Friday, June 08, 2012

Will the Obama Bubble Finally Burst? [Update #2]

All through Obama's pResidency at the White House, he and his cohorts have escaped punishment for the dozens of scandals that this awful administration has been riddled with over the past 3 1/2 years.  When a new scandal comes to light many conservative bloggers share the findings of criminality with the public online in blogs, forums, Face Book and other social media.  Conservative radio and GBTV (Glenn Beck's online TV show) have been exposing Obama's corruption for years - even before he was elected.

Lots of great blog posts to share today! Let's start with this one:

American Thinker: The Awful Truth about Obama begins to break through the liberal bubble


It has gotten so bad for the Obama campaign that even Politico is starting to notice that Obama's got nothing much to offer voters and can't articulate an appealing message. Of course, in order to break this news to inhabitants of the liberal bubble, it casts the problem as a "stumble out of the gate" -- sticking to the beloved horse race metaphor. Heavyweights Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei write:

Obama, not Mitt Romney, is the one with the muddled message - and the one who often comes across as baldly political. Obama, not Romney, is the one facing blow back from his own party on the central issue of the campaign so far - Romney's history with Bain Capital. And most remarkably, Obama, not Romney, is the one falling behind in fundraising.

To top it off, Vice President Joe Biden has looked more like a distraction this month than the potent working-class weapon Obama needs him to be.

Read more at  American Thinker

Since that blog post was written, a LOT has happened. Of course we still have the ongoing Fast and Furious gunrunner scandal where Eric Holder continues to sidestep many of the direct questions from Congress. He did make some news when Holder admitted that Axelrod, White House helped Justice Dept craft Fast and Furious public relations strategy However, even more egregious crimes are being exposed! We now have the security breach story where highly classified information just happened to be "leaked out" by someone in the Obama administration. If THAT isn't cause for alarm to even the most die-hard leftists, then nothing would ever sway them away from their ObamaBorgBot mentality! Even liberal Senator Diane Feinstein is calling for an investigation! Will that be the smoking gun that finally takes this radical usurper down once and for all?? One can only hope and pray that it does!

But what I find most intriguing is blogger Jason Kissner's article over at American Thinker that asks the question Did Bill Clinton Deliver a Coded Warning About Obama?


A crescendo of jabs from Bill Clinton aimed at Barack Obama's re-election chances have caused much commentary, but the pundits have ignored an anomalous digression in a recent speech, which may be a startling coded warning about Obama.
In a June 4 New York City fundraiser speech featuring the joint appearance of Messrs. Clinton and Obama, Mr. Clinton says, at 16:23 of this CSPAN link and after having praised Mr. Obama's economic policies and extolled Mr. Obama's contributions to national security:
And he's had to get all this done while people as recently as last week were still saying he wasn't born in America [and one should note that Mr. Clinton said just last week that the evidence was merely "pretty clear" that President Obama was born in Hawaii."]. He's had to get all this done with a House of Representatives that had one of the Tea Party members claim that 78-81 members of the Democratic Caucus were members of the Communist Party and neither the presidential nominee nor any of the leaders rebuked him for saying that. This is not the 1950's -- -at least Joe McCarthy could skate on the fact that there was [sic] at least one or two communists walking around...nobody's seen a communist in over a criticism is too vicious."
Has Mr. Clinton ever heard of Mr. Van Jones -- avowed Communist and Obama "green jobs" czar (albeit former czar, but Mr. Jones is, then again, still "walking around")?
Many readers will have heard that Mr. Jones is a self-declared communist. Has he lately declared himself a communist?
No. But wait: let us now parse Mr. Clinton with utmost care, and note once again that he said in the New York speech that "nobody's seen a communist in over a criticism is too vicious."
Indeed, no criticism is too vicious. Did the word "decade" materialize out of thin air? In all likelihood not, especially when you consider that it is very reasonable to believe that Mr. Van Jones' communism formally ended guessed it...2002, about a decade ago:
Usually accusations of communism bring to mind memories of Joe McCarthy and hapless leftists being ruined (at least for a while) by being asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party." Of course with the death of the Soviet Union and with even China practicing a capitalism of a sort, being a member of the Communist Party is rather quaint and certainly not very threatening.
According to Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand blogger, back in the 1990s, Van Jones was a leading member of an organization called Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Loudon quotes a leftwing blog, Machete 48, is [sic] describing STORM.
"STORM had its roots in a grouping of people of color organizing against the Gulf War in the early 1990's and was formally founded in 1994. The group's politics had a number of influences, but evolved towards what could be best characterized as third worldist Marxism (and an often vulgar Maoism). The group grew in influence until its disbanding in 2002 amid problems of internal dynamics and especially controversy around the leadership roles that members played in the youth movement (such as the fight against Proposition 21). Nearly the entire membership of the organization was staff members for various social movement non-profits in the Bay Area, many linked to the Ella Baker Center, which Van Jones steered" [emphasis added].
What is a rational person to make of this, other than that Mr. Clinton is pointing a pink finger at Mr. Van Jones, and therefore at Mr. Barack Hussein Obama?
It now seems anticlimactic to ask if Mr. Clinton is aware that Mr. Obama, again just last week, awarded the Medal of Freedom to the honorary chair (Ms. Dolores Huerta) of the largest socialist organization in America (can you believe it?). Has he ever heard of Senator Bernie Sanders, self-declared socialist, or Mr. William Ayers, a communist?

Moreover, a 2009 letter by the Democratic Socialist (sic) of America outfit indicated that 70 members of Congress were DSA members. Do you suppose Mr. Clinton may have gotten wind of this?
The answer to each of these questions is almost certainly: of course he has. So why does Mr. Clinton, in a major fundraising speech on behalf of Mr. Obama in New York, even mention Communism (and therefore, implicitly, socialism), in a way that obliquely impugns Mr. Obama ?

Why would someone of Mr. Clinton's stature, intelligence, and political expertise subtly, psychologically, and politically link Mr. Obama with communism/socialism, and, what's more, do so (1) just after Mr. Obama's "Medal of Freedom" link to socialism was all over the news and (2) when the link comes out of nowhere in terms of the flow of Mr. Clinton's speech preceding it, so that it is even more difficult to discern an affirmative reason, helpful to Mr. Obama, in support of the link?

Was the idea that Mr. Obama is a socialist/communist far enough from Mr. Clinton's mind that Mr. Clinton was simply attempting to assuage the concerns of the marginal independent voter as to the prospect that Mr. Obama may be a socialist/communist? This seems very doubtful. Independents who are concerned with the notion that Mr. Obama may be a socialist/communist are unlikely to have had their worries muted by a statement from the likes of Mr. Clinton, and many of the remaining independents are either leaning towards or committed to Mr. Obama whether he is a socialist/communist or not. With respect to those independents left over, seemingly throwaway ideological lines at a New York fundraiser are unlikely to make much difference.

However, the "throwaway lines" might not be throwaway at all if the lines telegraphed something to persons other than middling independents. The question then partly becomes: whom might Mr. Clinton have been telegraphing?

Perhaps the answer to the part-question has to do with Mr. Clinton's now very widely discussed criticism of the Obama campaign's opening, major salvo against Mr. Romney and Bain Capital. Rather than buttress Mr. Obama's characterization of Mr. Romney as a vampire capitalist (curiously, Marx had a fondness for vampiric imagery, and so does popular culture in contemporary America, although vampires seem to be morphing into zombies before our very eyes, which might well say something about the unconsciously cannibalistic nature of socialism), Mr. Clinton does the opposite and suggests that Mr. Romney's business performance has been "sterling."

Similarly, might Mr. Clinton's throwaway ideological lines been only superficially throwaway? That is, might Mr. Clinton have been, as the saying goes, "protesting too much" with his ideological lines, so that the lines, as telegraphed to certain persons and institutions, are properly read as Van Jones-related lines, and therefore as having suggested the very opposite of what they appeared to be saying?

That interpretation would certainly dovetail perfectly with the Van Jones timing coincidence and with Mr. Clinton's demolition job of Mr. Obama's opening act against Mr. Romney and Bain, would it not? And all while giving Mr. Clinton plausible deniability on the issue and thereby helping preserve Mr. Clinton's political capital with Mr. Obama's supporters.

So, on this analysis, what persons and institutions did Mr. Clinton telegraphically target when, in New York, he alluded, for no apparent reason, to socialism and communism and a "decade" ago in a speech supposedly praising Mr. Obama? He may be saying that Mr. Obama is not simply a menace to capitalist finance in terms of his economic policies, but rather, and much more gravely, Mr. Obama is an ideological menace to capitalist finance.

Read more: American Thinker

All of Mr. Kissner's points are well taken.  However, I would have to say that Obama is an ideological menace....PERIOD!!

For a huge roundup of great blog posts and articles, see: Anti-Mullah: EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO READ AND KNOW THIS WEEK -GREAT READS!

Hat tips to all links.


Update!  Just read this and it is applicable to my post:

Is This America's 'Ricky Bobby' Moment? - One of my all time favorite few seconds of cinema, ranking up there with Charles Foster Kane's deathbed revelation and Bogie's send off of Ilsa Laszlo, is...


It could happen at any moment. The president is credibly linked in a new bestseller to use of campaign funds for hush money payoffs… he's been found to have lied -- either then or now --about his place of birth… he needlessly mocks the country by presenting his biographical bona fides with the candor befitting a three card monte hustler. He objectifies and sexualizes his wife's do-good fitness crusade. And that's just the lurid stuff. He's a serial security breacher, squandering access to the blabbing bad guys that has already been prepaid in American blood and treasure… he's cravenly politicized Afghanistan and Iraq while cutting the military out of the decision process… then there's the mendacity of the health care legislation, the worst economy since the Depression, and the reckless acceleration towards January 2013 Taxmadgeddon that makes Thelma and Louise look like defensive drivers. A good investigator will always notice the single "dog that didn't bark." Here we have a mush of huskies that aren't howling. Who's noticing?

The Obama un-masking will be similar to other historic slow-cooking political disruptions. Teapot Dome, Hiss, Watergate, Iran Contra, Whitewater, Flowers/Jones/Lewinsky all took time to percolate. The public needs that time to process and respond to those abstract reports and allegations. A change in public sentiment requires a consensus understanding of the problem strong enough to overwrite the existing cognitive framework of the miscreant person or institution. Significantly, the two traumas that were ultimately the most convulsive -- Watergate and Lewinsky -- became radioactive not because of the damning fact set but rather because the public couldn't forgive a President for "lying." Still, in every case, there was that Ricky Bobby pause.

Until it happens, we won't know if this current nightmare is going to end with an implosion or a whimper.

Update # 2

Trevor Loudon: You Can’t Really Prove Obama’s a Commie?….Try KeyWiki


Is Barack Obama a communist? you know it in your gut…but you just cant prove it?

Our sister site KeyWiki is an online encyclopedia of the US left. More than 60, 000 profiles of radical/progressive/socialist/communist individuals and organizations.

Our most popular page is that of Barack Obama. It just ticked over 100, 000 hits today.

Click on it today, for all the proof you will ever need of Barack Obama’s Marxist sympathies.

If you want to know about Barack Obama and the Communist Party go here

If you want to know about Barack Obama and Democratic Socialists of America go here

If you want to know about Barack Obama and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism go here

If you want to know about Barack Obama and the New Party/Progressive Chicago go here

If you want to know about Barack Obama and ACORN/Project Vote/Demos go here

Send them to to your friends, colleagues, and liberal relatives.

While you're at it , you might want to check out another of our more popular pages – George Soros

No comments: