posted July 26, 2011 08:19 PM            

Obama did the right thing by advising that Americans get involved and voice their opinions, no matter what that is. We need more engaged citizens!

posted July 27, 2011 12:15 AM              

it is true, that congress writes the laws, and the president signs them INTO law or vetoes them...but there is nowhere any LAW that says the president shouldn't give them direction.

and calling anything obama's law out of one side of your mouth, and that he doesn't have the right to give direction to congress out of the other, just conjures the picture of a very large crooked mouth.

but it's all theatre anyway. your big bad socialist is nothing of the sort. he keeps trying to meet-in-the-middle and ends up giving more and more to the masters-in-waiting.

posted July 27, 2011 12:22 AM            

John Boehner put the arrogant O'Bomber in his proper place.

posted July 27, 2011 10:49 AM            

July 26, 2011
White House Switchboard Swamped
Marc Alan Tracy

President Obama's speech last night called for Americans to contact their Congressional representatives in an effort to demonstrate their displeasure with the progress of the debt ceiling negotiations. Using a nationally televised address to call out Republicans while advocating for his "balanced approach" of higher taxes, the President hoped that by rallying a mob of supporters to swamp Congressional phone lines he could demonstrate that he acting on behalf of wishes of the voters to craft a deal.

The message he hoped to send is that the people have been called into action by the President and now are having their voices heard loud and clear. To the President and his supporters, this campaign effort is evidence that the "balanced approach" of higher taxes and phantom cuts are the solution that all serious minded voters have been searching for.

What is missing from these reports of Congressional phones being swamped is that it appears the White House switchboard is also suffering from a similar meltdown. After making repeated attempts throughout the day to get through via the White House comments line (202-456-1111) and switchboard line (202-456-1414), I have been unable to connect a single call.

Without any encouragement, a grass roots effort to contact the White House seems to have developed to voice displeasure with the President's plans, or lack thereof. A backlash of voters who see the President's efforts to put the nation further in debt while promoting a class warfare theme whereby he gets to choose how much money we keep. Speaker Boehner didn't mobilize millions of supporters to swamp the White House with voices for fiscal sanity and smaller government. He did, however, speak to those who understand that the President's "balanced approach" does mean paying more in taxes to an ever-growing federal government that can't stop spending.

posted July 27, 2011 11:02 AM            

We are counting the days until we can throw Obama and socialist democrats out of office.

Mark November 2, 2012 on your calendars and update your resumes.
_________________________________

From: Patrick Gaspard, Democrats.org <democraticparty@democrats.org>
Subject: Obama: "Make your voice heard"
To: "XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wednesday, July 27, 2011, 10:04 AM

DEMOCRATS

XXXXXX --

Monday night, President Obama addressed the nation because it's time for Congress to come together and vote to ensure that America can meet its financial obligations.

This is something that every President has asked lawmakers to do when necessary, and up until now, Congress has always acted. It's necessary because lawmakers have already voted for this spending, but haven't yet authorized the President to pay those bills. And if we can't reach a solution, the United States may default on its debts. That outcome is unacceptable.

There is a disagreement for one reason: The President has proposed a balanced approach that pairs an increase in the debt ceiling with responsible steps to reduce our country's long-term deficit, but a core group of Republicans is refusing to accept any form of compromise that might force millionaires and billionaires and oil companies and corporate jet owners to pay their fair share.

Time is running out. We have less than one week to prevent our nation's first default on its obligations in history, and that's why President Obama ended his speech by asking all of us to get involved. Speaker Boehner has heard from the President on this issue, but he hasn't heard from you.

Call him now at 202-225-0600, then take a moment to let us know how your call went.

Right now, there are lawmakers from both parties who understand what's at stake if we fail to reach an agreement. But there are some who are more interested in petty partisanship than genuine solutions to our nation's problems -- and they have brought us to the edge of disaster.

As the President spoke, he said this:

"The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard... If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message."

And since then, we've been hearing reports about a flood of calls to the Capitol -- that have at times overwhelmed the Congressional phone and email systems.

You should be a part of this effort. Call Speaker Boehner now and keep trying until you speak to his office:

202-225-0600

When you get through to the Speaker, tell him to put politics aside and make a deal to raise the debt ceiling before August 2nd.

Thank you for all you do,

Patrick

Patrick Gaspard
Executive Director
Democratic National Committee

P.S. -- Once you've spoken to Speaker Boehner's office, let us know what you hear:
http://my.democrats.org/Call-Speaker-Boehner

posted July 27, 2011 11:15 AM            

quote:

---

Well acoustic, somehow I knew that...as usual..you were just blowing smoke out of your lower orifice and couldn't produce any quotes where other presidents TOLD CONGRESS WHAT TO DO.

---

posted August 15, 2011 09:04 AM            

No acoustic, actually, you couldn't find instances of other Presidents telling Congress...giving them "YOU MUST"..orders to do certain things. Other Presidents realize the Congress is a C0-Equal branch of government and "suggest" actions by Congress.

This is just your usual routine of ducking, bobbing, weaving and evading when you get called on your nonsense.

O'Bomber is a Sick, Sick, Sick man!

August 15, 2011
Obama Steps on Fallen Heroes' Dead Bodies for Personal Gain
By Carol A. Taber

On November 20, 2009, President Obama flew to Osan Air Base in South Korea to speak to American troops. As many of the troops took pictures, Obama remarked, "You guys make a pretty good photo op."

But this was already a pattern for Obama.

When he made a surprise visit to Iraq several months earlier in April 2009, he ensured that everyone who had voted for him was placed up front and given a camera. The event had to be staged...just so.

Last week, Obama continued that pattern by first telling the press and families of the 30 U.S. Special Operations troops who died in a Chinook transport helicopter trying to rescue their comrades that, when he visited Dover to be present as their caskets come home, he would not allow the press in ... and then by reversing himself without telling the families so that the press could take a picture of him in a solemn salute "honoring" the troops. A picture that was immediately distributed nationwide. The opportunity for the opportunist was just too delicious to turn down.

Does this sicken you? Me too. Can anyone imagine a tearful President George W. Bush swindling fallen troops' grief-stricken families like this? Or any other American president? Me neither.

Obama's biggest photo op, of course, was the Bin Laden killing, when we were suddenly treated to "war room" photos and inside scoops about his "gutsy call." (The fact that no nincompoop, even Himself, would have been stupid enough to turn down this prospect didn't enter at all into the calculation about Obama's abdominal content quality.) In fact, Obama's "gutsy call" was a gutless call, especially considering he delayed the mission so he could think about whether to pursue it, then lied about the orders he gave afterward. Anyone surprised? Didn't think so.

The observation from GatewayPundit was, "Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he's being paid to do. That's our Obama."

The only thing that wasn't screwed up about the mission was the mission itself, which was planned and operated not at all by Obama, but by our nation's finest. Of course, that didn't stop Obama from claiming all sorts of credit in his speech, where he reminded Americans ad nauseum that he had personally ordered the mission. Congratulations, sir. But may I remind you...that's your damn job.

Photo ops are one thing. Exploiting the deaths of our valiant US troops for personal, political gain is quite another.

There is more. The press reported widely last week about the concern of many that the Obama Administration would give access to classified information regarding the Navy SEALs to famed director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal, who stood behind the anti-military Iraq war film The Hurt Locker. How could they not? Without such access, there could be no even-near-true depiction of that operation. Not surprisingly, the resulting movie, Killing Bin Laden, is scheduled just in time for the November 2012 elections - it hits theaters in mid-October.

The shocking part of this story isn't Hollywood's support for Obama. (This was already well documented in Ben Shapiro's scorcher of a book, "Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your TV" where Mr. Shapiro was able to seduce Hollywood directors, actors and producers to admit that there is indeed left-wing bias in what they create.) Hollywood otherwise had already made clear that they love Obama for a variety of reasons, including the fact that he attempts to kick cash back to them on a regular basis. It's also no surprise that they're suddenly turning into pro-military advocates, just in time for the presidential election. There hasn't been a pro-war movie out of Hollywood this decade. Now, they're exploiting the Bin Laden killing in the same way the Obama Administration exploited the deaths of our fallen heroes at the ceremony bringing their remains home: as a cheap promotion for Obama's personal gain.

The most disgusting part of this story is the Obama Administration itself. How can our Commander-in-Chief, of all people, betray our military in this stomach-churning way? All the other photo ops were just that: photo ops. No one was hurt, except the image of the military, which was now being exploited for partisan political gain. No one was put in danger.

Now, our me-first, troops-last president has crossed the line. He's now using dead bodies of true American heroes to help him win his own election, and he's also potentially putting our other active-duty troops in danger because of the classified content sure to be released to the public with "Killing Bin Laden." After all, this is the same untrustworthy director from whom the Department of Defense severed ties during the filming of her other military movie because she violated agreements with them.

But the need among liberals to prop up Obama is dire. As New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd (a fan of Obama's) reported:

The White House is also counting on the Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal big-screen version of the killing of Bin Laden to counter Obama's growing reputation as ineffectual. The Sony film by the Oscar-winning pair who made "The Hurt Locker" will no doubt reflect the president's cool, gutsy decision against shaky odds. Just as Obamaland was hoping, the movie is scheduled to open on Oct. 12, 2012 - perfectly timed to give a home-stretch boost to a campaign that has grown tougher.

The moviemakers are getting top-level access to the most classified mission in history from an administration that has tried to throw more people in jail for leaking classified information than the Bush administration.

It was clear that the White House had outsourced the job of manning up the president's image to Hollywood when Boal got welcomed to the upper echelons of the White House and the Pentagon and showed up recently - to the surprise of some military officers - at a C.I.A. ceremony celebrating the hero Seals [sic].

Does it get any more revolting than this? I wonder how the fallen heroes' families and children feel about it? Did the Commander-in-Chief care enough about their unspeakable tragedies and unimaginable sacrifice to ask them? I'd say no, because opportunists take every opportunity to advance themselves but certainly not to empathize with anyone else. To hell with everyone else, even those who fought and died for Obama's ability to advance as far as he has in our country. Screw them.

Mr. Obama, to quote one of the Republican candidates for president, "We need leadership, not showmanship" and you have flunked the test.

No surer sign of Obama's pathologically sick egocentrism can be found than this. He won't release pictures of Bin Laden's body to the world, but he'll presumably show them to film producers who want to see him re-elected. He won't allow the American public to get the straight story on the Bin Laden mission, but he'll allow two of his favorite Hollywood friends to do so. And maybe, if we're lucky, he'll wait until just before the election to tell all of us the full story, the same way he waited three years to release his birth certificate, just to manipulate a frustrated and sincere citizenry for his own amusement.

American citizens have a moral obligation to boycott both the film and Obama's "welcome home" photo, stealthily shot beyond the knowledge and permission of our grieving troops' families. At the very least, we need to make one point clear to Hollywood and to Obama: the exploitative film's release must be pushed off until after the election.

If it truly is as "apolitical" as Obama and his allies claim, then they shouldn't have any problem with the film's more seemly -- and decent -- release date.
There is a photo of Mr. Obama and his lapdogs, with Obama's feet carelessly slung on top of a desk. The desk that is defiled, not only by his supercilious attitude but by his dirty shoes, is none other than The Resolute Desk, built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute. She was a ship of the British Royal Navy that was trapped and then abandoned, but later rescued by an American Whaler and returned to Queen Victoria. The grateful Queen made a gift of the desk to President Rutherford B. Hayes, and it is considered a national treasure and an icon of the presidency. Is it any wonder that the same president who would tramp on such a national treasure, as if it were a pesky bug, would also step on the valiant national treasures who died for his right to sit there?

posted August 15, 2011 05:17 PM            

As has been proved many times JW you wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and...

quote:

---

Let's not be too rough on our own ignorance, it's what makes America great.

---

the whole sick sick man thing was dumbazz from the beginning.
oh, and that post was disgusting JW, even for you. I remember when that woman was claiming that she was disfigured, you posted all over LL, even in the astrology section. That was a low point for you, off to higher ground I see.

posted August 15, 2011 05:50 PM            

Which woman was that Node? The woman who claimed to be disfigured...but wasn't?

posted August 15, 2011 06:27 PM            

quote:

---

No acoustic, actually, you couldn't find instances of other Presidents telling Congress...giving them "YOU MUST"..orders to do certain things. Other Presidents realize the Congress is a C0-Equal branch of government and "suggest" actions by Congress.

---

posted August 15, 2011 11:14 PM            

Does anyone here believe that if acoustic was right and other Presidents ordered Congress to do anything, that acoustic wouldn't be front and center posting those instances right here to prove himself right?

posted August 15, 2011 11:39 PM              

i like the bit where he says congress acts as if the super rich were some sort of endangered species..

even funnier when you realize how little this particular congress cares about endangered species (like americans).

posted September 09, 2011 11:28 AM            

President Obama’s sixteenth pivot to job creation was a weird speech right from the start:

Tonight we meet at an urgent time for our country. We continue to face an economic crisis that has left millions of our neighbors jobless, and a political crisis that has made things worse.

“Political crisis?” What does he mean by that? He can’t possibly mean spirited opposition to his agenda by the duly elected opposition, can he? Was he under the impression he was a dictator?

This past week, reporters have been asking "What will this speech mean for the President? What will it mean for Congress? How will it affect their polls, and the next election?"

Yes, it’s all about him. America has been holding its collective breath, wondering how this magnificent speech will affect the destiny of the mighty Obama, and the millions of little people drawn through history in his wake. At what point does Congress, the Supreme Court, or someone else in authority set this man up for the mental and emotional counseling he so obviously needs?

But the millions of Americans who are watching right now: they don't care about politics. They have real life concerns. Many have spent months looking for work. Others are doing their best just to scrape by – giving up nights out with the family to save on gas or make the mortgage; postponing retirement to send a kid to college.

And others take lavish vacations in Martha’s Vineyard, blow millions of taxpayer dollars on their own leisure, and stick those poor working-class chumps with the bill for their coast-to-coast political junkets. Watch – he’s about to do it again, as he embarks on a national tour to repeat this same torpid speech to semi-conscious crowds across the fruited plain! Seriously, Congress: isn’t there any way to stop him from seizing our money to fund his re-election campaign? Even if it’s impossible to make him stay at the office and do his job, we can at least require him to finance his own junkets.

These men and women grew up with faith in an America where hard work and responsibility paid off. They believed in a country where everyone gets a fair shake and does their fair share – where if you stepped up, did your job, and were loyal to your company, that loyalty would be rewarded with a decent salary and good benefits; maybe a raise once in awhile. If you did the right thing, you could make it in America.

Not that Barack Obama himself would know anything about that, having never held a job, made a payroll, earned a promotion, or otherwise participated in the private sector. But he’s heard stories of how all that stuff works, and brother, he feels your pain.

But for decades now, Americans have watched that compact erode. They have seen the deck too often stacked against them. And they know that Washington hasn't always put their interests first.

Under Obama things have improved dramatically. Washington certainly puts some people’s interests first. Look at Solyndra, or the union bosses who didn’t want Boeing to open a production line in South Carolina!

The people of this country work hard to meet their responsibilities. The question tonight is whether we'll meet ours. The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy; whether we can restore some of the fairness and security that has defined this nation since our beginning.

Yes, it’s time to cut out that “circus” of asking where all the money from the last “stimulus” went, or why Obama won’t pull the reins on his job-killing agencies, or why repeating the same failed approach should work any differently this time. It’s time to obey, people.

Another few trillion in debt piled onto our children should bring us lasting financial security! No, it’s not “unfair” to drop massive burdens on people who are still in diapers, and therefore cannot object. There you go with the circus act again!

Obama went on to plow through the same old list of government controls and spending proposals, with the majority of the dough targeted at his good friends in the unions – teachers’ unions and construction workers’ unions in particular. A lot of that money goes back to Democrats through political donations, so they’d really appreciate your unquestioning acceptance of these proposals.

Of course we got plenty of the same ideas that have been failing consistently for years: more unemployment benefits, extend Obama’s payroll tax cut, plenty of class warfare rhetoric about “the most fortunate” who can “best afford” to give Obama more of their money, and even the standard ritual invocation of Warren Buffett, the paragon of fair-share-paying, who just happens to owe a billion dollars in back taxes.

You’ll be relieved to know Abraham Lincoln got name-checked, too. It just wouldn’t be an Obama speech if he got left out.

Our old straw-man friends came back with Honest Abe to pay a visit. If you think Obama’s insane spending binges have something to do with our skyrocketing national debt, you’re a maniac who wants to “wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades.” Oppose the crushing regulatory burden churned out by the President’s agencies, and you want “people to choose between their jobs and their safety.” Criticize the agenda of his union and radical environmentalist allies, and you’re “in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards.”

The President actually celebrated American dependency on the dying Social Security and Medicare programs, asking tearfully, “What kind of country would this be if this Chamber had voted down Social Security or Medicare just because it violated some rigid idea about what government could or could not do? How many Americans would have suffered as a result?” It’s about time we had some “rigid ideas about what government could or could not do” for a change, because we’re sick to death of hearing people like Obama spout rigid ideas about what we can and cannot do.

There was the classic Obama ignorance of how job creation works, as he dished out proposals based on the idea that tossing businesses a few little credits and incentives will induce them to hire people for positions that don’t exist. Obama’s belief that these little crumbs come anywhere near outweighing the burden he dumped on employers with his disastrous health-care scheme is something he should discuss with that mental health professional, once he gets an appointment. If he really wants to build “security” for the future, repealing the ObamaCare nightmare tomorrow is the essential first step.

Naturally there was no acceptance of responsibility by President Zero Growth, no mention of the countless expensive “green jobs” failures he is responsible for, no accounting for the vast amount of money he’s already squandered. As always with Obama speeches, the past is somebody else’s prologue.

The cost of his marvelous American Jobs Act has been increasing every time someone mentioned it. It was $300 billion last week. Then it was $350 billion. I heard a news report describe it as a $400 billion plan earlier today. Given the way Obama cost estimates usually work out, we can probably go ahead and just round it up to the nearest trillion.

Running through the President’s proposals is his enduring faith in the superior wisdom of government. For example, here’s one of his ideas for rewarding proper behavior with a tax credit:

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get extra tax credits if they hire America's veterans. We ask these men and women to leave their careers, leave their families, and risk their lives to fight for our country. The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home.

I’m all in favor of hiring veterans, but what kind of nonsense is that? “The last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home?” What those veterans make their incredible sacrifices to defend is freedom, which involves choice, including the choice of who to hire. That means veterans compete with everybody else for jobs – something they are very capable of doing, with honorable service proudly listed on their resumes. Those who choose to hire non-veterans should not be hit with an extra surtax, which is the inverse consequence of handing out tax credits for certain government-approved hires.

The first thing returning veterans should do is fight for jobs – and there should be plenty of jobs out there to be won. Lifting the boot of Obama’s bloated government off the private sector is the best thing politicians can do to improve that situation, rather than creating more subsidies and penalties to enforce even more control over the private sector.

In a similar vein, Obama proposes handing out lollipops if business owners will help him reduce the shameful long-term unemployment problem he has created:

Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work.

Wasn’t he just talking about “fairness” earlier in the speech? How is it “fair” to highly qualified people who recently lost their jobs, to offer a $4,000 taxpayer-funded bounty to employers who pass them over for less qualified applicants who happen to have been unemployed longer? One more time, for the liberty-impaired: private businesses are not welfare programs. They do not exist to dispense jobs to the deserving. They hire people in the pursuit of opportunity and profit.

Obama did, unwittingly, make a powerful case for fundamental reform:

Pass this jobs bill, and we can put people to work rebuilding America. Everyone here knows that we have badly decaying roads and bridges all over this country. Our highways are clogged with traffic. Our skies are the most congested in the world.

This is inexcusable. Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower. And now we're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?

There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There's a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that's on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school – and we can give it to them, if we act now.

The American Jobs Act will repair and modernize at least 35,000 schools. It will put people to work right now fixing roofs and windows; installing science labs and high-speed internet in classrooms all across this country.

Obama already grabbed a trillion dollars for “infrastructure.” How can we still have all this decay and devastation? Where did all that money go? Why didn’t that bridge between Ohio and Kentucky get fixed last time? Shouldn’t Obama, his cabinet, his cronies, and the recipients of his lavish “stimulus” grants be answering those questions under oath?

Furthermore, we’ve plowed incredible amounts of money into the Department of Education and the NEA. Per-pupil expenditures have doubled since the Seventies, even as educational performance cratered. American spending per student is among the highest in the world – as of 2011, only Switzerland spends more – while our students perform far worse than countries that spend far less. The ratio of students to teachers has been falling for decades.

And yet, not only does Obama’s new “jobs bill” call for throwing fresh billions at the teachers’ unions, he also whined repeatedly about the urgent need for job retraining. His speech tonight made one of the most compelling cases in recent memory for the dissolution of public unions and the Department of Education. It is long past time education was taken away from Democrats, and given to the private sector - which demands results in exchange for investment, rather than delivering gassy speeches to demand more money for the failures it refuses to acknowledge.

posted September 10, 2011 11:52 AM            

This is what's called "fair and balanced" reporting by the political activists and propaganda artists posing as "journalists" in the main stream media.

What main stream media source would do such a thing?

Of course it was the taxpayer funded PBS which is kept breathing by annual government handouts.

September 10, 2011
PBS alters transcript to hide Obama gaffe
Timothy Birdnow

Barack Obama has gone to Congress asking for more money to spend. The President, in a rambling and tedious exercise mixing blame with demands, made quite a few dubious statements in laying out the case for Congress to vote for the plan which as yet does not exist. Much like Obamacare, Congress must ultimately vote for the bill to know what is in it.

At one point Mr. Obama made a major gaffe; he identified Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the Republican Party.

Lincoln did not join the Republicans until 1856, over two years after the party was founded. The first Republican convention was held in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

Such a gaffe would have brought huge amounts of ridicule and derision on George W. Bush, but in the case of Obama the media yawned.

Actually, they did more than yawn; government-funded PBS has altered the transcript of the President's speech, removing the offending comment.

The New York Times transcript has the following quote:

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. Founder of the Republican Party. But in the middle of a civil war, he was also a leader who looked to the future -- a Republican President who mobilized government to build the Transcontinental Railroad -- (applause) -- launch the National Academy of Sciences, set up the first land grant colleges. (Applause.) And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

But how does it appear in the PBS transcript?

"We all remember Abraham Lincoln as the leader who saved our Union. But in the middle of a Civil War, he was also a leader who looked to the future - a Republican president who mobilized government to build the transcontinental railroad; launch the National Academy of Sciences; and set up the first land grant colleges. And leaders of both parties have followed the example he set."

So PBS has purposely altered a transcript containing a major gaffe by the President. See a screen shot:

Sure; we have a fair and balanced media! The best government money can buy!

posted September 20, 2011 08:38 AM            

September 20, 2011
Obama's None-Too-Divine Comedy
By Robert Gelinas

The decision of who will become the next president of the United States will be made long before November of 2012. After the current president's most recent tour de farce before a joint session of Congress, it is rapidly becoming a foregone conclusion who it's not going to be.

The Obama-adoring New York Times concedes that their manufactured politician may be in deep trouble as his own base begins to abandon him. Independents have already done so. The right was never on his side. Even the Washington Post doesn't flinch from using the word "laughingstock" when referring to the petty political antics of Obama. And then a Catholic Republican wins a pivotal bellwether election against a Jewish Democrat in a liberal, heavily Jewish New York City congressional district, running on the theme of an Obama referendum!

One could reasonably conclude that a toxic Obama is now rapidly becoming, if not already is, "unelectable."

What? How could the great and powerful Obama ever be considered unelectable? Many mistakenly believed that in 2008, but somehow Obama miraculously proved them all wrong (just ask Hillary). But that was then, when he was largely a blank slate and wore the halo of a saint (Google: "Obama halo pics"). Obama even saw himself as a divine being of superlative stature: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America." (His own words!)

Admittedly, his fall from grace didn't happen overnight, but happen it did, as his profound failures and incompetency have culminated into what will surely be seen by future historians as his seminal "Jobs Bill Speech." This was the moment when the "real" Obama was on grand display -- an all-too-mortal man, showcasing how little substance and value he has to offer.

Obama's political irrelevance has now become so obvious that on the night of his infamous jobs speech the GOP didn't even feel the need to offer a rebuttal to his political theater masquerading as a major policy speech. Even the scheduling of his all-important imperial oration had to take a backseat to a football game and a GOP primary debate on MSNBC.

But far worse than enduring those indignities, during his grand pontification, a unique sound was heard in abundance. Even the Washington Post's Dana Milbank heard it: laughter.

Perhaps for the very first time in his career, the golden child was openly laughed at -- and deservedly so. For it wasn't his regurgitated failed statist policies that generated all the derisive mirth; no, they were laughing at him in dismay (perhaps pity?).

If you watched the debacle, it was understandably difficult not to chuckle, if not laugh out loud, aghast at his impassioned much ado about nothing, grandstanding right there center-stage in democracy's most august venue, as he ridiculously proclaimed that the solution to all of our seemingly insurmountable economic woes was a second helping of his cold leftover failed stimulus stew.

There was no new vision presented, no new ideas, no course correction away from his path of ruin dragging us down in bureaucratic chains over the River Styx into the abyss of the Great Recession, Act 2. All he pitifully offered was recycled hectoring for more debt, more deficits, more crony capitalism, more union handouts, and more "temporary" payroll tax and unemployment gimmicks.

Nevertheless, starkly juxtaposed against all common sense and reality, was displayed the face of failure incarnate, belligerently defiant and not the least bit remorseful over or repentant for the damage he has inflicted upon our country. Here was the true Saul Alinsky-trained radical, on fire, agitating from the bully pulpit, spewing forth lie upon lie with the vigor of Alinsky's own personal muse, Lucifer himself.

One could almost envision Milton's Lucifer from Paradise Lost defiantly arguing why he would rather be cast out and rule in Hell than to have to humble himself and serve in Heaven. Not coincidentally, this selfsame mindset is also why committed Marxists would rather drag entire nations into desperate squalor and despair, as long as they get to rule, as opposed to selflessly serving their fellow man by allowing people to flourish and prosper pursuing individual happiness as freemen.

Rest assured: as horrific as this might sound, Obama's tragic performance was in fact a comedy of sorts, albeit of the noir variety. Yes, the audience laughed and laughed at this most recent episode of Barack's teleprompted clown act, as the finger-wagger-in-chief implored everyone to "stop the political circus." The profound irony of that line was surely lost on an oblivious Obama.

Obama's newly acquired unelectable status isn't the result of bad focus group testing or polls, or any fund-raising shortfalls, or poor messaging content, or an organizational problem. No, his political fortunes have now been truncated as a byproduct of the unvarnished revelation of who he really is, resulting in the erosion and ultimate loss of fundamental credibility and his ability to be taken seriously any longer by friend or foe.

Ultimately, while the melodramatic sound and fury of his voice might have been that of the fiery radical-in-chief, his overall countenance has at last been unmasked to be seen as -- no, not that of a devil -- but rather, as that of...oh...Shakespeare described it best in Macbeth:

... a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Could there be a more apropos summation of both the man and his legacy? "An idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But isn't labeling someone an "idiot" just childish name-calling? Not if it's true -- and even worse if it isn't just your adversaries who are saying it. And therein lies the key distinction.

It's typical for key leaders of all political stripes to be strongly opposed, disagreed with, disparaged, fought tooth and nail, even disliked or vehemently despised by their opponents in the rough-and-tumble blood sport of politics. But it's vastly different to be considered a "failure," a "loser," a "laughingstock," or "damaged goods" by the general populace, independents, and a rapidly growing number of people in your own party -- especially if these appellations just happen to be substantively true and subsequently become the source of widespread ridicule and laughter (Ref: the fate of Anthony Weiner, and Twitter trend #attackwatch.) Barack Obama has become all of the above, so perhaps there's an even more appropriate word: pariah.

posted September 20, 2011 11:00 AM              

Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim with the intent of making them doubt their own memory and perception. It may simply be the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, or it could be the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.