Obama: Old Wine, New Bottle, Mona Charen, February 15, 2008.
"He is clearly the most gifted speaker to grace American politics since Ronald Reagan. And as with Reagan, there is a basic decency to Obama that blunts dislike.
But when you get past the music and really focus on the lyrics, Obama emerges as an utterly conventional, down-the-line liberal Democrat. He claims to be all about the future, but his policy ideas are about as modern as disco and the leisure suit.
The war on terror scarcely exists in the world Obama traces for his audiences.
Instead, he focuses relentlessly on what he regards as the misguided war in Iraq. "We need to do more than end the war," he intones, "we need to end the mindset that got us into war." We know which mindset Sen. Obama will bring to foreign policy -- the "diplomacy only" style last employed to such great effect by Jimmy Carter."
The Next Great Awakening: Obama 2008's messianic fervor won't last, Charles Krauthammer, February 15, 2008:
"Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's Ahmadinejad.
My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude."
Survey, June 2013, asked the question:
"Which is a bigger terrorist threat to the United States today - radical Muslims, the Tea Party, local militia groups, the Occupy Wall Street movement, or other religious or political extremists?"
Among those who "Approve" of Obama's performance,
only 29 percent see radical Muslims as the top terrorist threat.
An incredible 26 percent say the Tea Party is the top terrorist threat.
Among those who "Strongly Approve" of Obama,
more fear the Tea Party than fear radical Muslims.
What a dreamworld Obama voters live in.
The Tea Party!
A group with no links ever to disorder or violence or terror.
These Obama morons probably think the Tea Party carried out the Tucson and Boston attacks!
The kind of idiot that supports Obama:
A self-described "secularist" in
who thinks jihadis are fighting for a kuffar concept called "freedom".
Yes, that is her background.
Obama supporters are truly the worst type of Americans.
Obama is a far left-winger who claims to be able to "unite" the country:
As Mark Steyn puts it:
"He wants to waft us upward on a great uniting bipartisan marshmallow of "hope" and "change" so he can implement down-the-line by-the-book highly partisan hopeless unchanged liberal policies."
says, it is hard to ignore
"the central contradiction of Obama's campaign - an orthodox liberal politician who rose to prominence in a left-wing milieu in Chicago and has never broken with his party on anything of consequence is campaigning on unifying the country. There is nothing particularly unifying about Obama's past and his voting record."
Thomas Sowell, April 15, 2008:
"Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation"
Our Top Anti-Terrorism Advisor Must Go, by Victor Davis Hanson, February 9, 2010.
The Obama administration complains about
"partisan" criticism of its handling of the war.
The complaints come from the same people who spent years
endlessly attacking the Bush administration on the war.
"One of the stranger behaviors of the ever-stranger Obama administration is its sudden adoption of the "wounded fawn" posture.
No opposition was more stridently critical of a sitting president than was the anti-Bush Left.
Barack Obama, as candidate and president, could not start a speech without saying "Bush did it.""
Aggressive partisan President fails to unite country!
Michael Crowley, 16 August 2009, can't figure out how a partisan leftist could have divided the country.
He swoons that:
"On that heady evening last August when Barack Obama claimed the Democratic presidential nomination before an adoring throng in Denver, it seemed possible he could change the very nature of American politics. ... It seemed entirely plausible, as Andrew Sullivan had argued .. [that] "If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the boomer generation and face today's actual problems, Obama may be your man," ... Obama, he argued, could usher in a new era of post-baby boomer politics, one that would transcend the culture wars that had dogged America since Vietnam and the rise of Richard Nixon."
And yet somehow electing an aggressive partisan leftist did not end the divide in America.
And of course to this writer,
all of the partisan opposition to the great Obama is irrational,
and probably racist too.
"part of what made 2008 special is we brought the country together"
Obama, Mar 2011, claims to be a non-partisan unifier!
Obama's Racial Politics, Victor Davis Hanson, January 19, 2012, suggests Obama is the most race-obsessed and racially divisive President of the modern era:
"When he is ahead in the polls, has won an election, and is not campaigning, then he emphasizes the unity of the country. But when he is running for president, or campaigning for others, or sinking in the polls, he and his closest associates predictably revert to charges of racial bigotry, albeit usually coded and subtle. America is redeemed when it champions the Obamas, but retrograde when it does not."
'White' on the Brain by Victor Davis Hanson, August 17, 2012. A round-up of the racial obsession, even racial bigotry,
that Obama and his supporters - not his opponents - have brought to American politics.
Goodbye, Again, To Obama's Most Audacious Hope, Ron Elving, May 14, 2013.
A typical NPR leftist claims, despite years of evidence, that Obama wanted
"to transcend the partisan wars of Washington".
But sadly he was foiled by the wicked Republicans, who had the arrogance to oppose the Messiah.
On how Obama's government insults America's allies like
and does not insult America's enemies:
"(1) In general, for a variety of complicated reasons, Obama sees those who dislike the United States - an Ahmadinejad, Assad, Castro, Chavez, Ortega, etc. - as somehow more authentic and representative of their own "people." ...
But the Iranian democrats in the street, the Honduran Supreme Court, a Uribe, a Maliki government, or the Israelis, all these pro-American friends for some strange reason like the United States, and, most likely, like us for what Obama would call reactionary reasons; so there is nothing sexy about them for Obama really.
(2) Israel - democratic, capitalist, Western, pro-American - is emblematic of all the things that Obama in the past has been skeptical about, since Israel appreciates our values, history, and what we stand for. Again, this is passé for Obama - as if one in a Columbia University seminar on post-imperialism were to raise his hand and declare, "Isn't it great that Israel is a beacon of democracy and Western values in the region?"
Imagine the reaction of the professor and students to that poor fellow, and, presto, there is what bothers Obama about Israel."
On Obama's failure to support freedom in Iran:
"Obama sees himself, by schooling, lineage, and temperament, as postnational. He's a post-Western envoy to the oppressed, whose unique talents "bridge" the once insurmountable gaps, and so delivers "peace" - due to his transcendence of supposedly obsolescent paradigms such as the theocracy in Iran is thuggish, illegitimate, scary, and, well, mostly nuts. So when a genuinely authentic and democratic resistance arises, Obama's paradigm cannot account for it. For the Iranians who are risking their lives for freedom, Obama's third-world fides is irrelevant. All they seek are hearts and minds; they seek support from democratic peoples confident in the West - and so, of course find no such empathy from Obama."
On Obama's stupid world view:
"President Barack Obama came into office apparently believing that his non-traditional background, charisma and good intentions could placate dictators hostile to America and ease global tensions."
Hanson gave great advice, that Obama of course ignored:
"So, Mr. President, do not talk to a thug unless you absolutely have to. Do not apologize to - or put our trust in - one. And whenever people rise up against a thug, speak out immediately and forcefully on their behalf - and let the thug, not America, worry about the consequences of the spread of freedom."
Obama did the opposite.
That is why he was such an awful President.
He should not be forgiven for his choices.
"People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one."
As Mark Steyn
"No, sorry. History proved no such thing. In the Cold War, the world did not stand as one. One half of Europe was a prison, and in the other half far too many people - the Barack Obamas of the day - were happy to go along with that division in perpetuity. And the wall came down not because "the world stood as one" but because a few courageous people stood against the conventional wisdom of the day. Had Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan been like Helmut Schmidt and Francois Mitterand and Pierre Trudeau and Jimmy Carter, the Soviet empire .. would have survived and the wall would still be standing."
He sums up the Cold War:
"At that time, the American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose.
And then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."
He sums up the Cold War
without summing it up as a struggle between
democracy and tyranny.
Without summing it up as a struggle between
European freedom and brutal Russian imperialism.
Without summing it up as a struggle
that America and Europe won, largely thanks to Ronald Reagan.
With that pathetic start, the odds of him challenging Russia's current return to
dictatorship seem slim.
Obama Rewrites the Cold War, Liz Cheney, 13 July 2009:
"There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.
One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push "reset" - or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said."
John Fay is embarrassed by President Obama not turning up for the 20th anniversary Berlin Wall celebrations in Nov 2009.
"nothing President Bush did was as stupidly embarrassing as what President Obama did this week. His failure to turn up in Berlin was a calculated snub of an ally - Germany - and really all of eastern Europe.
It was also a snub to America's own past and the efforts of the country over 45 years to confront the threat from the Soviet Union. ... His failure to show wasn't just saying to Germany, "We don't really care that much about your reunited country" or to eastern Europe, "Your struggles weren't all that important," although those were two messages from his absence. No, it was also saying, "I don't care much for that piece of American history" (our stand against Communism).
It was cringe-making watching President Sarkozy take the podium as the lead speaker knowing that the President of the United States should have been there. If in 1989 you'd asked anyone in E. Europe what country more than any other was responsible for the collapse of the Soviet system they'd have said the United States. If you had asked any Berliner in 1989 what foreign leader should speak first at the 20th anniversary celebrations they'd have said the President of the United States."
But they would have meant Reagan, not Obama.
President Obama says the Berlin Wall falling was a bit like his election:
Obama's speech on the
20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Nov 2009.
He didn't even bother to go to this, a celebration of the greatest American achievement of
Instead he sent a video, which absurdly compared this world-changing event
to his own election:
"Few would have foreseen on that day that a united Germany would be led by a woman from Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent."
"count the number of times The One names either "Russia" or the "Soviet Union" as the party responsible for the Wall. The closest he gets is the reference to the Iron Curtain; aside from that, all we really learn here is that there was some vague tyrant that used to oppress eastern Europe but has since receded into the mists of history. Ask the Poles and Czechs how they feel about that ...
Be sure to count the number of references to Reagan and Thatcher too."
Margaret Thatcher was the opposite of Obama on the Cold War and communism.
When she first met Gorbachev in 1984
she said to him:
"Welcome to the United Kingdom. I want our relationship to get off to a good start,
and to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us - I hate Communism."
What a woman.
You could never imagine Obama standing up for the West like that.
on the 40th anniversary of D-Day, 1984,
says what Obama doesn't have the guts to about Russia. "In spite of our great efforts and successes, not all that followed the end of the war was happy or planned. Some liberated countries were lost. The great sadness of this loss echoes down to our own time in the streets of Warsaw, Prague, and East Berlin. The Soviet troops that came to the center of this continent did not leave when peace came. They're still there, uninvited, unwanted, unyielding, almost forty years after the war. Because of this, allied forces still stand on this continent. Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy. ...
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent."
Reagan shows what a real American president should be like.
Let us hope America survives its stupid fling with Obama.
Obama gives insulting gifts to Gordon Brown, Mar 2009.
Brown gave Obama a pen holder made from the wood of a British warship
that helped stamp out the slave trade
(whose sister ship provided the wood for the Oval Office desk).
Obama gave Brown some DVDs from the local corner shop.
A State Department official,
questioned about the apparent snubs to Britain, said in
"There's nothing special about Britain.
You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world.
You shouldn't expect special treatment."
He said this about Britain!
Britain, more than any other country in the West,
is sacrificing its young men's lives in American-led wars.
It is America's no.1 combat ally in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is the no.1 American ally in the world.
And this is how this asshole talks?
There's "nothing special" about Britain?
Audio of state senator Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Audio of President Obama 2009 Inauguration Address.
What kind of egomaniac is Obama that he thinks the Queen would be interested in
his stupid speeches?
"How'd Team Barry forget to pre-load that
ass-covering speech on race
he gave last year ... ? Isn't that supposed to be the greatest work of American literature since "Huckleberry Finn" or something? Way to cheap out on the Queen!"
Why Barack Obama doesn't much care for Britain, Daniel Hannan, December 8th, 2010:
"Of course, I might be wrong about all this. ... Perhaps Obama appreciates that we are the only country that can generally be relied on to deploy troops in serious numbers alongside our American allies. If this is the case, it would be nice to hear him say so."
In latest insult to Britain, the Obama administration kowtows to Kirchner on the Falklands referendum, Nile Gardiner, February 25th, 2013.
On Obama's refusal to support Britain over the Falklands:
"This is yet another slap in the face for Britain and the Falklands Islanders from a US administration that cares more about appeasing a third-rate, declining socialist regime in Latin America than standing with America's closest friend and ally. As I've noted before, Barack Obama is the most anti-British US president of modern times."
Obama has spurned all allies:
"The new American foreign stance was to be chilly towards friends and nicer towards enemies. Out went the bust of Churchill ... the Obama administration sent no high representative to Lady Thatcher's funeral. Israel and Saudi Arabia ... felt disrespected. There was a sharp contrast between Obama's dropping of his country's old friend Hosni Mubarak .. and Putin's staunch and successful defence of his ally, Bashar al-Assad ... In Iran, the country where pro-Western feeling is strongest among the population, President Obama did nothing to fertilise the shoots of the "green revolution"".
Obama and the left are grossly ignorant of how the world works:"He does not grasp, apparently, that the Pax Americana, under whose protection we have lived since 1945, has existed because it has always been backed by the credible threat of force. Weakness is provocative to bad actors, and some of the world's worst have now been provoked.
This seems to have come as an almost complete surprise to the Obama White House.
The would-be Peace President .. will leave a legacy of war
All my life, many people, by no means all of them on the Left, have complained about the extent of American power.... Will they be pleased if what they thought they wished for is actually happening? It feels as if the world is in for a more dangerous time than any since the Carter/Brezhnev era of the late Seventies".
Can anything be written in defence of Obama?
Despite his awful rhetoric,
Obama's actions have been more cautious.
He has continued the use of violence against the global jihad.
He could be a lot worse.
"Say what you will about Obama - and I think we've said a lot, little of it flattering - but the man has pretty much given the CIA free reign to kill members of al Qaeda. For that, he should be thanked."
Greg Gutfeld, 4 Feb 2010, on the bizarre silence of the left about Obama's war crimes.
Under Bush, he says:
"I witnessed a fully realized anti-American lynch mob, who would rather win an election than a war - and that made me more of a conservative than 9/11, my life at Berkeley, or all those head injuries combined.
Wanna see proof of my point? Ask yourself, where the feverish anti-war movement is, now that Obama is in power?"
Jeffrey Jena, 22 Feb 2010, points out another example. Obama announces funding for a
"new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country".
Silence from the once anti-nuclear left.
Victor Davis Hanson, February 21, 2010, says Obama's actions may speak louder than words.
Like vocal greens who live in mansions and fly jets,
Obama is a vocal "anti-war" critic who
also is quietly killing jihadis from the air without trial.
... Obama really does (privately) believe that radical Islamists wish to kill us, and apparently has decided the only effective means of combating them is to copy the Bush strategy but drop the "smoke 'em out" rhetoric and substitute hope-and-change therapeutic banalities as we blow up suspected killers."
Hanson also points out that
the left does not really care about the rights of terrorists.
All it cared about was attacking Bush.
Obama bombs Libya, Mar 2011. Despite his terrible rhetoric, he is learning how to be a neo-con.
Victor Davis Hanson, May 11, 2011, lists out Obama's hypocrisy.
"In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts - before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation - this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama's radical transformation is
the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left."
(Again, I'm not opposed to it.
The 16 year old was the terrorist son of terrorist leader Anwar Al-Awlaki,
and he died with a bunch of al-Qaeda members the month after his father was killed.
I'm not opposed to the strike.
What I'm amazed by is the disgusting hypocrisy of Obama and the western left.)
Bush Reconsidered, by Victor Davis Hanson, 2 Jan 2013.
"Little more need be said about the hysteria over the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, other than that most of their critics went silent when the former critic President Obama, quite mysteriously, embraced or even expanded almost all of them - apparently on the post-election realization that something that had prevented another 9/11 for a subsequent seven years should not be summarily ended. Guantanamo is still open. Renditions and tribunals remain in effect. Predator-drone missions vastly increased under Obama, and are such a part of the current landscape that the president can joke about siccing drones on any potential suitors of his two daughters."
And he gets a pass from the media ... because he's their guy.
Air strikes in Pakistan have escalated under Obama.
He's not all bad.
From The Long War Journal as at Jan 2013.
(2013 bar removed since it is incomplete.)
MQ-1 Predator drone,
of the type that President Obama is using to kill jihadis without trial.
Image from here.
More images here.
Well done to Obama for ordering the raid on an urban area of an "ally"
without their knowledge.
Well done to Obama for not ordering the raid (or an airstrike)
before the Nov 2010 election
in which the Democrats suffered badly.
(Obama's people knew about the possible Bin Laden house at that point.)
Obama isn't all bad.
His rhetoric is dreadful (attacking Bush, Guantanamo, and all the pre-2008 security measures).
But in his actions, he tends to just carry on Bush's work.
It's hard to admire him because of his rhetoric.
But I am glad he is a hypocrite.
Well done Obama.
Though it is silly to suggest that Bush could not have caught Bin Laden.
As Toby Harnden
"the intelligence that led to the raid originated in 2007, during the Bush administration. Listening to the account of the long and patient process that followed, this seems like an example of the US military and intelligence community working seamlessly from one adminstration to the next."
He celebrates the fact that Obama is a hypocrite who attacked Bush and then carried on Bush's policies (and thank goodness for that).
"Like many Americans - and the Nobel Peace Prize committee - I naively feared he was actually serious when he initially proposed shutting down Guantanamo, trying detainees in American civilian courts, and prior consultation with the international community. Little did I know that this untested young Commander-in-Chief would muster the courage to read his weekly Gallup numbers and, in one daring unilateral extra-judicial targeted hit job, toss aside every single idiotic foreign policy principle of his election campaign."
He mocks the "anti-war" left who condemned Bush for doing what Obama is now doing,
which the left now actually
Many who attacked Bush and Israel for targeted killings
now celebrate Obama for doing the same.
"I .. completely underestimated the capacity of America's erstwhile "peace community" for turning on a dime and embracing the kind of all-American xenophobic flag-waving bloodlust they only recently decried. So today I stand proudly with my new friends of the formerly antiwar left in a mindlessly jingoistic salute to President Obama for an extralegal military assassination well done."
The difference is that the right really supports this kind of thing.
The left supports it only when a Democrat President does it.
"Of course, I'm not naive enough to think our current wave of national unity will last forever. At some point, possibly after the next election, American troops will once again assume their traditional role of psychotic baby-killing objects of fear and pity. And, doubtlessly, those of us who still admire them must once again assume our traditional role as America's flag-humping racist chickenhawks. But when that day comes, we can look back at the week of May 1, 2011 and realize that it isn't personal. Hey, that's just the way the chad crumbles."
The old Obama comes back. He won't release the photos:
Just when I got a rare chance to praise him, he makes the wrong call yet again.
have started, and will only grow, because
Obama has decided that
we don't need to see the
photos of the body.
They exist, but Obama knows what is best for us, and we can't see them.
A bit like his birth cert from 2008 to 2011.
I do not doubt that Bin Laden is dead, but, as with the birth cert,
I am annoyed by Obama's arrogant paternalism.
Obama attacks Bush-era security, then benefits from it:
Aug 2009 - Obama administration starts long-running investigation into Bush-era
with an eye to prosecution.
This is still ongoing as at 2011.
Sept 2009 -
Under Obama, three brave
US Navy SEALs are absurdly charged
the jihadi butcher of Fallujah
when they captured him.
They are eventually cleared.
May 2011 - Obama praises US Navy SEALs
who assassinate an unarmed Bin Laden without trial,
tracking him down
as a result of information gained from Bush-era CIA interrogators.
says, the old Obama rhetoric could be used to prosecute the new Obama.
Pro-Obama poster, from lefties who
the War on Islamic Terror.
(And may even support it for days before returning to normal.)
(In fact, the very site that displays this, the viper-tongued, far-left Daily Kos,
is the same site that,
the killing of US contractors, including a Navy SEAL veteran
"I feel nothing ... Screw them."
And now we're meant to believe these guys support the War on Islamic Terror?)
from people who have always supported the war.
"Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama's Policies".
Leftie group wearechange.org, Oct 2012, points out to Obama voters how Obama has carried on many of Bush's policies against jihadists.
They cleverly portray them as Romney policies, and then, once the Obama voter has condemned them,
they reveal they are Obama policies.
Despite the awful rhetoric,
Obama's not all bad.
I like that he's a hypocrite.
Tyrannies that were saved
(US President refused to help rebels)
Allowed enemy regimes
develop nuclear weapons
"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer [to politics]. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended.
bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing
[about Iran], let alone you."
- Enemy leader
Ahmadinejad shows he is not afraid of Obama's America, Apr 2010. He has only contempt for the weakling.
A kinder, weaker America may make the left feel better,
but to the thugs and tyrants of the world it means one thing:
a green light.
Obama "has no feelings for Europe"
"prefers to look East rather than West".
- State Department cable leaked by
Wikileaks in Nov 2010
nails what is wrong with Obama.
How did Americans elect this guy
as the leader of the free world?
for original full text cable.
If you know where it is, tell me here.
Obama's background explains everything about him.
A head full of crap ideas all his life.
What no one can explain to me is why Americans elected this guy.
"Obama Nation" cartoon from
James Hudnall and Batton Lash.
See more cartoons
Blocked on Twitter by the regressive left and Islamists:
I love debate.
I love ideas.
But the Western left
and their friends the Islamic right
do not return the favour.
Their response to opposing ideas, whether expressed politely or robustly, is often to block.
See Who blocks me on Twitter.
I will debate almost anyone.
Stick to ideas and I will debate you.
But I do have rules.
See Who I block on Twitter.
The Twitter dark age, 2016 to 2022:
I am on Twitter at
Twitter was a great place for debate before 2016.
You could meet everyone in the world, and argue about ideas.
Starting in 2016,
Twitter became increasingly broken.
It became full of reporting and bans and censorship.
In 2019, Twitter even started
for no reason that was ever explained, or could be appealed.
arrival of Elon Musk
in 2022, Twitter's dark age of censorship may end.
Let's hope so.