Category Archives: Election 2012

Obama Enters the Twilight Zone

(Commentary Magazine) If you want to gain a better appreciation for the fantasy world that President Obama is trying to create in order to win re-election, you couldn’t do much better than to read this New York Times story. The thrust of the article is that the president is planning to step up his offensive against an unpopular Congress, concluding that he cannot pass any major legislation in 2012 because of Republican hostility to his agenda. He intends to “hammer the theme of economic justice for ordinary Americans rather than continue his legislative battles with Congress,” said Joshua R. Earnest, the president’s deputy press secretary, previewing the White House’s strategy.

But here’s where things get interesting. “In terms of the president’s relationship with Congress in 2012,” Earnest said at a briefing, “the president is no longer tied to Washington, D.C.”

True enough. Obama isn’t tied to Washington, D.C.; it’s more accurate to say he embodies it. He is, after all, the nation’s chief executive. He lives in the White House. His desk is located in the West Wing. And his home and work area code is 202. Obama is primus inter pares of the political class.

Moreover, Obama, during the first two years of his presidency, was enormously successful in getting his agenda enacted into law. He got almost everything he wanted, which some of us believe is precisely the problem. And to the extent that we’re facing a “do-nothing” Congress today, the responsibility lies with the Democratically-controlled Senate, not the GOP House. These days the Senate (which has not passed a budget in more than 900 days) is the place legislation goes to die.

But to really enter the Twilight Zone, consider these two priceless sentences from the Times story: “Winning a full-year extension of the payroll tax, Mr. Earnest said, will still be a top priority. He noted that House Republicans were now also arguing that it should be extended for a year, after some initially opposed extending it at all.”

Come again? On December 13, the GOP House passed a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut – and was promptly criticized by – you guessed it — the president. Obama favored a much shorter, two-month extension. House Republicans, under intense political pressure, eventually agreed to the two-month extension. Now the White House is declaring a full-year extension is a “top priority.” Yet as recently as three weeks ago the opposition to the president’s “top priority” came not from House Republicans but from Obama himself.

We are now reaching the point in which the president is running a truly post-modern campaign, in which there is no objective truth but simply narrative. Obama’s campaign isn’t simply distorting the facts; it is inverting them. This kind of thing isn’t unusual to find in the academy. But to see a president and his campaign so thoroughly deconstruct truth in order to maintain power is quite rare. The sheer audacity of Obama’s cynicism is a wonder of the modern world.

17 Reasons Why A Vote For Mitt Romney Is A Vote For The New World Order

Once again, the Republican Party is being tempted to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. A lot of Republicans are actually considering voting for Mitt Romney because they have bought the lie that he has “the best chance” of defeating Barack Obama in 2012. But just because he is the Republican candidate that is most like Barack Obama does not mean that he has the best chance of defeating him. The truth is that no self-respecting Republican should ever vote for Mitt Romney. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order. Romney comes from the financial establishment, he is being showered with money from the financial establishment and he supports all of the goals of the financial establishment. This year, millions upon millions of dollars are being funneled into Romney’s campaign and into pro-Romney organizations. The New World Order is literally trying to buy the 2012 election for their dream candidate. Romney would be the ultimate Wall Street puppet, and if you cast a vote for Mitt Romney you are playing right into the hands of the financial elite.

If you do not believe that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for the New World Order, just consider Mitt Romney’s positions on the issues….

#1 The Federal Reserve

To the financial elite, there is no more important financial institution in the United States than the Federal Reserve, and Mitt Romney is a huge supporter of the Federal Reserve.

During one Republican debate, Romney actually tried to explain to all of us why “we need to have a Fed“.

Not only that, Mitt Romney has stated that he is not really concerned about what is going on over at the Federal Reserve. Mitt Romney has publicly stated that he is “not going to take my effort and focus on the Federal Reserve“.

That kind of talk is music to the ears of the financial elite.

Also, Romney fully supported the reappointment of Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve despite his absolutely horrific track record.

#2 Money From The Bankers

Mitt Romney is getting far, far, far more money from Wall Street bankers than any other Republican candidate.

In a recent article entitled “The Big Wall Street Banks Are Already Trying To Buy The 2012 Election“, I detailed how numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show that Mitt Romney is getting more money from the employees of the “too big to fail” Wall Street banks than all of the other Republican candidates combined.
Continued on next page

Santorum Schools Yet Another MSM Journalist on Obama’s Appeasement

by Joel B. Pollak

Last month, Sen. Rick Santorum schooled CNN’s Candy Crowley on the subject of President Barack Obama’s appeasement of America’s enemies.

Today, on NBC’s Meet the Press, it was David Gregory’s turn.

Like Crowley, Gregory attempted to “fact-check” Santorum by arguing that it could not possibly be “accurate” or “objective” to describe Obama’s foreign policy as “appeasement.”

In particular, he challenged Santorum to distinguish Obama’s policy on Iran from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush. (For several years, Democrats have tried to defend Obama by pointing out that the Bush administration refused to approve military strikes, either by the U.S. or by Israel.)

Santorum, as usual, delivered the facts on demand:

Santorum pointed out that Obama failed to support Iran’s democracy movement–and later added that Obama cut funding to pro-democracy programs that Bush had supported. He noted that Obama has given tacit support to Islamist political parties in Egypt and other Arab countries that oppose America and our allies.

At that, Gregory leapt in to accuse Santorum of “patently contradictory” stances–i.e. supporting democracy in Iran and not in Egypt. What Gregory fails to grasp is the context–namely, that the Iranian regime is anti-American, and the former Egyptian regime was pro-American.

Yet Santorum made an even better point, which is that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a democratic movement. (He could have added that then-Senator Barack Obama claimed to have opposed Palestinian elections in 2006 for the very same reason.)

Thwarted, Gregory quickly shifted back to Iran, claiming–without basis–that there is no “material difference” in how the Bush administration and the Obama administration have sought to disarm Iran. And–giving the game away–he insisted that “there is no good option” for disarming Iran, essentially endorsing Obama’s appeasement policy.

Like Crowley, Gregory–in desperation–asked Santorum what he would do differently. And, once again, Santorum was ready with a plan, which Gregory interrupted with false defenses of the administration. Eventually, Santorum was allowed to finish, promising to use air strikes to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power–and having thoroughly trounced Gregory.

Mediate, commenting on the exchange, suggests that Gregory went further than Crowley, crossing the line into “advocacy journalism” for the Obama administration. But Crowley was already well beyond that line. Gregory’s attempt to sandbag Santorum was even more partisan–and even less effective.

On foreign policy, Santorum is owning the debate, and the mainstream media.