Friday, March 16, 2012

Vetting Barack Obama

What’s new Today

Story #1 gives you the conclusions of the first two vetting Obama stories.  #2 talks about how Obama appears to be helpless to help out the little guy at the gas pump, but he can still pump the hands of the 1% for money for his campaign.  It seems he had 5 fund raisers on the March 16.  #3 relates how Obama is not doing well with his knowledge of history.  #4 gives you an excellent analogy of how global warming fanatics are steering us to destruction. 

1.  The Vetting of Barack H. Obama

Breitbart’s Big Government is running a series vetting Barack Obama.  The first two go back to his time as a Constitutional lecturer.  Here’s what they concluded in the first installment…

Here’s what we learn from this answer: Obama’s an extreme legal leftist. He thinks that banning infertility treatment for unwed couples is akin to sterilizing them. He thinks that there is no connection between childbearing and childrearing and the integral value of marriage. He thinks that arguments about “tradition” are troubling. And he believes that all judges rule according to their experiences – which goes a long way toward explaining his love for Sonia Sotomayor, whose “wise Latina” experiences may shape her judicial reasoning, according to her own admission.

And here is part two’s conclusion:

So here’s what we’ve learned today. Lecturer Obama believed deeply in Critical Race Theory – so much so that he advocated creative legal strategies to argue Critical Race Theory into law. He thought that facially neutral statutes were discriminatory thanks to the racism of the system. He even argued that the people of the states be stripped of their power to change local law, if such changes cut against narrow minority interests.

I’ll keep the summaries coming with links to the entire article. 

2.  Obama may not be able to do anything about gas prices but he can raise money

President Barack Obama is embarking on a concentrated one-day fundraising trip, with a stop in his hometown of Chicago and another in Atlanta for a big-draw event with film producer Tyler Perry and performer Cee Lo Green.

Obama has been increasing his fundraising pace in preparation for his showdown with a Republican presidential nominee.

Obama will attend two fundraisers in Chicago and three in Atlanta. In Atlanta, his campaign's African American Leadership Council is holding a gala at Perry's studio featuring Green's performance. General admission tickets are $500. VIP tickets range from $2,500 to $10,000. A dinner later at Perry's home will raise $35,800 per guest.

There will be a lot of irony in the Obama campaign that plans on portraying Mitt Romney as someone who is out of touch with the common man.  We know that because Joe Biden said so at a $38,000 a plate fundraiser. 

3.  Obama needs to brush up on his history

President Obama got a laugh out of a Maryland audience on Thursday when he mocked the Republican Party in a speech, comparing their skepticism of alternative energy to the “Flat Earth Society” in Christopher Columbus’ day and President Rutherford B. Hayes’ apparent dismissal of the telephone. But while Obama thinks the GOP is in need of a science lesson, he may need to bone up on history himself.

In mocking the GOP, Obama cited an anecdote about Hayes in which, upon using the telephone for the first time, he said, “It’s a great invention, but who would ever want to use one?”

“That’s why he’s not on Mount Rushmore,” Obama said. “He’s explaining why we can’t do something instead of why we can do something.”

But Nan Card, curator of manuscripts at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center in Ohio, told TPM that the nation’s 19th president was being unfairly tagged as a Luddite….

It’s funny that when Sarah Palin told a story about Paul Revere that was historically correct she was attacked to the left as a fool, but when President Obama tells two stories that are historically incorrect, you have to search to see any mention of it. 

4.  Global Warming and National Suicide

Beginning in 1856, the Xhosa tribe in today's South Africa destroyed its own economy. They killed an estimated half-million of their own cattle (which they ordinarily treated with great care and respect), ceased planting crops, and destroyed their grain stores. By the end of 1857, between thirty and fifty thousand Xhosa had starved to death -- a third to a half of the population. The British herded survivors of the once-powerful tribe into labor camps, and white settlers took much of their land, as reported by Richard Landes in Heaven on Earth: The Varieties of the Millennial Experience.

The Xhosa had acted on the prophecy of a fifteen-year-old girl who promised that if they destroyed all they had and purified themselves of "witchcraft" (including evil inclinations and selfishness), the world before the white invaders came would be restored. The British oppressors would flee, and the Xhosa ancestors would return, bringing with them an even greater abundance of cattle and grain.

Do you feel a mixture of pity and contempt for these strange people who ruined themselves on the basis of an outlandish vision? If so, the feeling is misplaced. Just as the basis for the Xhosa economy was cattle, the lifeblood of our economy is energy. And we are strangling our own energy supply on the basis of an apocalyptic prophecy that has no more validity than the one that sent the Xhosa into self-immolation.

The apocalyptic vision to which we subscribe has a superficial scientific gloss -- "climate change" -- but at bottom, both visions prescribe economic suicide, and both promise that self-sacrifice will bring about a golden age. In the case of the Xhosa, that golden age was the time before the British invaded. In our own, to quote famed environmentalist David Brower (director of the Sierra Club and then of Friends of the Earth), it's "back there about a century when, at the start of the Industrial Revolution we began applying energy in vast amounts to tools with which we began tearing the environment apart."…

This is a great analogy and certainly explains why a lot of skeptics speak out.  Warmists like to claim that it is because they are in the pay of the big oil companies, but that is simply nonsense.  In fact it is the skeptics who are out funded by the warmists by a ratio of about 1000 to 1. 

No comments:

Post a Comment