“Everything Obama Knows About The Economy” Book Left Totally Blank

Hot Air reports:

Tennessee banker Jimmy Moncrief just self-published his first book — a 150-page stunner called “Everything Obama Knows About the Economy.” Those who buy it won’t have much to read: Every page of the book is blank. No matter: Moncrief has already sold hundreds of copies as Christmas gag gifts.

My only question: Why just the economy?

Advertisements

The Obama Government Steals Nearly 80% of GDP from 2009-2011

What’s the cost of living under Obama? In addition to the $12.6 trillion in government “revenue” taken in Fiscal Years 2009-2011, an average of 30% of GDP, the Federal Reserve has “lost” approximately $16 trillion in TARP, bailouts, and outright theft and redistribution.

Continue reading “The Obama Government Steals Nearly 80% of GDP from 2009-2011”

Obama the Neocon Banging the War Drums Again? U.S. Troops Mount Near Syria

If Obama is hoping for a “rally around the flag” effect, maybe he shouldn’t hold his crotch during the national anthem.

There are reports surfacing of U.S. troops gathering in Jordan near the Syrian border. It is unclear if the exercise is merely saber-rattling, or the preparatory stages for an excursion into Bashir Assad’s Syria.

The Syrian government has been condemned for its human rights abuses by the United Nations Human Rights Council (which Syria was recently elected to) and even the Arab League.

It should be noted that Hillary Clinton at the State Department under Barack Obama had given leeway to Assad, especially during the early stages of the administration.

Now we hear the war drums beating again.

From Pat Dollard’s website comes a post by Debkafile regarding the developing situation:

As the US completes its final withdrawal from Iraq, American special forces troops have been diverted to positions in Jordan opposite a Syrian tank concentration building up across the kingdom’s northern border, debkafile’s military and intelligence sources report.
As of last Thursday, military convoys, air transports and helicopters have been lifting US troops across the border from Iraq. They have been deployed in position to ward off a possible Syrian invasion in the light of President Bashar Assad’s warning that he would set the entire Middle East on fire if the pressure on his regime to step down persisted.

Syria’s other neighbors have taken precautions against this contingency but this is the first time US boots have hit the ground directly opposite Assad’s army.

Read the rest here.

The question becomes: Will Barack Obama once again circumvent the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional declaration of war, as he did with the Libyan invasion? Even under the questionable War Powers Act the president has to submit to advise and consent with the Senate within 90 days. Thus far, no such application has been made, as even the New York Times reported. Obama bluntly stated that the War Powers Act “doesn’t apply”! This is a step beyond even saying that The Constitution doesn’t apply.

Will all the leftists who declared the Bush administration as “neocons,” even after Democrats “authorized” him to take the country to war (a motion presumably covered by the Constitutional requirement of a Congressional declaration of war)? Or will they remain silent, being the immoral statist dupes that they are?

One for the Obama Hall of Shame: Iran Refuses to Return Drone

In the most embarrassing foreign policy moment for any president since Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama has asked Iran for its fallen drone back.

Yes, the anti-Zionist, mad mullah-controlled, rogue death cult regime attempting to usher in the 13th imam through nuclear apocalypse Iran. The one we have no formal diplomatic relations with since 1979 (thanks Jimmah), finances terrorist organizations, and captures, tortures and kills American CIA agents. Right. That one.

Oh, and request denied.

From the BBC:

Iran has rejected a US call for the return of an American spy drone captured by Iran’s military.

The aircraft was now “property” of Iran and it was up to Iran to decide what to do with it, defence minister Ahmad Vahidi said.

Hmm, maybe they’ll auction it to Obama’s “friends” the Chinese?

U.S. Missile Defense Threatened by Budget Cuts, Russian Cooperation

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 has several disturbing provisions, in addition to the widely discussed Section 1031 and 1032, which would nominally expand the battlefront in the war on terror to U.S. soil. We must also put a scrutinizing eye to Sections 231-233, regarding missile defense systems, and then place the policy implications in the broader international security context.

As the Heritage Foundation points out, we are already severely downgrading our missile defense systems in Europe, due to impending budget cuts. This goes beyond Obama revamping our missile defense from broader coverage of ICBMs to protection just against limited and midrange nuclear missiles potentially launched by such “rogue states” as Iran and North Korea. It would include the interim termination of funding for exo-atmospheric kill vehicles (EKV), which have been designed to thwart some types of ICBMs.

Meanwhile, we have built a NATO ballistic missile defense system in the Islamist regime of Turkey. Iran recently threatened to bomb such defense capabilities in the event there is a strike on Iran from Israel or jointly with the U.S. Further exacerbating the Middle Eastern picture is Russia’s cooperation with Syria in regards to providing the corrupt Assad regime with anti-aircraft missiles and other military assets. Such hardware could make its way to Iran, which Russia has provided with nuclear energy know-how and fissible material.

Russia is concurrently saber-rattling with the demand that America remove Theater Wide Defense from its region, despite the Obama administration’s supine proposals to “cooperate” with the Russians on certain aspects of missile defense. Heated rhetoric from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would “target” European missile defense, while stoking the fires for a new arms race, have been matched by suggestions to withdraw from Obama’s risible “New Start” agreement, which would cause the “peregruzka” or reset/overcharge era of U.S.-Russian relations to be terminated officially.

It is important to understand the background of national missile defense in order to assess how Obama’s policy changes are either a departure from the status quo or a continuation of it. Below is Section 233 of the NDAA, which provides some context.

SEC. 233. MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) For more than a decade, the United States and Russia have discussed a variety of options for cooperation on shared early warning and ballistic missile defense. For example, on May 1, 2001, President George W. Bush spoke of a ‘‘new cooperative relationship’’ with Russia and said it ‘‘should be premised on openness, mutual confidence and real opportunities for cooperation, including the area of missile defense. It should allow us to share information so that each nation can improve its early warning capability, and its capability to defend its people and territory. And perhaps one day, we can even cooperate in a joint defense’’.
(2) Section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (as enacted into law by Public Law 106–398; 1654A–329) authorized the Department of Defense to establish in Russia a ‘‘joint center for the exchange of data from systems to provide early warning of launches of ballistic missiles and for notification of launches of such missiles’’, also known as the Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC).
(3) On March 31, 2008, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England stated that ‘‘we have offered Russia a wide-ranging proposal to cooperate on missile defense—everything from modeling and simulation, to data sharing, to joint development of a regional missile defense architecture—all designed to defend the United States, Europe, and Russia from the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles. An extraordinary series of transparency measures have also been offered to reassure Russia. Despite some Russian reluctance to sign up to these cooperative missile defense activities, we continue to work toward this goal’’.
(4) On July 6, 2009, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a joint statement on missile defense issues, which stated that ‘‘Russia and the United States plan to continue the discussion concerning the establishment of cooperation in responding to the challenge of ballistic missile proliferation. . . We have instructed our experts to work together to analyze the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century and to prepare appropriate recommendations’’.
(5) The February 2010 report of the Ballistic Missile Defense Review established as one of its central policy pillars that increased international missile defense cooperation is in the national security interest of the United States and, with regard to cooperation with Russia, the United States ‘‘is pursuing abroad agenda focused on shared early warning of missile launches, possible technical cooperation, and even operational cooperation’’.
(6) at the November 2010 Lisbon Summit, the  North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided to develop a missile defense system to ‘‘protect NATO European populations, territory and forces’’and also to seek cooperation with Russia on missile defense. In its Lisbon Summit Declaration, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reaffirmed its readiness to ‘‘invite Russia to explore jointly the potential for linking current and planned missile defence systems at an appropriate time in mutually beneficial ways’’. The new NATO Strategic Concept adopted at the Lisbon Summit states that ‘‘we will actively seek cooperation on missile defence with Russia’’, that ‘‘NATO-Russia cooperation is of strategic importance’’, and that ‘‘the security of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia is intertwined’’.
(7) In a December 18, 2010, letter to the leadership of the Senate, President Obama wrote that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ‘‘invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense, which could lead to adding Russian capabilities to those deployed by NATO to enhance our common security against common threats. The Lisbon Summit thus demonstrated that the Alliance’s missile defenses can be strengthened by improving NATO-Russian relations. This comes even as we have made clear that the system we intend to pursue with Russia will not be a joint system, and it will not in any way limit United States’ or NATO’s missile defense capabilities. Effective cooperation with Russia could enhance the overall efficiency of our combined territorial missile defenses, and at the same time provide Russia with greater security’’.
(8) Section 221(a)(3) of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111–383; 124 Stat. 4167) states that it is the sense of Congress ‘‘to support the efforts of the United States Government and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to pursue cooperation with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense relative to Iranian missile threats’’.
(9) In a speech in Russia on March 21, 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates cited ‘‘the NATO-Russian decision to cooperate on defense against ballistic missiles. We’ve disagreed before, and Russia still has uncertainties about the European Phased Adaptive Approach, a limited system that poses no challenges to the large Russian nuclear arsenal. However, we’ve mutually committed to resolving these difficulties in order to develop a roadmap toward truly effective anti-ballistic missile collaboration. This collaboration may include exchanging launch information, setting up a joint data fusion center, allowing greater transparency with respect to our missile defense plans and exercises, and conducting a joint analysis to determine areas of future cooperation’’.
(10) In testimony to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on April 13, 2011, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy Bradley H. Roberts stated that the United States has been pursuing a Defense Technology Cooperation Agreement with Russia since 2004, and that such an agreement is necessary ‘‘for the safeguarding of sensitive information in support of cooperation’’ on missile defense, and to ‘‘provide the legal framework for undertaking cooperative efforts.’’ Further, Dr. Roberts stated that the United States would not provide any classified information to Russia without first conducting a National Disclosure Policy review. He also stated that the United States is not considering sharing ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ technology with Russia.
(11) The United States and Russia already engage in substantial cooperation on a number of international security efforts, including nuclear non-proliferation, anti-piracy, counter-narcotics, nuclear security, counter-terrorism, and logistics resupply through Russia of coalition forces in Afghanistan. These areas of cooperation require each side to share and protect sensitive information, which they have both done successfully.
(12) The United States currently has shared early warning agreements and programs of cooperation with eight nations in addition to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The United States has developed procedures and mechanisms for sharing early warning information with partner nations while ensuring the protection of sensitive United States information.
(13) Russia and the United States each have missile launch early warning and detection and tracking sensors that could contribute to and enhance each others’ ability to detect, track, an defend against ballistic missile threats from Iran.
(14) The Obama Administration has provided regular briefings to Congress on its discussions with Russia on possible missile defense cooperation.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) it is in the national security interest of the United States to pursue efforts at missile defense cooperation with Russia that would enhance the security of the United States, its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, and Russia, particularly against missile threats from Iran;
(2) the United States should pursue ballistic missile defense cooperation with Russia on both a bilateral basis and a multilateral basis with its North Atlantic     Treaty     Organization     allies,     particularly through the NATO-Russia Council;
(3) missile defense cooperation with Russia should not ‘‘in any way limit United States’ or NATO’s missile defense capabilities’’, as acknowledged in the December 18, 2010, letter from President Obama to the leadership of the Senate, and should be mutually beneficial and reciprocal in nature; and
(4) the United States should pursue missile defense cooperation with Russia in a manner that ensures that—
(A) United States classified information is appropriately safeguarded and protected from unauthorized disclosure;
(B) prior to sharing classified information with Russia, the United States conducts a National Disclosure Policy review and determines the types and levels of information that may be shared and whether any additional procedures are necessary to protect such information;
(C) prior to entering into missile defense technology cooperation projects, the United States enters into a Defense Technology Cooperation Agreement with Russia that establishes the legal framework for a broad spectrum of potential cooperative defense projects; and
(D) such cooperation does not limit the missile defense capabilities of the United States or its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.
(c) REPORT.—

(1) REPORT     REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the status of efforts to reach agreement with Russia on missile defense cooperation.
(2) ELEMENTS.—The report required under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) A summary of the status of discussions between the United States and Russia, and between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia, on efforts to agree on missile defense cooperation.
(B)     A     description     of     any     agreements reached pursuant to such discussions, and any specific cooperative measures agreed, implemented, or planned.
(C) A discussion of the manner in which such cooperative measures would enhance the security of the United States, and the manner in which such cooperative measures fit within the larger context of United States-Russian cooperation on international security.

The drive to scrap our missile defense systems can be seen within a pattern of American feebleness in response to Russian aggression. George W. Bush did little to effectively or rhetorically oppose Russia’s interventions into Georgian territory, both prior to and during the August 2008 war. Currently, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing little to frustrate Russian troublemaking in Syria and Iran.  The wise course of action is to distrust Russia, continue with ABM defense, and justify it as a means to safeguard the Unites States and its allies. Whether or not Russia perceives the program as offensive in nature says much about its leadership’s mentality. Assuredly, the Russians would use such a program in an offensive manner, and therefore, should not be trusted with sensitive information regarding the Theater Wide Defense program.

In the broader international security context, the Obama administration is pursuing a policy of equalization as a means of lowering enemy regimes’ threat perception of the United States. The academic rationale for this point of of view is inherently subversive of U.S. national sovereignty and ability to defend itself against multiple threats. The reason behind this broader conceptual policy stance is that academics and our policy advisors view the United States as an inherently immoral regime, a biproduct of disenchantment with the U.S. beginning at least since the Vietnam Era.

The problem with such a stance of international kowtowing is that it emboldens enemies, particularly ruthless states like Russia, Iran, and China. These states should be distrusted by their very nature; while realism holds that we should treat all nations equally in terms of power, we should not overlook that some regimes are simply mischievous, calculating, and prone to deception. Culture does matter, as has been evidenced by America’s close ties with countries like Britain and Israel.

The American people should also be aware of the theory of “convergence,” a purported strategy of the Russians to corrupt their enemies and subvert them into submitting to their foreign policy designs. This would entail aiding those domestic forces that work to undermine freedom and security within hostile or strategically important nations.

This is not a call to return to a Cold War scenario; but rather to take a more clear-eyed view of what our values are, how to best defend them, and how to rationally and productively imbue them in an objectively hostile world. This is both a national security and foreign policy key; without such an assertion of our values, we stand for nothing, and can be endlessly manipulated by our adversaries.

Occupy and Tea Party Clash in D.C.


The Daily Caller is giving us a vivid preview of the upcoming battle for the American republic. The most damning images from the timely video are a man in an SUV with a two year old simply trying to get home, a woman with her children screaming at the occupiers, and an old lady injured by the left-wing activists.

The video is obviously not for children, since the OccupyDC gang is involved.

The “right-wing” blogosphere is going to be extremely busy documenting all the Occupy movement’s infractions, arrests, assaults, curses, and lawlessness for use in the impending elections. Since the Democrats, and particularly, current President Barack Obama, has thrown in lot with whom the Romans referred to as the mobile vulgus, or “the mob,” then the conservative opposition can capitalize on the steady stream of ugly images to paint the Democrat incumbents in a very nasty light.

When combined with the seedy corruption, reckless spending, arrogant defiance of the public’s policy desires, and media complicity in propping up the big government establishment, the visions of unruly protesters clamoring for ever more will provide an unsavory tableau for the abject decadence that Washington has embodied.

But the tea party should not take such images as a rallying cry for violence against the misled youth, who are being used by the establishment to justify more government, more welfare statism, more economic control, and more political power. The conservative right should take a page out of Lenin, and let slack the rope by which the occupy protesters will hang their movement.

The Occupy Wall Street gang can “own the streets” all they want; the tea party can quietly sit back, lead the left into a false sense of security, and then own them on election day. Or to put it another way, the leftists can “occupy everything,” and on November 6th 2012, the center-right majority will occupy the ballot boxes.

Polling of the 99% Confirms: Occupy Wall Street Will Not Save Obama

The Daily Kos has a simultaneously desperate and hilarious post comparing public (i.e. within-asylum) support for the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) “movement” versus the tea party.

For some reason, the left-wing rag can’t find more people around the water cooler who support the “astroturfed” tea party (helluva show last November boys!) than the completely authentic, genuine, non-contrived, un-orchestrated Occupy Wall Street movement comprised of actual Americans representing the 99% of lower class folks dining out on fine deli, staffed with high tech equipment, and in no way associated with fancy Canadian PR firms, communist legal bodies, Obama re-election arms like Moveon.org, or Soros-funded groups like the Tides Foundation or the Open Society Institute.

Too bad for them that Realityville has its own polling, and it shows that most people still identify with the tea party over the occupiers, despite the disinformation campaign pluming up a blue smokescreen over the very red gathering. Twenty-six percent are still undecided despite weeks of media pom-poming for the miscreants, a decided down-twinkles for the motley lot.

Which makes the occupiers exceptionally ironic characters is that they not only will support a president who threw trillions away on banks and corporations, but one who has just hired a big-time Wall Street lobbyist as a campaign advisor. We are the 99% who will vote for Obama anyway?

The unusually ratty window dressing for the Obama campaign’s re-election bid just doesn’t wash. When we look at President Obama’s “strongly approve” rating at Rasmussen, we find another all-time low of below 20%, and a gap with the strongly disapprove of -22%. It’s the same loony one-fifth column that would follow a Democrat into the sulfurous pit of hell if he promised a new entitlement program. You know, the Daily Kooks crowd.

Once again, I’ll make the point that we conservatives’ best asset is the left’s self-delusion. If the lefties actually believe that the tea party is astro-turfed and they want to exaggerate their own actual strength, by all means, let them. Next year’s elections will become that much more a demoralizing shock to them. The majority of Americans are not leftists. And thanks in part to the utterly corrupt and disastrous Obama regime, most Americans in the future won’t be.

As posted on Political Crush.

Barack Obama and the Unwar on Terror

President Obama is doing an outstanding job fighting the war on terror, at least from the point of view of Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. While the Commander-in-Chief is busy whacking dictators and terrorist leaders like remote-controlled wack-a-mole, Islamosocialists are waiting in the wings to surge into the power vacuum. Such is the folly of Obama’s read on the Big Bang theory, which denudes the ‘liberal’ qualifier of democracy in his reckless drive to democratize the Middle East.

Such an amoral and rudderless foreign policy leads to anarchy and chaos, and a perfect opportunity for global redistributionist patrons to pick up a new clientele on the sandy outskirts of the civilized world.

When Barack Obama cheers Islamists being democratically elected in Tunisia, or Mubarak deposed in Egypt and the resulting rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, or the sick and savage execution and violation of Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi and the rebels’ declaration of an Islamist state, or his administration’s refusal to punish the democratically elected Hamas leadership of Syria we find ample grounds to question whether the president understands that democracy is but a means to an end, and can empower undesirable groups as well as desirable ones.

Democracy is not an ethos, it is a process. And while we Americans do value the democratic process in resolving our internal disputes and attempting to hold our elected leaders accountable, it can be a destabilizing force in countries whose people are not used to peacably resolving disputes. Until social trust is developed, democracy is a placeholder, and its imprimatur is likely to be abused by those who come to power in countries without a classically liberal heritage. Without shared morality and a common sense of identity among the populace, democracy can be a cynical excuse for a group to build its power base at the expense of other groups. Majority rule is not necessarily civil rule.

Thus what may have started out as an initiative by George W. Bush to build a bridge of democratic accountability across the Muslim crescent, hopefully coaxing local peoples to restrain rogue regimes that may be tempted to irrationally use nuclear weapons and other wmds, is turning into President Obama’s drive to bring social justice to a region by toppling dictators and executing meddlesome conservative Islamic terrorists.

In President Obama’s unwar on terror, the enemy of his enemy is his friend, and if verified reports that the Libyan rebels have al Qaeda ties surface, so be it. If the rebels are in common cause to remove impediments to the global redistributionist order, they should be used to remove culturally conservative and autarkik rulers. If Islamic revisionists motivated by social justice are to come to power, they should be tacitly supported. And if a stubborn autocrat like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad should prove reticent to throw in lot with the globalists, then he should be threatened, if not forcibly removed.

While America’s brave soldiers are holding down the fort in treacherous Afghanistan under hamstringing rules of engagement, and Obama has conveniently called for a removal of troops from Iraq by the end of the year, potentially allowing radical Islamic groups to enter the fray and capitalize on the U.S.’ removal of the Ba’athist strongman Sadaam Hussein, we should note that America is ceasing to fight the war on terror and has shifted its goals to a new objective: Democratization (sans the “Liberal” part). That this drive will will lead to the ascendancy of more ethically pliable ruling groups is not in doubt. Whether or not this will lead to less terrorism domestically and abroad very much is.

Judging by the track record of authoritarian Iran and its sponsorship of Hezbollah and that of democratically elected Hamas, democratization per se has very little to do with fighting the war on terror. If radical elements use democracy as a means to gain more power and then to terrorize their populations or those of foreign countries like Israel and the United States, then Obama’s presumed successes killing “bad guys” will soon become foreign policy disasters.

As posted on Political Crush.

Obama Beats Bush in Military and War Spending

Those who thought electing Barack Obama would usher in a new era of hope and change and a redirection from George Bush’s militarism and spending on overseas wars might want to look away. We wouldn’t want you to lose the pleasant illusion that the Nobel Peace Prize-winning warmonger in the White House celebrating the assassination of a foreign head of state he didn’t even kill is something other than what he claims.

Below is a graph of U.S. defense spending from 2000, the year that Bush “stole” his election, projected to the end of Obama’s term. Those on the left who are bad at math have pretty colors to illustrate that both the DOD Budget Increase and Overseas Contingency (Wars) segments have gotten fatter, meaning that we are spending more under Barack Obama, who had a Democrat-controlled House and filibuster-proof Senate for his first two years, than at any time under fellow “war criminal” George W. Bush.

Is this graph from one of those right-wing think tanks that makes up its own statistics? Not unless you count the Office of Management and Budget as an arm of the Koch Brothers.

For those numbers guys in the audience, below are National Defense Outlays since 1960, as grabbed from a U.S. Census Bureau report.


As one can see from the chart, National Defense Outlays in dollar figures and as a percentage of GDP have gone up under Obama. Unless right-wingers are conspiring with the OMB and the Census Bureau, Barack Obama owns these numbers.

So fine, we’re spending more money overseas. Perhaps President Obama is putting less troops in harm’s way? Wrong again. In 2010, President Obama sent and kept more American troops overseas than at any point under George W. Bush.

Another right-wing conspiracy? These numbers are from the Department of Defense, which is not likely to be influenced by “teabagger” money.

Maybe President Obama is spending more money on national defense, and is sending more of our troops overseas, but he has slashed Homeland Security funding? Not the case.

Even when one accounts for Department of Defense funding, President Obama’s administration is spending far and away what George W. Bush did in any year of his presidency.

The popular perception that George W. Bush was a warmonger, while Barack Obama is a peace-loving president who is simply trying to successfully end the wars he inherited from Bush, just doesn’t fly. President Obama is every bit the “warmonger” George W. Bush was, and then some.

President Obama’s Job Approval Rating in Historical Perspective

Gallup’s Presidential Job Approval Rating for October 17, 2011 shows a familiar but unfavorable trend for President Obama. Though a drastic decline in approval ratings happens to most, if not all presidents, Obama dipping under the 40% approval threshold before his first term is up indicates that his re-election bid is entering danger territory.

In the WSJ archives, one finds the history of presidential job approval ratings going back to Harry S. Truman. Let us examine Obama’s present approval ratings versus past presidents in the third year of their first term.

Those presidents who have dipped under the 40% approval rating and have not jumped sharply up, do not recover. This includes Truman (whose approval ratings were high before his first election), Johnson, Ford, Nixon (before he resigned), and George H.W. Bush. Kennedy was assassinated before his second election, but enjoyed high approval ratings. Full two term presidents include Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, who all had near 60% approval ratings before they were re-elected. Two termer George W. Bush was around 50%. Obama is not even close to that mark.

Racism Myth: American Capitalism No Barrier to Minorities

One of the dominant narratives of Democrat Party politics that was ironically resurrected after the election of the country’s first black president Barack Obama is that racism is alive and well in the U.S. and is keeping minorities down.

Let’s disabuse Americans of that myth.

Statistics taken from the U.S. Census Bureau as recently as 2010 show not only a household income average of $67,530 for all demographics under $250,000, but whites are only slightly above average at $70,572. That doesn’t show a lot of favoritism.

Blacks were far below the average of all demographics at $44,780. But does this tell us that African-Americans are being racially suppressed by the system, or that something has gone culturally astray in the black community?

Hispanics, of all races, tend to average a moderately high income of $51,540 a year by household. One would expect there to be more systemic racism towards new ethnic outsiders than towards minorities who have predominated in the country longer. The success of Hispanics shows this not to be the case.

Lastly, we have Asians, a group that defies the left’s systemic racism narrative. Let’s preface the statistic to point out that there was a time in American history, more recent than even the onset of Reconstruction, when the Chinese were openly discriminated against; in particular with the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The Japanese were detained by the “progressive” president FDR during World War II. Asians have comprised one of the most recent waves of immigrants, and they have now, as a group, become one of the most successful. The average household income for Asians in this survey was $84,828 a year.

Unless the argument can be made that somehow psychologically the majority of Americans are bigoted against those with dark skin but not noticeable Asian characteristics, the claim that the capitalist system is rigged against blacks needs to be put to rest. It would do the black community a great service to stop scapegoating others for certain individuals’ shortcomings, and for people to lift themselves up and others. Getting trapped into government dependency is not going to help anyone, or the country, either.

One last poignant example of how the market is not biased against blacks comes in the form of professional sports. Recently, NBC sportscaster Bryant Gumbel accused the NBA commissioner David Stern for acting like a “plantation overseer” during the lockout talks. Ironically, 80% of the NBA is made up of black players, and the average overall salary is around $5 million a season. There are also a high number of blacks and women in the league offices, at 36% and 44%, respectively. What this shows is that skin color doesn’t matter, but relevant talent does.

This is not to imply that blacks should become athletes, or actors, or only go for those rare one-in-a-million type jobs. But one can become a rocket scientist and CEO like Herman Cain, a law lecturer and president like Barack Obama, or someone as crucial as a teacher, a policeman, a fireman, or a doctor. It all boils down to desire and determination.

This is not to say that racism did not exist in America and still does not exist at all. But capitalism as an economic system is not the problem. Ignorance,demoralizing misinformation, and crippling pessimism is the problem. If we don’t try to tear each other down, and instead work to build each other up, we can each accomplish great things, as measured by our own individual talents and realistic goals.

Lefty Flamethrower Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Complains About Right-Wing Demonization

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a notorious flamethrower who has made a number of incredible vitriolic comments about conservatives, recently appeared on MSNBC to complain about the “demonization” of Democrats and especially President Obama. If the DNC wants to send out someone to fabricate a “new tone” of civility for Democrats to hide behind, they might not want to select someone with a history of grenade-throwing.

It is impossible for a conservative to imagine a more uncivil spokesperson for the left than Wasserman-Schultz. She called Paul Ryan’s plan a “death trap” for seniors, global warming a “death knell,” and asked through her daughter’s voice after the Gabriel Giffords shooting, “Mommy, are you going to get shot?”

But that’s not all. Wasserman-Schultz, representing the party that has thrown in lot with the anarchists and socialists at Occupy Wall Street rallies across the country, once claimed that Republicans wanted to “spark panic and chaos” and instate a “dictatorship.” And President Obama, the chief executive who would hypothetically accrue martial law powers, is sitting in the White House cheering the occupiers on.

Not only incendiary, but illogical.

If the Democrats want to feign like they are being victimized by extreme right-wing rhetoric, that’s not going to fly with most Americans. It has been jaw-dropping the last few years to watch anyone who disagrees with the Democrats’ big government agenda get labeled a “racist,” “extremist,” “terrorist,” “fascist,” and “Nazi,” not only by the left-wing media, but by Democrat politicians themselves!

Shameful doesn’t even begin to cover it.

The Democrats are the ones who have made it impossible to have a rational and civil discussion about politics, with their Alinsky tactics of ridicule, for far too long. Conservatives have gotten wise to the game, and now are starting to give as good as they get. That’s why Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s is on air complaining about being victimized by heated right-wing rhetoric.

Leftists are not used to being verbally attacked in the culture, and they don’t like it one bit. Many on the left see themselves as compassionate class warriors who mean well even when they make mistakes.  Redefining their self-images to a bunch of vicious, power-hungry screw-ups is making some of them squirm. Which is why we need to keep the pressure on them.

They’ll eventually implode. And when they do, it is going to get uglier than Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’ hairdo. [Continued on Political Crush]

The Democrats’ Strategy of Self-Parody

Why Embracing Occupiers is Political Suicide

As the economy continues to run on empty, and numerous Obama administration scandals are simmering on the backburner, the Democrats have sought recourse in an unorthodox strategy: Self-parody.

While Democrats like good performance art, and nearly everything about the 2012 media charade surrounding the Obama campaign was staged, the Occupy Wall Street protests might be one Lollafoolooza they can do without.

The Occupy protests have not only energized the loud-mouthed liberal twenty-percent, they have provided conservatives with a nearly endless supply of fodder for the upcoming elections. For not only do the occupiers support the Democrats, the Democrats support the occupiers.

President Obama even doubled down on his support for the burgeoning protests, likening them to the tea party uprisings he initially denied knowing about before subsequently ignoring them; that is, until finally demonizing the demonstrators as “teabaggers.”

Like it or not, the Occupy protesters and the Democrats are joined at the hip. And just like Siamese twins, they are going to be difficult to separate.

Politically convenient tea party comparisons are not going to be able to run interference for the left-wing nature of the protesters, who like to pretend they are on the same side as their opponents with the “can’t we all just get along?” schtick. Any Troskyist tactic to “fuse” the occupy group onto the tea party and then hijack the swelling conservative opposition would fail miserably. Using salami tactics to try to divide the GOP and tea party conservatives, along with Alinsky tactics of ridicule and shamelessly playing the race card, is not going to persuade citizens in the tea party that Democrats have any respect for them.

No, the tea party wants nothing to do with the left’s “Oktober offensive.” As Ann Coulter pointed out in her book on liberal mobs called Demonic, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Father of the French Revolution, believed that imagery was the soul of revolution. If that is the case, the would-be revolutionaries at these Occupy protests have failed miserably. The protesters have offered up a treasure trove of unflattering videos and unsavory images, which allows the oft-denigrated tea party to draw useful distinctions between itself and the Occupy activists.

An interesting aspect of the occupiers’ demands is how illogical and full of hubris they are. While tea partiers support a very sensible agenda of restoring Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and political accountability, the occupiers – all meaningless rhetoric about “promoting dialogue” aside – support radical policies like a living wage for all people whether they work or not, and immediate debt forgiveness for everyone, everywhere.

In addition to the occupiers’ pie-in-the-sky utopianism there is stark self-contradiction:

  • Many of the occupiers pose as anarchists, while supporting big government-administered welfare programs.
  • They are protesting Wall Street, who backed President Obama’s election bid more than any other candidate in history.
  • They are against big banks and corporations taking unearned wealth, but de-emphasize the role of government in the bailouts and stimulus packages.
  • They claim to be for a world where everyone shares, but complain when their own private property is stolen.
  • They purport to be for more democracy, but say they represent “the 99%” of income earners below the top 1%, thereby publicly disenfranchising those who disagree with them.
  • They propose wanting a world where people are more free, even as they advocate for more “free” stuff and certain “human rights” like universal healthcare, which logically requires the government to force people to provide those things.
  • They are unwittingly promoting state slavery, where producers are compelled to provide for non-producers, or else become demoralized and become just another government dependent.

When Democrats support such incomprehensible and logically paralyzed radical protesters, ironically, they don’t necessarily wind up looking as foolish as the protesters. Instead, they wind up looking like cynical Machiavellian manipulators, who will instrumentally use anyone in any way, no matter how unethical, to achieve or preserve power. They appear like serial liars, willing to promise anything to anyone, no matter how utopian or impracticable, in order to garner their votes. [Continued on Freedom Beacon]

The Joe Biden Gaffe Machine Strikes Again

Joe Biden has been a veritable godsend for the right-wing faithful, whose heads are about ready to explode from the Democrats’ reign of error. It is hard to imagine a man in American politics who has given more side-splitting ammunition to conservatives by which to pummel the veneer of intellectual superiority the left relies on to get their hare-brained schemes implemented as public policy.

The one-man gaffe machine recently descended upon the University of Pennsylvania, where he unleashed an inexplicable line that both managed to perplex and deeply insult. It is sure to become another Joe Biden classic to add to the Alexandria-sized library.

From the transcript of the audio:

[Opponents of Obama’s jobs bill say] this is just temporary. Well, let me tell you, it’s not temporary when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped if cop shows up in time to prevent the rape–it’s not temporary to that woman. It’s not temporary to the guy whose store is being held up and has a gun pointed at his head, if a cop shows up and he’s not killed, that’s not temporary to that store owner… I wish they had some notion what it’s like to be on the other side of a gun or a 200-pound man standing over you telling you to submit.

Can you guess what this excursion into the dark machinations of the deluded Democrat mind is all about? If you guessed Obama’s new “jobs” bill, you just won yourself a government voucher for a can of spam!

I’m not sure why Joe Biden associates passing a government budget item with sexual intercourse, but as a taxpaying American, I do see some connection. But in my version of the events, Biden’s hot stinking breath is roiling up in my face as he jockeys to have his way with me. More than once I’ve woken up from that disturbing nightmare, and my wife doesn’t appreciate the lack of action she’s been seeing lately, I can tell you. Sometimes, you’ve just got to be held. [Continued on Political Crush]

Occupy Oakland’s Unabashed Marxist Class Warfare

Occupy Oakland protesters powerfully demonstrate how socialists are preying on the weak-minded protesters and propagating a fallacious class warfare narrative. If capitalism was being enforced, then corporations and banks would not have been bailed out or given stimulus slush funds, mostly by the anti-capitalist, union-backed Democrat Party, headed by their corporate backed president Barack Obama.

And sure, this isn’t socialism.

Ayn Rand Speaks on Today’s Occupy Wall Street Protests

Ayn Rand was more than a giant of philosophy, she was also a pre-eminent expert on radical movements. As such, her description and explanation of the leftist Berkeley student rebellion presages the Occupy Wall Street protests  now flaring up around the country. In an essay called “The Cashing-In: The Student Rebellion,” which has been reprinted in a phenomenal collection of essays entitled The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, she perfectly captures the essence of today’s radical protests through their foreshadowing in the turbulent 1960s.

Like those who participated in the Berkeley student rebellion of 1964, also known as the Free Speech Movement (FSM), today’s college-educated Occupy Wall Street activists are more aptly described as nihilists and anarchists than Marxist ideologues. They are socialists in a sense, but they are ‘beyond ideology.’ Ayn Rand described the rebels of her era as “Castroites,” and pointed out that they are more driven by existentialist angst than by ideological fanaticism.

This certainly holds true for the majority participating in the current demonstrations. The numerous contradictions in the Occupy protesters’ thinking, such as simultaneously supporting anarchy and government-administered welfare programs, expressing anti-corporate messages on their Iphones and laptops, speaking “truth to power” by voting for statist Democrats, claiming “we are the 99%” – thus publicly disenfranchising those not in the top 1% of income earners who disagree with their message, and hurling epithets at Wall Street, the backer of their beloved candidate Barack Obama, who in turn shoveled trillions in stolen cash into the bankers’ stashes, all shows the mind-muddled mess the political elites are molding into an  irrational, angry, and potentially violent street mob.

Rand’s essays are essential reading for those attempting to  interpret the flurry of modern events and make sense of them. Her visionary warning to Americans rings as true today as it did in her time.

From Ayn Rand’s The Return of the Primitive [Since you will not find the text online, I transcribed these words from an audio recording. This constitutes fair use of the material, as it is being utilized for educational, non-profit purposes. However, there may be a slight deviation in syntax, punctuation, and composition from the original printing. For the most accurate rendering, I encourage the reader to purchase the work, or the audiobook.]:

“The [Berkeley] student rebellion is an eloquent demonstration of the fact when men abandon reason, they open the door to physical force as the only alternative and the inevitable consequence. The rebellion is also one of the clearest refutations of the argument of those intellectuals who claimed that skepticism and chronic doubt would lead to social harmony.

‘When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute. When loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it is picked up by scoundrels. And you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good, and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.’ [Atlas Shrugged]

Who stands to profit by that rebellion? The answer lies in the nature and goals of its leadership. If the rank and file of the college rebels are victims, at least in part, this cannot be said of their leaders.

Who are their leaders? Any and all of the statist-collectivist groups that hover like vultures over the remnants of capitalism, hoping to pounce on the carcass and to accelerate the end whenever possible. 

Their minimal goal is just to make trouble, to undercut, to confuse, to demoralize, to destroy. Their ultimate goal is to take over.

To such leadership, the college rebels are merely cannon fodder. Intended to stick their headless necks out, to fight on campuses, to go to jail, to lose their careers, and their future, and eventually, if the leadership succeeds, to fight in the streets, and lose their non-absolute lives, paving the way for the absolute dictatorship of whoever is the bloodiest among the thugs scrambling for power. Young fools who refuse to look beyond the immediate now have no way of knowing whose long-range  goals they are serving.

The communists are involved, among others. But like the others, they are merely the manipulators, not the cause of the student rebellion. This is an example of the fact that whenever they win, they win by default. Like germs feeding on the sores of a disintegrating body, they did not create the conditions that are destroying American universities; they did not create the hordes of embittered aimless neurotic teenagers; but they do know how to attack, through the sores, which their opponents insist on evading.

They are professional ideologists, and it is not difficult for them to move into an intellectual vacuum and hang the cringing advocates of anti-ideology by their own contradictions. For its motley leftist leadership, the student rebellion is a trial balloon, a kind of cultural temperature-taking, it is a test of how much they can get away with, and what sort of opposition they will encounter. For the rest of us it is a miniature preview, in the microcosm of the academic world, of what is to happen to the country at large if the present cultural trend remains unchallenged.

The country at large is a mirror of its universities. The practical result of modern philosophy is today’s mixed economy, with its moral nihilism, its range of the moment pragmatism, its anti-ideological ideology, and its truly shameful recourse to the notion of government by consensus. Rule by pressure groups is merely the prelude, the social conditioning for mob rule. Once a country has accepted the obliteration of moral principles, of individual rights, of objectivity, of justice, of reason, and has submitted to the rule of legalized brute force, the elimination of the concept legalized does not take long to follow. Who is to resist it? And in the name of what?

When numbers are substituted for morality, and no individual can claim a right, but any gang can assert any desire whatever, when compromise is the only policy expected of those in power, and the preservation of the moment’s stability of peace at any price is their only goal, the winner necessarily is whoever presents the most unjust and irrational demands. The system serves as an open invitation to do so; if there were no communists or other thugs in the world, such a system would create them.”

Refining the Conservative View of Occupy America Protesters

When the Occupy protesters first appeared on the stage, it was an intuitive thing to dismiss them as angry anarchists and socialist ne’er-do-wells seeking to cause disruption. As more information became known, it became clear that many were spoiled college students who never held down a real job in their lives demanding free stuff on the backs of those who work for a living. A closer look yet reveals a confused, mind-muddled rabble who should demand our sympathies and our reproofs.

In some ways, the Occupy protests themselves are all Americans’ fault. A long time ago, we conservatives ceded control of the culture to a subversive minority, the one-fifth column, as I call them (due to the “liberal” constituency comprising about 20% of the electorate in political self-identification polls). But most people on the left are not leftists, per se; instead they are victims of the hard left’s desire to turn Americans’ minds to mush, so that they can mold them, like silly putty, into one collective, helpless, and non-threatening blob.

Such best describes the “thinking” of many of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Many believe themselves to be anarchists, yet demand state-administered welfare benefits paid for by the productive class.  Others speak “truth to power” by saying they will vote again for Barack Obama, who is the highest corporate donations-receiving presidential candidate in American history.  One young man gushes he wants a world where people communicate and share, while talking freely on a YouTube video. An attractive, capable, apparently well-off young girl says “we’re suffering and they should take care of us.”

There is an obvious disconnect in much of the Occupy protesters’ thinking, or lack thereof. [Continued on Political Crush]

Guess Who Else Loves Occupy America? The CPUSA!

It’s always fun to check up on the Communist Party of the USA website (CPUSA), because the talking points are almost exactly like the Democrat Party’s.  Imagine my lack of surprise when I recently discovered the CPUSA”s “solidarity” with Occupy Wall Street.

That doesn’t make everyone participating in these rallies a communist, socialist, leftist, or radical. Some are just drawn there by the excitement of participating in something bigger and smellier than themselves. And the free deli sandwiches.

But if the CPUSA loves you, brother, you got problems. This is the organization that had known KGB spies working in it, as outed by the Venona Project.

This actually makes a lot of sense and speaks earlier to an argument I made earlier – that the message of the Occupy protests is intentionally vague at first, in accordance with critical theory, in order to draw in the rabble of society. Then hardcore activists, commies, essentially, make the rounds within the crowds and agitate them, trying to steer them in the direction of Marxist revolution, as this protester in Occupy LA did. Using such methods as the Delphi technique, the hardcore left activists work the crowds towards a preconceived “consensus” of socialist revolution, and radicalize and crystallize the protesters’ demands.

It’s Marxist-Leninism, baby. Kind of what a fellow classmate accused Barack Obama of believing in while he was in college.

Is is any surprise that when the American people elect a communist community organizer for president, then all around the country, we suddenly get community organizing? [Continued on Political Crush]

The Occupy Crowds’ Vague Goals and Marxist Critical Theory

During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama was buoyed by a wave of energy and enthusiasm as idealistic youth responded to his vague “hope and change” message. The refreshing and vibrant candidate promised to “fundamentally transform” America from the perceived warmongering and corporate greed era of the Bush administration to a new age of fairness, equality, and democracy.

But President Obama’s administration has been a tumultuous and dispiriting one for many Americans, including young and college aged people, who are currently suffering unemployment levels upward of 18%.

Disappointment and disillusion among the country’s youth are leading some into a kind of general mental and occupational fugue state, which can then be politically harnessed and directed towards adversaries or simply used to misdirect anger away from those who would otherwise bear the brunt of popular dissatisfaction.

Such a project is encapsulated well by the Marxian rubric of “Critical Theory,” which channels mental energy into critiques of capitalism, rather than either open praise or critiques of socialism as applied in practice.

In addition to being an ideological program, Critical Theory is a strategy of organizing political opposition to capitalism, and entails the aggregation of various victim groups, who are continuously agitated by the left, both institutionally (college faculty departments, e.g.) and structural-legally (separate civil rights legislation rather than universal individual rights for all American citizens, e.g.), and through media message-framing and coordination.

At the very core of a socialist resistance movement are dedicated theoreticians and boots-on-the-ground practitioners. These may be college professors, non-profit organization heads, union and labor leaders, and freelance social activists and community organizers. These constitute the gel of the movement that holds it all together.

Component groups, not necessarily explicit in socialist orientation, come in various forms: racial agitators, feminists, environmentalists, consumer advocacy groups, animal rights…the permutations are nearly endless. These activist groups are usually disconnected from the hardcore explicit socialists, Democratic Socialists of America, CPUSA (note its front page advocacy of the Democrat-squelched American Jobs Act), and various other communist front groups. (Note that Obama was a member of the radical New Party.)

But these detached grievance groups all share the common thread of being opposed to “the system,” a vague entity that encapsulates everything one can possibly be frustrated about in life: supposed environmental degradation, homosexual discrimination, lack of well-paying jobs, or free healthcare, free education, free…you name it.

The strategy has been to maintain a loose coalition of these grievance groups, not apparently united by anything but vague dissatisfaction with the United States. This disperses the threat perception of the American public to these groups.  It also allows the left to maintain “plausible deniability,” or in other words, to play dumb. If all these groups were overtly communist, the normal, sane population would get tipped off and would mobilize in opposition.

But actually these groups are carefully managed not to engage in criticism of one another. They are all tacitly united by Marxism to the extent that capitalism is equated with racism, paternalist hierarchy, homosexual bigotry, and so forth. There is also an assumed agreement among groups not to engage in serious criticism of one another: feminists and homosexual groups do not critique Islamist front groups like CAIR, racial agitators do not criticize homosexuals, etc., etc.

Meanwhile, various “sleepers” around the nation are dispersed, waiting to be activated. These are the self-professed communists and anti-capitalists, and some may even have ties to foreign intelligence agencies, like the CPUSA had with the KGB. When these sleepers are activated, they mobilize these victim groups so as to make it appear like a “spontaneous” uprising. Therefore, in the initial stages, the message is very vague. Only later is the message crafted by the leadership, who co-opt the movement, speak for its members, and put forth increasingly socialist or communistic demands.

When the OccupyWallStreet crowd are interviewed, they express anger at Wall Street and big corporations. Some don’t even know why they are there. They don’t acknowledge Obama’s connections with Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, that the president walloped John McCain in corporate donations, that the president rewarded firms for their mismanagement of funds, due in the main to government pressure to partake in risky loans and perverse incentives like the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insurance of mortgage backed securities (See these articles from Mises Institute foreshadowing the mortgage market meltdown, here and here).

But the activists aren’t focused on the president, they are focused on “Wall Street,” a proxy for capitalism in general. And that is why Obama, the corporate donors’ dream president, “understands their frustration.”

In addition, the left creates the economic or materialist preconditions for such widespread economic discontent through waste and corruption, massive overextension of welfare (See Francis Fox-Piven’s endorsement of OWS), and capital destruction through overheating the monetary printing presses (so to speak). It should be pointed out that the centralization of banking and credit is a plank straight out of The Communist Manifesto. It doesn’t really matter if there is a secret cabal that is intentionally bringing about a communist revolution, the important thing to note is that The Federal Reserve is playing right into the radicals’ playbook by wrecking the value of our currency, leading to drastically rising inflation. This puts extreme pressure on households, effectively squeezing the middle class into the lower class.

Critical Theory is similar, but not equivalent to, Cultural Marxism, which is another important part of leftist theory.  The control and degradation of the culture and concomitant destruction of the capitalist economic base is the overarching strategy to bring about transformational change of the country. Thus we can expect the media to sympathize with these groups and parrot the party line that they are spontaneous grassroots organizations, even as OccupyWallStreet has connections with George Soros, Ford Foundation, Tides Foundation, National Lawyers Guild, Moveon. org, SEIU, and dozens of other radical groups.

The Occupy movement may be a way for the president to mobilize the left-wing base while he maintains some political distance.  But we should be wary of what Van Jones referred to as an “Oktober Offensive,” recreating a variation of the Bolshevik putsch in Russia that occurred nearly a century ago. But this one would have been planned well in advance of next year’s critical juncture.

Hopefully, this article is a rubric for the attentive reader to interpret the current and upcoming activism on the left.  We must all be prepared to witness increasingly socialist and crypto-communist (such as “free” everything), and believe our lying eyes when we do.

The leftists will play stupid, like they always do.  It is crucial that we do not join them.

As posted on Political Crush.

President Obama: Operation Get the Crackerz is On!

America’s first post-racial president has a challenge for black voters: How many whites can you scapegoat before election day?

Unofficially referred to as “Operation: Get the Crackerz,” Barack Obama’s initiative focuses on a two-pronged program: One, shut up about rampant black unemployment. Two, blame whites for your problems, not me.

“I need your help,” the president said.

“So many people are still hurting. So many people are barely hanging on,” he continued, then added: “And so many people in this city are fighting us every step of the way.”

After several shouts of, “Let’s get those whities!” President Obama smiled and waved for them to calm themselves. One woman fainted, and he obviously had to instruct the paramedics to get her some air and some water. When the crowd was adequately soothed, he proceeded with his instructions.

“Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes,” he said, his voice rising as applause and cheers mounted. “Shake it off. Stop complainin’. Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on. We have work to do.”

Later in the day, the president was compelled to deliver a follow-up address to nutrition activists who misunderstood Mr. Obama’s message and had marched on a Ritz-Nabisco factory. The activists were just about to burn down the plant, chanting, “Let’s toast some crackers!” when word came of the mix-up.

“Settle down now,” Obama said with a smirk. “Not those kinda crackers.”

The black community instantly responded to Obama’s challenge, as officially represented by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

“We’re ready to cut some teabaggers’ nuts out,” said Jackson on live network TV.

“We are ready to follow Obama’s drive to push back and build a movement of resistance,” Al Sharpton added. “Resist we much, we must, and we will much, about that, be committed.”

When reached for comment, Obama grimaced, wiped his sweating brow, and nodded his head painfully.

“Resist we much,” was all he could mutter.