His True Stripes

The writer Maya Angelou once said, "When somebody tells you who they are, believe them."

Barack Obama has been telling us over and over and over again just who he is. Many Americans heard him the first time. Many more still don't get it, or choose not to believe him.

He has been telling us, in more ways than one, that he is a wealth distributing, socialism embracing progressive. His beliefs and policies are so radical that some Americans have a difficult time processing that this man is actually the president of the United States---and using that high office to fundamentally remake America in a European socialist model. They try to explain or justify it away, by claiming to themselves and others that he's "really not that bad" or that "his critics attack him over every little thing." The defensive crouch sometimes expresses itself in a benign way ("Obama may be naive or in over his head") and sometimes in a much darker way ("his critics are racist"). Instead of seeing the man and his ideology clearly, these folks want to ascribe every possible explanation for his radicalism other than the obvious one: that he is, in fact, a radical.

We have seen it with his associations with radicals of all stripes, from domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers to anti-American hatemongers like Jeremiah Wright to communists like Van Jones. We have seen it in his wealth redistributing policies, from the $1 trillion "stimulus" to cap and trade to ObamaCare. We have seen it in his giving the bum's rush to close allies like Great Britain and Israel while sending mash notes to enemies like Iran and Russia. We have seen it through his massive expansion of government, unprecedented spending, record-breaking deficits and debt, and socialized medicine. We have seen it as he perseveres with this agenda, even as it continues to fail in epic ways (witness today's 9.1% unemployment rate, a still-collapsing housing sector, and anemic, barely-there economic growth of 1.8%).

All of this is shocking to the American psyche, but none of it should be surprising. After all, during the 2008 campaign, Obama said this to Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Of course he wants to punish your success. That's what his entire regime of wealth redistribution ("spreading the wealth around") is all about.

And remember this similar 2010 socialist classic from Obama?

"We're not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that's fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you've made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you're providing a good product."

There he goes again, claiming he doesn't "begrudge success." He protests too much. And by the way, he thinks you've "made enough money." Whew---so glad to have Obama around to tell us when we've hit that point, huh?

And who could forget his more recent socialist classic:

"I believe that we can't ask everybody to sacrifice and then tell the wealthiest among us, well, you can just relax and go count your money, and don't worry about it. We're not going to ask anything of you."

As if "the rich" became rich by sitting around, doing nothing, relaxing. As if the country "doesn't ask anything" of them, when they carry the vast majority of the tax burden. As if "the rich" spend all day eating bon bons and "counting their money."

The arrogance and condescension and complete anti-Americanism inherent in these statements---by the president, no less---is breathtaking. No wonder so many Americans wonder if he's truly "one of us." (The birth certificate controversy was merely a manifestation of this gnawing and deep concern that the country elected a man whose beliefs are so utterly alien to the nation's.)

If you need any more proof, here is his Solicitor General this week, arguing on behalf of ObamaCare to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, telling the court that if an individual doesn't like the individual mandate, they can just earn less money:

"So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn't need to earn that much income."

Say what?

Judge Jeffrey Sutton interjected, "That wasn't in a single speech given in Congress about this...the idea that the solution if you don't like it is make a little less money."

He is correct: no Democrat in Congress made that argument when they were pushing ObamaCare down our throats. But it's completely consistent with the wealth redistributing agenda this administration has put in place from Day One.

And if we were listening to Obama during the campaign, if we were listening to what he's been saying through his policies, none of this should be a surprise.

This is what his presidency is. This is who HE is. When somebody tells you who they are, believe them---the first time.

Comments

[WowZER]

Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian dies
http://www.freep.com/article/20110603/NEWS01/110603016/Assisted-suicide-advocate-Jack-Kevorkian-dies?odyssey=nav%7Chead

WHO NEEDS HIM when we've got Barry Soeto?

[Ummahgummah]

Methinks you lean toward Possibility #3 as the best description of Mental Patient X, i.e. not liar, hypocrite or blasphemer, but simply angry lunatic.

Or could it be a combination of all four toxins?

POSTED BY: GRINGOMAN | JUNE 03, 2011 AT 10:52 AM

--

Putting it that way... none of these are mutually exclusive. Quite au contraire.. they act in symbiosis.

.

[RafeMasters_76]

Is it really necessary to continue to come up with nonsense about our President? Especially with all the other serious matters going on in this country.

[Ummahgummah]

.

Is it really necessary to spam this blog with liberal talking points? Especially with all the other serious matters going on in this country WHICH ARE CAUSED BY ***YOUR*** PRESIDENT AND HIS TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIALIST POLICIES.

.

[LongRifle]

Why are always protecting "The Rich"? Many, Many of them didn't earn a dime; they inherited it. I know lots of Ranchers, for example, who own hundreds of thousands of acres of land, who merely inherited it. Originally, it was "Claimed" (stolen, killed for, squatted on) in the 19th Century. How is that justified?
Jesus told the Rich man to sell what he had and give the money to the poor...sounds like re-distribution of wealth to me.
The rich are not creatting wealth for anybody but themselves. They are not creating jobs. True unemployment in the US is probably closer to 20% than 9%. If jobs are going overseas, it is the rich who are moving them...Why? To get richer.
In California, People of substance bought huge tracts of land for their houses, then lobbied to "stop the building" and "save our open space". They succeed because they are rich.
I am for a FREE market; you know, the one where everybody has a fair chance. Where a guy can earn a living by fishing without a $2 million boat. Where a farmer can sell his milk without the corporate-owned government arresting him. Right now, that doesn't exist; thanks to the rich.
America looks more like medieval England than the land of the free.

[gringoman]

Monica, with posts like these, really seems to understand what Socialist Sammy and his minions, like the Welfare Macdaddy, are all about. Unlike most mediacks, she not only gives the impression of being able to read The Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels without moving her lips from sentence to sentence, but can even relate it logically to the US political scene today, without recourse to remedial tutoring.

Can this be the same Monica who sounds more "moderated" on O'Reilly? I can't confirm, as I don't watch the B Tube.

Is it the same Monica who hosts a shrieking pwogwessive Mental Patient at Monicamemo? Yes, it is. That I can confirm.

[thebuckstopshere]

BC controversy a mere MANIFESTATION of deep concern?

this lingo is what's gnaws at me from gooper central....

NO FN RINOS 2012

[gringoman]

Jesus told the Rich man to sell what he had and give the money to the poor...sounds like re-distribution of wealth to me.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Jesus told the rich man to do that. He didn't tell Socialist Sammy's state and commissars to do it.

At least that's how it is in the King James version. True, it's a little different in the Bolshevik version of 1917. Enter Guvmint.

[LongRifle]

People toss around the term Socialism without understanding what it means. We are not heading towards a country where everyone works and shares in the wealth; that is basically what Socialism is.

We are heading for a nation where everyone is dependent on the government for everything--That is called SLAVERY.

[thebuckstopshere]

while I get what you are saying Longrifle, I don't get how the powers that be think that very idea has any substaining time element? ergo, once all enslaved & the middle section of the sh!t sandwich is eradicated how do they plan on making this grand "achievement" work? WHY are lemmings so willing to believe it will this time?

NO, NOT ONE, FN RINO 2012

[gringoman]

Why are always protecting "The Rich"? Many, Many of them didn't earn a dime; they inherited it. I know lots of Ranchers, for example, who own hundreds of thousands of acres of land, who merely inherited it. Originally, it was "Claimed" (stolen, killed for, squatted on

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:22 PM

You clearly understand the centuries-old shout-out for the Socialist International, ranging from Marx. Engels, Proudhon, Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Barney Frank, Hitler (he just substituted "Jews" for "rich") Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Mao tse Tung, Kim Il Sung et al.

At the very least, you understand the sloganeering that
catapulted them to state power, what came before they shot the rich and "liberated" the poor into the "worker's paradise" and you can do it in a country where even the shiftless poor (called untermenschen proles even by Karl Marx) are fed and many have flat screen TVs.

ps No, Barney Frank didn't shoot anybody. He just helped force the banks (you know, those "rich skunks") into subprime lending insanity for the sake of "social justice" and making the "poor" home owners. But give him credit. He did more to wreck US Free Enterprise than Fidel Castro could only dream of doing.

[gringoman]

People toss around the term Socialism without understanding what it means. We are not heading towards a country where everyone works and shares in the wealth; that is basically what Socialism is.

We are heading for a nation where everyone is dependent on the government for everything--That is called SLAVERY.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Sounds like you might be at odds with names like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, or other socialist hellholes.

Or maybe you can change their minds in Cuba, Pyongyang, Hanoi etc. Maybe you can convince them that they are not true to your schoolbook, or Daily Worker or college professor definition of socialism. Therefore they should not be calling themselves Socialist Democratic People's Republics. Would be intereting to see what kind of reaction you get.

[gringoman]

Weiner is also dodging questions about why he followed the Washington State College student on Twitter, along with a bevy of other young women, refusing to answer reporters’ questions about whether he ever sent her private messages.

LOL

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Wiener is now demonstrating the classsic libnik dichotomy....

So high-talking, so low-class.

So smart, so stupid.("I can't say FOR SURE if that wiener foto is me.")

So glib, so clammed up.

So nice, so gross.

So idealist, so obnoxious.

What a public servant, what a private wiener.

[gringoman]

BTW, FYI, I think Romney is a fine family man, and in many ways a respectable American, probably five times as decent as the typical Democrat gangbanger. I just don't want to see any Gooper heading the G.O.P. ticket in 2012....GRINGO

Keep dreaming. Romney is the man to beat for the GOP nomination; and that's all there is to it. Is he the best man for America? Hardly. Is he what Tea Partiers want? Nope. A true Conservative? HA!
Can he beat Obama? Just Maybe...and that's all the GOP cares about.

Posted by: LongRifle | June 02, 2011 at 11:04 PM

Yes, G.O.P. Central, sees 2012 as "Romney's turn." But millions of Americans are saying "it's our turn."

And even if you discount the Palin insurgency, no less than Donald Trump has put the Goopers on notice re their ticket for 2012, in effect telling them to shape up or else....

As for Mitt Romneycare, Trump has described him already as a relatively "small businessman." Trump probably finds him as laughable as Ummah does. The Bible Belt base will not enthuse over a son of Mormonism, which sees Jesus as the spiritual brother of Lucifer. The Chicago racists will go for his jugular via the Mormon equating of blacks with the Mark of Cain. He'll be a sitting duck even for the Marxobots and their media hacks who will depict his Romney care as the inspiration for Obamacare, now widely viewed as welfare for the shiftless and rat poison for the tax paying middle class. Romney, of course, has basic business sense. but in most every other topic he's probably the one Republican who needs a teleprompter at least as much as Obama.

Of course the Goopers will still try to nominate him, if his campaign doesn't implode first, and the Iowa Ethanol Trust can't pry Governor Christie out of New Jersey. To escape Palin or Trump, they'd even prefer the corporate/socialist Macdaddy's re-election,

[gringoman]

MR WRIGHT///// Ten reasons why OBAMA will win the 2012 Election.

1. Higher gas prices and the hope he will increase gas to European prices.

2. Higher food prices due to higher fuel costs and corn used for Ethanol production.

3. A larger Federal Government with increased beaucratic red tape and regulations.

4. Higher unemployment for the shrinking capitalistic private sector.

5. Higher taxes on the big corporations and the greedy rich.

6. Amnesty and citizenship for all the undocumented Americans.

7. Free health care for those who cannot afford or are denied care by the profit first big insurance companies.

8. More vacations, golf outings, parties with celebrities, trips overseas, appearances on The View and Letterman.

9. A commitment to increasing the debt limit to continue federal deficit spending.

10. A hope that this administration will continue to devalue the dollar with the QE2, QE3 monetary policies.

[thebuckstopshere]

one more time for the east coast......

NO RINOS 2012

[EyeOnFreedom]

brilliant!

[EyeOnFreedom]

brilliant!

[Ummahgummah]

" The Bible Belt base will not enthuse over a son of Mormonism, which sees Jesus as the spiritual brother of Lucifer. "

- Gringoman

--

I KNEW the X-lax had to be a Mormon! Now I understand everything!

.

[DJ]

Gringoman,

Of course it's very early in the game, but what will you do if Sarah decides not to run and in turn endorses Romney?

You KNOW that's WELL within the realm of possibilities, right?

ROMNEY/PAWLENTY 2012

Campaign slogan - "DARE TO BE DULL"

[thebuckstopshere]

IF Palin were to endorse mitty & timmy, she would surely loose her standing & credibility with teaparty......kinda like her standing up for Mclame, but personally, I might let that one slide...........

NO FN RINOS 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/03/ouch-nhs-largest-newspaper-plasters-front-page-with-palin-coverage-romney-announcement-pushed-to-page-a3/

NO RINOS 2012

[Ummahgummah]

.

Dj, STOP with the NIGHTMARES!!

.

[DJ]

Sorry Ummah.

After living through Bush the Elder, Slick Willie, Dubya, and now Obama, I've become very cynical.

[thebuckstopshere]

house "rebukes" Obama...............

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=78584

I'M BEGGING, NO RINOS 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

cynical beats brain dead eh?

NO RINOS 2012

[Ummahgummah]

.

DJ, I know what you are saying. She may also endorse some other RINO in exchange for whoknowswhat.

But I still hope that she will run on her own or with Trump in the picture somehow.

.

[DJ]

"cynical beats brain dead eh?"

----------------------

Yes, but ignorance is bliss. In many ways, life would be so much easier being a libtard.

[thebuckstopshere]

DJ, can't see it myself, like living in constant denial......a sense of perpetual entitlement......all that's wrong the government can & should fix.......

I kind of feel the same way about RINOS..........

GIVE US A CANDIDATE 2012

[DJ]

But I still hope that she will run on her own or with Trump in the picture somehow.

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 03:54 PM

------------------

Agreed. But like we've already said: The best case scenario would be for Trump to run and win this time around (with the full endorsement of Palin) and then hand the baton to Palin in 2016.

[Ummahgummah]

.

I don't know how many non-Romney voters would vote for him in the HOPEFULLY UNLIKELY scenario that Palin might endorse him.

I know it would turn me off more than I already am.

That would be a declaration of War against Conservatives and would precipitate a Third Party Movement no matter the consequences.

.

[thebuckstopshere]

sometimes you just got to go with a gut feeling.......I don't believe PALIN would endorse Obama lite, but if done for "good of party", I agree with UG, 3rd party would be my only option..........AGAIN

NO RINOS 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

TOO FUNNY!

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=78595

NO RINOS 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

no Sarah would not do something as foolish as endorse a douche like mitty........POLITICAL SUICIDE FOR HER SELF....calling DR K........

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/06/03/rino-romney-says-he-believes-in-man-made-global-warming/

NO DB RINOS 2012

[LongRifle]

Or maybe you can change their minds in Cuba, Pyongyang, Hanoi etc. Maybe you can convince them that they are not true to your schoolbook, or Daily Worker or college professor definition of socialism. Therefore they should not be calling themselves Socialist Democratic People's Republics. Would be intereting to see what kind of reaction you get.

Posted by: gringoman | June 03, 2011 at 01:22 PM

One could make a case for China's version of Communism/Socialism workng out to be economically viable, but they are not the issue; America is. Capitalist America didn't honestly purchase this land from Native Americans; they stole it with disease, murder, starvation, and broken treaties.
Anyway, America has lots of "Socialist" programs, only one of which was pushed into law by Obama. Republicans gave us just as many as Dems; and the Patriot Act to boot. Neither wants to get rid of anything.
We are not being being led down the path to Socialism. We are heading for Totalitarianism with one political party: THEM. That is: The uber-rich and their power-mad puppet government. We are their serfs. All "They" need is a big enough disaster to declare martial law and it's done...

[DJ]

Is Romney any worse than Huck or Rudy or Newt or Pawlenty or Huntsman....? If she or Trump dosen't run, she has the choice between either endorsing a "douche" or completely remaining silent. Being the loyal Republican she is (whether we like it or not) we can safely assume she'll wind up endorsing a "douche".

[Ummahgummah]

.

Rudy would be the best of the lot. At least he gets it on islam and on crime in general.

.

[DJ]

Rudy would be the best of the lot. At least he gets it on islam and on crime in general.

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 04:50 PM
----------

Agree, but I doubt he could beat the Bamster.

[thebuckstopshere]

HELL TO THE NIGHTMARISH NO..............wonder what she & the Donald discussed........I seriously doubt it was about douchebag endorsements..........I am HOPEful it was about wrestling this country back from the abyss of non candidates who have sold their collective souls & US down the toilet for POWER, like a whining weiner who uses their time & our money tweeting young girls?

STOP THE INSANITY TOUR 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

a little dedication to ANThorny WEINER..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoXu6QmxpJE

it's FRIDAY NITE!

NO BS RINOS 2012

[gringoman]

Gringoman,

Of course it's very early in the game, but what will you do if Sarah decides not to run and in turn endorses Romney?

You KNOW that's WELL within the realm of possibilities, right?

ROMNEY/PAWLENTY 2012

Campaign slogan - "DARE TO BE DULL"

Posted by: DJ | June 03, 2011 at 03:16 PM

Tell me, DJ, what Palin and Trump will do about ROMNEY/PAWLENTY 2012, and I'll tell you what I MIGHT do. I've appointed both Palin abd Trump as my Leading Indicators, and I appreciate their assistance.

[gringoman]

The Bible Belt base will not enthuse over a son of Mormonism, which sees Jesus as the spiritual brother of Lucifer. "

- Gringoman

--

I KNEW the X-lax had to be a Mormon! Now I understand everything!

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 03:06 PM

Ummah,

Interesting. I never thought of that. Mental Patient X---not only a pwogwessive liar, hypocrite, blasphemer and angry lunatic, but also a Mormon plant.

[DJ]

I've appointed both Palin abd Trump as my Leading Indicators, and I appreciate their assistance.

Posted by: gringoman | June 03, 2011 at 05:10 PM

-----------------

Ditto.

[thebuckstopshere]

let me put it this way, if Palin endorses Mitty, we can collectively kiss out a$$e$ GOOOOOOOOOOOOOD BYYYYYYEEEEEEEEE..................

NO RINOS OR THEIR ILK 2012

[thebuckstopshere]

two "einsteins" will be solving national problems on the fairway............golf summit eminent..........

FORE.............

NO RINOS 2012

[LongRifle]

I KNEW the X-lax had to be a Mormon! Now I understand everything!

.

Posted by: Ummahgummah | June 03, 2011 at 03:06 PM

Ummah,

Interesting. I never thought of that. Mental Patient X---not only a pwogwessive liar, hypocrite, blasphemer and angry lunatic, but also a Mormon plant.

Posted by: gringoman | June 03, 2011 at 05:14 PM

X's views on abortion are completely opposite of the LDS Church's. He does sound like he may have been one, though. Possibly excommunicated.

Maybe I am really cynical, but if you study the history of the American Indian, and look at their state of existence today, I think you can see the future planned for the "masses". It isn't Socialism, but it is Complete reliance on the government for one's very existence.

[gringoman]

We are not being being led down the path to Socialism. We are heading for Totalitarianism with one political party: THEM. That is: The uber-rich and their power-mad puppet government. We are their serfs. All "They" need is a big enough disaster to declare martial law and it's done...

Posted by: LongRifle | June 03, 2011 at 04:36 PM

Lenin and Trotsky understood perfectly. That's why they executed the "uber-rich", like the Tsar's entire family, and the tsar's "power mad puppet government."
They also got rid of what Obama's Pastor Wright derides as "middle-classism" while living in the mansion he got by rabble-rousing, and they did it with a speed that Obama can only dream of, at least in one 4-year term. The Bolshies (all heroes to Obama's mentors) ended "capitalist greed," all right.

I'm still waiting for socialist slogans less than a hundred years old.

ps Don't forget the French socialist from 1840, Pierre Proudhon. "Property is theft." Isn't that a neat one?

[Ummahgummah]

.

Actually, DJ, Rudy lost to the fancy shvartzeh mit de mustache on his first try and then took down the same guy next time around, becoming one of the Greatest Mayors the city ever had.

How do you know he can't take down the half-shvartzeh middout a mustache?

.

[thebuckstopshere]

NO not cynical, history imo, only proves to repeat its' self..........I have always thought, that the NATIVE AMERICAN, during "talks" of the oppresed & deserving REPARATIONS.......who deserved what & why?

GIVE US A CHOICE 2012

[Ummahgummah]

.

THAILAND: Muslims behead a 9-year-old boy (WARNING: Graphic Images)

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/thailand-muslims-behead-a-9-year-old-boy-warning-graphic-images/

Just what we need EVEN MORE of in the United States!

.