Posts Tagged ‘fears’

Obama Mocks Trump ‘Doom And Gloom’ Speech. Then YET ANOTHER MASS TERROR ATTACK Proves He Should Be IMPEACHED.

July 22, 2016

Remember when Obama made the intellectually stupid and frankly morally idiotic claim that Islamic State was “JayVee” and then tried to weasel out of his own utterly stupid remark???

He’s done that a few times.

He just did it again.

Demonizing Donald Trump’s Republican National Convention speech, Obama as demagogue-in-chief had this:

Obama rejects Trump’s dark America
‘This vision of violence and chaos everywhere, doesn’t really jibe with the experience of most people,’ the president says.
By Nick Gass
07/22/16 12:43 PM EDT
Updated 07/22/16 01:24 PM EDT

President Barack Obama on Friday strongly denounced the dark and dire terms in which Donald Trump and the Republican Party described the condition of the United States after nearly eight years of his presidency.

While remarking that he did not watch the convention, the president commented on reading “some of what was said and the one thing that I think is important to recognize is this idea that America is somehow on the verge of collapse, this vision of violence and chaos everywhere, doesn’t really jibe with the experience of most people.”

“I hope people, the next morning, walked outside and birds were chirping and the sun was out and this afternoon, people will be, you know, watching their kids play on sports teams and go to the swimming pool and folks are going to work and getting ready for the weekend,” Obama said, speaking alongside Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto during a joint news conference. “And in particular, I think it is important, just to be absolutely clear here, that some of the fears that were expressed throughout the week just don’t jibe with the facts.”

Obama has shown a greater willingness to directly attack Trump, and has done so with gusto. After Trump whipped up terrorism fears in the wake of the Orlando massacre and suggested Obama was sympathetic to attackers, the president delivered a withering takedown of the billionaire, saying he “will not” let Trump’s vision for the future take hold. Obama took a different tack as he hit the trail with Hillary Clinton, relishing the chance to mock Trump for his tweeting, saying his daughter Sasha can tweet, too — that doesn’t meant she should be commander in chief.

On Friday, Obama was utterly dismissive of Trump’s winding and dystopian prime-time convention speech in which the Republican nominee warned about spiking crime, dangerous trade deficits, and runaway terrorism on the home front. […]

We can go back and look at the horrifying picture Barack Hussein Obama painted of George W. Bush’s presidency.  Because Obama told us if we elected John McCain the entire world would melt due to global warming and financial ruin and terrorism and pretty much everything else.  But keep in mind that Barack Obama is a demon-possessed hypocrite liar and that it’s only fascist when the OTHER side does what he routinely does in demonizing the other side’s vision and track record.

I remember when Bush gave an incredibly opaque reference that Democrats took to be an attack against Obama, and they came unglued.  It didn’t matter if Obama was demonizing Bush over Iraq, over Afghanistan, over his war on terror, over our debt, over the economy, over gas prices, over damn year everything under the sun.  Oh, and Obama was just a butthurt victim and there was no way he would ever do anything so horrible.  Obama gets to demonize because he is filled with demons, but nobody should get to ever demonize him or they are racist or worse.  And yet I have seen Obama attack Trump directly by name in virtually every continent on planet earth by now.  Today he scheduled a media event with the president of Mexico the day after Trump’s RNC speech to demonize Trump by name.  Because if you are a Democrat, you are the worst form of disgusting hypocrite vermin who ever lived.

But let’s get back to the essence of Obama’s attack against Trump: that Trump says we’re in dark times and Obama says everything is blissful in his perfect Utopia.

It just doesn’t matter if terrorism is already officially up 800 percent under Obama’s failed watch or that by the time he leaves office, it will have skyrocketed by 1,900 percent.  A graph displays the appalling Obama trend:

To someone who is NOT a fool, this looks pretty damn dark and pretty damn dire.  And it is now beyond obvious that we will NEVER be able to deal with this dark and dire reality of terrorism unless and until we elect a president who holds a diametrically opposite worldview to the failed Democrat Party’s current chump-in-chief.

Keep in mind these statistics run to 2014-2015.  Have you heard about any terrorist attacks in 2016?  Oh, YEAH.  And since this is blocked in terms of two year periods, and since it has a clear trend of doubling under Obama, you tell me if I’m wrong to conclude that they will EASILY get to 60,000 deaths a year caused by terrorist attacks by that next period of 2016-2017.

When Obama took office, we were dealing with about 3,000 deaths caused by terrorism a year.  By the time Obama leaves, it will be at least 60,000 terrorist murders a year.  Just do the damn math: 1,900 percent increase.  And as of 2014-2015, terrorist attacks had already skyrocketed from about 500 a year to 3,000 a year, a 500 percent increase that will very likely also double to 1,000 percent by the time Obama leaves office.  Which is to say that we have vastly more attacks which are each becoming more and more successful.  But these are a “dark” fact and it’s not fun to think about truth when it reveals the truth about Obama and his massive failures.

Yesterday, I had a meeting with my city’s police chief to coordinate with him on an event that my church is planning.  Driving into the police station, I noticed the flag was at half staff.  Because under this failed presidency, the flag is nearly ALWAYS at half-staff.  Barack Obama is the half-staff presidency.  His entire presidency is a time of mourning and distress for our nation as we have an unending series of terrorist attacks against our civilians and a now unending series of terrorist attacks by Democrat activists against our police.

Anyway, as Obama is saying this crap, blathering this already proven-to-be-baloney gibberish, this is going on in Germany in a large, popular shopping center:

Shooting rampage in Munich: Multiple deaths & attacks reported, gunmen at large
Published time: 22 Jul, 2016 16:26Edited time: 22 Jul, 2016 17:47

Multiple deaths are reported in a shooting at the Olympia shopping mall in Munich, Germany. Police confirmed that shots have been fired in the mall but gave no information on casualties.

There are conflicting reports on casualties. According to the local Muencher Abendzeitung, up to 15 people have been killed in the center, while German NTV channel puts the death toll at 10.

Police say it appears they are dealing with a “shooting rampage.”

There are reports of further shooting at Karlsplatz square in central Munich, but this has not been confirmed by police. Taxi drivers have been advised to avoid the Karlsplatz area.

Police believe there are “several” shooters, die Welt reports.

Multiple deaths at the shopping mall have been confirmed by police, Reuters reports.

Shots can be heard in a video posted by a witness on Twitter.

We learn when we follow the time line that this happened right about 1 pm EDT, and Obama was blathering his lies at 12:43, just minutes before.

HEY, OBAMA, YOU WICKED FOOL, THE BIRDS ARE NOT CHIRPING IN GERMANY RIGHT NOW.  And if they are in swimming pools, they are floating face-down by now.

And now over an hour later we are hearing that there are MORE attacks going on as I write this.  It aint over yet.

And again, just as Obama and Hillary Clinton want here, Germany took away all the guns from all the decent citizens.  But terrorists don’t give a flying damn about stupid progressive liberal gun laws; in fact they REJOICE in them and praise Allah for them; because their helpless targets are guaranteed to be unarmed like the apathetic and pathetic sheep they voted themselves to become.

Last year (2015) there were 151 deaths caused by terrorism in Europe.  The year before that it was FOUR.  And many of those attacks last year and now continuing this year were carried out by Muslims who came in through “refugee” status, or who came in as immigrants.  And Obama wants to explode that same status HERE in America so we can have an even BIGGER explosion of terrorist deaths.

Obama wants tens of thousands of these people; Hillary wants that figure to be increased by a factor of 500%.

Our FBI says we cannot possibly vet these Muslims Obama and Hillary demand to be brought in (because Muslims overwhelmingly vote Democrat and Democrats are just that cynical and that depraved that they don’t CARE how many Americans are murdered as long as they get their votes).  Obama’s own senior national security advisers say we can’t vet these people.

But that’s just reality.  And who gives a damn about reality???  Certainly not you, if you voted for Obama or plan to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Obama and reality have nothing to do with one another.  In fact, they hate each other very deeply.  No one has ever hated reality more than Obama; and reality has never taken such an intense disgust of a human being as it has to Obama.

If Barack Obama says it, and at this point it almost doesn’t matter what it is he says, it is a LIE.

I want to show you a US News and World Report headline that just captures the essence of Obama’s personal and moral responsibility for this skyrocketing vicious terrorism:

Obama War on Terror OVER

“The “Global War on Terror” is over, President Barack Obama announced.”

You get into a vicious bar fight and then just decide to quit fighting and put your arms down.  I’ll call 911 for you.  But that is EXACTLY what Obama did and has been doing since 2009 when he first pulled out of Iraq against the wisdom of every single one of his generals and then issued a “red line” that he refused to uphold in Syria.  And on and on.

Obama ought to be arrested for crimes against humanity for failing to deal with this explosion of violence that he has in America pimped into a war against our Constitution and our 2nd Amendment; he ought to be convicted, and he ought to be locked up in GITMO and waterboarded until he reveals which of our enemies he has been the puppet of.

If times are dark, we desperately need a president who will acknowledge that we are in dark times and that he will lead us out of them.  Because there is and can be nothing worse than following a man who led us directly IN to that dark time all the while CRIMINALLY refusing to acknowledge that we are in one.

We have cancer, but Obama says we’re fine, nothing wrong.  We really desperately need a chemo treatment, surgery, radiation, whatever it takes to kill the disease, but Obama says that is ridiculous and the sugar pill will give you energy and you can run around for a while like nothing happened.

At least Donald Trump is acknowledging the world and acknowledging America as it really is.  Because of Barack Obama and his toxic worldview, we have the worst race relations in fifty years.  Crime has skyrocketed out of control and our police are literally being assassinated in increasingly frequent attacks because Barack Obama and his wicked regime criminalized the police and depicted black people as victims of police death squads – as the Black Lives Matter movement that chanted “What do we want? DEAD COPS!  When do we want it?  NOW!” that Barack Obama has invited over to the White House maintain.  And terrorism has exploded beyond anything that the human race has ever seen because of our fool in chief.  And Hillary Clinton wants to double down on wickedstupid.

There is only ONE candidate for president who is pointing out the truth that you are worse than a fool not to see at this point.

And that candidate is the man who Barack Hussein Obama just demonstrated himself to be a FOOL by mocking when HE is the worst fool who ever lived.

 

Advertisements

CBS Poll Reveals Obama Hits NEW Low After Imposing Terrible ObamaCare

April 2, 2010

The Wicked President of the West isn’t dead, but he’s melting, MELTING

April 2, 2010 7:01 AM
Obama’s Approval Rating Hits New Low
Posted by Tucker Reals


CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.


Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law — but his legislative success doesn’t seem to have helped his image with the American public.

The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama’s handling of health care – and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama’s overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill’s passage in the House of Representatives. It’s down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president’s performance.

More results from this CBS News Poll will be released in Friday’s broadcast of the Evening News with Katie Couric, which airs at 6:30 p.m. Eastern.

When it comes to health care, the President’s approval rating is even lower — and is also a new all-time low. Only 34 percent approved, while 55 percent said they disapproved.

Americans are still worried about the economy, with 84 percent telling CBS they thought it was still in bad condition. However, even that high number represents an improvement: nine in ten thought the economy was bad during the last half of 2008 and at the beginning of 2009, when Mr. Obama assumed the Presidency.

Concern about job loss remains high; slightly more Americans now (35 percent) than in February (31 percent) were “very concerned” that someone in their household would lose a job. Nearly six in ten Americans said they were at least “somewhat concerned” about a job loss.

As has often been the case, lower-income Americans tend to be the most concerned about job loss.

This concern is reflected in yet another low approval rating — this time for the President’s handling of the economy. Just 42 percent said they approved of how President Obama is handling the economy, only one point above January’s all-time low. Half of the public disapproves.

It gets even better as we learn how truly outraged independents are over the incredibly polarizing and partisan tactics this incredibly dishonest, cynical weasel has used to “fundamentally transform” a free market economy into socialism.  From the Washington Times:

Friday, April 2, 2010
Independent voters turn from hopeful to angry
Democrats no longer ride tide of support
By Jennifer Haberkorn

President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008.

At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November’s midterm elections.

This is the time that we need to take a page from both Barack Obama AND Sarah Palin.

First we need to get “Fired up, ready to go.”  And then we need to RELOAD before getting fired up again.  And again.  And again.  And again, until the worst and most radical and most unAmerican president in history is long gone to go along with the Democrat disaster in Congress.

Obama and the Democrats KNEW that ObamaCare was reviled by the American people; and then they usurped the will of the people and used every parliamentary trick in the book to impose it anyway.

Now it’s the law of the land, and we’re starting to see what a stinking pile of crap it truly is.  First we learned that Obama and the Democrats flat-out LIED when they said that children with pre-existing conditions would be covered as soon as the bill was passed.  That’s just one of an avalanche of lies Obama told the country to push his health care takeover.

Then we learned that thousands of companies were going to be forced to take billions of dollars in writedowns forced upon them by ObamaCare.  The tally so far:

Company                  Charge
AT&T                     $1B
Verizon                  $970M
John Deere               $150M
Boeing                   $150M
Prudential               $100M
Caterpillar              $100M
Lockheed Martin          $96M
3M                       $85M
Exelon Corp.             $65M
AK Steel                 $31M
Eaton                    $25M
IL Tool Works            $22M
Xcel Energy              $17M
Valero                   $15M
Honeywell                $13M
Goodrich                 $10M
Allegheny Technologies   $5M

And the thing is that 3,500 companies are going to find out that they are in the same boat, to the tune of at least $14 billion in private sector profits that will be transferred to a power-hungry government instead of being used to create jobs and expand the economy.

The above is a gift that is going to keep giving – or rather keep taking profits away from businesses and jobs away from citizens.

Then we saw that ObamaCare had prompted a massive sell-off of US Treasuries:

Sell-off in US Treasuries raises sovereign debt fears
Investors are braced for a further sell-off in US Treasuries after dramatic moves last week raised fears that the surfeit of US government debt is starting to saturate bond markets.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Published: 9:06PM BST 28 Mar 2010

The yield on 10-year Treasuries – the benchmark price of global capital – surged 30 basis points in just two days last week to over 3.9pc, the highest level since the Lehman crisis. Alan Greenspan, ex-head of the US Federal Reserve, said the abrupt move may be “the canary in the coal mine”, a warning to Washington that it can no longer borrow with impunity. He said there is a “huge overhang of federal debt, which we have never seen before”.

David Rosenberg at Gluskin Sheff said Treasury yields have ratcheted up 90 basis points since December in a “destabilising fashion”, for the wrong reasons. Growth has not been strong enough to revive fears of inflation. Commodity prices peaked in January and US home sales have fallen for the last three months, pointing to a double-dip in the housing market.

And why is this?

The trigger for last week’s sell-off was poor demand at Treasury auctions, linked to the passage of the Obama health care reform. Critics say it will add $1 trillion (£670bn) to America’s debt over the next decade, a claim disputed fiercely by Democrats.

Dispute away, you loathsome liars.  But the facts are on the table.

Why you’re explaining away how ObamaCare will cost massively more than you falsely claimed, maybe you can also explain away Obama’s stratospheric spending deficits that make Bush’s worst year look like stringent fiscal discipline.

What we are seeing is Thelma & Louise policies.  Those are the kind of policies that see us insanely driving off a cliff at top speed.

Democrats own all of this now.  They can’t blame anybody but themselves, because they were the only ones who voted for it, and who polarized the country to ram it down our throats.

What’s the result of the Democrats’ idiotic policies?  Ask Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who just told us that sky-high “unemployment is likely to remain unacceptably high for a long time.”

The unemployment rate “is still terribly high and is going to stay unacceptably high for a very long time,” Geithner said.

Of course, if unemployment is going to stay “unacceptably high” for “a very long time,” you’re pretty much accepting it, aren’t you?

You can accept an “unacceptably” awful one-party rule that is destroying the American way of life chunk by chunk, or you can refuse to accept the “unacceptable” and vote these radicals out of office in seven months.

Democrats are betting that you are too stupid and too short-sighted to hold them accountable.

Whether that’s true is up to you.

What’s Happened To Obama’s Chicago-Way Thug-Style ‘Hope And Change’?

February 11, 2010

One of the things that was truly amazing during the 2008 campaign is that the mainstream media were hyper-eager to gather in droves over Sarah Palin’s and then Joe the Plumber’s trash cans for any dirt they could find, but utterly refused to examine Barack Obama’s record in the most politically corrupt city in America.

This is why Obama was able to say, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”  He could be whatever he wanted to depict himself, because the mainstream media wasn’t going to challenge anything he said.

Americans are finally beginning to understand who Mr. “blank screen” really is – and they are rejecting him in droves.  The pity is that they should have had an opportunity to learn who he was before they elected him.  But the dishonest ideologically-biased mainstream propagandists were not about to tell us anything they thought we might not want to hear.

The mainstream media have long held a “gatekeeper” mentality to the news, which is to say that they only told you what they wanted you to know, while holding back what they didn’t want you to know.

And they didn’t want you to know how Obama’s Chicago past would influence or even dictate his presidency: what happens in Chicago stays in Chicago.

But, inevitably, the American people were going to see the “Chicago side” of Barry Hussein.

From the Los Angeles Times blog:

President Obama Day 386: What’s happened to him?
February 9, 2010A favorite story about Chicago politics involves Roman Pucinski, who served six long terms of political apprenticeship in the Washington minor leagues of the U.S. House of Representatives before the Windy City’s vaunted Democratic political machine allowed him to step up and serve on the City Council.

The late Pucinski then served for 18 years as a loyal operative assigned to the 41st Ward (of 50).

It’s always useful for Chicago pols to have White House connections if, say, they’d like to dispatch someone famous to fly off to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee for their city’s 2016 summer games bid.

But the Chicago Daley machine, which is actually a ruthless coalition of urban Democratic factions united by the steel reinforcing rods of self-interest, didn’t much care about this Barack Obama fellow before, as long as he was quiet, obedient and headed on a track out of town. How he acquired a reform label coming out of that one-party place is anyone’s guess.

But now that the sun has risen on the 386th day of the Obama White House, many political observers are coming to see that the ex-state senator from the South Side is running his federal administration in Washington much the way they run things back home: with a small….

…claque of clout-laden people from the same school who learned their political trade back in the nation’s No. 3 city, named for an Indian word for a smelly wild onion.

That style is tough, focused, immune to any distractions but cosmetic niceties. And did we mention tough. A portly, veteran Chicago alderman once confided only about 40% jokingly, that he had taken up jogging to lose weight but quickly gave it up as boring because “you can’t knock anyone down.” That’s politics the Chicago way.

For instance, remember how much we heard all last year about the need for healthcare legislation before early August, before October, before Thanksgiving, before Christmas, before the State of the Union? And how spanked the White House was by the Massachusetts Senate upset that Obama said his laser-vision for 2010 was on jobs and the economy?

So, what did he announce during a Super Bowl interview? More healthcare meetings, designed to politically box Republicans into the No-Nothing corner.

In the last few days at least three major outlets have published well-informed evaluations of Obama’s first year in office.  All are well worth reading.  The dominant themes: disappointment and disillusionment with the Chicago way.

In one respect it’s not surprising that a capitol city with its own style of take-no-prisoners politics should find a professed outsider’s style of smoother-spoken take-no-prisoners discomforting.

But now, no less than the Huffington Post headlined its Obama evaluation by Steve Clemons: “Core Chicago Team Sinking Obama presidency.”

The devastating Financial Times report by Edward Luce: “A fearsome foursome.”

And the Washington Post story by Ann Gerhart: “A year later, where did the hopes for Obama go?

The Post story focuses on a handful of Obama supporters, so fiercely motivated and hopeful in 2008 and through the inauguration, now largely drifting back to normal lives lacking fulfillment of so many promises.

The other two fascinating accounts examine Obama’s close-knit team of Chicagoans: confidante Valerie Jarrett, who’s so intelligent she once hired Michelle Obama; Rahm Emanuel, the diminutive, acid-tongued chief of staff with overwhelmAxelrod and Obamaing energy and ambition; David Axelrod, the ex-Chicago Tribune politics reporter-turned-consultant who’s been coaching Obama forever; and Robert Gibbs, who isn’t from Chicago but that’s OK because he’s only the mouthpiece and the others keep a close eye on him.

Clemons focuses on how dead-on the Luce piece is and how the FT Washington bureau chief had to assiduously hide his sources as everyone was properly so fearful of retribution from the quartet around the mayor, er, president.

And Clemons attributes the lack of online link love to the Luce item Monday to the same fears among D.C. journalists dodging disfavor from the same four.

Quoting “administration insiders,” Luce says “the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. ‘I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,’ says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently.”

And both articles note, accurately, how savvy cabinet secretaries like Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services and Ken Salazar at Interior have been marginalized because putting a media face on the Obama Oval Office can only be entrusted to the likes of Gibbs and Axelrod.

Another Luce source talks about the difference between campaigning, which is easier, and governing, which is the ultimate goal but takes a more refined skill-set:

‘There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,’ says one. ‘Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.’

Also noted, how most everything coming out of the executive office is filtered through a political prism above all. i.e. the Afghanistan troop surge speech that touched all the political bases in 4,582 words without once saying “victory.”

Warning that Obama needs to take action quickly, Clemons adds that needed advice from a broader range of advisers “is getting twisted either in the rough-and-tumble of a a team of rivals operation that is not working, or is being distorted by the Chicago political gang’s tactical advice that is seducing Obama towards a course that has not only violated deals he made with those who voted him into office but which is failing to hit any of the major strategic targets by which the administration will be historically measured.”

David Gergen, who helped guide Bill Clinton out of not dissimilar troubled waters, tells Luce: “There is an old joke. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

— Andrew Malcolm

Mark Steyn reminded viewers of Obama’s horribly botched pronunciation of the Navy Corpsmen who save the lives of wounded Marines, and then referred to “the four corpse men of the Obamaclypse.”  That’s quite accurate, as it turns out.  and these four corpse men are riding America into apocalypse right along with Barack Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s political future.

It’s scary to think that we have a preening peacock campaigning and campaigning with absolutely no idea how to actually govern.

Since the FT article is hard to obtain, and since I am all about preserving a record of the facts, here is the Luce article:

A Fearsome Foursome
By Edward Luce

At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama’s brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans – like the president. And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

“It is a very tightly knit group,” says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. “This is a kind of ‘we few’ group … that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep.”

John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

“Clearly this kind of core management approach worked for the election campaign and President Obama has extended it to the White House,” says Mr Podesta, who managed Mr Obama’s widely praised post-election transition. “It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.”

This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill. But for the setback in Massachusetts, which deprived the Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, Mr Obama would by now almost certainly have signed healthcare into law – and with it would have become a historic president.

But the normally liberal voters of Massachusetts wished otherwise. The Democrats lost the seat to a candidate, Scott Brown, who promised voters he would be the “41st [Republican] vote” in the Senate – the one that would tip the balance against healthcare. Subsequent polling bears out the view that a decisive number of Democrats switched their votes with precisely that motivation in mind.

“Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn’t want,” says Jim Morone, America’s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. “Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.”

Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama’s health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

“We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ‘This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

The same applies to reforming the legal apparatus in the “war on terror” – not least his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year of taking office. That promise has been abandoned.

“Rahm said: ‘We’ve got these two Boeing 747s circling that we are trying to bring down to the tarmac [healthcare and the decision on the Afghanistan troop surge] and we can’t risk a flock of f***ing Canadian geese causing them to crash,’ ” says an official who attended an Oval Office strategy meeting. The geese stood for the closure of Guantánamo.

An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

So you learn that Obama is all fluff and no substance (i.e., all campaign mode and no actual governing mode), and that Obama has to rely on his “Chicago fearsome foursome” the way he relies on his teleprompter: ubiquitously (as in even in sixth grade classrooms!!!).

And you should think long and hard about the profound comparison of Nixon’s tight (and tightly wound) inner circle and Obama’s same same.  A tight, insular circle that answers to no one and keeps its counsel secret is a frightening thing in any republic.

Here’s another comparison between Obama and his alter ego.  And realize that for a CHICAGO POLITICIAN to say, “I am not a crook,” is pretty much like a Chicago politician saying, “I am not a Chicago politician.”

Everything is politics for Obama.  Political posturing, political preening, political hatchet jobs.  Nothing else matters.

It is frankly amazing to me that such a hypocritical and cynical man as Barack Obama was ever elected president.  He constantly lectures Republicans (and even Democrats when it suits him) to “rise above petty politics” when the very construction of his administration is completely about politics.

I have on several occasions compared Barack Obama to Neville Chamberlain.  Both men were utterly ruthless (there’s your ‘Chicago Way’) in pounding head after head to achieve their signature domestic issues, and both men became utter failures as they attempted to have their personal domestic agenda at the expense of everything else.

People are starting to learn that the “blank slate” may well be blank because the man behind the grand facade has no soul.