You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Obama’ tag.
and so Dee Dee Myer gushes.
Lest you miss her premise, her lap dog rhapsody begins with her thesis statement:
Barack Obama is the most famous living person in the history of the world.
Knowing that cultural savants will immediately think of John Lennon’s infamous statement in 1966, “The Beatles are more popular than Jesus,” Myers dispels any grandiose comparisons between Obama and Jesus.
I’m not trying to induce an acid flashback to John Lennon’s infamous 1966 comment, “The Beatles are more popular than Jesus.” But whether you measure fame in terms of saturation or sheer numbers, it seems indisputable to me that more people know at least something about the new American president than anyone alive, at this point—or any—in the planet’s existence.
My daughter asked me today to define “idolatry.” I responded, “Worshipping something or someone in the place of God, i.e., it is your god. It is the thing/person/idea that you think about most and shape your life around. If it isn’t God, then that thing/person/idea becomes your idol and, consequently, you commit idolatry.”
I think Myers’s adulation of Barack Obama provides a fitting, albeit long-winded, example of such misguided reverence.
If there’s one thing Joe Biden said of merit on the campaign trail, it was this:
Now, we have one of those possible scenarios looming on the horizon:
OSAMA bin Laden is planning an attack against the United States that will “outdo by far” September 11, an Arab newspaper in London has reported.
This is no surprise, but still jarring at the reality of an imminent attack. Even more so since I live near a major urban city that could be targeted. *sigh*
I hope PE Obama truly realizes he has been elected to protect the people of our country, not just to inject his ideology and transform our nation into something he thinks is better. The American Idol winner has been crowned; OJT and voting “present” does not cut it anymore.
h/t Ace of Spades
Since I like trivia, enjoy games, and must be organized, I am compiling some categories for President-Elect Obama and his Administration for future virtual rounds of Jeopardy!. As we follow President-Elect Obama and his Administration through the next four years, I will file their activities, legislation, policy, etc. into different categories. We can stay sharp on our politics by routinely playing Obama Jeopardy!, have a nice filing system to the Obama Administration’s activities, and have fun! It’s a win-win.
Here are some first round categories:
- What is my Messianic Complex?
- Get Your Facts Straight: Keeping Promises or Breaking Promises
- Where am I Governing: from the Right? the Center? or the Left?
- Quasi-Related Pairs: First Ladies
- Also a Chicago Politician
- Name that Alinsky Rule
Moving on to Double Jeopardy
- Quotes that begin with “I AM”
- Name that Aggressor Country
- VP Joe Biden Potent Potables
- Common Bonds: Name that Donor
- Anagrams and Astroturfing
What categories would you add?
In the waning days of the Presidential campaign, much is coming to light. For example, what is Obama’s top priority IF he is elected President? Securing victory in Iraq? Afghanistan? Economic Stability? Tax cuts? Immigration? Give up. Here’s what Obama told TIME magazine reporter Joe Klein, in an interview that will be released on November 10:
As Obama told me in our interview, a government-propelled transition to an alternative-energy economy will be his most important initiative.
Yes, Obama will “jump start our economy” with an “alternative-energy” plan in the form of a $300 billion stimulus package.
Many are in an uproar, and rightly so, over Obama’s revealing comments that purport to link farming and health issues like Type 2 diabetes, obesity, stroke, and heart disease. The Des Moines Register reported on the controversial comment Obama gave to Time magazine:
Agriculture is “partly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in health care costs.”
The Obama camp fired off a statement saying, “Obama was merely paraphrasing an article by Michael Pollan,” who incidentally is an outspoken critic of U.S. farm policy. If that is the case, then why did Obama quote Pollan in the first place? Here’s the quote in its entirety:
“I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollan about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the meantime, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our health care costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in health care costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.”
Obama never distances himself from Pollan’s position or indicates he disagrees with him. The statement released by the Obama camp is disingenous, again, and misleadingly glosses over this fact.
Further down in the Des Moines Register article, responding to a question regarding his energy plan, Obama replied:
that farming, enabled by cheap energy, “actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector.” Globally, agriculture is considered a bigger contributor of heat-trapping gases than transportation, but the opposite is true in the United States. Much of the agricultural emissions come from manure and the fertilizer used on crops.
Well, what exactly does Pollan believe about the farming industry?
Pollan, who teaches journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, has long criticized the wide-scale cultivation of corn for use as livestock feed. He contends that it would be better for the environment and human health to fatten livestock on grass.
So, the veil is lifted. Not only does Obama want to bankrupt the coal industry, his policies would bankrupt the farming industry and the American people. How? Forcing farmers to feed livestock on grass would cut back livestock production, thus meat prices would skyrocket and consumption would decrease. This would increase prices further in order for farmers to stay in business OR farmers would be forced into bankruptcy. A vicious cycle and a sinister, deceptive ideological position based on Global Warming. By the way, Obama feels the same way about our transportation and construction sectors–they all contribute to greenhouse gases and his Energy Plan would force major changes on them as well. What would they be? No one knows; it’s a mystery.
How does the Obama camp respond to his detractors? More ideology.
Obama’s campaign said his “strong record of standing up for farmers and America’s rural communities speaks for itself.”
The statement also said Obama would “bring the change rural America needs by increasing investments in renewable energy and giving family farmers the support they need by allowing them to diversify their crops and increase revenue.”
McCain has opposed biofuel requirements and subsidies.
Ethanol. That’s the support Obama gives farmers. Guess what? Ethanol drives up food prices.
Supporting ethanol, yet blaming farmers as major contributers to green house gases-even more so than the transportation sector!-and to health issues. Ideology hidden in the mantra of “change.”His policies stem from an ideology that has been hidden from the American public. Obama’s policy will be terrible for farmers and bankrupt our economy, not stimulate it.
Glad the mask is coming off before Election Day.
This interview occurred in January 2008 in San Francisco, of all places, and we hear about it two days prior to the election? And the MSM wants to convince us they’re doing their job? Uh-huh. Here you go:
Here’s a transcript:
“Let me sort of describe my overall policy.
What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.
I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideaological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It’s just that it will bankrupt them.”
h/t Free Republic
Goodness, I just spit my food on the computer screen from laughing at this video.