Bill O’Reilly and a Squirrel Find a Nut

IMHO, Bill O’Reilly has been a little soft on Obama but a few nights ago, he put steel on target:

If you can’t see it, find it here.

41 thoughts on “Bill O’Reilly and a Squirrel Find a Nut

  1. I think O’Reilly only found the nut shell and not the actual nut. Until he can explain to the nation why Progressive = Marxist, he illustrates that he doesn’t understand the problem yet.

    I just don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to get. All they have to do is read Wilson’s essay. Wilson, a founding father of the Progressive movement, clearly and without equivocation, advocated Communism as the “ideal form of government for America.” I’ve posted that essay here on the RNL many times. But, for some reason, people refuse to read it or, if they do, to accept that Wilson meant what he said. Well, were he still alive, that would insult Wilson. He saw himself as a serious man who said what he meant and meant what he said. But it would appear that too few understand this or are willing to accept it. Or worse — too few still understand what Communism means and why it is a threat the very existence of mankind…

    [Karl, save it. Marxism/Communism is destructive of mankind — period. History is clear on this and there is no debate on the facts.]

    • A perfect Comment !

      I won’t even attempt to emulate………….. you’re right Bill O’Reilly ( and many in the Leadership of the Right ) DON’T get the essence , and because of this the entire country suffers and America’s future is in serious Doubt !

      • The correct term is “LIE”

        not “deception”.

        O’Reilly continues to soft peddle progressive’s purposeful wrongdoing.

  2. Joe: You are spot-on in all regards. I like O’Reilly as a human being. He does a lot of good things for a lot of people, and he is on the side of the angels more than he is not. But his weakness is his need to appear to be even-handed, even when that requires denying reality. Barack Hussein Obama is a committed Liberal/Progressive, and in his own words (or at least Bill Ayres’) he was a committed Marxist and a drug abuser during his undergraduate days. The Liberal/Progressive movement in America is the US version of Collectivism, which emerged during the 19th century as a broad movement that took shape as Fascism in Spain and Italy, Nazism in Germany, Communism in Russia and Eastern Europe and later in Asia and Africa, Socialism in Western Europe and Progressivism in the US. The first American Progressives, led by Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger (of Planned Parenthood fame), John Dewey and other intellectual lightweights, supported Bolshevik Russia as the model society, favored eugenics as the way to “cleanse the gene pool,” especially of African Americans, pushed through the Progressive Income Tax and Prohibition, and created the Federal Reserve System, which brought on the Great Depression in 1930. Progressive policies were so unpopular that the movement’s leaders tried to hide what they were by “rebranding” themselves as “Liberals.”

    Given his pedigree, why would anyone think Obama would do anything different than what he is trying to do? Obama believes a small group of elites are far more qualified to make decisions for American citizens than we are to make decisions for ourselves. The fact that his ideology violates the US Constitution and the will of at least 80% of taxpaying American citizens does not matter to Obama, as it didn’t to Wilson, FDR or LBJ. As the smartest guy in every room, Obama is attempting to create a Progressive/Marxist/Collectivist nation in America. That is what is happening and O’Reilly knows it as well as anyone. He needs to stop already with the Mr. Fair & Balanced. It is time to be counted. CDE

    • O’Reilly has done a lot of Good stories…..especially exposing the corruption and incompetencies of the Judges. And especially in Criminal cases involving the mistreatment and death of Children under State Gov’t protection.

      But it is long past time for him to be more forth-right is exposing the Political Damage done. His “soft” approach has unfortunately kept many Good-thinking folks on the GOP planatation too long. And the effect of this has been the STRENGTHENING of the very Progressivist/Collectivist power which you mention. He needs to identify Obama with Progressivism/Collectivist and then with Marxism……which Obama’s Advisors , Friends and some cabinet appointees ARE.

      Tip-toeing around the issue serves no purpose but his own……………… I wonder what that might be ??

  3. CDE,

    May I offer a gentle correction? The first American Progressive was Theodore Roosevelt. If you haven’t already, I would suggest you red the judge’s new book, “Theodore and Woodrow.” Very well researched, fully cited and shockingly eye-opening. Anyone who reads this will understand where, when, how and why we went off the rails.,

  4. “…doesn’t understand the problem yet.”
    This part of the statement identifies the difficulty with formulating, expressing and enacting meaningful reform(s). So that we might find a solution, what are the symptoms (in no particular order of importance);
    declining morality
    substance abuse
    gun control
    government intervention
    ad infinitum
    Attributing all of the above symptoms, plus those not identified, to the inability or reluctance to “…explain to the nation why Progressive = Marxist” attempts to isolate the cause of the condition to but one symptom; Political ideology.
    The condition the US is experiencing is a repeat of the decline of empires of the past. The US cannot sustain all that it acquired through diplomacy, barter, conquest and theft. Its ability to expand is being challenged by old and new rivals. “Colonies” are seeking independence. The ability of the US to maintain tranquility at home and abroad is taxing its resources: financially and militarily. Domestic unrest and upheaval lacks only a catalyst challenging the empire’s agenda and future.
    Political ideology nor identifying “the line in the sand” tipping point addresses the issue. The US Constitution clearly identified who was responsible for the nation’s prosperity. They are the cause of the problem and they are failing to provide a solution. They could have had longevity but chose to follow history’s path to a demise of its own making. If “they” were “infiltrated”, then perhaps they succumbed to something causing deviation from the “plan”. Or, beegeesus forbid, possibly the plan was flawed from the beginning.
    It’s just possible the all white male crowd ain’t quite as forward thinking and intelligent as it’s purported to be.
    Bill O’Reilly is a television celebrity. Who gathered the masses priory to Tesla? Liars like O’bomber! And, saints like Peter!

  5. I was confused as o what this comment was about…until I got to these words:

    “It’s just possible the all white male crowd ain’t quite as forward thinking and intelligent as it’s purported to be.”

    That’s when I realized the problem was not with me, but with the racist who posted this comment. Yes, this is racism — by definition. Fault is implied due solely to skin color, and that is racism — pure and simple.

    But then, it goes further than this. The person who made this post does not seem to understand that many of the things they listed are the RESULT of ideology, and not ideology in themselves. I head a good explanation today:

    Methods are many; principles are few.

    This nation suffers today because we have no understanding of what this means. Too many think that methods are principles, and so long as that sort of befuddled thinking prevails, we will continue to decay.

    In the end, the problem is simple: moral decline — period. And looking to those old dead white guys who the poster seems to think are somehow at fault here, we know that morality depends on religion and recognition of the Creator. And since we have kicked God out of our lives, we shouldn’t be surprised that all this other stuff has been the result. Those old dead white guys said it would be, and we have proved them correct. Which then suggests those old dead white guys were not so dumb.

    • Joe …… the key to this person ( who has exposed hisself before on RNL )…… The Key is very early on with his words…

      “…Enacting meaningful reform(s)….”

      To make a long and tiresome story short….. “meaning ful Reform(s)”….=… Constitution a “living” Document…….= Marxism etc.

      It’s no more complex than that……. AND your catch of his racism TOO.

    • Ah! Revelation! Principles such as genocide, white superiority, nobility and gentry, owning property or other means, slavery and religion justify the method while pardoning the atrocities? And, stating the problem as one of communication while “knowing” all along it’s religion? Or, lack of? Predictable typical snake oil sales person. Is it any wonder O’Reilly has failed his charge? Competition demands it so.
      And, yea, there’s that racist tag. Many of “they” were truly racists: by birth and by desire. How many slaves, indentured servants, laborers or commoners, women and indigenous persons contributed to the “plan”? Racist? Find a mirror!
      Another woof woofer yaps from behind the safety of its owner’s door!

      • My friend,

        ALL of those things you just listed are associated with Collectivist/Statist mentalities.

        As for the rest of your comment. Well.., I think the term you guys like to use is “hater!”

        What we have here, folks, is an active illustration of the 180 Degree Rule (otherwise known as Isaiah 5:20-21)

        • Interesting being addressed as friend following an ad hominem attack. Assigning the label racism to a discussion, in lieu of participation exploring the topic or condition, invokes credibility concerns.
          The US’s evolution that has resulted in its unsustainable empire condition is obviously not important, not open or available for debate or the condition just doesn’t fit some prescribed agenda due to factors unbeknownst to others that may not happen upon this bastion of resource, morality, humility, preparation, prediction and gang rape mentality.
          Brushing aside empire for a moment, exactly what race and gender were the “convention” delegates? Realizing “that’s just how the world worked backed then” hardly diminishes the absence of divesity. There’s a difference between racism and reality. Quoting scripture(s), slinging accusations, isolating thought patterns to singular, repeated myoptic analysis and attacks will not address the condition the US is suffering from.
          O’Reilly is an entertainer. His existence and livelihood depend upon consensus. His scripted dialog fills a void full of actual human beings attempting to decipher what went wrong, what’s going wrong and how can it be fixed; Or, much to the chagrin of one of the “residents”, reformed. While the hero is busy identifying the boogeyman the real culprit capitalizes on the distraction: be it a colosseum, ball park, war or purveyor of terror.
          Assigning blame is easy. There’s certainly plenty of “it” to go around and dissect to the umpteenth degree. “By chance” should there be an empire, who’s to blame? The socialist agitator that spooked destined politicians into completely trashing the very constitution that enabled them a presence on their grand stage of destiny…Manifest? If not the socialist, then possibly the lakes, the highways, the ports, the universities, the public parks, the airports and the military bases are to blame for the US’s demise; Too many toys and playgrounds. These items weren’t in the plan. And they reek of socialism. Possibly they’ve served their purpose and will entice conquest of the Americas much like timber and promises of new riches enticed the previous great empire(s) to invest in what has become the home of deadbeats, traitors, corrupt politicians, the Earth’s most powerful and destructive standing army and an additional 300m + people who just want to live in a world that is safe for their children and their children’s children. Ordinary people don’t build empires. And how many empires and dynasties preceded Marx? Insanity trumps political ideology.
          The noise behind the door is deafening. Glad I’m outside. One can only imagine what the smell must be like!

          • It is NOT ad hominem to call someone by what they are. Your comment was racist — by definition. I merely pointed this out, and provided the definition to support my assertion. I notice you did not attack my definition, or the fact that your comment met the terms. Instead, you are seeking to deflect attention from the fact. This means I did not commit the fallacy, you did. And now you are continuing with the same flawed reasoning.

            Now, this will be my last attempt to help you understand why you are so far off base. That empire building you are complaining about is NOT the result of people following the principles and ideals that founded this nation. They are the result of people who broke with them. Lincoln would be among them, but so would Jackson — the first non-founder President.

            You see, the compulsion to control is NOT of the principles and ideals that founded this nation. They are of the Collectivists/Statists who have sought to destroy what the founders built and replace it with their own utopian ideal. In other words, you appear to be complaining that your own ideas are failing and — true to form — you want to blame it on others.

              • Ralph,

                Actually, what we have here is an excellent illustration of the difference between philosophy and ideology. In general terms, many of us here tend to agree: Utah, Augger, DOn, Me, Chhelo, You, others. But we also have pretty sharp differences of opinion between us. It’s just that those differences are nearly always over how to get where we want to go, not over where we are going.

                On the other hand, the reason Wetheverite and Karl seem so much alike is because they do not follow a philosophy, but an ideology. They are not free to think for themselves. They simply follow the dictates of their doctrine. It traps them and keeps them from growing or from understanding. But it explains why they seem like the same person — because an ideology demands conformity.

          • wetheverite: Fascinating post, although you do wander a bit. I cannot respond to all the rabbit trails you lay down. Regarding the ideas and values of America’s Founders, I think you may need to change your frame a bit as well as deepen your understanding of “diversity.” Ideas do not have ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Original ideas can have any source, and so can bad ideas. What makes an idea effective and original is whether it brings to bear a more effective way of understanding reality, creates new value or improves the quality of life of one or more individuals. America’s Founders developed ideas that had been building for centuries about the centrality of the individual as the organizing basis of human society. I won’t go into the origins of this notion here, because although interesting, it is somewhat long and involved. The bottomline is that by recognizing the destructiveness of Collectivist Authoritarianism, as evidenced by both Divine Right Kings, and other centralized societal organizational structures, the Founders unleashed the incredible power of free thought, free markets and most importantly, free trade. This innovation brought about the most successful society and culture in the history of our race, which is only beginning to achieve its full potential.

            The ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation of the Founders is completely irrelevant, as people like Dr. King recognize. The quality of the ideas is what matters. And yes, centralized government inevitably stifles creativity and innovation. Dispersion of power, authority and especially information drives innovation in all its forms. Hence the Founders requirement that most rights, freedoms and authority be held by the 50-states and individual American citizens. Centralized government needs to be severely restricted and government overall must be kept small, so that true innovation can emerge from a free people. Such was the wisdom of our Founders, and this is what causes Mr. Obama to chafe under the Constitution’s restrictions on the power of the American Presidency and government, since he mistakenly views himself as the smartest guy in every room. He isn’t. We’ve seen his type before, and their desire is always to enforce their will over that of their betters, rather than to govern within our Constitutional framework. Obama will be successfully turned out, as wannabe tyrants always are in America. That is a fortunate reality. CDE

            • CDE: to which I will cordially reply that in a perfect world, free from original sin, there’s a possibility the founder’s free minds constructed and penned the perfect document that set the world, its minds and its people free to achieve boundless destiny and sustainable liberty.
              Fast forward; Dwelling on race, racism, philosophy, ideology, morality, religion, assignment of blame or cause, television celebrities, etc. does not address, acknowledge nor deny that, what was intended to be an optimal union of government and society, the US has produced or nurtured an empire of phenomenal proportions. If the US is an empire, then it stands to reason it will suffer the same or like demise of empires past. And, it seems like that would be a problem: Or, a pressing concern: Or, even a subject for discussion. Obviously not!
              Instead, we should seek wisdom; “All whose faith had drawn them together held everything in common; they would sell their property and possessions and make a general distribution as the need of each required.” (Acts 2: 44-45)

              • WOW! You do not understand that passage in Acts at all!!!

                GOD is the one who declared and granted property, and then gave us guidelines for how to use it properly. If God had intended us to be communists, He would have said so. Instead, He gave us the free market and then admonished us to practice fair trade with each other.

                If you were to read further in Acts, you will find this in chapter 5

                Ananias and Sapphira

                5 A man named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, also sold some land. 2 He kept part of the money for himself. Sapphira knew he had kept it. He brought the rest of it and put it down at the apostles’ feet.

                3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, why did you let Satan fill your heart? He made you lie to the Holy Spirit. You have kept some of the money you received for the land. 4 Didn’t the land belong to you before it was sold? After it was sold, you could have used the money as you wished. What made you think of doing such a thing? You haven’t lied to just anyone. You’ve lied to God.”

                See, the property belonged to Ananias and God did not command that he share it. Ananias died because he lied to the Holy Spirit, not because he wanted to keep part of what Peter said was his to keep. And remember, Peter was charged — by CHRIST — with building the Church, so he is an authority here. What you do not understand is that the early church FREELY — WILLINGLY — gave of themselves to each other. Also, this was because of the Holy Spirit in them, not of their human nature. What’s more, NOTHING in Acts says that they were equal in possessions, as Chapter 5 demonstrates they were not. Some people still had greater wealth than others. All Acts tells you is that the early Church saw to it that no one had need.

                This leads me to wonder if you understand what the Bible says your needs are. You have need of food, clothing and care when sick — nothing more. And care when sick does NOT mean a doctor or the best possible technology: it means we come comfort you and try to help you get well as best we can. If you are meant to die, you die. This is because Scripture tells us we cannot extend our lives. This is in the hands of God.

                Those who think Scripture teaches Communism prove that they have not read or have GROSSLY misunderstood Scripture. In fact, those who understand Scripture understand that those who find Communism in it are in grave peril for their soul.

              • wetheverite: Again, an interesting post, to which I have two quick responses as I am otherwise engaged and do need to vote today in local elections. First, glen Hubbard, Dean of Columbia’s Business School and a brilliant economist brought out a really interesting study in October, BALANCE, that explores the rise and degeneration of about seven of the world’s most successful civilizations, including the US, utilizing levels of economic data that has only recently become available. The most common causes of the fall of Rome, the Ottomans, China, Spain and the others are over centralization of government authority and excessive sovereign debt. Organizations, including nation states thrive under decentralized authority and atrophy under centralization.

                On the quote from Acts, many Christian groups, including the first church at Jerusalem, have experimented with socialism. The Jerusalem Church, under James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth, starved under its socialist experiment and had to be rescued by St. Paul and the more practical Christian communities around the eastern Med. As Paul stated, he who does not work should not eat. Paul also warned against muzzling the ox that treads the grain. Marx, and Mr. Obama have never understood either principle, both of which are very American. CDE

                • CDE: I appreciate your time, congeniality and participation!
                  Obomber is a liar and a shill. Liars, cheats and thieves serve no one or purpose. Is the US so precariously positioned that the action(s) of one person will cause irreversible harm to the republic? If so, what of the actions of his not so stellar predecessors? Someone mentioned the commoner Jackson in this thread; The list is long and the arguments many for and against the performance of past executives. All of government can be dissected to assign accolades or to assign fault. What has been the end result of their collective performance? Is it not possible that the US has been neglected? What of: foreign aid? “interventions”? free trade agreements? foreign military installations? “nation building”? The results of these queries reflect different priorities of many different generations. And, what blows my mind is this; If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are it’s a progressive or communist or Marxist or liberal or progressive republican and not a duck. Dammit man, I got a blind for nothing! And, what’s really wild is all of these enemies/enablers of the state are stealthier than Osama bin Laden: save the few that proudly or obviously display the distinction as if it were a crown of gold. And I know, it’s their M.O.
                  Discussions of empire are apparently taboo on this forum; Perhaps a result of Thomas Hoeir’s lasting influence.

                  • Discussions about how we have strayed from our ideal are not “taboo,” but if you are going to try to unfairly and — IMHO — unjustly taint the founders and their ideal for this nation with the same brush… Well, no, I doubt you’ll find a sympathetic audience; not because it is not allowed, but because most here understand that you are off target.

                  • wetheverite: Thanks for your kind words, but I think this blog is about ideas, more than the individuals expressing them, so you will find I rarely venture off the path of rationality unless the discussion itself goes off the rails. As to the ability of one person, in this case a President, to damage America’s economy and social fabric, I think we are seeing it happen before our eyes, although Our Dear Leader’s destructiveness is aided and abetted by an interesting cast of characters. More on that in a moment.

                    The core policies that have been driving Mr. Obama’s plan to “change” and “remake” America have to do with his embrace of the Collectivist approach to societal organization that has dominated human history for at least 10,000-years, and has subordinated the freedom and creativity of individuals to the service of something called variously “mankind,” “the good of the whole,” “society,” and other ill-defined groups, who have never actually existed, let alone provided an effective organizing principle for any human society. Matt Ridley in his incredibly well-researched book, THE RATIONAL OPTIMIST, traces the destructive role played by coercive governing schemes that centralized power over the millennia that the human race has existed in anything like our present form. Modern Collectivism, as personified by the fantasy writings of Karl Marx and Joseph Engels, drew heavily on the more seminal thinking of Jeremy Bentham and G.F. Hegel, but they all merely adapted the age-old theory of Collectivism in somewhat more modern dress.

                    American Exceptionalism, which Barack Hussein Obama explicitly rejects, either knowingly or because his somewhat limited intellect cannot grasp its significance, was widely acknowledged by European and later other intellectuals in the 18th and 19th centuries as representing the first actual “new idea” of societal organization since the totalitarian societies of China and Egypt took shape. Our Founders, particularly Franklin, Jefferson, Madison and Adams, launched and completed the equivalent of a Copernican Revolution in human governance by placing the freedom and liberty of the individual at the center of the American national identity. This retrospectively simple change unleashed an economic and creative zeitgeist that has continued unabated, with a few unfortunate missteps, for over 200-years. The incredible force for good that has flowed from America’s commitment to individual freedom, free markets and limited government has expanded beyond our borders, and brought dramatic improvements in living conditions on multiple continents, as well as creating the freest and most vertically mobile society in human history.

                    Mr. Obama rejects these accomplishments and derides them with a fictitious alternative version of history that is common Marxist nonsense. He embraces as a substitute a Collectivist organizing principle that has failed multiple times around the world for over a century, but which is commonly held by academics and other perceptually-impaired intellectuals. At a time when the American concepts of individual freedom and free markets are heartily embraced by former dictatorships and Communists countries, Mr. Obama regards himself as the Chosen One destined to destroy our Founders unique and uniquely successful vision.

                    To conclude this overlong comment, America has suffered under weak and wrong-headed Presidents before. James Buchanan, two Roosevelts, Wilson, Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, and Carter come to mind immediately. We will survive Barack Hussein Obama, although his terms will likely go down as the first where an American President attempted to systematically destroy America. Eventually, the hidden portions of his now-closed life will be revealed, as will his sources of financial support and other issues and the American people will finally find out who Barack Hussein Obama or Barry Soetoro actually is. Until then all thinking Americans must resist his destructive policies and work to restore our nation’s unique place in the human community. CDE

      • “Another woof woofer yaps from behind the safety of its owner’s door!”

        Precisely what you are doing wetheverite. “Verite” you are not. In fact, you are completely avulse to reality. To the rest of your name, I doubt you enjoy the luxury of peers to assist with your daily entertainment, but rather I imagine that you isolated, insular, and quite alone.

        You should very likely just cower back to that closet you loiter in, and eat another hot pocket.

      • Joe: You are quite right about TR being the first Progressive President, and his views on many of the core Progressive policies were at least as radical and wrong-headed as Wilson’s. My original studies of Progressivism began with the Social Gospel Movement, which was an attempt to integrate Marxist principles with Protestantism, under people like Walter Rauchenbusch, Social Gospel proponents comprised a religious arm of the Progressive Movement, while most of the major leaders were unacknowledged atheists, and some, like Margaret Sanger were just monsters on the order of Adolf Eichmann.

        I haven’t studied TR nearly as much as Wilson, largely because one of my mentors in grad school is the definitive authority on WW’s early life and influences, and on the Progressive Movement under Wilson. An interesting point to consider is that in 1918 one could make the argument that the effects of Progressivism, Communism, Fascism and the other forms of Collectivism were not clearly known. As a philosophical position, Marxism has a lot of appeal to people, especially Western intellectuals, who don’t have to live under it. But there are now almost 100-years of real life experience in dozens of nations around the world. In each case the quality of life of average citizens and the national economies have all declined as a result the fantasies that form the core of Marxist and Progressive policies. The only people who have thrived under Progressivism are the elites who have been empowered to tell their fellow citizens what to do and to use government coercion to enforce their demands.

        Basically Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and other forms of Marxism have now failed completely wherever they have been tried. Tell me again why Our Dear Leader will succeed in implementing Progressivism in America when Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez and other “leaders” have all failed miserably implementing similar systems? As Einstein said, “Insanity: Doing something over and over again, and expecting different results.” I rest my case. CDE

        • CDE,

          That “appeal” you mentioned: it has to do with the Western tendency toward megalomania. Obama thinks he is smarter than EVERYONE who has come before, therefore, he is convinced he can do what no one else has succeeded in doing to this point. His pride and arrogance prevents him from seeing that history has already passed judgment on the problem — his ideas. If he understood logic, he would know that this means — no matter how smart the people are trying to do it — they will not succeed because they are trying to re-write the laws of this universe. And that takes us straight back to original sin, does it not? 😉

          • Joe: Mr. Obama, per his own autobiographies, as apparently written by his pal Bill “the Bomber” Eyres, is a somewhat typical product of the privilege he has enjoyed throughout his life. While being given things he never earned and being admitted to places he probably didn’t belong, Obama studiously avoided interacting with people who did not share his very academic embrace of the fantasies of Karl Marx and anti-colonialist thinkers like Franz Fanon. He also avoided the tough professors at Columbia, who never saw him, and probably at Harvard Law, although he has carefully hidden his transcripts and applications at both schools, so we cannot know for sure. As “Editor-in-Chief” of the Harvard Law Review, Obama never published a signed article, but did manage to get the HLR sued over sexual harassment claims from his male assistant editors, which HLS settled for hundreds of thousands of dollars and then…sealed. As an Adjunct Lecturer at Chicago Law School he never interacted with the other professors or completed any research and voted mostly “Present” in the Illinois State Senate. This is Chance Gardner in brown-face, and certainly no intellectual giant, or if Obama is a smart guy, he has thoroughly hidden his brilliance. Although he may get Chris Matthews hot, he has very little to say that is worth listening to. CDE

            • CDE,

              First, I must assume you are teaching to the pulpits here, as I am most definitely in the Choir 😉

              Now, as for the Obama we know (i.e. his public persona). THAT guy IS a genius, but that guy is George Soros, Ayers and Jarret (the latter two probably work for the first).

              HOWEVER, as for Obama the REAL person: I suspect he may ell have some intelligence, but he is a narcissist who utterly lacks ANY wisdom (i.e. understanding of how to apply whatever intelligence he may possess).

              So, do you disagree, or did I just preach to the preacher? 🙂

              • Joe: I always assume I am not imparting new information to you on most topics, but you often set me up on topics I have been researching or thinking about. I’ve long tried to understand the needs or motivations of people who embrace Collectivism, since I have no motivation toward those policies and find other people trying to control my thoughts and decisions unacceptable. As a libertarian I view my right to make my own decisions as unassailable and view those who try as my enemies. I always enjoy our interactions. Cheers, CDE

                • CDE,

                  Brother, if I am setting the ball on the ‘T’ for you, then just let me know. I’ll keep putting it there so you can keep knocking them out of the park until you either get tired or a new rabbit runs across our path 😉

                    • Joe/Charles: Talk about a 1-2 sucker punch. You guys have nailed the chin on ole Obama. I realize I am coming in late to the conversation, but as I am certain Joe has seen me toss this out there, I am equally as certain Charles has not. So I would like to pitch it again, if I may.

                      I’ve always maintained that Obama is nothing short of an intellectual pauper, and that he has to have his speeches spoon-fed to him via a teleprompter. When he does not stay on prompt, his true idiocy is revealed. Of course his life has been scripted for many years prior to meeting Michelle, but I think that “big bang” opened up for the ever opportunistic dolt that is Obama, a whole new world of liberal fanaticism for him to be surrounded by …. i.e., Valerie Jarrett, and her ilk such as Penny Pritzker. These people are in fact running this administration. Obama clearly is not able to do it himself. I’ve explored this a to a fraction in a series of threads I entitled “Name That Crazy (censored) Liberal), pointing out some key players”, I do feel there is a sea of information left out there. I think we simply are scratching the surface of “The Obama Connection”.

                      Your thoughts?

                    • Augger,

                      Well, I wouldn’t say Obama is without any intelligence; it’s just that he is an ideologue who lacks any wisdom.

                      That said, I KNOW he just reads what is on the teleprompter. I have seen his face when he has read himself saying something that surprised him. And when off prompter, he is not “stupid,” he is HONEST! Off prompter is when he only has what he REALLY believes and that’s when it comes out (“fundamental transformation,” “you didn’t build that,” “spread the wealth,” etc).

                      Also, we must not forget what Joe Biden said about him being a clean, articulate black man. What Biden meant was they had a black man who could sell the ideology. This makes him bullet proof (at least in their minds). He has the built in immunity of the race card, and no one should discount that this was part of the calculation in pushing Hillary aside and Obama forward.

                      Remember what FDR told us: In politics, nothing happens by accident. If something happens, we should assume it was planned that way.


                    • augger: I agree with your assessments of both Our Dear Leader’s cognitive capacity and his careful “management” by uber-Liberals like Soros, Jarret, Pritzger and others out of the Chicago-Democrat Machine. Our Dear Leader has led a privileged life characterized by repeatedly failing upward, but with no actual accomplishments along the way. His “story,” as carefully crafted and guarded by his caretakers, is appealingly “American.” But when one attempts to confirm any details it is full as “miracles” that are impossible to confirm. As an example, how did a self-professed stoner and marginal student in a 4th Tier junior college obtain transfer admission to one of the world’s most competitive universities? As a former Dean of Admissions at three Tier 2 schools during that time period, I can attest that could not have happened without very, very powerful intervention and a lot of money being involved. Such stories abound in Obama’s carefully confected past. Also, the incredibly tight sealing of all of Obama’s academic and admissions files reinforces the vaporous nature of his supposedly impressive academic record.

                      Fast forward to Obama’s time as President, and his inability to speak without Mr. TelePrompTer is both obvious and frightening. Unlike Ronald Reagan, who had been a successful actor but was also a brilliant intellect, Obama I appears to be an empty-header, blow-dried newsreader like Brian Williams and his ilk. Obama’s record of deceit and misrepresentation, his demonization of opponents and his willingness to constantly exceed his delineated powers under the Constitution are all standard Marxist/Alinsky tactics. If one wishes to forecast Obama’s next move, reading RULES FOR RADICALS is like looking ahead in the script for a play.

                      So yes, augger, you have Mr. Obama nailed. And my friend Joe and I have a pretty good idea as well. Cheers, CDE

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.