The Chris Christie-Barack Obama School Of “Punishing Your Enemies” Thuggery

Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate.  Yikes.  That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own.  My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.

Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters.  Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own.  This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.

And it’s worked.  We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.  Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.

Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand.  It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces.  Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant.  According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.

No, thanks.  I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.

I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive.  Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues.  They know this.  We know it.  So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing?  They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles.  We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.

I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day.  I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next.  The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it.  Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just?  Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched?  Um, no thanks.  Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong.  The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.

Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.

So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.”  If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies.  That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey.  Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.

There is no “but” there.  This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug.  As is his stance on any number of issues:  he’s pro-amnesty, prosharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative.  Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey?  Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion?  We defend him . . . why?  I just can’t wrap my head around it.  I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually.  He may yet.  But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it?  I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?

Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support.  And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama:  he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned.  There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing.  And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama.  They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus.  Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.

Millenials

According to the admittedly less-than-stable Kanye West, Obama’s lost his “cool”:

“The reason why Obama mention our name is cause we’re most relevant,” West said. “…He’s just saying that trying to be cool. Obama was supposed to be the coolest person on the planet now he gotta say our names to be cool. It’s like a feature, we feature in his interviews right now. They need a feature from us to get relevant.”

Now, I’m not cool, I’ve never been or aspired to be cool, but there’s something about it that you either have or you don’t have.  Or, apparently, that you somehow can make people believe you have. Obama’s empty phoniness somehow struck a chord with scores of millions of Americans in 2007-2008, and this was especially true among young Americans whose shiny, happy faces are indelibly burned into my brain.  That sort of mass . . . what? hypnosis? hysteria? hopeychangey lunacy? . . . is hard to forget (but easy to forgive).

The trouble with cool is that when you lose it, it’s lost.  Pretty much forever.  Ask the Fonz.  And Obama has lost his “cool” with the only group for which that really matters: the millennials.  Now, as someone who works daily with millenials, I’m the last person to bash them or think them the outrageously self-indulgent, solipsistic rabble that many conservatives imagine them to be.  They’re not.  Or at least not any more so than any other generation of America’s young.  They’re idealistic, they’re ill-informed, and they’re full of boundless energy and compassion.  Yes, I really said–and believe–that last part.  Mostly.  I don’t believe that the millenials understand compassion as we do or as most generations before them did, but that said, they are no less compassionate than their counterparts of the ’30’s or ’60’s.  And let’s face it, this administration is more the worst of 1930’s meets the worst of the 1960’s than it is anything else.

Obviously, each generation brings its own identity and spin to all that.  In the twenties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the regressive stranglehold of the Wilson White House and the Great War’s tremendous loss (an entire generation “lost”).  In the thirties, well, there wasn’t much rebelling going on because the regressive FDR government made surviving difficult for so many.  But when it did occur, it occurred in speakeasies and other places where alcohol could be obtained despite the progressives’ ban on it.  In the forties, the nation’s young were called to war again, and again met the challenge with courage and patriotism.  But when they came home, they were done with conflict, done with rebelling, and ready to sink into the most boring, staid existence they could create for themselves.

So in the fifties, the nation’s young were rebelling against a stagnant, docile, detached yet confining, and prosperous culture.  In the sixties, the nation’s young were rebelling against . . . everything good and decent in the world (they’re the ones now running this country . . . into the ground).  In the seventies, the nation’s young were rebelling against all the isms that sprung up in the 60’s, including of course, a deep and abiding hatred for America that began in the ’60’s, and in the eighties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the sex, drugs, and free love excesses of the ’60’s and ’70’s with their own version of excess that tended to be more materialistic, less idealistic, and slightly (only slightly) less amoral than the youth of the previous two decades.

Every generation does its share of rebelling, and in every case, it’s just as self-involved, self-indulgent, and self-centered as this generation’s.  Teens and young adults are always about the self.  Even if they are spouting nonsense about world peace and stopping war and closing Gitmo, it’s always because it will make them feel better and think better about themselves, not for any altruistic purpose beyond that.

This is why we have a seemingly irreconcilable tension on every level of the millenials’ worldview: they “hate hate”; they are “intolerant of intolerance”; they support ever-expanding, ever-stifling big government and then bemoan their loss of privacy and individual liberty to that all-powerful state; they support Islam–the most oppressive, discriminatory, violent “religion” on the planet–but condemn all other religions as oppressive, discriminatory, and violent; they tout equality and lawfulness while cheering the clear lawlessness of this president, a man whose administration has admitted to targeting and silencing political opponents; they support “socialism” and “communism” without really understanding what either is, and when confronted with the reality of what these destructive ideologies are, they turn away because it touches them (to them, in their under- and ill-informed ignorance, they honestly believe that redistribution means taking from others and giving to them, when it turns out that it means taking from them and giving to others, they don’t like so much.); they support the view that every human being should be treated equally, that all people are created equal . . . at least in theory. Because they also support affirmative action, “hate crime” legislation, and a hundred other things that undermine that original concept (is murder more wrong because the victim is gay, female, a minority? Well, arguably, no. Murder is murder, and it’s wrong.  Period.  But not to the millenials; murder’s just dandy if the victim is a white male or a conservative.).

These, and a zillion more, ideological tensions will play themselves out. These “kids” will grow up, they will experience life as it is, and they will figure out that they were myopic, prejudiced, judgmental, intolerant, bullying, and unkind.  And they will regret it.  But that’s not for another twenty or so years.  So what happens in the meantime?

For now, at least, millennials who had already lost the shiny-happy, glazed Stepford-stare are starting to realize that big government means a lot more than some utopian existence for all.   They see, in their pocketbooks and wallets, that the Obama economy is destroying not just their health care, but also any chance they may have of “making it,” of living their version of the American Dream.  Their reality, sadly, is that college grads move back home for a few (or ten) years, that welfare and foodstamps are a great way to subsist, that being less than they are is not only okay but actually encouraged.  And some few will not accept that.  Some few will stand up and say “Enough! I am more than this, I can do more than this, I will not accept this.”

That isn’t happening now, so don’t get your hopes up about the polls saying that millenials are fleeing Obama.  They’re disappointed, their Messiah didn’t pan out, but as one millenial wrote over at PuffHo:

With every day spent in the White House, the president’s bright-eyed idealism seemed to shift toward the same old politics of every man who came before him. In turn, my idealism shifted right along with his. Am I disappointed? Of course. Would I vote for him again? Absolutely.

I’m not the only millennial living with this contradiction. Harvard’s new study also showed that 46 percent of millennials surveyed would vote for Obama again. Of course we would — because the alternative is way scarier.

This millennial, I think, speaks for millions, and I highly recommend reading her entire essay.  She’s wrong, of course.  The president’s “bright-eyed idealism” never shifted; she just didn’t understand what his ideals are.  The biggest thing here, though, is that she–and millions of millenials like her– think he and his ilk are “better” than “the alternative.”

The alternative being, of course, any conservative.  Freedom is scary to millenials who have been nurtured and raised to believe that the all-powerful, ever-benevolent government is the answer to all that troubles us.  Someone “hating on” you?  Let’s pass a law!  Someone eating too much, drinking too much soda, using too much styrofoam?  Make a law!  Someone not “getting their fair share”?  Make a law!  The idea that people can make their own decisions is not only alien but truly frightening to these young people.  It won’t be in twenty or thirty years, but for now, they need someone to tell them what to do, what to think, what to believe, and how to be.

In many ways, we have failed them.

The sad part is that they choose a known pathological liar for that role.  Is he as “cool” as he used to be?  Hell to the no.  Not even to them.  But until they realize that they are fully-functioning human beings who don’t need their every move dictated to them, they will continue to cling to him. Not because he’s cool but because he’s (still) (they hope) better than . . . freedom.

 

 

Thanksgiving At Fuzzy’s: Oh, Yes, OFA, We Discussed ObamaCare

This Thanksgiving, I took the kind advice of Obama’s propaganda-thug group OFA and was all set to make sure that 0Care was a topic of conversation at some point during our gathering.  Yes, we have a few die-hard lefties hanging on the family and extended family tree, but they are low-hanging fruit, easily picked off with . . . woah! don’t go there! . . . facts.   But as it turns out, one of our own got the OFA memo and bravely, if ineptly, tried to “sell”  0care to us.  Sadly, for him, we are informed.

The conversation went something like this (I will change the names to protect the ignorant.  And in an obvious case, to protect the patriotic.  The latter from IRS audits):

RObot: It’s so nice to see you!  [RObot glances furtively at black magic marker scratchings on his forearm]

Okay, I made that part up, but he was so clearly confused that it seemed like he should have had crib notes from OFA scribbled on his body.

“Hey,” RObot asks, “did you hear about Obamacare?  About how, erm, it’s . . . ugh, yeah, good for women?  And other people?”

Yes, this last was a completely separate question.  Dear old RObot wasn’t sure who was being helped, but he felt pretty sure someone, somewhere was.

Fuzzy: [glares at RObot, mentally picking over her options: does she respond or does she keep the peace on this wonderful holiday?]

Fuzzy’s mom swoops in to save the day: “Now, RObot, wouldn’t you like some nice appetizers?  Come over here . . . that’s right, waaaay over here. There’s a dear.”

RObot, now waaay over there, to Uncle Liberty: “Mmm, these are good, but hey, nothing’s as good as that Obamacare, huh?”  [guileless gaze]

Uncle Liberty expresses his views of Obamacare in a lengthy, lucid monologue that lasted a full twenty minutes.  I’m not sure he took a breath throughout the whole thing.

Uncle Liberty went into great detail about everything from the locking out of Republicans during the early deliberative process (unless you think “compromise” means doing what Obama, whose only retort to Republican ideas was “I won,” wants) to the stubborn refusal to hear the people not only in town halls across the nation but when Scott Brown was elected to replace Senator Kennedy.  Uncle Liberty explained why over 5 million have lost the health insurance, doctors, and hospitals that they liked and why up to 100 million more will do so in the next two years.  He talked about the ways that 0Care destroyed jobs, income, the economy, and people’s dignity . . . all while doing absolutely nothing to improve access to or quality of health care.

I think it’s going to be much more than only a hundred million Americans who lose their plans, doctors, access to local hospitals, but Uncle Liberty was sticking to facts and numbers put out by the CBO and other viable sources.

I  almost felt sorry for RObot.  But a couple of known lefties were sidling over to get in on the “kill,” so I waited to see what would happen.

RObot, dazed but not out, slowly shakes his head and says–hold onto your hats, everyone, because here it comes–“but but but, you don’t support ObamaCare?  Are you [and I think–maybe choose to believe–he was trying to be sincere] a racist?”

The sidling lefties beamed happily at this.

Uncle Liberty looks at RObot with disbelief.  He sighs.  All those words–twenty minutes worth–totally lost on this person.  He looks good old RObot straight in the eye and says, “hey, RObot, let’s leave Obama out of this.  Let’s just you and me, one ‘privileged’ white man to another, talk about ObamaCare.  Let’s hear what you believe, and then I will tell you what I believe in response to your points.”

RObot, and his would-be rescue brigade, looked a bit taken aback by this development.  You can almost hear the gears grinding . . . wait! I have to defend this?  I can’t just call someone a RAAAACIST and shut them up?

Uncle Liberty wasn’t done: “Only you and me, RObot.  No one else of any other race, gender, class, or other convenient go-to pigeon-hole is included.  I’ll talk about these socialist ideas, RObot, with you on one side, and me on the other.  No vast rightwing conspiracy, no accusations of Koch brothers’ meddling (I’ve known you since you were born, Son, do you really believe that anyone, anywhere has enough money to make me lie?), no scurrying into name-calling when you can’t think of an answer. Just you and me, man to man, we’ll talk about ObamaCare.  How’s that sound?”

Fuzzy: [does silent cheers and mental happy dance all around Uncle Liberty.  Here was a man who got it. Bravo!]

The look on RObot’s face was beyond priceless, and the sidling lefties were suddenly much interested in my mom’s recipe for stuffed mushrooms.  There is nothing I could ever have said that would have left poor old RObot so speechless, so confused, so pathetic.  For what, after all, is a discussion with a leftist that doesn’t descend into name-calling (on the leftist’s part) and other verbal practices that most would deem not-so-subtle bullying? Calling people names in the desperate hope of shutting us up is, quite literally, all they have.

Needless to say RObot didn’t fare well when Obama (or more precisely, his race) was taken out of the equation and the onus was on him to explain why the health care infrastructure for 253+ million people had to be completely upended to accommodate less than 10 million (remember, the CBO estimates that even with 0Care, 30 million Americans will still not have health care.  And all for the cost of $1.79 trillion.  That’s trillion, as in trillion taxpayer dollars.  So much for “not one dime.”).

RObot wasn’t miraculously cured from his years of drinking the 0bot KoolAid, but he was given food for thought for a change.  Unable to attack his opponent on spurious grounds, he found himself unable to defend something that is, fundamentally indefensible.  Maybe that will wake him up, and if not, maybe one of the shifty sidler cowards who bailed when the race card was taken off the table will get a clue that if their only defense of an expensive, destructive boondoggle is “RAAACIST” they may not have much to work with.

Regardless, I plan to practice this in future. How better to engage leftists in ideas than by insisting that they actually stick to ideas, defend their ideology as themselves and not as some talking point-spewing propagandist puppet?

There is no libertarian, conservative, or TEA Party member who wouldn’t welcome this challenge.

Fuzzy Rant: GOP Traitors, Snowden, AGW Hoax

It is so time for a rant here at Fuzzy Central; I can feel it coming, so grab some popcorn and stand well away from your computer monitor.

Amnesty and the Traitorous GOP Who Support It

Seriously?  I am spitting mad about this, and my anger is directed not so much at McCain the Regressive Clown or Graham the Closet Case but at Ayotte and Rubio.  Those two ran on, courted, and were accepted by the TEA Party . . . the same TEA Party they are now pledging–behind closed doors, of course–to destroy.  I don’t know diddly about Ayotte, and after this, I don’t really care if she can cure cancer with the mere bat of her eyelashes.

As for Rubio . . . I haven’t trusted him since I found out that he was charging his own personal expenses to the state GOP credit card, of particular, damning interest was that he only paid it back years later–after he was caught.  Really, that was it for me with him.  Notice how after I posted about that, I just kind of shut up about him? He was a disaster in the making, but he seemed a better deal than Crist and that other guy, and conservatives seemed determined to see in him what they waned to see, so . . . I shut up.  No more.  Never forget that the one and only reason Rubio is in the United States’ Senate is the support he got from the TEA Party, the same TEA Party that he snubbed by refusing to join the Senate TEA Party Caucus.  The same TEA Party that he lied to–repeatedly–about his views on illegal immigration and amnesty.

Do not, DO. NOT. let the GOP sneaky snakes who voted for cloture and then voted against amnesty get away with their treachery.  They KNOW that a cloture vote ensures the bill goes forward–just as they did on ObamaCare, and they do it anyway.  Yes, they really believe we’re that stupid.  Enough!

et tu Paul Ryan?  I have no words.  Just lots of sad.  I carry it in a big suitcase with wheels now.

Snowden, the ManBearPig er, TraitorHeroWhackJob

Dude, I’m not sure what Snowden is; his “tyranny tour” is not helping his case with anyone who might be inclined to land on the “hero” side.  He exposed illegal government activity. That’s whistleblower stuff, but . . . *shrug* what the heck ever.  Like he really matters in the grand scheme of America’s destruction.

More on the ManBearPig as Deluded and Frightened Obama Pivots to Global Warming Climate Change (or whatever)

Poverty is skyrocketing, electricity bills are to follow that skyrocketing trajectory (as Obama promised), the number of people collecting welfare and food stamps is fast quadrupling.  Millions upon millions of Americans either have no job at all or are working only part-time (which, thanks to the ObamaCareTax monstrosity is now less than 30 hours per week, further crippling the hourly-wage-earning lower and lower-middle classes).

So what does Obama deem–the very week that the world learns that the earth has not warmed in at least 15 years–the key, most imperative item on his agenda?  Yep, killing U. S. coal.  And along with it, still more jobs, and pushing people who are barely hanging on to their lower and lower-middle class status into the poverty/government-dependent classes.  Oh joy!

It’s not enough that we all actually know now that the whole AGW hysteria is utter and complete bullcrap–oh no, now we need the Divider in Chief pontificating on how he’ll heal the planet.  Again.  Or something.  Sick-making.  I love how he and his horrendous nightmare of a wife flew off–in separate planes, Air Force One AND Two–to the same place and essentially, give or take a couple hours, at the same time.  Yeah, that’s a man who is really worried about his carbon footprint.

Typical commie regressive: laws and rules and government-dictated morals are for thee, not for me.

Sick. Of. It.

So what, you may ask, of the recent Supreme Court rulings, of the ongoing assault on Obama’s “political enemies” while he courts America’s enemies in our White House, of the blatant military and arms support of al Qaeda, of the embarrassing place that America now holds in the world with Putin laughing in Obama’s face and Afghanistan, etc. dictating terms to him, of the Common Core nightmare, the impending amnesty’s effects on America and her people, of the major scandals that reveal a third-world mentality in this country’s president . . . of a million other things that this administration is doing, has done, intends to do.  What of all of it, you ask?

I have no words.

A Leaderless America? Not So Much

If one more person tells me some variation of “there is no leader in the WH,” my head may explode. Of course there is.  This idea that Obama is somehow removed from, above, or not up to his scrawny neck in what his administration is doing must be dispelled. Now, do I think he’s the brains behind the operation?  No way, I don’t think he’s that bright, but I do think he’s surrounded himself with people who have plenty of brains and plenty of nefarious, traitorous plans.  I also believe that he’s well-aware of and ideologically happy with every single thing that has led to the myriad scandals that stink up our White House.  Do I think that he gets his hands dirty (beyond going out and spreading vile lies, doubts, and suspicion of the TEA Party and conservatives more generally), that some “smoking gun” will be found tying him directly to the IRS, DOJ, AP, Rosen, NSA, or any other scandal we currently know about or ones that may yet be revealed?  Nope.

But it’s his Chicago stench that permeates every single scandal, up to and including Benghazi.  The bullying, the thuggery, the blackmail, the boot on the neck, the manipulation of events for a specific end . . . all of it is straight out of Chicago, specifically, and leftist “thought” more broadly.

It’s no mistake that his czars and other appointments are a rag-tag assortment of dirty dealers, traitors, commies, anti-Semites, radicals, and fascist zealots.  Those people didn’t just materialize around him; remember, he sought out this type of person all the way back in college.  That never ended, as we can see all too clearly.

What kind of a person appoints the freaks and fringe fanatics that Obama has?  Remember his TSA nominee who stated that white supremacists and “Christian identity groups” were America’s “biggest threat”?  That’s what Obama believes with all his tiny, shriveled evil little heart. Hell, his DHS said as much in their memo to all of America’s law enforcement in 2009.

Last week, Obama announced the war on terror over; for him, it is.  Indeed, it was never really about Islamic terror for him; he happily supports both in word and deed (and with our money) all sorts of Islamic terrorism and terrorist groups.  Hell, he calls various Islamofascist groups his “peace partners.”  That he’s droned a bunch of them doesn’t change that fact.  And it’s right in line with Obama, anyway, he’s famous for sacrificing friends, family, leftists, whomever for “the cause.”   But Islamic terror isn’t his focus, what he does has been a means to an end–his support for the Arab Spring wasn’t an accident, nor was he unaware that Islamofascist states would emerge (everyone was saying so from Glenn Beck to John Bolton).  Neither were any of Obama’s moves an accident from basically encouraging Iran to nuke up to removing the missile defenses in Poland.

We may not be able to connect the dots yet, but it’s becoming pretty clear that it’s all of one piece, including what he’s been doing right here in America.  To Obama, the nation’s real enemies, his real enemies, are people who “want to make America a better place to live,” people who support the 10th Amendment, people who are pro-life, Christian, Jewish, white, patriots.  He’s made this crystal clear since practically Day One with every appointment, every czar, every policy, every word.

Back in September of ’09, I wrote:

[Van] Jones is a racist, a self-proclaimed communist, a “truther,” and a proponent of destroying the American system and replacing it with a . . . well, with another one that favors people of color and subjugates whites.  I’m not making this up.  Van Jones has said it.  All of it.  He talks of white people purposely poisoning minorities with pesticides, he signed a document demanding investigation into our government’s role in either allowing or actually perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on this country, he’s spoken of using the green movement to install minorities in key positions of power and remaking the system to favor them, and he’s called republicans assholes.  Well, okay, that last one doesn’t matter; we’ve all said worse about our political adversaries at one time or another.  But the other points, they matter.  Each of them alone should exclude him from the president’s inner circle, and together, they paint a picture of a dangerous, racist, anti-American communist who should not be allowed to enter the White House gift shop let alone sit in the Oval Office and snuggle with the president.

. . . . .

You have to wonder, if you’ve got a brain in your head, what is going on with the other BO czars.  Who are they and what are they hiding?  What is BO’s agenda in having such radical and controversial figures surrounding him, advising him, making policy for all of us and doing so well outside the checks and balances set up by the Constitution?

Well, there’s John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar, who has a neato idea to control population.  Apparently, he’s a big fan of China’s forced abortion policy and even advocated putting sterilization drugs in America’s food and water supply.  He’s also said that forced abortions “could be sustained under the current Constitution.”  Um, okay, but don’t you think that’s a bit much?  And this man is in key policy position, unchecked by Congress or anyone else, advising the president of the United States.  He’s not in some think tank or university espousing crazy theories and philosophizing, he is actually helping shape American policy.  This is the problem, not his wacked out ideas.

Holdren apologists point out, correctly, that Holdren preferred “milder methods” of population control.  Um, okay, so what happens if the people don’t line up for population control abortions of their own free will?  Do you honestly think that if the government controls the healthcare system and Holdren or BO decide that “population growth” is a threat to either the environment or the economy/healthcare system that they won’t start limiting the number of children people can have, forcing abortion on those who’ve maxed their “quota”?  This sounds crazy, but what the hell is someone with crazy ideas like this doing in the White House if not to put those ideas in motion?  Again, the apologists say that these ideas were expressed in the 1970′s and as such are “dated” and not relevant today.  Another apologist angle is that the book presents a “theory” and does not recommend a “practice.”  Well, so did The Communist Manifesto.  Remember that nifty little book?

Another fun BO czar is Mark Lloyd, BO’s Diversity Czar.  He’s a fun guy who thinks that Chavez’s coup in Venezuela was beautifully accomplished and that his control of use of the media should be emulated here in the U. S.  God forbid the people have access to anything that might be anti-BO.  I wonder how much he had to do with the “flag the fishy” campaign?  Anyway, he finds free speech rather pesky especially from the conservatives, having the unfortunate effect of allowing people to express their dissent.  The best place to stop free speech, according to this lovely man, is by forcing right wing radio off the air with 100% taxes on their operating costs; once that pushes them off the airwaves, their license will be handed over to a (liberal or progressive) minority group (this is where the “diversity” thing comes into play, I guess, you know making sure that all talk radio leans left.  Lots of diversity there.).  I never listen to talk radio, but apparently, there are far right discussions taking place on those stations.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t listen.  The people who are listening are obviously of the same mind, so shutting them down won’t do anything about changing ideology, it’ll simply drive people to the internet (if BO doesn’t declare an “emergency” and shut it down, anyway) or to Fox News (which I do watch).  At least until they figure out a way to push Fox off the air.  Again, though, not being able to see or hear views with which you agree does not change your own views, so I find this rather silly.  And frightening.

And let’s not forget Michael Copps at the FCC and “net neutrality”:

And there it is, the admission.  There is a narrow window of time, while BO is still prancing around the WH playing grown up, to force through his radical agenda, an agenda that apparently includes regulating (or whatever you call “filtering and funneling” the right information to the American public) the internet, ensuring that information (the correct information, Herr Copps) reaches the masses in the correct manner and correct measure.  Can’t rely on “flag the fishy“campaigns forever, now can we?  And note, too, that like all good progessives, Copps understands that they may need to settle for a “down payment” (aka “a starter home“) on the publicly-funded, government-run propaganda machine of the (not so distant) future.

Part of what we’ve seen develop over the past few weeks is the Obama camp’s purposeful promotion of the image of a detached, disinterested, ditzy dimwit so that we will all blame someone, anyone other than Obama himself.  I’ve bought into it myself, so I understand where people are coming from, but if nothing else has become clear over the course of the past several months, it’s that Obama is central to what is going on in terms of discriminating against conservatives, Christians, veterans, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on any point.  Might he be a puppet?  Sure.  That’s even likely, but it does not exculpate him.  He is not an innocent victim here.

The innocent victims are we, the people and our Constitutional Republic.  People keep thinking that he’s incompetent, a failed leader, but that’s true only if his goal is to support America, keep her and her people safe, to protect and defend her Constitution.  Because, yes, a thousand times, yes, he’s totally incompetent at that.

But here’s the secret: he’s not applying himself to those goals.  He never has and he never will.

Listen again to the great and fearless Andrew Breitbart: