The New Yorker’s Liberal Illusions about Barack Obama
All of this is not only pure speculation, much of it unfounded, but rests on the assumption that Obama is what he has proved to most people he is not: a moderate centrist who seeks to unify the nation around reasonable principles most Americans would support. Not a statist who has tried to move the nation further to the left than it ever has been, and hence has aroused an electorate angry with his measures that produced the Tea Party on the right and OWS on the hard left.
What Lizza leaves out of his account is Obama’s record: his fiscal irresponsibility, his decision to ignore the Bowles-Simpson Commission’s recommendations, his decision to move first for radical health care instead of a jobs program. Lizza is right when he says that “at some point this year the debate will focus on the looming fiscal crash.” What he does not show is that Obama has never done anything of a serious nature to even acknowledge the problem, nevermind offer new bold measures to address it.
Instead, Lizza compares Obama to Bill Clinton, who in his second term abandoned bold domestic programs and replaced them with a noticeable shift to the center. With Republican support (and some Democratic opposition) he passed NAFTA and introduced serious welfare reform, a conservative idea introduced first by Republicans. Dick Morris, then his advisor, called it “triangulation.” It worked, and in moving in this direction Clinton had the support of moderate Democrats in the then-important Democratic Leadership Council, of which Clinton himself had earlier been a leading member.
Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton.
While Clinton was a DLC Democrat, Obama came into office with a background as an anti-business community organizer, a supporter of radical black nationalists in his Chicago ward, and an associate of radicals, socialists, and Communists who all worked together for his election. That is the significance of Stanley Kurtz’s recent revelation that Obama had been a member of the social-democratic New Party in Chicago in 1996. As Kurtz writes:
Obama’s joining this leftist party was no reluctant concession to a marginal group just to secure elective office. Obama had been working with the New Party’s leaders for years, and their larger strategic vision was a prime example of what drew him into politics in the first place. The New Party issue is no fluke. On the contrary, it’s a reflection of Obama’s consistent and continuous life plan.
To assume that Barack Obama will move in the direction Lizza says he will is to believe that all of the signals about his belief system do not count, and that he is capable of pulling a Clinton in a second term. Clinton, to put it bluntly, was a real pragmatist and a master politician, and never was a man of the ideological left wing. As someone might say in a debate with Obama: “I know Bill Clinton, and you’re no Bill Clinton.”
Lizza’s hope that a second Obama term would begin “with major deficit reduction and serious reform of taxes and entitlements” is nothing but a pipe dream, meant to assure those drifting away from the Obama camp that the president is really a sensible moderate just waiting for the chance to screw his base. Or, you can take the word of Obama advisor David Plouffe, who assures Lizza that Democrats would of course accept entitlement reform because in a divided Congress they would have to.
There is more chance that a deal could be made if Mitt Romney wins, which is something that Lizza never addresses. He only sees movement if Obama wins and convinces Republicans — who of course he holds responsible for all failures — that they must give up “obstructionism.” Instead, Lizza serves up a new term in which, for the first time, bipartisan legislation will take place, and Republicans and Democrats together will agree on “immigration, climate change, and campaign finance.”
Note Lizza’s claim in this sentence:
If President Obama can indeed guide the parties toward an agreement that puts the federal government on a sustainable fiscal path, it would be a substantial achievement and would vindicate his early promise as a bipartisan leader. After that, he might have just one more chance to achieve a major domestic accomplishment before the next round of elections, in 2014.
The problem, of course, is the word at the beginning: “If.” That is one very large if, which is based on no evidence but the author’s wishful thinking. It assumes the man who has been the divider-in-chief and a partisan fighter would suddenly change colors and become a pragmatist in the Clinton mold.
What Ryan Lizza has given his readers, therefore, is nothing but an article taking the point of view of David Axelrod and David Plouffe and the Obama spinmeisters who desperately want Obama to be seen in this way and not as the man and president he actually is. He acknowledges that presently Obama “is emphasizing the ideological divide,” but wants us to ignore this, and to look at what the president supposedly wants. Lizza is an Obama man who believes, contrary to much evidence, that “Obama seems to be learning how to be a forceful president.” He thinks his foreign policy is one that has been successful, and he wants readers to conclude: “Whether he’ll be remembered as a great [President] depends on his reelection.” Lizza’s article is meant to be intellectual ammunition to convince wavering Democrats to forcefully support Obama’s reelection so he can have the chance to achieve greatness.
Speaking for myself, I don’t think I’ll vote to give Barack Obama that chance. The stakes are simply too high. Mr. Lizza, you haven’t convinced me, and frankly, I don’t suspect you will convince most of your readers.
There is good reason to see POTUS as a potential Eurocommunist, but I prefer the diagnosis of stealth Leninist, and militant anti-imperialist, even a Third Worlder. I wrote about the attempts to diagnose him here, focusing on the incoherence of his base. See http://clarespark.com/2012/04/06/diagnosing-potus/.
– all around.
In other words, Lizza thinks it 2008 all over again.
And I thought the drugs we had in the sixties were powerful……..
Obama’s idea of bipartisanship: “I won”.
You neglected the, “Get over it!”
Ya forgot “you lost”
We all lost, pal (see economy).
Personally, I find it amusingly ironic that today, hardcore “progressives” are desperately trying to paint The One as the reincarnation of Reagan to hopefully con the electorate into re-electing Him.
You see, I’m old enough to remember when those same “enlightened ones” would have liked nothing better than to crucify “Ronnie Ray-Gun” upside down over an Indiana Jones-sized pit of poisonous snakes. Specifically for all the “damage” they perceived him as doing to the U.S. economy, the U.S. government, the Palestinian “cause”, the Nicaraguan Sandinista regime’ (especially Danny Ortega, whom P.J. O’Rourke called the “heart-throb of the Berkeley PoliSci Department”- Hey, P.J., OSU’s PSD had a man-crush on him, too), and most especially the horrors Reagan inflicted on the Soviet Union. (He tricked them into bankrupting themselves with SDI, instead of helping them get ready to take NATO down Rommel-style as Carter tried so hard to do. Oh, the horror- the horror!)
The fact that the Left is trying to reassure us that Obama is just waiting for His second term to break out into a full-throated rendition of “Morning In America” tells me that they know perfectly well He will do anything else but. And that they are hoping that the rest of us are farking stupid enough to be conned one more time.
Their definition, and Obama’s definition, of “a shining city on the hill” is very different from Reagan’s. And if they get to inflict their version on us, our descendants will curse us as surely as the Ionians did their forebears who swore fealty to the Persians, and thus made slaves of their own grandchildren.
clear ether
eon
^—- YUP!!
All these leftist jerks sat around and smoked dope all through college, just like their hippy parents. You expect rational arguments from them? And in the freakin’ New Yorker, for God’s sake?
Gee whiz Johnni J, did you just sit on a lit… J?
How about you, Mr. Lucky? Care to defend your president’s record and convince us why he should be re-elected in the face of all the terrific economic data? Talk about smoking . . . .
RobertMN,
Let me be clear (sound familiar?).
Mr. President is a failure on many fronts. I don’t think that lighting up a J or past random hippies getting loaded has that much to do with that, at this point anyway. Anyone ever known anyone to drink a beer/light up in their younger years? Is that always relevant?
A J alone does not necessarily “make” you into a failure. You do that yourself, and sometimes the cards just come to you that way. Black Swans come to mind.
Now, I think I’ll go pop open a Keystone Light or two and catch a buzz.
And, Johnni J is a Joker.
That’s not the problem Lucky, their like Peter Pan, they never grow up (intellectually). Academics that are unchallenged (in fact challengers are persecuted and villified) produce nothing of worth. This is the environment that Obama and his ilk come from (I know I did too), but they lack the emotional and intellectual ability to challenge it.
Obama does as Obama is. And he will do as he’s always done.
You can tell that people like Lizza have completely abandoned the Judeo-Christian ethic and wandered into the realm of moral relativism.
The bible says, “Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not”.
This phrase has been morphed more colloquially into “There are none so blind as those who will not (or cannot) see.” But the biblical verse is more direct and more descriptive, addressing the foolish by name.
Lizza has chosen to carry Obama’s water as have many national socialists. This obeisance stems from the distinct lack of a savior in their lives and thus, the national socialist seeks to find them in the ordinary human of flesh-and-blood while ignoring that humans are fundamentally flawed. This happened last time in great evidence during the Victorian period where scientists were uttering such bilge as “All that can be discovered has been discovered” which was the cocky arrogance of the intellectual elite back then, as it is now.
Perhaps most noteworthy of the national socialist mentality is the arrogance. “I have a degree in ‘X’, so therefore I am smarter than anyone else, therefore the auto mechanic is a troglodyte (lacking a degree) and must respect and humor me”. This notion, arrogant on its very face, also ignores that said degreed individual wouldn’t know the first thing to do when his car started running poorly or if he even had a flat tire. “Why, that’s what AAA is for!”, he would sputter.
For me, I personally try to be confident in what I know while acknowledging that which I do not, which is a trait of conservatism. Taking to heart, also, something that was told to me in junior high school, “Half the answer is in knowing where to find it.” thus springing forth the knack to become resourceful and read and learn and try new things. I once got a fancy German sports car with a bad engine for a very good price. I had never rebuilt an engine in my life but had done other car repairs so I read, learned, talked to car techs about it and lo and behold, I rebuilt that motor and kept the car for a number of years.
As a side note, in a conversation with an intellectual elite, we got to talking about restoration of cars and he was curious about mine and then told me the tale of how “he’s restoring a 1979 XYZ”. In the conversation, it became clear that he was SPENDING THE MONEY to have SOMEONE ELSE restore it for him, but the juxtaposition of the wording made it sound that he was all “hands-on” when such was not the case. It became obvious to me when I got into technical detail and he had no idea what I was talking about.
It often amazes me how intellectual elites are actually such tenderfoots when it comes to the nuts and bolts of things. These are the people you find sticking a knife in a toaster that’s still plugged in to get out a broken piece of toast or who drive off with the gas hose still stuck in their car.
Of course, the same can be said of the truly stupid but often, elite ignorance and stupidity are indistinguishable.
And, because a person is a so-called “expert” in a field of study, it doesn’t mean they are experts in all things. I have a former friend who’s a propulsion physicist but, because of his “intellectual prowess” he was also prone to telling me all about my diabetes and how to “cure” it. When I relayed this information to my endocrinologist, the ensuing smirk on the doctor’s face was priceless. He would shake his head and chuckle and ask me where my friend studied medicine. I said, “He’s a rocket-scientist” and my doctor would look at me quizzically. “No, really, he’s a rocket scientist in Pasadena, california…JPL…Cal-Tech…the whole nine yards”.
“Oh”, said he, “That explains it.”
My doctor came from Poland, is brilliant and also very down-to-earth. He is meticulous in his record-keeping and has helped me get my diabetes under control. He said, “Well, I think I would like to call him and tell him my ideas on how to get to Mars. You think he’d listen?”.
And we both laughed.
P Jay thanks for your comments. where I live and work part time I run to this all knowing savants all the time. They talk about subjects in which they are quite informed and othes of which they might have glanced at few pages of book, but always with the same smug air of authority.
Once I was sitting around a local park with a bunch of people. there was one person there whom I only met once but I knew he was some kind of college professor. We began talking about the large radio tower that was near by and it’s history. He then said all signals that come from that tower beam only east (!). Of course that is absurd and but I din’t want to go into the technical reasons. I simply explained that I was a DJ for a time on an FM station that has its transmitter on that tower. Well I said “Our station could be heard east west north south!” He just smugly shrugged and still kept insisiting he was right! My experience meant nothing to him.
“He then said all signals that come from that tower beam only east (!). Of course that is absurd and but I din’t want to go into the technical reasons. I simply explained that I was a DJ for a time on an FM station that has its transmitter on that tower. Well I said “Our station could be heard east west north south!” He just smugly shrugged and still kept insisiting he was right! My experience meant nothing to him.”
You’ve just given a perfect example of how a Leftist reasons. They decide on a point of view that would be convenient to them in some way – for some reason, a radio tower that only broadcasts east was important to this professor – and then declare that view to be true since it would be helpful if it were true. If anyone tries to bring up reality, they are simply ignored so that the wishful thinking can go on.
That’s why “socialism” – all kinds, including Marxism – continues to be proposed by Leftists despite literally decades of experience with it and tens of millions of fatalities as a result of these experiments. What actually happened when these systems were tried is completely ignored and the belief that “socialism” will fix everything if only it is tried remains the mantra of the Left.
“It often amazes me how intellectual elites are actually such tenderfoots when it comes to the nuts and bolts of things. These are the people you find sticking a knife in a toaster that’s still plugged in to get out a broken piece of toast or who drive off with the gas hose still stuck in their car.”
I have three anecdotes to share on this point.
First, a friend of mine was doing tech support for Verizon a few years back and had a customer call in for help in configuring a wireless internet connection for his new notebook computer. As my friend proceeded to help the customer through the necessary steps, he noticed what sounded like splashing near the phone. He asked the customer where he was. “In the bathtub”, replied the customer. “Is the computer running on batteries or is it plugged into the wall?” “Plugged into the wall.” Somehow, this customer was oblivious to the fact that using electrical devices in a bathtub was dangerous!
This second anecdote is one I saw here at PJM last year. Two friends with university degrees were driving somewhere together in the same car. The one with Ivy League arts degree was driving, the one with the engineering degree from a lesser school was riding shotgun. The driver noted that a warning light on the dash was blinking and asked his engineer friend what to do. The engineer suggested pulling over to the side of the road and looking under the hood. The driver pulled over then asked the engineer “How do I open the hood?”.
This final anecdote took place in a Political Science class I took some years back. The lecturer, who had at a Masters in Policical Science and was working on his PhD, had a habit of smoking while he lectured. (This was back in the days when there were no problems with smoking in university lecture halls and classrooms.) He normally lit his cigarette with wooden matches while he talked, then took only a puff or two now and then as he continued the lecture. On this occasion, we could see him feeling in all his pockets and coming up empty in his search for matches. A student near the front threw him a lighter, a very cheap Bic lighter, the ones that cost less than a dollar at any store in those days. The lecturer tried repeatedly but was completely unable to work the lighter! As anyone who has used this sort of lighter would know, you only need to stroke the thumbwheel once to push it against the flint and a nice flame comes up, sufficient to light a cigarette. This great intellectual found that completely beyond his abilities. He actually admitted that he was no good with “high-tech devices” (or words to that effect) and only finally got his cigarette lit when another student threw him some matches.
My two year old daughter is showing ample signs of intelligence (construction of complex puzzles beyond her years), but when she does things that result in obvious random destructive behavior, I can’t help but compare her behavior to Democratic operatives. It is unquestionable to me that Democrats are universally, in their own ways, infantile people.
…it would be a substantial achievement and would vindicate his early promise as a bipartisan leader.”
In other words, what Lizza now views as a failure, that that failure can somehow be made up for by behaving as Lizza wants.
There has been a terrible tragedy at the White House School and the President needs counseling.
Of course Dear Liar is a moderate centrist.
In the same vein that Mussolini was a moderate centrist when compared to Lenin.
To me, it makes more sense that – if ever – he’d pivot toward the center now to increase his chance of getting re-elected. His base hasn’t left him for any number of good reasons (Gitmo still open, surge in Afghanistan, Libya, increased drone strikes, etc.), and I don’t think they ever will. They love him unconditionally, and would rationalize such a pivot: “don’t worry, he just needs to get re-elected and then we can see some REAL Hope & Change!”. He needs to sway centrist voters.
If he gets re-elected he’ll pull out all the stops and take the fast track to Utopia.
Good point Amok, no big fan of Clinton, but he would have pushed the XL pipeline through and bragged about it, he would never have promoted the whole homosexual agenda (maybe after the election). Clearly Obama is not a politician but an ideologue.
Moderate centrist? What in the bloody hell has this guy been watching and reading?
How does one assert pushing even harder on climate change is a centrist proposition, even if we ignore that the whole climate alarmist narrative is unraveling (at the science level, and at the social/political level).
Has Lizza never read Obama’s own words from “Dreams From My Father?” Can he not see that Obama is a closet communist masquerading as a shameless political opportunist? Lizza needs to read Stanley Kurtz’s “Radical in Chief” and Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.”
The Democratic coalition’s core has shifted to the pure anti-Capitalist, delusionally utopist, anti-free enterprise, pro-union, redistributionist, victim group identity politics. And Obama is the very epitome of a leftist, statist, collectivist.
Thomas Sowell had an interesting observation. President Obama is not a Socialist, as socialism’s goal is government’s ownership of businesses. He is more closely aligned with the fascist model, which pursues ownership of the economy but leaves businesses in private hands. This way he can claim responsbility for successes, but failures are the responsbility of the business owners.
While I have always respected Dr. Sowell, I belive the bank bailouts and the GM bailout maybe point towards a socialist slant more than the fascist one.
This is nothing more than propaganda to assuage the doubts of the useful idiots and limousine liberals who are wavering. Move on; nothing to see here.
Apparently Mr. Lizza does not know his history or google searches too well. NAFTA and welfare reform took place during Clinton’s first term. I don’t recall any great initiatives during his second term, just “small ball” while the economy was riding high. No big domestic initiatives during the second term, but some foreign policy stuff (Kosovo, trying to get OBL) and l’affaire Monica.
One would be giving Lizza credit to say that he is just a delusional leftist troll and his article is really an example of well-meaning befuddlement over the fact that people like him will never understand the utter misfire of a president that BHO really is.
On Obama’s plans for climate change in his 2nd term. Those are already funded and in motion. I found the documents as I was doing follow-ups to the various policy briefs coming out of that March Planet under Pressure conference in London in anticipation of the Rio+20 meeting next week. So good to know his administration has already embarked on “interventions that require global-scale international cooperation.” Holdren must be so pleased to be involved in such “a profound change to the way we support and undertake global environmental change research.”
Those czars are coming in so handy.
Wardog-Sowell is thinking like the superb economist he is. There is also a socialist theory of the mind that seeks to minimize abstract, logical thought and foster emotion instead as the intellectual response. Obama’s education reforms are pushing that agenda perfectly when you pierce through the rhetoric and look at the underlying implementation documents. That’s what’s really going on with all those Race to the Top billions. It’s putting in place Goals 2000 and School to Work and outcomes based education and the affective instead of cognitive emphasis. Everything that was controversial in the 90s is back with new names. Coming in largely at the state and district levels where they are hungry for federal funds and willing to adopt whatever is tied to more money.
I read the New Yorker for the cartoons, and the movie reviews. Other than that, their politics is that of the whining, complaining losers who think Manhattan is the center of the universe. Well, it IS for food. But as far as understanding their fellow Americans, many of these writers don’t come up here to White Plains, much less go to Lead, SD, or Marquette, Mich. These folks just do not get the rest of the country, because they either have trust funds or grants.
I cannot eat in restaurants in fly over country. I cannot talk politics in Manhattan. No one should take them seriously on that subject. Just look at that A-hole Bloomberg they keep electing.
According to Lizza “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
Being what he is, he will try to build a moment to his vision, as he has, and will end as Ozymandias.
The biggest threat of an Obama win is his stacking the SCOTUS with liberals that will affect the country for decades. All he needs is a Democrat controlled Senate.
We’re not all deluded in NYC, and I consider the task my civil responsibility to insult liberals where ever I am. Everyday.
And The New Yorker is one of the least read magazines in the state of NY.
So we have to re-elect President Obama for another term so he can do all the wonderful things he promised to do the first time he ran. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t President James K Polk promise the American people four things he would acomplish if elected, and if he did not acomplish them in four years, he did not deserve another term?
Judge thee by your actions not by your words (or the words of another. That may or may not have been in the Bible or pronounced by some famous dude, but it is as true as day coming after (and before) night!
Mr. Obama’s actions are at one with his background: Business and commerce are bad. Wealth cannot be created but must be taken from another. The “people” are not capable of making good decisions, only the annointed few are. The annointed few are right to obtain that power by any means; since the gaining of power by the few is the good, no matter how attained. Most people must be taken care of by the few, since they cannot take care of themselves. And so on…
“He(Obama) will also attempt a breakthrough on energy policy”.
There is, due to technological im provements in “Fracking” a breakthrough in America’s energy prospects. But Obama and his administration’s EPA have been trying to sabotage these developments.
Obama’s ‘fine’ mess He can’t admit his failure, June 13, 2012
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_fine_mess_0cEIxp8rygvNc4l2B20DlK
Barrack Obama is an inexperienced radical socialist street punk who got elected by a dopey-brained segment of the white majority (see Lizza) who treated the last presidential election like an episode of “American Idol” and thought “it would be great to elect the first black president.” And what did we get? An inexperienced radical socialist street punk. The cat’s out of the bag now. Good luck stuffing it back in.
When in the entire history of the universe has a politician won by playing to the fringe? That’s beyond absurd.
Because they don’t believe they are the fringe. It’s why they first embraced OWS, then let go.
Lizza continues to argue that in a second term, Obama will initiate concrete steps he promised but was unable to move ahead with, such as finish the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians;…
This is one of Mr. Lizza’s more breathtaking delusions, as well as a dangerous one. The Russians, Vladimir Putin in particular, despise Barack Obama as weak and ineffective. Why does Mr. Lizza think they would make any concessions at all to him?
As for implementing “meaningful policies to deal with the dangers of climate change”, what does he think those are? So far, all I see are proposals to kill off the industries that provide the nation’s energy in favor of some experimental, inefficient “green energy” companies that can’t even make their bottom line without heavy taxpayer funded subsidies. Meanwhile, those same taxpayers are paying through the nose, not only in higher taxes, but unconscionably high energy bills, at a time when jobs are scarce. And all of this in service to a climate change that may or may not be happening, and is probably beyond our control anyway.
Sorry, it’s time for the adults to take over, because the kindergarten is running amuck.
“Why does Mr. Lizza think they would make any concessions at all to him?” Where do you get the impression that they expect the Russians to make the concessions? After all, we are the evil capitalists so if we make enough concessions Obama would be able to “finish the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty…”
“As for implementing ‘meaningful policies to deal with the dangers of climate change’, what does he think those are? So far, all I see are proposals to kill off the industries…” Stop right there. You just answered yourself. In their minds those industries need to be killed off.
They are most certainly adults. Very dangerous adults.
Let’s be rational…any American leader popular by foreigners opposed to us should be a major red flag. In fact, any domestic leader popular with a majority of non-American populace should be removed from office immmediately. You can’t be pro-one-thing and pro-another in the same breath. Gorby was decisively popular with American people, but look how popular he was with Russians who lived through the demolition of the country they grew up with. Obama is America’s Gorbechev.
Let’s save billions by holding elections OUTSIDE the US. If the majority of the world’s people favor a particular candidate, that person should be deemed as having LOST the election.
Can someone tell me what this person is smoking because I could use something to dim the pain that obozo, our clown in chief, and his court jesters and tsars are doing to this country.
WALKER WINS IN LANDSLIDE AND ROMNEY NOW LEADS IN WISCONSIN POLL
SCOTT PURGING VOTER ROLLS, TELLS HOLDER SHOVE IT
N.DAKOTA FLUSH WITH OIL REVENUES SEES SALES TAX REVENUE RISE 82%
Now this is what hope and change that Americans can embrace looks like/
president Obummer has already pushed through numerous extreme leftist measures in law and policy, but not as extreme as some leftists wish, and not as extreme looney left as he has written and stated he wants to go nor as his friends have written and stated they want to go.
He’s not a “closet” leftist; he’s been out of the closet for decades. OTOH, the leftist extremists like to argue over which flavor of extremist they are, “oh, no, I’m not a Communist. I’m a communist.” , “No, I’m a socialist, not a communist.”, “I’m a progressive not a socialist.”, “I’m a democratic socialist, not a regular socialist.”, “I’m a [illiberal] liberal, not a socialist”, “I’m not a national socialist. I’m an international communist.”… blah blah blah. It all boils down to them all being leftists, who have difficulty even thinking in terms of individual human beings, let alone individuals with natural rights. With them, it’s always collectives and aggregates: “society does this”, “society wants”, “society chooses”, this “race” vs. that “race”, this “nationality” vs. that “nationality”, this “class” vs. that “class”, this “percent” vs. that “percent”…
Lizza blunders badly when he cites Obama’s second-term goals to be addressing climate change and a nuclear weapons reduction plan. How are those gols “centrist?” That is not what a majority of Americans are looking for or care about. Never mind that our large nuclear arsenal presents no discernible danger whatsoever to the world.
I had been pointing out to people for sometime that the best and most accurate way to describe Obama on the political spectrum was as a social democrat. I read him like a book based on his agenda and his own words. Little did I know that he actually signed on to a social democrat party!. Well, waddaya know!
Another Leftista’s wet dream…boring and predictable.
Slavery by Consent Pt.4 (The SIN)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=47jqtTMkZWc
Ryan Lizza is an obvious idiot.
Keeping in mind that #OccupyResoluteDesk and the rest of his minions beleive he must move left to reach the center that article makes perfect sense, after all as long as Pol Pot is to one’s left one must be in the center.
Yesterday I wrote in the slow to post comment that I knew what Obama’s climate change plans were for his second term. I was quoting from a document called “The Belmont Challenge: A Global, Environmental Research Mission for Sustainability.” The first meeting of this international “informal lobby” occurred in June 2009. It is being spearheaded by the US National Science Foundation which reports now to John Holdren. This certainly would explain how the behavioral sciences part of NSF most people forget is there is gaining ascendance over the natural sciences.
Here’s the story:http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/the-belmont-challenge-and-the-death-of-the-individual-via-education/
As Ron remembers, merging the natural and social sciences is the goal of a certain notorious political ideology that caused many of the great tragedies of the 20th century.