Estrich has another moment of non-partisan good sense
Susan Estrich is a Democratic operative who sometimes shows the rare ability to criticize her own, and in the past she’s borne some of the consequences. Last night she spoke out again, this time in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, on the topic of the Obama administration war on Fox News. Estrich said:
The other thing I don’t get is why the mainstream media, which, frankly, would go absolutely nuts if George Bush had singled out MSNBC and said, you know, Nobody follow them, they’re not really a news organization, and we’re going to boycott — I mean, all my friends in the 1st Amendment crowd would be up in arms, saying, you know, the government shouldn’t be dictating to news organizations. And I’ve been a little stunned, frankly, by the silence from the press.
I think that if some of those friends caught these remarks of Estrich’s, they might be more than a little stunned that she’s breaking ranks to defend Fox News. She went on to add:
…[W]hat troubled me the most, when a couple of people were on the Sunday shows, and they basically said, Look, we don’t want these other networks following Fox, so if Fox breaks a news story like ACORN or Van Jones or something like that, we want the message to go out that if you follow Fox News, presumably, you’re going to be off our favorites list.
Now, what I would have expected is for the press in that kind of frontal attack to say, Hey, wait a minute. In a free society, the government doesn’t tell us what stories we can cover and what news we can broadcast. And I just think, in the short run, all these reporters may be worried that, you know, they want to be inside and they want to get the good sources.
Brava, Estrich! She goes on to add an appeal to the practical side of her party: a lot of swing voters enjoy watching Fox News, and it’s not nice to alienate and insult them. But her outrage at the non-response of other Democratic pundits to the anti-Fox vendetta of the Obama administration seems genuinely motivated by more than practical considerations. In this case, she actually seems devoted to a non-partisan higher principle.
Too bad there aren’t more people doing that, on both sides, as well as in the press. If there were, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in.
[ADDEMDUM: Here’s some good news. The second part, that is, not the first (emphasis added):
Fox is reporting on Special Report that the White House wanted to exclude Fox from the 5 member White House Pool who were going to be given access to Kenneth Feinberg.
The White House Pool, of which Fox has been a member since 1997, is a consortium of the five networks which fund its operations.
After the White House attempted to exclude Fox, the Washington bureau chiefs of the 5 networks met and announced none of them would participate if Fox were excluded.
First they came for Fox News….]
I agree – well done, Estrich. I’d have been dismayed if Bush comported himself in the fashion of Obama. It’s not a partisan thing; it’s un-Presidential (and a bit creepy into the bargain).
An interesting aspect:
Barack cannot hurt Fox News. Ratings are higher than ever.
Therefore: who gets hurt?
Here’s who: CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN. They HURT THEMSELVES if they follow Barack’s instruction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another interesting aspect: What is “news”?
Can a professional newsperson make an independent judgment about what constitutes “news”?
Apparently not. Rather, “news” has something to do with the identity of the messenger.
I suspect this tracks back to the common leftist belief that objective truth does not exist. If objective truth existed, then an independent judgment about “news” could be made. If objective truth existed, then the Obama Adminstration’s instruction to ignore Fox News stories would be laughable. If objective truth existed, the question would not be “Fox vs. not Fox”, but rather “news vs. not news”.
I’m sure the other reporters will respond that they have to protect their sources, presumably so they are in position to break the “really important” story. They’re all missing the big story under their noses: that the American press is failing to stand up for the First Amendment. Think of their failure vis-a-vis the Mohammed cartoons. What, one paper printed one cartoon?
Also, as somebody pointed out, did George W. Bush go after Michael Moore?
Most leftists I’ve known believe in objective truth. They just filter reality differently, often severely, especially if they only depend on the NY Times and their friends for news.
Sometimes one or another of them, like Estrich or Paglia, notice an incongruity and speak up. Sometimes one or another, like neo and some former leftists here, notice enough incongruities that they switch sides.
There is a big wave surf spot, now well-known, about 20 minutes south of San Francisco called Mavericks. A young man rode those giant waves alone for fifteen years but in all that time he could never get anyone to believe him because, well, everyone knew there were no big wave spots in California.
Right enough, if there were more people acting as Estrich did last night, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in. What puzzles, though, is the question of precisely what the fix is . Is it, as some regular posters here think, a matter of the Obamoids overplaying their hands and underestimating the reaction they’re courting come next November, as the people reassert the Constitution? Or is it, as some others think, an actual revolution , all the way up to and including the uglier undersides of tyranny about which we in this country have heretofore only ever heard stories? Are they moving us past the point where we will be able to throw the bums out in the next election cycle? I don’t know, but I’m tending to think more and more that we are. These guys are not stupid, they can see as well as anyone else that they’re stirring up a back-lash. The suspicion arises that they don’t care, because they have plans to render it moot. They certainly don’t seem to care, it’s not slowing them down at all. They haven’t gotten anything through Congress yet, but I notice that after yesterday’s health-care vote in the Senate, the Democrat senators have been summoned to the White House. Hmmm. I also notice that the CBO health-care scorings of the last few weeks have been tortured to make them look not-so-bad–following Mr. Elmendorf’s similar summons to the Oval Office for a nice friendly, er, visit (a visit, btw, that was unprecedented–the head of the CBO has never been summoned by any other president). And of course you don’t have to get anything through Congress to regulate executive compensation, or have the FTC begin strangling the internet, or hit business up-side the head with carbon dioxide regulations, or any of many other dictatorial actions that are being taken. The executive branch controls the bureaucracy, and the Czars in the White House appear to be untethered. If the pace of Change continues, there’s no telling where we might be by November 2010. I’m not 100% sure we’ll be in the voting booth, though.
An old style, JFK Democrat, as Estrich appears to be, would recognize this blatant attack on the 1st Admendment by this presidency, and would be fighting against it.
I hope, somewhere within the recesses of the alphabet news services there are some who are feeling a bit uncomfortable with this. IF not, then this presidency is in more control of the media than I would wish to think, and we are in very deep trouble. A very short step from there to true tyranny.
Neo, I think you’re right about how the evidence, in very small bits and pieces, keeps mounting as to what this administration is all about. This move is the attempt to keep that information away from the vast majority of Americans who don’t make it a daily habit to follow closely what is going on. If it doesn’t show up in the local paper, Good Morning America, or in the 5 minute news on the radio during the drive to work, most don’t know about it.
You also don’t have to get anything through Congress to have the Justice Department declare the results of a local referendum in Kinston, NC to be null and void.
I know a goodly number of leftists who deny the existence of objective reality, Huxley. Nearly all of social science and liberal arts instruction in universities is based on that very denial. There’s a thriving industry in the academy that works to show the laws of physics to be socially constructed by oppressor classes. I’m surprised you’ve not heard of it.
In this case, she actually seems devoted to a non-partisan higher principle.
Too bad there aren’t more people doing that, on both sides, as well as in the press.
I’m sure we can come to reasonable accomodations on unisex bathrooms, euthanasia, tax payer funding for late-term abortions, the Iranian nuclear program, tax increases and the Fairness doctrine if only more righties could see the non-partisan Higher Principles in these things.
Really, George W. Bush’s non-partisan work with the democrats on Campaign Finance Reform, No Child Left Behind and The Senior’s Drug Benefits were the high point of his administration. As more Righties devote themselves to such non-partisan higher principles, we can expect such successful initiatives like these
I think President McCain really devoted his campaign to the non-partisan higher principles both the left and right have in common. It was the foundation of his electoral victory.
Gray: don’t pretend to not know what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the knee-jerk defense of one’s own party members when they’re doing something wrong. Politicians, pundits, and bloggers on both sides are often guilty of such a thing.
I am hardly advocating non-partisanship for its own sake. I have no interest in that. But I believe that the more people who are devoted to the basic principles on which this country was built—such as freedom of the press, for example—the better off we will be. The emphasis is on the phrase higher principle rather than the phrase non-partisan.
This whole thing has put a whole new layer of humor into the ‘state run media’ joke / line.
I know a goodly number of leftists who deny the existence of objective reality, Huxley.
betsybounds: I don’t.
I’ve run into a few who took Carlos Castaneda or their college philosophy courses too seriously, but those were a very few.
Otherwise the leftists I know earnestly believe that there is an objective truth and that truth is entirely on their side. Thus those of us who disagree must be either demented, ignorant, or evil.
These guys are not stupid, they can see as well as anyone else that they’re stirring up a back-lash. The suspicion arises that they don’t care, because they have plans to render it moot. They certainly don’t seem to care, it’s not slowing them down at all.
That’s one interpretation. Mine is that they are riding the tiger and barely managing to hang on.
This becomes clearer when one examines their foreign policy problems. The Obami just discovered that Russia and Iran negotiated in bad faith over the last several months. Therefore the big victories for smart power the Obami believed they would be announcing about now have vanished — worse yet been revealed as defeats. That was not a clever plan.
Likewise Afghanistan. Obama blithely assumed it was the easy war and his big “we have a strategy and we are moving forward” speech from last March is now null and void. That wasn’t a clever plan either.
The Obama administration just can’t execute. They don’t understand how the big leagues work. They are mystified that other people have other interests. They won’t just roll over and love Obama and do as he says.
huxley: your point of view and that of betsybounds are not necessarily antithetical to each other. The question is: how will Obama react to the failure of some of his policies—for example, the ones you mention? Will he change them to something more successful? Or will he continue in the same fashion, and become more tyrannical and controlling at home as well?
Gray: don’t pretend to not know what I’m talking about.
In all honesty, I wasn’t too sure until this clarification.
I’m talking about the knee-jerk defense of one’s own party members when they’re doing something wrong. Politicians, pundits, and bloggers on both sides are often guilty of such a thing.
I was impressed when the dems fired Charles Rangel from the Ways and Means comittee while the Republicans continued to defend Larry Craig. I mean look at the way Barney Frank lost his seat for running a prostitution ring out of his house while the Republicans locked arms defendin Mark Foley.
Or look at how we got President Gore after Clinton’s
impeachment–unlike the dogged Republican defense and support Nixon got.
Republicans are known for tenaciously defending their own against any whiff of scandal–look at how Republicans of all stripes rushed to defend Limbaugh over the NFL thing. And certainly the Republican party stood by Sarah Palin.
Heck, look at the dogged loyalty conservative bloggers such as Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson have shown to other conservatives whether it was warranted or not.
I am hardly advocating non-partisanship for its own sake. I have no interest in that. But I believe that the more people who are devoted to the basic principles on which this country was built–such as freedom of the press, for example–the better off we will be. The emphasis is on the phrase higher principle rather than the phrase non-partisan.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. I was just “busting your chops” ‘cuz I am sick of Republicans not defending each other and sticking up for their own principles.
huxley: well, I know leftists who believe both simultaneously. That is, they believe that there is no objective truth, and that everything they believe is the objective truth. Contradictions of that sort don’t bother them.
Gray: I get it. We will agree to agree, then.
And I think it was dispicable the way the Republican administration stuck by their Treasury Secretary even though he was a Tax Cheat!
And the way Big Republican Hollywood donors stuck up for a pedophile? Terrible.
(sorry, sorry…. Couldn’t help it. It’s too much fun)
Gray: I get it. We will agree to agree, then.
Oh, yeah!? Well, very well then!
hahahah
“the leftists I know earnestly believe that there is an objective truth and that truth is entirely on their side. Thus those of us who disagree must be either demented, ignorant, or evil.”
Ditto that. My oldest, closest friend is like this. For the most part I quit talking about political matters to him, as it’s simply pointless. When I do get sucked into talking about politics with him, it really is that way: it’s like I’ve stepped on a patch of ice I didn’t see, and for a moment I’m stuck. What I do is, I engage just enough so he can imagine I’m actually participating in the conversation, and I let him rant himself out.
Or will he continue in the same fashion, and become more tyrannical and controlling at home as well?
neo: Possibly. But if so, I’m not worried. I’m sure Obama will fail at such an attempt as well.
I see no reason to suppose that Obama is going to become a master strategist after he has failed a bunch of times and is far less popular.
Nor do I see any magic levers he can pull to give himself tyrannical powers.
If he tries to go that way, my bet is that he will be impeached faster than you can say Dick Nixon.
Betsy is correct in her assertion that the no universal truthers prevail over the universal truthers on college campuses today. In fact, it’s the hot methodological approach and has been the dominant ‘paradigm’ in research and teaching for over a couple of decades. It’s called the interpretative method, among other things. In a nutshell it’s the idea, of course, that each of us are shaped by our unique upbringing, by our unique and particular experiences through life, and we bring those to bear in our processing of things; we see life through though those lens. Hence, this explains (they say) why two people can witness the exact same event and have different interpretations of it. The logical extension, therefore, is that there are no universal truths and anyone who believes so is misinformed. It is the dominate paradigm on American campuses and, hence, is taught to many many students.
See Akira Kurosawa’s brilliant 1950 movie called Rashomon for an early rendition of the idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon_(film)
each of us is shaped — not each of us are shaped
huxley: Impeached by whom? The Pelosi House, and then convicted by the Reid Senate?
Let’s hope if he does try, it’s after 2010, and that the legislature will have gotten a lot less heavily Democrat by then.
neo: If Obama tries for some kind of tyranny, that will be an American House and an American Senate.
I have yet to hear a specific plausible scenario for Obama to take that kind of power.
The Pelosi House and the Reid Senate, so far, can’t even pass health care reform — with supermajorities.
huxley: in order to convict Obama, however, they would have to get together and vote, first for impeachment and then conviction. It’s hard for me to imagine what Obama would have to do to cause that. It’s quite a different thing from failing to garner the votes for his health care bill.
I suppose that if Breitbart and Fox posted a video showing Obama talking on the phone to Ahmadinejad, telling him that he’s with him and that America is the Great Satan, that just might do it. Of course, there’s always the chance that it would be discounted because it violated a wiretapping law, or because it came via Fox News.
Obama et al are very, very careful about the words they use. By saying that FOX is not a news organization, is an arm of the Republican Party, is pushing an agenda, and now today that they are like Talk Radio, he is smoothing the way for FOX to be included in the upcoming revival of the Fairness Doctrine, effectively taking them off the air. The attacks on Rush, Hannity and Beck are toward the same end. This worries me more than anything else he’s done or said, and that’s saying something.
I have a nagging sense that Obama is already trying for some kind of tyranny. He and the Congressional Democrats haven’t yet passed any one or a blend of their several health-care bills, but they are nothing daunted. They are certainly not withdrawing the basic idea in recognition of the American people’s pretty firm opposition to it. They are instead reverting to a shell-game, hiding the public-option pea in first this version of a cup and then in that. They pretty openly contemplate subsuming one or another of the ultimately passed versions as one or more amendments in unrelated legislation and then passing it by use of the nuclear option they pretended to be horrified by when Republicans mentioned it as a way to confirm judges. The shyster side-show carny with the actual cups and the pea is slack-jawed with awe at this awful power display. When the thing passes, it will be no less of a steam-roller for having had to go ’round the block a time or two first.
Their determination to get it through by hook, crook, or brute force strikes me as a pretty clear indication that it’s about a fair bit more than health-care. This is not something incidental to them, or something they merely favor because they have the good of the Republic and its citizens at heart.
Actually, Obama would claim he was playing brilliant chess with Ahmadinejad, and was 6 moves ahead of everyone else in the world, and Obama’s claim would be believed. Witness Hillary’s claim that supporting Chavez equates to opposing Chavez. Hillary didn’t comment on it, but her claim necessarily means that opposing Honduran equates to supporting Honduran democracy.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors–I lost my head! 🙂
Well these guys tend to do that to me.
Actually their refusal, or failure if you prefer, to either stop or moderate this awful health-care push in the face of stiff and mounting opposition says worlds about their view of Americans as a self-governing people. Their failure to do the same with the infamous cap-and-trade garbage bill, instead holding it in the wings, says even more about the same subject. These people think we should all just shut up and listen to our betters, which is them. I do not for a moment think they are beyond getting more than just pushy about it. They’ve been moving towards this like an army for too many years to pull back now that they might be on the verge of success. Behold, the ’60s.
huxley: in order to convict Obama, however, they would have to get together and vote, first for impeachment and then conviction. It’s hard for me to imagine what Obama would have to do to cause that. It’s quite a different thing from failing to garner the votes for his health care bill.
neo: If Obama made a clear lunge for tyrannical power — some sort of Seven Days in May coup from the Oval Office — I say the country, Congress, the military, and the courts would go against him.
Otherwise, I’m not sure what commenters mean by tyranny. I read about death camps and gulags under Obama but I see no way to get there from here barring something absolutely catastrophic like nuclear war.
huxley: I don’t know about the death camps, etc., or whether they would ever come. But from what I’ve seen so far I must disagree with you about the rest, although I hope I’m wrong and you’re right.
Sometimes tyranny comes softly and in disguise—in fact, in some ways, the signs are already here, and very few (other than Estrich, for example) have broken party lines to condemn it. Obama is testing the waters, and mostly he’s finding them okay. Not much of a peep from his followers.
Most people expect tyranny to come looking and acting exactly like the Nazis or the Soviets. It won’t.
Anderson Cooper is another journalist who has strayed off the reservation , if only temporarily. Which is interesting because not long ago he made a decidedly partisan “teabaggers” comment about the tea parties; this was talked up by many as showing that CNN was not the “objective” network that the administration claaimed it was, Here is Newsbusters on Anderson Cooper’s recent show.
Maybe there is some hope, after all. The basic problem is that while ∅bama wants to “transform” America, most do not agree with him. He got only about half the popular vote in the Democratic primaries against Hillary, a decidedly less tranformative politician. He got only a little more than half of the popular vote in November. Many simply voted for the Un-Dubya, not for the Chicagofication of America.
HT: http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/
I would say specific individuals and entities are experiencing a sort of tyranny.
And what is the saying? First they came for the executives, Mark Steyn (well that was in Canada), doctors, insurance companies, military personnel (having a hard time even voting in VA), Sarah Palin, Oprah, Estrich, Rush, Big Pharma, etc…..
We typists… we don’t feel it but what is the rest of the saying? When they came for us – nobody was there to help….
I’m liking Susan Estrich, with her sense of reason and skepticism, more and more. However, I get the feeling she coils the spring to let it snap back flinging loose-hangers to the far Left; Susan, I’m watching you.
I’ve liked her for quite some time, even during the campaign she strayed from the party line regularly, I think she is viewed as an outsider.
The push back from the other networks today at the White house shows a glimmer, just a glimmer of hope.
I think it’s worth remembering that the Bible tells us the Devil can disguise himself as an angel of light. Ergo: we should not imagine that the true nature of what comes at us will be clear.
Again, I’m relying on metaphors. But you know, in recent days I’ve been thinking that we are looking at the beginnings of a new Dark Ages. I hate that, and because of how much I hate it I hope with all my heart that Huxley is right. I have 2 children and would love to be a grandma and just play the family game. I fear it is not to be. But worse than that is the fear that my grandchildren and their grandchildren after them will have to fight their way out of the abyss.
nyomythus and Darrell,
I’m with you, I like her too and have for some time. But she’s an outlier. I fear it’s not enough.
Sometimes tyranny comes softly and in disguise…. Obama is testing the waters, and mostly he’s finding them okay. Not much of a peep from his followers.
It makes me feel better that other bright, savvy, well-read people can see this.
It pleases me more that most of the bright, savvy, well-read people who see this value every ammendment of the Bill of Rights and aren’t afraid to exercise those rights.
Tyranny:
http://www.reuters.com/article/regulatoryNewsConsumerGoodsAndRetail/idUSN2237873320091022?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=11604
Tyranny with a crappily formated URL….
huxley: I don’t know about the death camps, etc., or whether they would ever come. But from what I’ve seen so far I must disagree with you about the rest, although I hope I’m wrong and you’re right.
neo: rickl brought up the gulags and death camps if the 2010 elections don’t go right and other commenters signed off on it.
Maybe you or someone — other than Artfldgr of course — can explain the concerns about Obama as tyrant.
I don’t trust or like Obama and I’m sure he has the standard authoritarian instincts common to leftists and elitists everywhere.
Nonetheless, desiring to do something is not the same as trying to do something, and trying to do something is not the same as succeeding at doing something.
What sort of tyranny, hard or soft, do you have in mind specifically? How do you imagine an American president might achieve such tyranny? And, finally, does anyone here really think that Obama has the brains and balls to pull off something like that?
Obama doesn’t have a fanatical following of Americans, he doesn’t have the support of the military, he doesn’t have a well-oiled political machine, his brown shirt ACORN brigade has been eviscerated, his czars are a long way from being an effective shadow government, his wealthy supporters are fleeing, so what resources does Obama have for subverting perhaps the oldest and certainly the most powerful republic in history?
There really is no magic button on the underside of the desk in the Oval Office that reads “In Case of Emergency, Press to Assume Dictatorial Powers.”
huxley: actually, I’ve written about this a lot. The most likely template is something like the Chavez route. Or it could be even more subtle than that. It’s not a magic button; no one has ever said that. It happens in a series of small steps, and all the warning signs are there.
For example, the attempts to isolate and demonize Fox News continues day by day. One of the goals is to frighten other news stations and the MSM into complying, or they get their access cut off, too. It’s been my experience in life that very very few people have the cojones to become profiles in courage. Also, using something like the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle talk radio, if successful, would control even further the information getting out to Americans. This would enable Obama to push for more and more government control of our economy (which is already happening anyway) and our lives.
I don’t have to spell it out step by step. It would happen insidiously, and I don’t think it would involve gulags. The proper comparison is the boiling frog.
Pingback:Washington Rebel
I’ll submit that we are close to tyranny now, congress was supposed to be a check and balance on the executive and the supreme court was a check on both. Right now if weren’t for the blue dogs they would have a blank check, 2 more supreme court retirements with living constitution types as replacements and its a big problem.
With congress working in virtually lock step with the executive we have already ruled that check and balance envisioned in the constitution null and void, the fact that they aren’t getting anything through now may spur some confidence for the short term, until they strong arm or bribe with pork the few malcontents.
Partisanship to me is the big problem, too much of society is willing to accept ludicrous ideas because that’s what the “party” supports rather than reasoned thought against the ideas the country was founded on, case in point, the fox news debacle, those that screamed about the first amendment the last eight years barely make a peep at the huge over reach of trying to affect negative news.
Move on to cap and trade, food regulation, accepting UN crap laws, nationalization of industry and finance and on and on, its getting weird, too weird to be incompetence.
There will be no death camps or gulags, we are too well armed for that but, the increasing encroachment in every facet of American life that we used to be tasked with providing for ourselves will create a virtual gulag that we will be free to walk around in as we please, just don’t speak ill, do for yourself or try to oppose it.
I think they are over confident but I think they believe they have an ace in the hole to minimize the electorate, legalize illegal immigrants and allow the borders to flood, that could nullify any major movement to unseat the current government. We could turn things in 2010 but not if the votes get flooded with grateful and loyal votes of people seeking a second chance and seeing the democrats as providing it. It could be reason behind the talk radio and fox news demonization. Who will speak against it and who will hear it?
Nonetheless, desiring to do something is not the same as trying to do something, and trying to do something is not the same as succeeding at doing something.
Keep telling yourself that.
so what resources does Obama have for subverting perhaps the oldest and certainly the most powerful republic in history?
The wealth of that republic:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-13-House-wealth-gap-Democrats-richest-districts_N.htm
This would enable Obama to push for more and more government control of our economy (which is already happening anyway) and our lives.
Whoa! You really get it (I don’t have to tell you this)
At a visceral level, you get it. I’ve followed this blog for a few years ‘cuz it is fascinating: the ‘changing’ the ‘circle dance’….
You’re well outside the circle now.
All I can offer is:
Never forget: “The monsters are the monsters.”
It’s called the interpretative method, among other things. In a nutshell it’s the idea, of course, that each of us are shaped by our unique upbringing, by our unique and particular experiences through life, and we bring those to bear in our processing of things; we see life through though those lens. Hence, this explains (they say) why two people can witness the exact same event and have different interpretations of it. The logical extension, therefore, is that there are no universal truths and anyone who believes so is misinformed.
No, the logical extension is that everything they just said is gibberish, along with what I just said, and that in fact what anyone says can’t really be understood, so it’s a waste of time to say anything or listen to what anyone else says.
So it would be nice if they would follow their own rules and just shut up, but it’s not possible for them to understand that either.
huxley: actually, I’ve written about this a lot. The most likely template is something like the Chavez route.
After Chavez was elected, he didn’t just amend the Venezuelan constitution, he succeeded in replacing it with a new constitution. What are the chances Obama could do that next year here? Or after the 2010 election with less control of Congress?
As I recall our earlier discussion, we concluded that tampering with the US Constitution was not a viable option for Obama.
Furthermore Chavez had already attempted a military coup in 1992. Chavez is a very different man with a very different history than Obama, and Venezuela is a very different country than the United States.
I don’t see that the Chavez/Venezuela story informs this discussion of Obama/United States much at all.
It’s not a magic button; no one has ever said that. It happens in a series of small steps, and all the warning signs are there.
We will have to agree to disagree. As far as I’m concerned this is just hand-waving and ignores the basic political reality that America is a long-term stable center-right country deeply steeped in the ideals of freedom and independence.
The harder Obama pushes America to the left and towards authoritarianism, the more resistance he will meet — as we are already seeing — and that resistance is stronger than Obama.
Sure, he can attack Fox News and that’s already backfiring. If he could get the Fairness Doctrine through Congress, he would already have done so.
Again, Obama can’t get his more conventional healthcare reform and climate change bills through during his honeymoon. How likely is it that he can push more extreme changes on the country when he is weaker?
History is littered with bright minded and strong people who trusted the institutions and norms of their country’s political processes when confronted with an ambitious hope and change-type demagogue. I’m not a reactionary and I’m not susceptible to conspiracy type theories. The simple fact is that I can see a creeping (creepy) grab for power from the Obamaites and I don’t have a good feeling about it. I choose not to put my head in the sand of trusting the system to be a barrier, not with this group. This blog has been over this issue numerous time. So, let’s just agree to disagree and move on.
Perhaps some charismatic, iron-willed, machiavellian mastermind could have become president last January and could have played America into tyranny. Perhaps.
But I submit that Obama is not that man. Since his inauguration Obama has succeeded at very little, met setbacks at nearly every turn, and is losing more and more support.
Obama does not have the brains, the guts or the resources to gain tyrannical power.
If he did, if he was that much of an operator, we would have seen the signs of it, and Obama would be in a much better position than he is now.
39 more months or so to go Hux. 39 more months. We’ll see soon enough. I hope you are right.
choose not to put my head in the sand of trusting the system to be a barrier…
JohnC: Excuse me. I am not putting my head into the sand. I have examined this situation carefully from all sides.
I was quite worried during the summer when it appeared that Obama was going to pull off the one-two punch of cap-and-trade and ObamaCare in a matter of weeks. But he failed. The tide has turned and the resistance of the country towards radical change has become clear.
From my point of view, many commenters here are putting their heads solely into their fears and into the facts that validate those fears. I don’t think that’s a good way to function.
After Chavez was elected, he didn’t just amend the Venezuelan constitution, he succeeded in replacing it with a new constitution. What are the chances Obama could do that next year here? Or after the 2010 election with less control of Congress?
he doesnt have to.
he only has to sign the climate treaty and that takes care of that.
just as europe and uk lost their sovereignty
or didnt you notice that the member countries constitutuions are still in palce, but superceded by a higher power?
the points your using to say its not possible are not whats being used.
its like thinking a diamond cutter uses his mind or his head to break a diamond and literally believing thats what they are doing.
you will then announce that this is not possible.
while the diamond cutter isnt using the principal that your believing is the one that has to happen to get it to work.
you can put it UNDER a higher non elected power without changing it. and then its only a buffer for how to make laws that dont conflict with the above power.
unless you understand how all this works (which you and others are VERY loath to do), your not going to figure out the process until its way too late. which is the point.
if the opponents methods are inscrutable, you lose.
if they are scrutable but you refuse to accept the results, you lose just the same.
all they will keep doing is surprising you all the time
and every time you think they are done for, they will end up not done for, and you will be surprised.
go back and read your posts for the past year, and others. this is exactly what is happening.
if 2+2 = 4, but 4 is not allowed as an answer. you are forever loced out of opposing things just as surely as a combination lock keeps you out of a safe.
by the way, the 2+2 = 5 thing was from Orwell, but the inspiration is Stalin. the first five year plan was completed in 4 years… so 5 year plan = two years and two years.
Huxley – I might have overstated that. I didn’t mean any harm, of course, so please don’t take it personally. It’s pretty obvious that you want to continue talking about this issue though, so I will a little more. As you know, we all try to understand and interpret the facts about things as best we can. And, at least we here try to do it with honesty. I just don’t agree with your premises in this case. My interpretation of the facts tell me to be very vigilante about Obama’s moves and to not underestimate this group. There is such a thing as creeping soft totalitarianism and that’s were my mind says this is going. It doesn’t take a brilliant demagogue to set it in place. It only takes a complacent population to do that, including those bright ones who put their trust in a system of norms and processes.
Click for cartoon
http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2009/10/23/the-enemy-must-be-destroyed/
the constitution of the US is a Maginot line…
not a berm that can be traversed like the constitution of venezeula
how was the maginot line defeated?
they went around it.
the logic that it cant happen is exactly the same logic that the french used in creating the maginot line.
they too couldnt see an answer that was obvious. and they too thought they were being very smart, and that no one could do anything about it.
The Maginot Line (IPA: [maÊ’i’noË], French: Ligne Maginot), named after French Minister of Defense André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defenses, which France constructed along its borders with Germany and Italy, in the light of experience from World War I, and in the run-up to World War II. Generally the term describes only the defenses facing Germany, while the term Alpine Line is used for the Franco-Italian defenses.
The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilize in the event of attack and/or to entice Germany to attack neutral Belgium to avoid a direct assault on the line. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. The fortification system successfully dissuaded a direct attack. However, it was an ineffective strategic gambit, as the Germans did indeed invade Belgium, flanked the Maginot Line, and proceeded relatively unobstructed.[
its the same…
and the belgium border was not an easy pass as most say, it was that it was hard and surmountable, where the other was not.
FAILURE to think in terms of whats happening now, doomed france to fall and the rise of the vichy state… and engels conflagration happened there.
forever destroying the majority connection to the old culture in substance (but not image which could be remade from photos, like bell bottom pants today. same style, not same attitude of those wearing it), which was its larger reason it happened (sans the simple answer of just conquest. it was conquest to facilitate ideology, not just greed, if it was greed, theywould have stopped and consolidated for a while. they were on a mission not a egg hunt)
now france and eriope is all aprt of a soviet..
but heck…
we dont even know what soviet means…
we think we know through usage.
but if you studied fascism by usuage you would never get to what it actually is.
huxley,
I’m looking at it daily just like you.
I respect you and you come with good reasoning.
You wrote, “The tide has turned and the resistance of the country towards radical change has become clear.”
I see that. But we simply can’t be ginne up with “no” for each and every bill going through Congress right now – and they have been passing bills.
Yes. The large sweeping changes are having trouble because we have prioritized our angst against those.
I do not think the Democrats in Congress (and Olympia Snowe) will stop – they are working ever harder to get what they want done.
As far as the executive branch – it has powers to do things every day through executive order or just by conversation with a department head or czar. We aren’t in on those conversations…
Examples of soft tyranny that will only continue:
1) Making null and void the contracts that paid 25 top executives a certain amount – cutting their pay 90% – Can I get a comment on this from you?
2) Waging a war (not just of words) against insurance companies and fox news
3) Turning the guns against governors (unfunded mandates) and cops (acting stupidly comments against Cambridge police), and how many other individuals and entities.
So as the executive branch carries out it’s daily activities – with no shame – we personally may not feel it but first they came for such and such group/person and when they came for us …
That may sound ridiculous but i’ve felt it for a long time living here in CA and my family makes 6 figures when you combine our incomes. Any family in that situation is:
a) In the top 10% of income earners
b) pays 90% of the income taxes
and you see the Joe Plumber response for what it is – Marxism
and they come for Michael Steele today
http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2009/10/22/ofa-dnc-call-out-steele-in-new-web-video/
I tend to see this Huxley’s way, for the most part. On the one hand, I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion reached by many here, that Obama and his people are attempting what amounts to the tyrannical destruction of basic American freedoms. They may not contemplate literally setting the Constitution aside a la Chavez, but what they are trying to do to the country and its institutions would amount to the same thing. However, like Huxley, I’ve recently been encouraged by the accelerating failures, ineptitude, shilly-shallying, tone-deafness, and dopey PR errors of this administration — and even more by the gathering pushback from Americans, the rest of the world, and little by little, here and there, even from the MSM. It’s getting to be too painfully clear to too many observers that this is, as some brilliant person said, not a case of the Emperor having no clothes, but of the clothes having no Emperor. I’m not as worried as I was.
All the same, we aren’t anywhere near out of the woods and I don’t think it’s wrong to acknowledge that. Huxley, I agree that it’s dangerous to become so obsessed by our fears that we’re governed by them rather than the other way around — that way lies paranoia, self-defeat and despair, not to mention the Derangement Syndrome that made loonies out of so many last time around. But paying attention to our instincts is a basic principle of self-defense. If there’s something about that guy in the corner that’s giving you the creeps — well, it frequently turns out that there’s an excellent reason. Even if we’re pretty sure he doesn’t have what it takes to pull off a successful assault, it’s just good sense to keep a wary eye on him.
Thank you Mrs Whatsit. Excellent!
Huxley,
Saying that Obama has failed at passing health care reform and climate legislation is rather like saying that by May 1944 the Allies had failed at taking Monte Cassino in Italy. You appear to be underestimating their wiliness and determination. I listened to some reports out of the Congress this morning, and they are moving this pea around under the several shells, hiding it first here and then there like the shyster carny I described earlier. It has in no way been stopped or defeated.
You are also not recognizing the awful damage that is being done without any Congressional action at all, by regulation and edict. Again, Democrat hostility to, and contempt for, American self-government is on full display. The fact that the country doesn’t want their program leaves them unmoved. They are not packing it in and giving up in the face of popular resistance. I’m not saying they will prevail, but I’m also not saying they won’t. The face of the battle to come is being revealed; it’s going to be neither quick nor easy, and the outcome is by no means as clear as you seem to think it. The great imponderable is the stomach Americans are going to have for the fight.
Mrs. Whatsit wrote, “Even if we’re pretty sure he doesn’t have what it takes to pull off a successful assault”
The assault is going on currently.
I think the question is will it continue? Is that the question?
What makes anybody think he will stop? And it isn’t about Obama. It’s about the agenda of the Democrat party and liberals in general (including RINO’s). If we make it about Obama – we lost.
This expansion of federal power is happening. It isn’t just one man doing it.
As we see the dollar’s value decline by 40% compared to other currencies …
our grandchildren’s debt increase by a factor of two or three
no end in sight to companies bracing themselves and trying to figure out how to be profitable with the employees they have instead of hiring…
Capitalism is NOT understood by Democrats.
And the daily barrage of attacks against individuals and entities keep happening.
I suppose it doesn’t help that I’m in CA and I see no light at the end of the tunnel here either. We have 12.3% unemployment.
Thanks to you too betsybounds. Such bright minds!
The Fairness Doctrine doesn’t have to be pushed through Congress. It is a regulation, not a bill. The bureaucracy at the FCC can do it without a single vote beyond those of the commission itself, and it is controlled by Democrats. There have been noises made about getting it done through local content regulations as well. They will find a way. And popular sentiment will not hinder them.
And then it will be enforced, because that is the the job of the Executive Branch.
I’ve recently been encouraged by the accelerating failures, ineptitude, shilly-shallying, tone-deafness, and dopey PR errors of this administration
thats only beacuse movies made the socialists out to be such capable and respectable opponents.
what you dont know is how normal that ineptitude is, and how this kind of power grab requires that level of ineptitude!!!
that is, they are cargo cult, so all despots are inept. they are made more inept seeming because what they implement can never work.
however, you havent worked out the mechanics. i have revealed some of them. but its complicated.
which is why they are winnign and inept, and we are losing and capable.
hint, stupids are natural followers, the smart are natural what? you can get 500 dumb people to fight for you and die for you, you cant get 20 smart people to decide quickly what to have for lunch.
so its not the incompetent there, its the competent there in another sphere!!!
in the sphere of force, the smart are too stupid to act right. they can rationlize what the dumb cant.
oh.. one other thing… the dumb will not follow the smart, they think they are being manupualted, the dumb follow the slightly smarter, who follow the smarter.
so the much smarter capable people are not in your sight. they are the string pullers behind the incompetents.
after all, would you give so much power to a person working for you who could competently weild it without your help and make you incapable of taking that power back?
of course though… everyone has been so right in their analysis…
just go back and read the others and read what i said, and see who has been AHEAD of the curve.
my failure has been to get you guys ahead of it, rather than trailing just behind it.
that is your mostly reactionary, and communists are not reactionaries, they are actionaries. meanign they make things happen unnaturally.
so if your reacting to them, then who is winning?
anyone want to explain ooda loops?
posts not going up for some reason again…
I agree that it’s dangerous to become so obsessed by our fears that we’re governed by them rather than the other way around – that way lies paranoia
I’m often credited with the motto, “Only the paranoid survive.” I have no idea when I first said this, but the fact remains that, when it comes to business, I believe in the value of paranoia. Business success contains the seeds of its own destruction. The more successful you are, the more people want a chunk of your business and then another chunk and then another until there is nothing left. I believe that the prime responsibility of a manager is to guard constantly against other people’s attacks and to inculcate this guardian attitude in the people under his or her management.
do you fear tiny purple people with large pink noses are going to sniff and snort you to death?
nope… and so you do nothing about them.
same with tyrants and despots..
one must conceive before one can beleive, and paranoia makes the conceivable but unconscionable, possible
by the way, the quote is from the foudner of INTEL
Andrew S Grove (link deleted to get post to post)
second part… (it thought that intel link was spam)
didnt you ever wonder why all the despots are paranoid?
if they werent they would never have stopped all the things that would have prevented them from acquiring their goal.
that is, they were scared enough to cover the bases and take action to insure outcomes agaisnt unknowns.
they win over the secure, lazy and sedate who are more paranoid about their own actions changing the course that they want for their lives.
in essence, everyone holds still like a deer in the headlights hoping the scary thing will pass and they can go on with live with only the jitters that are now gone.
they have not realized that the lives they planed have been stolen from them yet, and so they ahve nto realized that holding still will not work…
they are safe secure, and confident that once everyone finds out, someone else will do the work and that everything will be ok.
want to know why “Grizzley Man” and the woman he brought along with him died being torn apart by a very large bear?
they werent paranoid of large bears
Grizzly Man is a 2005 documentary film by German director Werner Herzog. It chronicles the life and death of bear enthusiast Timothy Treadwell. The film consists of Treadwell’s own footage of his interactions with grizzly bears before he and his girlfriend were killed and partially eaten by a bear in 2003, and of interviews with people who knew or were involved with Treadwell. The footage he shot was later found
and what about jennifer moore?
While discussing the recent rape and murder of 18-year-old Jennifer Moore during the August 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O’Reilly appeared to suggest that the clothing she was wearing at the time helped incite her killer. O’Reilly discussed several factors that contributed to the “moronic” girl’s rape and murder, including that she was drunk and wandering the streets of New York City alone late at night. But in addition to those factors, O’Reilly added: “She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at 2 in the morning.”
According to news reports, Moore and a friend attended a nightclub in New York City on the night of July 26. After discovering that Moore’s car had been towed late in the evening, the two girls — for unknown reasons — were separated, leaving Moore walking alone near the Hudson River. Moore was later raped and murdered, and her body was found in a garbage bin two days later.
she wasnt paranoid enough of reality to stay alive.
Christopher McCandless
another one… who wasnt paranoid enough to live in the wild… thought it woudl be easy… hiked into alaska wilderness like a lot of other greens..
found starved in a dilapidated school bus he was using for shelter.
here is the point..
at what point is an irrational fear irrational?
if your drunk and tiny, pretty, and mostly naked, was it irrational to have a fear about what could happen? i would say no (feminists would have a different spin that she is not responsible. the difference si between theory in reality. in theory she should not have to worry, in reality she did).
in the case of bears… all the times that they didnt get eaten allowed them to develop an irrational state of security…
and thats the rub..
paranoia is an irrational fear of something
i have no idea what being irrationally secure would be…
but in case you dont realize, thats another inversion. the inversion of parnoia.
the idea is to make you irrationally secure, so that you cant be rationally paranoid.
then your defensless
failure if you prefer, to either stop or moderate this awful health-care push in the face of stiff and mounting opposition says worlds about their view of Americans as a self-governing people
it says to me that they ahve a coordinated plan that certain things ahve to happen by a certain time to be ready for december, and to be ready for whats coming up.
that is, they are ignoring the opponents because thats what you do when you execute a plan…
and they are behind on fulfiling things, so they pay less attention and get desperate.
they cant be doing this when other things happen, or else the latches will nto be in place and we can roll it back.
strategy and tactics is not average peoples strong points… if they were, this would be a more severe and less cooperative society.
I think it’s worth remembering that the Bible tells us the Devil can disguise himself as an angel of light
sorry a bit of a correction here.
Lucifer whose name means light. WAS the most beautiful and smartest of all the ANGELS and was gods favorite before man.
a better source into the subtly of evil would be to read C S lewis screwtape letters.
in that very short tiny book, is everything you wanted to know about how a real devil will work.
the stories of huge tempting wealth and competitions and all that later literature stuf as to the devil, made him more comical than actual.
C S Lewis brings you back to reality and makes you realize that the devil has all the ills in him, and he is a lazy minimalist. he doesnt give you huge amounts of gold to tempt you, he distracts you with hunger for a sandwhich when your mind goes to bigger more religious minded modes where thinking morally is less about logic and lawyering the problem.
In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis provides a series of lessons in the importance of taking a deliberate role in living out Christian faith by portraying a typical human life, with all its temptations and failings, as seen from the demon/devil’s viewpoint. Wormwood and Screwtape live in a peculiarly morally reversed world, where individual benefit and greed are seen as the greatest good, and neither demon is capable of comprehending or acknowledging true human virtue when he sees it.
and the reality that evil is not somethign apart from good comes about… but that evil is an inversion of good, a perversion of it.
its too theological for here, but in general, there is nothign in the universe except good. evil is created by perverting good, it has no sources itself. that is, everything in reality is gods goodness… however, to get evil one perverts or inverts goodness. in this way, we are clouded in that there are no such things as inherently all evil acts.
its why there ARE things as inhertently and good acts. in this way, evil is not the other side of good, in the great universe of split halves (good, bad, etc).
evil is the shadow… it can only appear where the good light is blocked by some perverse twisting of the clarity of good. that is, when not twisted the light shines through you and casts no shadow. twist the form, the idea, the concept, and light is diverted, and so now there can be a shadow.
this makes the good that is reality, the only whole in reality that there is. but as i said, its too complicated a concept for most here, since most here want this kind of thing in a few sentences.
here is a short one i hope will catch on to counter mao…
Love and affection can not be reached by state control and manipulation– artfldgr
[therefor utopias doors are forever closed to those who would enter by force – artfldgr]
ie. you cant beat anyone to good… the best you can do that way is to make them more evil and smarter not to show it. ie. you twist them up mroe and make a darker shadow.
one would have to read a lot of aquinas, aristotle, augsustine, hobbes, hypatia, kerikergaard, lao tzu, and lots more to really get it.
the knowlege is not real in one perspective only
ciao!
At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.
Lao Tzu
and why do i talk when i know it will kill me?
From caring comes courage.
Lao Tzu
Like the bhudda, i know that i am already dead
it has already happened…
🙂
Zen master Dogen had a saying that is appropriate in the present context. He said that in order to perceive reality we must “drop mind and body”. In other words, it is essential to drop all habits of thought and preconceptions in order to understand the truth.
what we are going through can be said to come from those who believe that they are self actualized.
you can tell they arent…
they dont understand Gemeinschaftsgefohl, that is they pretend that they have these qualities and they are superior, but one only needs to really understand that they are narcisists self agrandizing to a concept that they cant understand.
GEMEINSCHAFTSGEFOHL
This word, invented by Alfred Adler is the only one available that describes well the flavor of the feelings for mankind expressed by self-actualizing subjects. They have for human beings in general a deep feeling of identification, sympathy, and affection in spite of the occasional anger, impatience or disgust described below. Because of this they have a gamine desire to help the human race. it is as if they were all numbers of a single family. One’s feelings toward his brothers would be on the whole affectionate, even if these brothers were foolish, weak or even if they were sometimes nasty. They would still be more easily forgiven than strangers.
People truly with this feeling would not desire to ration healthcare, consider some to be not worth being.
they would not hate so much that which they profess to love, and want to help.
In art and music, in things of the intellect, in scientific matters, in politics and public affairs, they soared as a group to be able to see concealed or confused realities more swiftly and more correctly than others. Their predictions of the future from what-~ever facts were in hand at the time seemed to be more often correct, because less based upon wish, desire, anxiety, fear, or upon generalized, character-determined optimism or pessimism.
Self-actualizing people distinguished far more easily than most, the fresh, concrete, and idiographic from he generic, abstract, and rubricized. The consequence is that they live more in the real world of nature than in the man-made mass of concepts, abstractions, xpectations, beliefs, and stereotypes that most people confuse with the world.
there is a lot more i can say about this all.
This inner attitude can also be seen in those moments when the person becomes keenly absorbed in something that is close to one of his main interests. He can then be seen quite casually to drop off all sorts of rules of behavior to which at other times he conforms.
Our subjects are in general strongly focused on problem outside themselves. In current terminology they are problem centered rather than ego centered. They generally are not problem for themselves and are not generally much concerned about themselves; e.g., as contrasted with the ordinary introspectiveness that one find in insecure people. These individuals customarily have sane mission in life, sane task to fulfill, some problem outside themselves which enlists much of their energies.
maybe i should spend most of my time working on saving myself and leaving rather than try to save the damned?
one of the characteristics of self-actualizing people, which to a certain extent crosscuts much of what we have already escribed, is their relative independence of the physical and social environment.
pleasing others whims do not make them or you happy…
being yourself and accepting those that dont like you, and developing the full self sands the advice of others with desires masquerading as advice or help might fit that, then again not.
too long..
yet there are higher better ways..
I am not putting my head into the sand. I have examined this situation carefully from all sides.
and have thrown out any facts, ideas and conclusions i dont like so that everytime i spin the bottle i am sure that that is the reality of it as it always lands on he number i want.
funny thing about knowlege and perception, we cant see past our own ability. and you assume obama and all the others (literally a few 100k of people) are obviously less than you, and so your take is right.
well, obama has some things on his side and his history goes back farther than what you examined.
ya got to look at his mom (her aliases), his grandmom, ayers, ayers father too!!! geithner is part, as his father is connected to this too. and your forgetting prince alwaleed, tony rezko, etc.
all of them have a nice interconncted web of real estate fraud and manipulations.
but since you have looked at it from all sides, can you tell me also what other states (agencies) are feeding information through to this stuff?
after all, ayers and others flew to cuba, and went to vietnam to talk to their keepers and get advice. it was in the news that ted kennedy approached the kgb for advice… and so on.
so tell me what does it mean that the technology of marine 1 is in iranian hands?
Geithner’s father, Peter Geithner, was head of the Ford Foundation’s Asia grant making for a period in the early 1980s.. that was the time that ann dunham was running the program in indonesia.
Ford is the huge group that created the trilateral commission, and the council of foreign relations..
which obama ha been a member for a while.
just as a prior president picked a vice president who was related to the largest share holders of the company he used to work for, each one of these lift each other up like a belay in mountain climbing.
The Big Money Behind Geithner
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-big-money-behind-geithner/
It also turns out that Geithner’s father, Peter F. Geithner, serves on the board with Kissinger of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. This is the group that rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange, celebrating Chinese investments in the U.S. economy. In another interesting connection, it turns out that Peter F. Geithner was with the Ford Foundation and oversaw the work of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, developing what are called microfinance programs in Indonesia.
was this in your equation too?
hw about how they are connected to big oil?
as another dunham created a front oil company in indonesia to funnel oil to certain states.
If you examine the nature of the “Group of Thirty,” an affiliation which appears at the bottom of his biography, right after his Council on Foreign Relations membership, you will quickly learn that the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is an associate of the governor of the Chinese central bank through this mysterious organization of bankers and other top current and former officials from various countries. You will notice that other Obama nominees and associates are members, including Paul Volcker and Lawrence Summers.
You will also learn that this organization has been funded by―surprise―some of the same financial institutions getting federal bailout money. These include American International Group, Goldman Sachs and Citi, among others. Because it has a website and publishes an annual report, all of this seems open and above board. But the fine print reveals that some of the meetings are by “invitation only.”
The entire list of “contributors and supporters” of the “Group of Thirty” is quite impressive. You will find not only U.S. financial institutions getting bailout money, but central banks around the world and Arab financial interests. In addition, you also find private financial interests, including the hedge fund operated by billionaire and Obama contributor George Soros.
is all that in your calculations too.
or are you completely ignorant of this other history?
there is a lot of history of tax evasion, international real estate games, grant theft.
and the most interesting is that its a web of people going back more than 3 generations of working and colluding world wide.
ALL of them also under the direction of the council of foreign relations, and the trilateral commission.
even scarier, is the bilderbergs above them.
but we have no real idea what the most powerful people in the world do when they get together behind closed doors of the new world order one world government people…
dont worry.
just check out the member list of who is there, who is permanent and who are transitory (funny how they have age restrictions).
then there is the trilateral commission. they use a triskeleon as their symbol (a three armed variation of a swastika but done with curvy lines. just as obamas symbol matches funny enough the asian cooperation groups logo)
The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973 at the initiative of David Rockefeller, who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations
its headed by a guy names joseph s nye jr…
he is the author of
Soft Power: the means to success in world politics
Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (born 1937) is the co-founder, along with Robert Keohane, of the international relations theory neoliberalism developed in their 1977 book Power and Interdependence. Together with Keohane, he developed the concepts of asymmetrical and complex interdependence.
oh.. so he created the neo liberals (communists) which really took over the much trusted original lierals, who were not large state socialists at all.
[he is also a rhodes scholar]
like a lot of others in these agencies, their wiki bios for some reason leave out their parents… (which most other wiki doesnt)
go down the line in these orgs adn you get very far left globalists and heavy socialists and utopians.
i am sure you considered all these other invisiable people that were able to put up a puppet for president.
you cant get a clearer picture till you stop looking at obama, and start looknig at everything.
he is the top of an iceberg… 90% of whats happening is underneath the water…
right now, everyone is yelling there is nothing under the water, we can see it all from here.
I personally think there is a war being conducted against the United States.
It grows out of at least a generation of conditioning that business is bad, plus a need for dramatized self-importance, i.e., pomeranians who want to be greyhounds, but really don’t know what that is, so they use other people to build the fantasy.
Narcissists.
We are in deep doo doo.
What is encouraging is they are being reckless.
The question is, will it stir up violence, or coup?