Monday, November 15, 2010


OTB—One term Barack

There’s only one logical conclusion to be drawn: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IS DOWN FOR THE COUNT, will have an early lame duck presidency, and will be out of the White House in two years.

Almost everyone agrees. Here’s a sampling of the domestic and international media opinion that has been pouring in:

• “From the richest to the poorest precincts of Washington, D.C., you can get heavy odds that Barack Obama is going to be a one-term president.” –North America Syndicate columnist.

• “HIS CONTINUED, EMBARRASSING ON-THE-JOB TRAINING…implies the grim reality of Obama being a one-term president.” –Houston Chronicle

• “I think Obama very likely will be a one-term president unless things change drastically.” –A longtime Democratic U.S. Senator

“WEAK, VACILLATING, DEFINITELY ONE-TERM.” –A senior European political analyst
• “The midterm results are a death sentence for Obama.” –La Stampa (Italy)

Despite his upset victory over heavily favored Hillary Clinton in the ’08 Democratic contest and his easy win over a much more seasoned John McCain in November two years ago, Barack OBAMA LACKS THE POLITICAL SKILLS NECESSARY TO ADJUST to the new realities of divided government. Unlike Bill Clinton, OBAMA IS AN INFLEXIBLE LIBERAL WHO COULDN’T FIND THE CENTER WITH BOTH HANDS, even if his career depended on it.

The Incredible Shrinking President

Remember all those wonderful things that were going to happen when we elected Barack Obama? We were going to push the reset button and HE WOULD CHARM OUR FRIENDS AND FOES into doing what was good. It apparently hasn’t worked out that way.

Foreign leaders have taken the measure of Barack Obama, and FOUND HIM A LIGHTWEIGHT, a head of state whose proposals can be dismissed as substance-free fantasies, UNWORTHY OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. American voters should take note of this, for nobody understands a national leader better than his or her peers. Foreign leaders are also immune to the blather of the American propaganda media.

Obamanomics scares the Communists

When I was growing up, China's Communist leaders would attack the United States as "capitalist running dogs." How the world has changed: CHINESE LEADERS NOW PUBLICLY FRET ABOUT AMERICA'S RELIANCE ON "OUTMODED CENTRAL PLANNING."

Talk about being called ugly by a frog.

The Chinese official specifically was referring to the Federal Reserve's decision to pump $600 billion of extra liquidity into the economy. But instead of being called "QE2," this new bout of quantitative easing should be called the "Titanic."

Pelosi: “We Didn’t Lose Because of Me.”

Nancy Pelosi shows the not only is she unpopular she’s delusional.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she has the “overwhelming support” of fellow Democrats in her bid to become minority leader in the next Congress, and says she’s not to blame for the Democrats’ mid-term debacle.

“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning. “Our members do not accept that.”

Instead, the California Democrat attributes the loss of at least 60 seats to high unemployment and “$100 million of outside, unidentified funding.”

Dems extol facts and science but act on ideology

President Obama recently fretted that our politics has become so rough-and-tumble that "facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time." Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser just before the election, the president worried that Americans were so rattled by economic anxieties that they might lose their heads and choose Republicans over Democrats -- a fear that became a reality on Nov. 2.

But his larger point was that Democrats are guided by facts and science and argument while Republicans act on ideological or even irrational motives. As liberals and Democrats are fond of saying, they are part of the "reality-based community."

Except when they're not.

In the course of the Obama administration we have seen examples of Democrats in the White House, Congress and across the government pursuing ideological goals that are not only not based on facts and science and argument but actually fly in the face of facts and science and argument. Some examples:

» OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING. Recently the inspector general of the Interior Department discovered that White House officials altered a report to claim that the administration's six-month moratorium on offshore oil drilling had the approval of the nation's foremost engineering experts. "The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering," the administration declared. In fact, the experts had not reviewed, nor did they approve, the proposed drilling moratorium. The administration insists it was all a mistake.

» THE "CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY." President Obama speaks frequently about "accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy." Neither Obama's promises of breakthroughs in solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources -- which can supply only a tiny fraction of the nation's energy needs -- nor his claims that his policies will create hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" in a new clean energy world, are supported by solid economic analysis. Numerous studies found that the president's favored cap-and-trade program would not have led to economic growth, and the concept of "green jobs" is so fuzzy as to be almost useless.

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

In addition to the ones mentioned here, try to even study the difference between men and women or the races and watch how quickly the left dismisses any scientific studies in these areas. You’ve seen the complete politicalization of Climate Science which the left holds as sacred truth. We have former scientist who have become political operatives call for trying and even executing climate skeptics who they refer to as using a political description of “deniers.”

No comments:

Post a Comment