Greatest Hits: How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda:  My thoughts from 2010 on how regressives have to kill hope in order to subjugate the masses. 

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

Obama, the Congress and Lee Iacocca … UPDATED

Share

UPDATE at bottom of page …

Back around 1979 or 1980 Lee Iacocca was hired as CEO of Chrysler Corporation. Shortly after he took over Chrysler reported its worst deficit in the company’s history, a $160-million loss in the third quarter. In 1983 Chrysler earned the best profit in its history, $925 million.  Mr. Iacocca replaced dead weight workers, and in his first two years laid off 7,000 white collar workers saving the company $200 million. A short time later 8,500 salaried employees were laid off and through those tough moves yearly expenses were cut by $500 million.

Mr. Iacocca didn’t lead by talk and making endless speeches essentially saying nothing. He lead by example. He reduced his own salary to $1 a year and called it, “equality of sacrifice.”  Executive salaries and lower-level salaries were also cut, some up to 10%.

Cost cutting, getting rid of waste, wise investing among other actions by Mr. Iacocca saved Chrysler Corporation.

I wrote all that to reply to Democrat Rep. James P. Moran of Virginia who says $174,000 plus all the perks is not enough money for congressmen to live decently. He said,  “I understand that it’s widely felt that they underperform, but the fact is that this is the board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world.”

Folks, when Lee Iacocca was hired at Chrysler Corporation, how long would he have been employed if he didn’t do what he was hired to do? If he increased Chrysler’s deficit, multiplied the losses, continued making poor quality cars, continued the waste and kept carrying the dead weight, Chrysler would be history.

The good Congressman from Virginia in on the “board of directory for the largest economic entity in the world” and take a look at it. We hired, elected these people to address things like the economy in general, unemployment, the national debt and the waste in government spending, job creation and reducing the deficit. A strong national defense is among the top as well.

What have we got in the last five years? The American health care system was replaced because 15% of the people didn’t have health care insurance. We got same-sex marriage legalized, which is fine I guess … but it wasn’t a priority for 97% of Americans. Our military is weakened to the point that other nations scoff at Obama’s threats. No one takes him seriously.  Americans are not interested in granting amnesty for illegal aliens. Americans want the border sealed and legalimmigrants getting citizenship. Next up, “climate change”? Gun control?

It’s pathetic. Not one issue that is important for the great majority of the American people has been honestly worked on. Instead of addressing the things important to the American people they’ve either left them alone or made the issues worse.  According to Rasmussen (Mar. 21, 2014)  a national telephone survey finds that only seven percent (7%) of likely U.S. Voters think Congress is doing a good or excellent job.  And the Congress wants a raise?

It wouldn’t be so bad if what Obama and the Congress are doing wasn’t criminal. What they’ve done is commit crime after crime. They’ve embezzled the American taxpayer’s money. They have corrupted the rule of law for their own self-serving goals. They aren’t board of directors for the largest economic entity in the world. They are board of directors for the largest crime syndicate in the world.

No folks, the people in the Congress do not need a raise. They need to be fired.

Obama and those in the Congress always talk about “shared sacrifice” … they certainly could take some lessons from Mr. Iacocca’s example.

~~~

Okay folks. Here’s the update though it’s taking me a minute to stop laughing. Some liberal took the above piece and wrote that loan guarantees granted to Chrysler by the government and Jimmy Carter was responsible for turning around Chrysler Corporation.  Jimmy Carter!!!

There was a loan guarantee but that’s all it was. The money had to be borrowed from private financial sources.  Iacocca made the money work for the company … he didn’t pay off union butt buddies and give outrageous bonuses to the other corporate big shots. All the steps coordinated collectively by Iacocca and company pulled Chrysler out of the hole.  One other thing, by 1983 Chrysler had paid the loan off.

The certified bullshit claim that the government saved Chrysler is typical of very intellectually challenged people who can’t check the mail without help from the government.

Lastly, it’s obvious the asshole in an attempt to “debunk” the opening part of this piece missed the point entirely … JIMMY CARTER!!!! Gawd I love it!

Original Post:  Cry and Howl

Share

The 44th President: Number Of The Least

Share

Jimmy Carter

“You can’t give social engineers decades of time, and trillions of dollars in resources, without seeing some results.” – John Hayward

In defense of the 39th President of the United States, not many thought he was a communist.  An incompetent, anti-semitic, bumbling old control freak, yes.  But never a Red.  Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about number #44.

Despite his numeric association with Reggie Jackson, the 44th President is surely no Mr. October.  May Day is more to his style, that herald of spring celebrated by both naked pagans and “progressive” subversives.  Poor narcissistic Barry.  That’s a day he has to share. The establishment of Barack Hussein Obama Day will have to wait until the Marxists of America are more firmly Narcissistic Barryentrenched in the federal leviathan than now, if such is even possible.  Still, anything can happen to a man who garnered the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything to further the cause of peace.  But fairness, that dog-eared concept always cited by Barry and the Democrats prior to their committing grand larceny, should be of paramount concern. I suggest, therefore, that April 1st be hereafter known as National Prevaricator’s Day — 24 hours in which to honor all of America’s politicians; as All Fool’s Day recognizes those who voted for them.

PTG

Original Post:  Be Sure You’re Right, Then go Ahead

Share

After Over a Century in Business, Oberdorfer Killed by Obama Economy

Share

unemployment

It seems that the Obama economy and ObamaCare did in Oberdorfer, a Dewitt, NY foundry, that two world wars, the Great Depression, organized labor, and event he Carter presidency.  It could not, however, survive a second term of Barak Obama.  The Lonely Conservative has the details. 

The “2008 recession” is the recession that never ends.

The unit which started its operation in late 19th century had been a major producer of cylinder heads and other vital military items. Oberdorfer was the specialized manufacturer of complicated aluminium castings for airplane engines.

The company which survived many recessions in its long run, could not withstand the 2008 recession.

With the disastrous fall of the aviation industry, Oberdorfer lost its main client. The cancellation of bulk orders by the aviation companies were but signals of the tough road ahead. Added to this was the huge increase in raw material costs.

Oberdorfer joins the long list of companies that the Obama economy has taken down.

As it has been said many times, elections have consequences.

Share

Just How Delusional Is Barack Obama?

Share

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer fromillusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.[1] _ (Wikipedia)

In the early days of this blog,  I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece in which I suggested that there was a psychological explanation of why Barack Obama thought he was so smart when he clearly was anything but smart. I had come across an article on the Dunning-Kruger Effect and it seemed to fit Obama to a “T”. At the risk of over simplification, describes people who are in fact inept but see themselves as smarter than anyone else. They are incapable of seeing their own ineptness no matter how many facts or counter arguments are presented to them. So, I ask that you keep this simple definition of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in mind as we review a couple of articles that were recently published.

Paul Mirengoff , of Power Line, decided to weigh in on the now famous statement by our Fearless Leader that the private economy is doing fine.

… In my view, Obama was driven to his unfortunate remark by frustration with the private sector for “sitting on its money.” Since the president always thinks it’s about him, I imagine that he takes it personally that businesses are hoarding their money, rather than expanding rapidly, as he wishes he could direct them to do. Since he naturally takes an adversarial view of the private sector, he must feel it is out to get him.

[…]

What a sorry combination of self-pity and ignorance. And how ironic, coming from “no drama Obama,” our “smartest president.”

Okay, admittedly, this is supposition on the part of Mr. Mirengoff. But, what he suggest does seem to fit what we know about our President, doesn’t it? So, let’s move on to something that is not supposition.

When I read the title to this Fox News article by Edward Klein, What do historians really think of Obama?, I don’t know what I expected; but, it wasn’t this:

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his  administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to  dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff,  Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the  meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed  the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians  provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go  off the rails.

Unbelievable! Obama has been office but five months and he was already looking for his place in history. We know this because Klein knew one of the “presidential historians” that was present at this and two other such meetings with Obama. Klein names all the historians present; but, of course, does not identify the one he interviewed. here are some revealing excerpts from the interview:

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind:  how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic  trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson,  another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while  implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that  he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He  could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions  of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile  the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

[…]

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past  presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents  he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F.  Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy  Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

[…]

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in  2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to  the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team  botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States  government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It  revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

Klein wanted to know “ how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the  president’s promise with his performance ” here is part of the historians response:

There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and  disappointment,”…

For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his  political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of  his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public’s imagination  and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn’t enough in a president. Great  presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example  and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald  Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared  deeply and personally about them.

[…]

More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets.  Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely  that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter.”

Yes, indeed! And when that verdict comes in, you can bet that Barack Obama will be standing in his study with his head turned up and his jaw jutted out and he will be thinking “Those fools are too stupid to see what a great President I was.”

Is it Eextreme narcissism, delusions of grandeur, Dunning-Kruger effect, or is he just a man-child who took to heart his mommy’s assertions that her little boy was “soooo smart”. I’ll leave it to you to decide.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

Original Post:  Conservatives on Fire

Share

The Re-writing of Reagan Continued: Koppel Breaks the Reality Barrier

Share

I’ve discussed previously that part of the left’s disinfo/propaganda campaign has been to rehabilitate the utterly failed presidency of Jimmy Carter, and, whenever possible, distort and minimize the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan.  That effort continues, as Gateway Pundit discussed this nonsense from Ted Koppel from a few days ago.

On the face of it, the Iranians achieved what they wanted. President Jimmy Carter had labored with key advisers through the last night of his presidency, desperately trying to bring about the hostages’ release before Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th president. The Iranians, though, were determined to humiliate our 39th president and were not about to free the captives on Carter’s watch.

As the television networks began their Inauguration Day coverage, the expected moment of release became the theme. TV screens were split to accommodate parallel images from Washington and Tehran. Just outside the Iranian capital, camera crews were taken to Mehrabad International Airport, where the soon-to-be-former hostages would board their flight to freedom…

…The Iranians stage-managed the drama down to the last second. Precisely at noon, just as Reagan began to recite the oath of office, the planeload of Americans was permitted to take off. The Iranians’ message was blunt and unambiguous: Carter and his administration had been punished for America’s sins against Iran, and Reagan was being offered a conciliatory gesture in anticipation of improved behavior by Washington.

That was hardly the interpretation that the Reagan administration put on the event. The new president portrayed the hostage release as a long-overdue act by which the Iranians acknowledged the obvious: There was a new sheriff in town. The feckless days of the Carter administration were over, and the Iranian mullahs had bowed to the inevitable. Indeed, the administration seemed to be saying that Iran’s greatest concern was now the possibility of U.S. retaliation for the humiliation of the preceding 444 days.]

I have a completely different, but hypothetical take on all of this.  There was a new sheriff in town.  That much was certain.  But, were the Iranians trying to punish Carter, who, in reality, helped them come to power by convincing the Shah to liberalize his stance towards the Islamic radicals, or were they really afraid of Reagan?

Consider if you will, the rhetoric the left used against Reagan when he ran in 1980.  I was twelve at the time, and our school was all about the election.  I grew up in the “rust belt,”which was (and still is) an overwhelmingly Democratic area.  Back then, we all did the “Weekly Reader” thing in school.  They had us vote in their mock election, which, they had bragged, had never been wrong in predicting Presidential elections.  I voted for Reagan, and made the apparent mistake of sharing that information.   The result?  The teacher said he would start a war.  My classmates said he would start a war.  Hell, even my mother said he would start a war.  I would not have been surprised if a voice came over the PA, saying, “He’ll start a war, kid.”  Obviously, the left did manage to create the narrative that Reagan was a warmonger, and would trigger the apocalypse shortly after taking office.  It was a knee jerk reaction from Democrats-almost like an old talking toy with a drawstring.  You say “Reagan,” and pull the string, and a Democrat says “warmonger.”  It would seem that the Democrats stopped just short of running LBJ’s nuclear blast commercial from the 60’s.

So then, were the Iranians “punishing” Carter, who had really helped them, or were they afraid of Reagan-not because of what he actually said, but because of what the left said about him?

Remember kids; narratives have consequences.

Share