From Familial Pride to Disdain? In Under Two Years?

>> Thursday, December 29, 2011


March 2010...





Yesterday, December 28, 2010...

WOLF: In Obama he trusts
Why our president fails

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf - The Washington Times

There’s something profoundly tragic about the failed presidency of Barack Obama. He was supposed to be a new kind of president, a man who embodied hope and would transcend petty politics and even race. Instead, we’re left with a downgraded America that is stagnating under the weight of its bloated government. As tragic as that alone is, even this is but a mere symptom of Mr. Obama’s larger fundamental failure: He simply does not trust the Americans who entrusted him with the presidency.

Most presidents, we believe, ascend to the Oval Office, but for the 44th president, the reverse seems true. Whatever majesty the White House can muster must rise to the grandiosity of Barack Obama. “We are the ones we have been waiting for,” said the man who writes autobiographies and later would claim to control the rise of the oceans.

As recently as this month, the food-stamp president of 13 million unemployed Americans declared himself the fourth-most-accomplished president in the history of the United States, eclipsing, in his own mind, President Reagan and even our nation’s father, George Washington. That in only three years. Barack the Magnificent won’t allow trivialities like $15 trillion debts or historic national credit downgrades dissuade him.
Mr. Obama may care deeply for America, but he believes in only one thing: Barack Obama. And you are not Barack Obama.

Where once the American flag was hailed universally as the ultimate symbol of freedom, we who live under it have slowly but surely surrendered our liberties to an insatiable government. Consider our decline in just the past two generations. Our grandfathers, who stood against evil and shed their blood to stop it, never would have tolerated their own government becoming so totalitarian that it would dictate to them what car they should drive, what (if any) health insurance they should choose or even what light bulb they should buy.
Has our generation been worthy of earlier Americans’ sacrifices? Or have we surrendered their hard-fought victories in return for false promises of a big-government utopia that never materializes? Look no further than the politicians we elect. We have chosen as our president a man who believes we are unworthy, not of the previous generations’ sacrifices, but rather unworthy of freedom itself.

The sum total of Mr. Obama’s political philosophy, the unifying theme of his presidency, amounts to this: You cannot be trusted to live as a free American.

President Obama’s first major legislative action, the failed $787 stimulus, revealed his fundamental distrust of free Americans. A president who actually trusts his people would stand aside as they freely chose how to invest their capital and their labor. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, simply doesn’t believe you are smart enough to know what’s best for you. He commandeered nearly $1 trillion dollars from the taxpayers and redirected it as he saw fit. That he squandered billions on crony boondoggles such as the Solyndra solar-panel company or laughable efforts to measure the malt-liquor habits of Buffalonians and the like is evidence merely of his incompetence. That he trusted only himself to allocate taxpayers’ money in the first place - even if he had had the capacity to do so brilliantly - is evidence of a much larger offense: This president distrusts his subjects.

Obamacare is a modern-day monument to government arrogance. So untrustworthy are Americans that they cannot be allowed to decide for themselves whether to purchase health insurance or, if so, how much. Likewise, physicians are too untrustworthy to provide you with care without first consulting the government’s “best practices” guidelines. Obamacare would solve both.

Untrustworthy bankers would become angelic under the restrictions of Dodd-Frank. Untrustworthy bloggers would fall in line under the Stop Online Piracy Act. Untrustworthy manufacturers would create the only jobs worth having under the dictates of the National Labor Relations Board. And untrustworthy energy consumers would act responsibly only under the restrictions of “cap and trade” or at least a dictatorial Environmental Protection Agency.

For statists like Mr. Obama, no matter how bloated our government has become, America is forever just one legislative act away from utopia, if only those untrustworthy Americans would just get in line. The man who ran on hope has instead embraced a tragic pessimism that views all free Americans with disdain as either incompetent rubes in need of his salvation or unrighteous villains in need of his rules. Either way, Mr. Obama embraces a command-and-control government and rejects American freedom.

Mr. Obama’s distrust of Americans is his fatal flaw, and Republicans would be wise to exploit it fully. The GOP should resist the temptation simply to become a cleverer version of autocrats who pull the same powerful levers of government but in different directions. Instead, they should become the party that embraces liberty.

If the 2012 election is between Republicans and Democrats or even between conservatives and liberals, Republicans might win. But if the election is instead between a bloated, ineffectual government that distrusts its subjects and Americans who still yearn to breathe free, Republicans will win. Only then will voters have a dramatic choice between a party that trusts Americans to be free and a party that does not.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf, a Washington Times columnist, is a radiologist and President Obama’s cousin. He blogs at miltonwolf.com.

 

13 comments:

ELAshley December 30, 2011 at 8:21 AM  

The previous comment (which I deleted) was too misinformed to allow it any further continuance. The author can't objectively debate any issue that calls into question this president's accomplishments, including both the overwhelming number of bad, and the 'few and far between' good.

I simply don't have time to argue with such. Nor can I allow such tripe to stand unanswered. Ergo...

ELAshley December 30, 2011 at 8:28 AM  

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."

President Obama, Dec 11, 2011 - Sixty Minutes



This is the height of arrogance. Pure and simple.

Jim December 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM  

This is the height of arrogance. Pure and simple.

I'm sure, for simple people.

I'd go with...

"bring 'em on."

President George W. Bush, July 3, 2003

ELAshley December 30, 2011 at 3:54 PM  

No comparison, Jim.

There's a difference between bravado and arrogance. Bush had bravado, Obama doesn't.

The simple tend to grasp and claw, and that's all you're doing with... "Bring 'em on!"

Jim December 30, 2011 at 9:22 PM  

There's a difference between bravado and arrogance. Bush had bravado, Obama doesn't.

I'll agree with you on the Bush and his bravado. Per Merriam-Webster:

\brə-ˈvä-(ˌ)dō\: 1a) blustering, swaggering conduct, 1b) pretense of bravery, 2) the quality or state of being fool-hardy.

We've been through this before. We all know that "arrogant" is dog-whistle for "uppity".

Marshall Art December 31, 2011 at 2:30 AM  

Ah! The race card is played yet again. Incredible how it always comes down to that. Pathetically so.

Jim December 31, 2011 at 12:32 PM  

I'll "play the race card" any time you or anybody else characterizes President Obama as "arrogant" implying that he is any more "arrogant" than any other person who has sought or held the office (excluding maybe Carter).

The towel-snapping, deprecating nick-naming, smirking, previous holder of the office, President "bring 'em on" wasn't arrogant but President Obama is?

Marshall Art December 31, 2011 at 12:50 PM  

No. Bush was humble, especially by comparison with Obama. You keep referring to "bring 'em on" as if that indicates arrogance. It doesn't. It indicates the proper attitude that we won't be cowed by threats from terrorist scumbags. That's the perfect attitude for a country's leader, especially the leader of the free world. It indicates a certainty of being on the right side of the struggle between our ideology and theirs. In the face of hostility, I expect our president to show no fear, demonstrate a willingness to do what is necessary to defend our nation and defeat that hostility. THAT attitude helps to keep our potential enemies (as well as certain enemies) in their place.

Obama, on the other hand, displays arrogance as the word is defined. He had no track record on which to justify a posture of being worthy of the position. He now believes his policies rank up there with who he thinks are the best presidents. I don't deny a president to speak of accomplishments, but he hasn't any worth trumpeting that weren't mere extensions of the previous guy in charge. His arrogance is based on delusions of grandeur.

Jim January 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM  

He had no track record on which to justify a posture of being worthy of the position.

"justify a posture of being worthy"? What a load of horse s**t. Obama held public office for eleven years prior to being president; Bush: six years. He defeated Hillary Clinton and several other serious candidates, and defeated John McCain.

Bush, on the other hand, left the Texas Air Guard before the end of his contractual tour and failed in the oil bidness. He ran a baseball team for five years. Atta boy!

He now believes his policies rank up there with who he thinks are the best presidents.

He never said that. You are making that up. He was talking about his administration's legislative accomplishments.

but he hasn't any worth trumpeting that weren't mere extensions of the previous guy in charge.

Health Care Reform. HUGE accomplishment and easily comparable to Medicare and Social Security. Presidents have been trying to accomplish this since the early 1900s. Certainly not an extension of Bush policy.

Wall Street Reform: Big accomplishment. Not in any way an extension of Bush policy by ANY stretch of the imagination.

The Stimulus: another HUGE legislative accomplishment. Want to credit Bush with that?

START Treaty: OK, that was Bush's but Obama got it passed. DADT repealed. I don't care if you don't like it. It was still a big legislative accomplishment.

You may not agree with these policies. Many do. I do. Regardless, they are HUGE legislative accomplishments. And accomplished in Obama's first 2 years. I think he has a good case. And being proud of one's accomplishments, as you say, is not arrogance.

His arrogance is based on delusions of grandeur. Thank you, Dr. Freud!

As I have demonstrated, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Marshall Art January 1, 2012 at 1:31 AM  

Holding public office isn't itself an accomplishment, as we know by the last presidential election, too many idiots vote without knowing anything about the candidates they choose. As to the public offices he held prior to POTUS, neither were based on any substantive accomplishments either, unless you count voting against stiffer penalties for gang-bangers and FOR stiffer penalties for people defending their persons and property among them. And that leads to your biggest lunacies, that his "accomplishments" deserve to be lauded.

Obamacare is so good that so many waivers have been sought and acquired. How can that be if it is a worthy accomplishment. As time continues to pass, more and more trouble is uncovered by those who are dissecting Obamacare or at risk by its implementation. The fear and uncertainty it has caused in the private sector alone, makes it an "accomplishment" akin to setting Chicago on fire. Who would take want to take credit for that which has been exposed as a steaming pile of crap?

Wall St reform? I'm not sure I'm familiar. But perhaps you can tell me if it occurred before or after he received so much in donations from Wall St.

The Stimulus? Are you freakin' kidding?

DADT? Tell me: has the UMCJ been changed to allow homosexuals to serve in the military? If not, it is still illegal and the pres has no authority to change the Code. I don't recall Congress changing it either. And as dropping DADT was against the wishes of most military commanders (not to mention rank and file---there was much protest the MSM chose not to report), it remains to be seen whether or not this was an "accomplishment" worth trumpeting.

START was not an accomplishment if it put us at a disadvantage, which it did. Obama gave away the farm on that deal we no longer have superiority.

To agree with the policies you've listed does not do YOU any more credit than it does Obama to have implemented them. But you're right. It is not arrogance for him to be proud of such things. It is rank stupidity. But to strut as if these made us better off is indeed arrogance.

Jim January 1, 2012 at 3:24 PM  

Jeez, the horse s**t just keeps on coming.

It doesn't matter what you think of his policies. They are still major legislative accomplishments.

Since you clearly don't understand much of anything about PPACA, I'll help. The fact that waivers are available and granted is a good thing. It allows states and businesses to experiment and try different things IF they can show that it will improve the availability of health care for their constituents. In other words, if you work to improve availability, health and outcomes you can get a waiver. But PPACA says you do it our way or find a better way. I don't think anybody minds if somebody finds a better way. Either way, you get better availability and coverage than previously.

If you look at the rise of health care costs and premium costs historically and projected prior to PPACA, that rise is almost geometric. Talk about fear and uncertainty. PPACA is not perfect, but it's better than the nothing that preceded it.

But perhaps you can tell me if it occurred before or after he received so much in donations from Wall St.

EVERYBODY gets donations from Wall Street. So what? It was a major legislative accomplishment whether you agree with it or not.

As for the Stimulus, it was a MAJOR legislative accomplishment and as any analysis will tell you, it stopped the bleeding and reversed the trend of job losses. You can deny that the Stimulus worked, but most analyses, including the CBO, say it has worked. Either way, MAJOR legislative accomplishment.

Article 125 of the UCMJ prohibits oral sex of ANY kind. When was the last time you heard a male Soldier getting court-martialed because he bragged to his friends about his girlfriend or wife giving him the best oral sex he had in awhile?

And as dropping DADT was against the wishes of most military commanders

Last time I checked, most if not all military commanders were under control of civilian authority. DADT was passed by Congress, the civilian control, and signed by the President, the commander-in-chief. Another MAJOR legislative accomplishment.

START was not an accomplishment if it put us at a disadvantage, which it did.

No it didn't. START was supported by most former Republican administration State and Defense officials. It passed the Senate 71 to 26. A MAJOR legislative accomplishment.

To agree with the policies you've listed does not do YOU any more credit

Yada, yada, yada. Your opinion about what credit I get is no more meaningful than mine is of yours. The real arrogance is displayed by those who think that only they have a monopoly on truth and good policy.

But to strut as if these made us better off is indeed arrogance.

Horse s**t. These legislative accomplishments are a result of the policies and efforts of the elected president of the United States. Their intent is to make us better off. They already have in many ways.

Your above quote is predicated on the assumption that the president is purposely trying to make people worse off.

we know by the last presidential election, too many idiots vote without knowing anything about the candidates they choose.

You want arrogance? That statement is the pinnacle of arrogance.

Marshall Art January 1, 2012 at 5:35 PM  

"Jeez, the horse s**t just keeps on coming."

Yeah. But you've left quite enough already. Please stop.

I'd know quite enough about Obamacare if all I knew was that so many doctors and business owners don't like it and that so many economists believe it will raise costs. And now, you state that it gives private companies a very nice "or else", as if the federal government has any right to dictate their health care policies in the first place. Can you say "arrogance"? Where does Barry get off believing the feds have that right? Certainly not the Constitution, which dictates just what authority either president or Congress has.

"If you look at the rise of health care costs and premium costs historically and projected prior to PPACA, that rise is almost geometric."

If you look at the reasons for the rising costs, you'll see that few (I'm being generous here) if any are being addressed by Obamacare.

"As for the Stimulus, it was a MAJOR legislative accomplishment and as any analysis will tell you, it stopped the bleeding and reversed the trend of job losses."

Very debatable and it would depend on who is doing the analysis, wouldn't it? But as far as job losses, the unemployment numbers don't really reflect this great reversal. There's a limit to how many jobs can be cut until a business has to close, and most businesses continue to make due with less in order to stay afloat.

The UCMJ prohibits homosexuals from military service. Article 125 is not the only article that covers this issue. Regardless of who controls the military, it behooves said controllers to base their decisions on the info and opinions provided by those who actually serve and command. I can control a corporation in an industry I do not understand. I'd be a fool to make decisions that conflict with the advice of those who do understand it. Barry's a fool, so it makes sense he's support dropping DADT, which wasn't a bad policy for homosexuals considering it did not reverse the policy under which the military operates, which is the UCMJ. As long as that policy has not been reversed, homosexuals can be separated if found to be engaging in homosexual behavior or attempting to marry one of the same gender.

START did indeed put us at a disadvantage as it does not count all weapons in the same manner, giving our foes an advantage in the fact that they use weapons differently than we do. It doesn't matter who supported the worthless treaty, but whether or not the treaty is beneficial to us, which it clearly is not.

There is no claim to monopoly on truth. If you do not wish to acknowledge the truth, then our monopoly is by default alone. Legislative accomplishments must provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. None of Obama's do this and the facts are plain. To presume one can boast of accomplishments when no benefits are derived by those accomplishments is arrogance, as it presumes what isn't true.

The last quote of mine you highlighted is among the facts to which I refer. Obama ran on nothing but fluff. Fools bought into his meaningless statements as if meaning abounded. It did not. The last three years are testament to that fact. We are not better off.

Jim January 1, 2012 at 6:59 PM  

Certainly not the Constitution, which dictates just what authority either president or Congress has.

Does it dictate anything about airline safety regulations, food safety, disease control? There are a lot of things the government does that people would really rather the government do than not do, that are NOT specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

as if the federal government has any right to dictate their health care policies in the first place.

Many believe it does. I believe it does. The US Supreme Court will decide next year. You are not an authority.

so many doctors and business owners don't like it and that so many economists believe it will raise costs.

And yet so many other doctors and business owners do like it and so many other economists believe it will slow the rate of increase in health care costs.

you'll see that few (I'm being generous here) if any are being addressed by [PPACA].

That is false.

But as far as job losses, the unemployment numbers don't really reflect this great reversal.

Perhaps, but the number of jobs lost and jobs gained certainly do.

At the time DADT was repealed, 67% of Americans supported repeal of DADT. The Pentagon reported that 76% of military personnel believed that repeal of DADT would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on unit task or social cohesion. More than 100 former generals and admirals have called for repeal of DADT. Cheney, Powell, Gates, Shalikashvili, Jones, and Mullen have all called for repeal.

I'd guess the president consulted most of these military people (not Cheney, since he was NEVER in the military), and all of these people are more qualified than you to speak on the issue.

[Obama]'s a fool, so it makes sense he's support dropping DADT

Cheney, Powell, Gates, Shalikashvili, Jones, and Mullen, 67% of Americans and 76% of military personnel are fools, too, I guess.

As long as that policy has not been reversed, homosexuals can be separated if found to be engaging in homosexual behavior or attempting to marry one of the same gender.

Same thing for blow jobs. But it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon.

whether or not the treaty is beneficial to us, which it clearly is not.

Many experts believe it clearly IS beneficial. What are your qualifications?

None of Obama's do this and the facts are plain.

Plain only to a few, those imbued with with an all-knowing but unqualified sense of the truth. Or "arrogance".

To presume one can boast of accomplishments when no benefits are derived

It is demonstrably false that no benefits are derived from the president's legislative accomplishments.

The last quote of mine you highlighted is among the facts to which I refer.

You can call it a "fact" but that doesn't make it a fact. It's an arrogant statement that cannot be backed up by any means.

Post a Comment

Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.

We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.

Barry Obama : The Young Turk


Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.





Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery

Labels

"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP