climactic moment of the Cold War.

“I think there are memorable lines in certain speeches (by Obama),” says presidential speechwriter Adam Frankel, who started writing for Obama when he was a candidate. “But what makes him unique as a speaker is not necessarily a single line but the overall story he tells and the seriousness with which he tells it and the trust he puts in people to understand a complicated argument.”

Frum and others warn that a speechwriter can be so eager to come up with a memorable quote that the overall text suffers. Obama’s preference for sustain explanation over snappy summaries is a good thing, Widmer says, because it means he’s treating the public as adults.

“Sound bites help people to remember a speech and think about the larger message of a speech, but they become a distortion if you only remember the fragment,” Widmer says. “You can end up with a situation like the presidential primaries where you’ve got eight people in an Iowa cornfield, all trying to have a striking single sentence in the middle of a speech.”

Geoffrey O’Brien, editor of the next edition of Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations, says that so far he has 12 Obama citings planned, but just one since he became president (though he says that could well change).

The passage he wants to include from Obama’s presidency comes from his inaugural speech, when Obama called the United States “a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” He could not immediately cite any other lines from Obama’s presidential speeches.

“Obama is very strong at sort of coolly laying out issues, which may not be memorable, but is effective,” O’Brien says. “When he was running for president, he had to draw on a more impassioned style. He was addressing huge crowds of people.”

O’Brien says that when he talks about Obama with young people the phrase they remember is “Yes, We Can,” his campaign slogan.

Fred R. Shapiro, who edits the Yale Book of Quotations, mentioned a few phrases from Obama’s inaugural speech that could make the next edition some years from now. He cites Obama’s insistence that “We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals” in the fight against terrorism, and that “a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served in a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.”

But Shapiro doesn’t think that any of his presidential statements have caught on widely with the public, certainly not at the level of then-candidate Obama’s private observation in 2008 that small-town Americans “cling to guns or religion.”

“The lines I mentioned from his inauguration have not become very famous,” Shapiro says. “And if they’re in the next Yale Book of Quotations, it will be more because they were borderline choices than because they were overwhelmingly clear-cut candidates.”

No presidential speech since President Kennedy’s inaugural, which has 11 mentions in the most recent Yale book, has been so quoted. A Kennedy-Sorensen trademark is chiasmus — what speechwriters call “reversible raincoats,” in which the second half of the phrase is a variation on the first half, such as “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”

The stature of Kennedy’s speech is one reason it hasn’t been matched. Shesol recalls an agreement among Clinton speechwriters that reversible raincoats should be avoided because Kennedy and Sorensen had so perfected them.

“I think it’s very important for people to remember the words. Words have power. A successful speech will resonate and phrases will provide a kind of power in the near term and the longer term,” Shesol said. “But, ultimately, it’s important to any president to be able to make continually clear who he is, what he believes and where he wants to go.”

Thurston Clarke, author of “Ask Not,” a well-regarded book on President Kennedy’s inaugural speech, wonders if Obama isn’t still reacting to criticism during the 2008 campaign that he was too good with words. His main opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, cited a quote from former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo that “You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose.” Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of the late attorney general and New York senator, worried about the limits of “poetry or lofty language.”

“I think he’s scared of appearing too polished,” Clarke said. “I think it scared him from giving a great inaugural address and I think that was a huge mistake because no president gets an audience again like he does for his inaugural address.”

Allegations that Obama is holding back are “not true,” said Burton, the White House spokesman. “That speech (Kennedy’s) was 50 years ago, only underscoring the point that these iconic moments are so few and far between. But knowing a couple lines is not the best measure of a speech and certainly not of the effectiveness of a president.”

And thus the uber-leftist academicians circle the wagons to surround Obama as his apologists.  We saw the same mindset for FDR: FDR’s policies were a complete disaster; even his own treasury secretary said so:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, unemployment was still 20.7%

You start seeing fools early in this article. For example, JFK speechwriter Ted Sorensen doesn’t seem to understand that other people write Obama’s speeches.  And other people do the focus groups to to inform other people in the policy department to determine what those other people should write in those speeches.  Obama delivers other peoples’ words well; he’s helpless when he depends upon his own “oration.”

If you have any doubts about this, watch our “smooth, polished, Kennedy-esque orator,” watch him blathering on like the village idiot without his teleprompter screens and ask yourself if JFK ever did anything like this:

The opening three paragraphs from this AP article assume the liberal thesis that if the man who has bored us with more speeches and appearances only explained himself, the country would be thrilled with his uber-lib big-government policies.

My very favorite line from the article is Sorenson’s thesis: that “some of the speeches are too complicated for typical citizens and very clear to university faculties and big newspaper editorial boards.”  Which is the emperor’s new clothes, part deux.  If you were really really smart like we liberal elites, you’d understand the masterful wisdom that is The Obama.

Obama’s speechwriter (hey, Obama doesn’t write his own speeches after all, Ted!) Adam Frankel talks about “the trust [Obama] puts in people to understand a complicated argument.”  So if you don’t think what Obama’s saying makes any sense, you can know in advance that it’s because you’re ignorant.

When Obama speaks, you’d better not see the emperor’s underwear, or you’re stupid.

Then this group of Chris Matthews-clones who said they got shivers up their legs when Obama spoke admit that, “even admirers have a hard time remembering what he actually says.”

I’ll tell you a little secret: it’s because Obama takes way too long to say nothing.  Obama is all “masterful style” and absolutely no substance.  And these postmodernists who themselves believe in nothing beyond the most surface of appearances end up falling for nothing every single time as long as that nothing is eloquently painted with polished rhetoric.

In The Emperor’s New Clothes, the overwhelming majority are suckered by a couple of opportunists to willingly participate in a shocking display of collective ignorance despite what should be obvious to any with common sense.

There is nothing new under the sun,” wise Solomon once said.  And so we are right back to the vain emperor and his vain illusion that reveals the pretentiousness, pomposity, social hypocrisy, collective denial, and hollow ostentatiousness of our own time.

Obama Continues To Demonize: This Time The U.S. Supreme Court

January 28, 2010

Since I wrote this (but before I posted it) we have a Supreme Court Justice responding to Obama’s continued demagoguery of SCOTUS.

Obama was saying:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.”  In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue.  You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you.  He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”?  You become the enemy of the religion.  And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”?  Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy.  Damn free speech!  Damn First Amendment!  Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

Let’s agree with Barry Hussein’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s take on it instead (see the embedded video):

“When you think about the First Amendment…you think it’s highly overrated.”

That joke dismissing the First Amendment was about as funny as Josef Stalin’s kneeslapper:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

Here’s an important question: Just why is our demagogic president and his lackeys so unhinged over this decision?

It comes back to the idea of his racist, Marxist, anti-American reverend’s words about “chickens coming home to roost“:

From the previously cited New York Times article:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser.  When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.  Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations.  One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked.  Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

Why is it “striking at our democracy itself” to finally allow corporations to have a voice against a president who has given one sweetheart deal after another to labor unions, while working toward giving labor unions the right to force unions on businesses without a legitimate private vote via card check?

Here’s another example: one of the top bankruptcy attorneys in the country has stated that the Obama White House threatened to destroy his firm using the mainstream media if it continued to oppose Obama’s “Take my offer or else” offer for Chrysler investors.

Here’s another one: Humana was attacked, demonized, and handed an illegal gag order for trying to correct the record as the White House levied lies against it.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond.  They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition.  By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

This is an important fact:

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.”  They don’t like businesses.  And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.”  Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count.  And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.

Obama The Most Polarizing President In History

January 28, 2010

Let’s go back to an article I wrote last year titled, “Obama Promise To Transcend Political Divide His Signature Failure And Lie“:

Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified what they described as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people, and they correctly identified why reasonable people should be skeptical:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Anyone who possessed more reason than their dog or cat, of course, should have known that the answer to the last question would be a resounding “NO!”  If Obama had wanted to be a “unifier,” he wouldn’t have been the most liberal (and radical) member of the U.S. Senate.

And of course, anyone who truly possessed even a shred of bipartisanship wouldn’t have spent 23 seconds in Jeremiah Wright’s demagogic, racist, anti-American, Marxist church, let alone 23 years.

Obama PROMISED he would heal the partisan divide, that he would reach across the divide in an unprecedented way.  According to the New York Times, that was Obama’s CORE promise.

He did the exact opposite.  He couldn’t have lied to us more.

Again, in his State of the Union Speech, Obama went back to the same demagoguery, even as he called upon those he was demagoguing to abandon their principles and follow him:

From some on the right, I expect we’ll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.

The problem is, that’s what we did for eight years.

(APPLAUSE)

That’s what helped us into this crisis. It’s what helped lead to these deficits. We can’t do it again.

Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it’s time to try something new. Let’s invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let’s meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let’s try common sense, a novel concept.

Now, to do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust, deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years.

Then later Obama said:

And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

If Obama wants Republicans to cooperate with his agenda, he should stop demonizing them.  He keeps demagoguing “the last eight years” (as if we should forget the unprecedented 52 consecutive months of growth during those eight years); maybe he should also mention his party’s unprecedented eight years’ of vicious attacks against George Bush.

Democrats now demagogue Republicans as the “party of no” without ever bothering to answer for why they did the same thing:

But did congressional Democrats offer their own alternative to President Bush’s 2005 Social Security plan? When a fellow Democrat asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi when their party would offer its own Social Security plan, her answer was “Never. Is that soon enough for you?” Democrats would not even negotiate until personal retirement accounts were taken off the table. Why should Republicans act differently today, regarding the “public option”?

Obama is a polarizing, divisive demagogue.  He refuses to understand that you don’t get people to join you by demonizing them.  You get them to fight you to their last breath.

Obama lies when he says his administration has reached out to Republicans.  He’s shut them out.  And that tactic was employed so heavily that even blue-dog DEMOCRATS were shut out of any part in the debate:

Forty-five House Democrats in the party’s moderate-to-conservative wing have protested the secretive process by which party leaders in their chamber are developing legislation to remake the health care system.

The lawmakers, members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said they were “increasingly troubled” by their exclusion from the bill-writing process.

So when Democrats claim they included Republicans, they are just rank liars; they even refused to include their own moderate Democrats!

Obama is the most cynical demagogue America has seen in decades, and nothing more.

And the American people now readily understand that:

January 25, 2010
Obama’s Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President
Shows much greater party differences than approval for any prior first-year president

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats’ (88%) and Republicans’ (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

Average Difference Between Republicans' and Democrats' Job Approval Ratings of Presidents During First Year in Office

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

Democrats suffered a MASSIVE defeat and a MASSIVE repudiation of their agenda in even the heavily Democrat state of Massachusetts.  Obama has lost every single statewide race since becoming president – all of which occurred in states that overwhelmingly voted for him in 2008.  The people are no longer with Obama; they are against him.  But judging by his performance in the State of the Union, Obama is determined to keep heading full speed ahead off the cliff.

Supreme Court Justice Mouths ‘That’s Not True’ To Lying Obama Speech

January 27, 2010

Remember Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You LIE!” retort during Obama’s last speech in the Capitol Building?  Wilson’s statement was about the only honest thing said throughout the speech.  And Joe Wilson’s honest rebuke of Obama’s lies netted him at least $2.7 million in contributions.

Well, now we have our new “Joe Wilson” – coming straight from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Watch Justice Samuel Alito’s mouthed response of “That’s not true” to Obama’s demagoguery:

Politico sets up the moment:

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md) are trying to find a way to legislate around the Supreme Court decision.

Basically, if the Supreme Court says it’s legal to murder 50 million babies, the Democrats claim that the voice of God has spoken – and that ruling cannot be questioned.  But if that very same court says that corporations have a right to exercise free speech, then THAT’S an abortion of justice.

Obama’s denunciation of the Supreme Court in a venue in which they could not defend themselves – and with a line that was intended to generate a Democrat standing ovation all around them – was a despicable disrespect of our separate branches of government as well as being rude.  The Justices showed up for Obama’s speech out of courtesy for the executive and legislative branches; they did not show up to be attacked.

Just as Joe Wilson was CORRECT in his contention that Barack Obama had lied, Justice Alito was correct in pointing out that Obama had not told the truth.  A central claim in Obama’s slanderous attack against the Supreme Court decision was that foreign corporations would be able to influence the political process.  But that isn’t true:

Another area of interest is the possible effect of this decision on foreign political spending in U.S. elections. It is important to note (as much public comment on this decision does not) that under current law, election spending by non-U.S. persons and entities is prohibited under section 441e of the statute, and that prohibition is unaffected by the ruling in Citizens United. Thus, the existing restriction on expenditures by foreign corporations remains in place not because they are corporations but because they are foreign. Further, the U.S. subsidiaries of international companies are already subject to FEC restrictions on spending non-U.S. funds in U.S. elections, or allowing foreign nationals a role in the decision-making process. 11 C.F.R. § 110.20.

An article in Big Journalism sets up the legitimate major issues (as opposed to Obama’s illegitimate demagoguery) surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling:

Lost in most of the coverage of the decision (and conveniently ignored by President Obama, former “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School), is that, as Justice Kennedy points out, the ban on electioneering speech never applied to one type of corporation. And what type of corporation would be exempt from laws and regulations that chill the speech of all its corporate brethren? Why, the media corporation, as Justice Kennedy points out on page 35 of the opinion:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

The law drew a line between two types of corporations: media corporations, and everyone else. Intentionally or not, it tilted political power toward the media and away from every other type of corporation (many of which, as Justice Kennedy observed, have limited resources, unlike, say, CNN). The mere fact that media organizations were able to speak at all in the 30 days leading up to an election gave them an advantage over other corporations. Even if a media corporation tries to be scrupulously fair in its coverage of an election, the inevitable choice to cover one story over another gives an advantage to one side. By removing the government’s muzzle from corporations, the Supreme Court has restored some balance to the playing field.

Surely the little guy has an interest in hearing election messages from corporations. The government gets its message out, and the media gets its message out. Why shouldn’t ordinary, private-sector corporations be able to speak as well? Unless he is a member of  the Civil Service or a public-employees’ union, the little guy’s livelihood is usually dependent on a corporation — not the government or the media. Why shouldn’t he be able to hear that Candidate X’s support for cap and trade will destroy his employer?

Why hasn’t Obama decried that ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN – corporations all – have exercised their rights to free speech???  Why hasn’t he demanded that THEY be marginalized along with Fox News?  And who do those corporate bastards at the New York and Los Angeles Times think they are spouting their views and influencing our elections?  Do you realize that they depend on advertisements from OTHER corporations that are quite often foreign-owned?

The author of the above article contends that big media will be hurt by this ruling, since presently they are the only corporations that get free speech, and therefore are the only corporations that get to speak for all the other corporations through the filter of their liberal biases.

It’s also more than a little hypocritical for Obama to wax so self-righteous now when he had so little problem accepting all kinds of campaign contributions that in all likelihood included foreign money without every bothering to check.

And, of course, the very big-media corporations who were alone allowed to exercise their free speech never bothered to look at the Obama foreign money issue.

You want to hear the REAL reason Obama is so angry at this decision?  Because he is finally bothered by the notion that one’s chickens can come “home to roost.”

From the New York Times:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

Obama has repeatedly demonized entire industries (banks, auto manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, etc.).  And now a whopping 77% of investors believe that Obama is anti-business.

So it will be something of a textbook case of poetic justice that the businesses that Obama viciously attacked finally get their own shot at being able to attack him for a change.