George Orwell Would Be Impressed With Barack Obama

[Maria]

George Orwell Would Be Impressed With Barack Obama

There he was, standing before a joint session of Congress, promising America the moon one minute and sounding like a deficit hawk the next. President Barack Obama and his Democrat cohorts had just rammed through the biggest pile of pork in the history of the Republic, and yet there he stood, before the whole nation, telling us he was going to go through the budget "line by line" finding ways to cut waste. In fact, he intended to "slash the deficit" he "inherited" by almost exactly the amount he and his Democrat Congress had just spent. What a coincidence.

Like his hero, that great lover of big government, Franklin Roosevelt, whose priorities would change with his moods from week to week, Barack Obama at first simply seemed to be in over his head. I no longer believe that to be the case. This man is not incompetent. I now think that he knows exactly what he is doing and it is going to be terrible for this country.

Former Clinton advisor Dick Morris was exactly right this past week when he said that Obama is a true believer who would trade the possibility of a second term for the chance to realize his radical agenda for transforming America into a Socialist utopia.

~snip~

Those who have read Orwell's prophetic little tome, "1984," will recall that "Newspeak" was a language in which the line between contrary concepts was so blurred that words either had no meaning at all or could be used to create concepts that were contrary. When words no longer had meaning, the concept of truth was not far behind.


So what will Obama's America look like if he gets all that he wants? It won't happen overnight, but if he has his way, eventually it will be a very dreary place, much like the old Soviet Union. Having followed the old Marxist axiom of making everyone "equal," Obama will have brought about the same kind of "equality" instituted by the old Soviet Politburo. Gone will be the equality of opportunity we have enjoyed for more than two hundred years, the right to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Obama's America, as in the failed soviet state, equality of outcome will be the preferred result. The idea is to make everyone equally prosperous. This sounds good in theory, until one considers that the only way governments have ever accomplished this is by making men and women equal in their poverty, misery and squalor.

The most glaring example of this is in the area of universal health care. In Obama's America, "free" health care will be a right. No one will receive better care than anyone else. We will all be equal. Unfortunately, that means that everyone will be neglected equally. Health care will be rationed, treatment will be refused, and the kind of inadequate health care that liberals claim the poor receive will be dispersed equally across the all American economic demographics. But at least we will all be equal.

And how does the president pay for it all? It doesn't seem to matter to most Americans. He talks about "taxing the rich" in order to pay for his schemes. Yet, if our government confiscated 100 percent of the income of everyone in this country making more than $75,000 a year, he would barely have enough to cover this years' budget! And we don't even have universal health care yet!

Human beings are endowed with our rights by our Creator. Our Founders recognized that principle. This president and the majority in Congress believe our rights come from them. No one until now has been able to sell that idea to the American people. Barack Obama is doing his best to sell it to us now, and George Orwell would be very impressed.

George Orwell Would Be Impressed With Barack Obama -- Doug Patton -- GOPUSA



Certainly worries the heck out of anyone paying attention and able to pick out the doublespeak(Newspeak)

I've read about George Orwell in years back. I am wonderin' if Obama is goin' to replace our country, America with " North American Union " ?

 

[netrox]

Remember, the economy started to go south from spring of 2007. It has nothing to do with Obama.

I guess you don't really read what Steven Pearlson said. He wrote: "All that came to an end beginning in the spring of 2007. The cheap and easy credit went away, the asset bubbles burst and we've had to confront two painful realities. One is that we were never really as rich as we thought we were. The other is that we had significantly overbuilt the economy in response to consumption levels and asset prices that were basically a mirage. Now, every day, we are forced to watch the painful adjustment process play out as households cut back on their spending and businesses close stores and factories, lay off workers, and reduce their investment in plants and equipment.

Implicit in this process is a massive "deleveraging" of the economy as households and businesses and banks cut back on the staggering amount of debt they had built up during the credit bubble.

By the middle of 2008, for example, American households had build up debt of $13.9 trillion, more than double what it was a decade before. Businesses had accumulated debt of $10.9 trillion, also doubling in a decade. And financial institutions had piled up debt of $16.6 trillion, up from $6.3 trillion in 1998."

What part of the picture don't you get it? It has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. It's so convenient for people to make presidents the scapegoats of their problems. It's the whole nation's fault. We just taking more and more credit and over-valuing properties than they really are.

It's that simple. There's nothing mysterious about it and there's NO single entity that's responsible for the fallout of the entire economy. It takes a lot of teamwork to make it happen.

 

[Secretblend]

Remember, the economy started to go south from spring of 2007. It has nothing to do with Obama.

I guess you don't really read what Steven Pearlson said. He wrote: "All that came to an end beginning in the spring of 2007. The cheap and easy credit went away, the asset bubbles burst and we've had to confront two painful realities. One is that we were never really as rich as we thought we were. The other is that we had significantly overbuilt the economy in response to consumption levels and asset prices that were basically a mirage. Now, every day, we are forced to watch the painful adjustment process play out as households cut back on their spending and businesses close stores and factories, lay off workers, and reduce their investment in plants and equipment.

Implicit in this process is a massive "deleveraging" of the economy as households and businesses and banks cut back on the staggering amount of debt they had built up during the credit bubble.

By the middle of 2008, for example, American households had build up debt of $13.9 trillion, more than double what it was a decade before. Businesses had accumulated debt of $10.9 trillion, also doubling in a decade. And financial institutions had piled up debt of $16.6 trillion, up from $6.3 trillion in 1998."

What part of the picture don't you get it? It has nothing to do with Bush or Obama. It's so convenient for people to make presidents the scapegoats of their problems. It's the whole nation's fault. We just taking more and more credit and over-valuing properties than they really are.

It's that simple. There's nothing mysterious about it and there's NO single entity that's responsible for the fallout of the entire economy. It takes a lot of teamwork to make it happen.

Well done!

 

[Hear Again]

I know, but it will happen. After I read many articles, I can see some parerall ( sp ?? ) in betweens and its similiaries. Scary! I will tell it when the time is right. Right now, I am not ready to tell it. Timin' isn't right.

Would you care to share the articles you've read? I'd like to read them too because perhaps I'm missing something in the grand scheme of things when it comes to Obama.

As far as Obama having a dark side, what dark side is that?

Might the reason you choose not to explain your fear of Obama be due to the fact that there is nothing to be afraid of?

 

[Hear Again]

Several of us saw a freight train coming in 2004. Now we are having to clean up the wreckage left by the huge train wreck.

Since when have conservatives ever looked at the other side of anything?

Civil liberties have been more compromised under a conservative adminsitration, historically, that at any other time.

 

[Jiro]

I've read about George Orwell in years back. I am wonderin' if Obama is goin' to replace our country, America with " North American Union " ?

no. FYI - Orwell book did not mention anything about unification... just spying on citizens for Domestic Dissents and that was under Bush Administration for 7 years.

 

[ASLGAL]

It's funny how so many Republicans here on AD can predict the future and foresee exactly what Obama's budget will or won't do for America. Hmmm.

and I guess equally funny that liberals do the same by ignoring history because they want it to succeed so badly.
If proposed by a Republican would you be embracing it? I doubt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASLGAL
What civil rights of Americans were suspended?
Disregard of Geneva Conventions toward who?
Constitutional Laws violated? Which ones?

JIRO said:
There you go. A clear example of your ignorance and turning a blind eye on obvious issue.

Actually JIRO, it speaks to yours. You are not the only one though. Long a liberal trait to accuse and accuse but have no proof of the accusations.
If you choose to make sweeping claims then be able to back it up with facts and not attack the person asking you to be specific "which ones and toward who"

spying on citizens for Domestic Dissents and that was under Bush Administration for 7 years.

an untrue statement.

Civil liberties have been more compromised under a conservative adminsitration, historically, that at any other time.

How so?

That would be post hoc. Ask any out of work American, or social service agency that is attempting to keep up with the increased demands for food and assistance.

Definately a problem but one not solved by throwing more money at it.

 

[Jiro]

and I guess equally funny that liberals do the same by ignoring history because they want it to succeed so badly.
If proposed by a Republican would you be embracing it? I doubt it.

If it's good for us (REGARDLESS of political party), sure why not?

Actually JIRO, it speaks to yours. You are not the only one though. Long a liberal trait to accuse and accuse but have no proof of the accusations.
If you choose to make sweeping claims then be able to back it up with facts and not attack the person asking you to be specific "which ones and toward who"

Proof's in Patriot Acts bill. If you do not know what's in it, you just confirmed my previous post.

an untrue statement.

Sorry amiga. Read the Patriot Acts while you take a dump.

 

[Hear Again]

and I guess equally funny that liberals do the same by ignoring history because they want it to succeed so badly.
If proposed by a Republican would you be embracing it? I doubt it.

Equally funny is how you can make an inaccurate assumption about my political beliefs and whether or not I would embrace anything a Republican says. You know what they say about assumptions, don't you? To answer your question, I have a high degree of respect for Ronald Reagan, so yes, I have embraced the belief of a Republican before.

Apparently, Americans didn't believe in the status quo which is why they voted for Obama. I guess that means liberals weren't the only ones who refused to have history repeat itself.

 

[Jiro]

I know, but it will happen. After I read many articles, I can see some parerall ( sp ?? ) in betweens and its similiaries. Scary! I will tell it when the time is right. Right now, I am not ready to tell it. Timin' isn't right.

I've read about George Orwell in years back. I am wonderin' if Obama is goin' to replace our country, America with " North American Union " ?

ah-ha! Perhaps it's this article that you read???

Russian scholar says US will collapse — next year

MOSCOW – If you're inclined to believe Igor Panarin, and the Kremlin wouldn't mind if you did, then President Barack Obama will order martial law this year, the U.S. will split into six rump-states before 2011, and Russia and China will become the backbones of a new world order.

Panarin might be easy to ignore but for the fact that he is a dean at the Foreign Ministry's school for future diplomats and a regular on Russia's state-guided TV channels. And his predictions fit into the anti-American story line of the Kremlin leadership.

"There is a high probability that the collapse of the United States will occur by 2010," Panarin told dozens of students, professors and diplomats Tuesday at the Diplomatic Academy — a lecture the ministry pointedly invited The Associated Press and other foreign media to attend.

The prediction from Panarin, a former spokesman for Russia's Federal Space Agency and reportedly an ex-KGB analyst, meshes with the negative view of the U.S. that has been flowing from the Kremlin in recent years, in particular from Vladimir Putin.

Putin, the former president who is now prime minister, has likened the United States to Nazi Germany's Third Reich and blames Washington for the global financial crisis that has pounded the Russian economy.

Panarin didn't give many specifics on what underlies his analysis, mostly citing newspapers, magazines and other open sources.

He also noted he had been predicting the demise of the world's wealthiest country for more than a decade now.

But he said the recent economic turmoil in the U.S. and other "social and cultural phenomena" led him to nail down a specific timeframe for "The End" — when the United States will break up into six autonomous regions and Alaska will revert to Russian control.

Panarin argued that Americans are in moral decline, saying their great psychological stress is evident from school shootings, the size of the prison population and the number of gay men.

Turning to economic woes, he cited the slide in major stock indexes, the decline in U.S. gross domestic product and Washington's bailout of banking giant Citigroup as evidence that American dominance of global markets has collapsed.

"I was there recently and things are far from good," he said. "What's happened is the collapse of the American dream."

Panarin insisted he didn't wish for a U.S. collapse, but he predicted Russia and China would emerge from the economic turmoil stronger and said the two nations should work together, even to create a new currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

Asked for comment on how the Foreign Ministry views Panarin's theories, a spokesman said all questions had to be submitted in writing and no answers were likely before Wednesday.

It wasn't clear how persuasive the 20-minute lecture was. One instructor asked Panarin whether his predictions more accurately describe Russia, which is undergoing its worst economic crisis in a decade as well as a demographic collapse that has led some scholars to predict the country's demise.

Panarin dismissed that idea: "The collapse of Russia will not occur."

But Alexei Malashenko, a scholar-in-residence at the Carnegie Moscow Center who did not attend the lecture, sided with the skeptical instructor, saying Russia is the country that is on the verge of disintegration.

"I can't imagine at all how the United States could ever fall apart," Malashenko told the AP.

btw - number of gay men???? WTF!?!?

 

[Jiro]

ASLGal & Maria - let me kindly help you there...

Memos Reveal Scope of Power Bush Sought in Fighting Terror

WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants. (see it, ASLGal?)

That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. (see it, Maria?)

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants. (See it, ASLGal?)

Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally.

Mr. Bradbury said in his memo that the earlier ones had been a product of lawyers’ confronting “novel and complex questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.”

The opinion authorizing the military to operate domestically was dated Oct. 23, 2001, and written by John C. Yoo, at the time a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, a special counsel in the office. It was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked whether Mr. Bush could use the military to combat terrorist activities inside the United States.

The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property.

“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force.

The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”[ (See it, ASLGal & Maria?)

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty said that in addition, the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars the military from domestic law enforcement operations, would pose no obstacle to the use of troops in a domestic fight against terrorism suspects. They reasoned that the troops would be acting in a national security function, not as law enforcers.

In another of the opinions, Mr. Yoo argued in a memorandum dated Sept. 25, 2001, that judicial precedents approving deadly force in self-defense could be extended to allow for eavesdropping without warrants.

Still another memo, issued in March 2002, suggested that Congress lacked any power to limit a president’s authority to transfer detainees to other countries, a practice known as rendition that was widely used by Mr. Bush.

Other memorandums said Congress had no right to intervene in the president’s determination of the treatment of detainees, a proposition that has since been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

The Jan. 15 memo by Mr. Bradbury repudiating these views said that it was “not sustainable” to argue that the president’s power as commander in chief “precludes Congress from enacting any legislation concerning the detention, interrogation, prosecution and transfer of enemy combatants.”

Mr. Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is widely known as the principal author of a 2002 memorandum, separate from those made public Monday, that critics have characterized as authorizing torture. That memorandum, signed by Jay S. Bybee, a predecessor of Mr. Bradbury as head of the Office of Legal Counsel, was repudiated in 2004.

The memorandum issued by Mr. Bradbury this January appears to have been the Bush lawyers’ last effort to reconcile their views with the wide rejection by legal scholars and some Supreme Court opinions of the sweeping assertions of presidential authority made earlier by the Justice Department.

Walter Dellinger, who led the Office of Legal Counsel during the Clinton administration and is now a law professor at Duke University, said in an interview that Mr. Bradbury’s memo “disclaiming the opinions of earlier Bush lawyers sets out in blunt detail how irresponsible those earlier opinions were.”

Mr. Dellinger said it was important that it was now widely recognized that the earlier assertions “that Congress had absolutely no role in these national security issues was contrary to constitutional text, historical practice and judicial precedent.”

In a speech a few hours before the documents were disclosed Monday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties. Not only is that thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good.”

Mr. Holder said that the memorandums were being released in light of a substantial public interest in the issue.

 

[Reba]

It's funny how so many Republicans here on AD can predict the future and foresee exactly what Obama's budget will or won't do for America. Hmmm.

Same as Wall Street and the stock market. Since the Obama administration has taken over, the market has tanked.

 

[jillio]

Same as Wall Street and the stock market. Since the Obama administration has taken over, the market has tanked.

And it was stated prior to Obama's plan even being begun that there was a natural spiral that would have to play out. Them momentum was already at work. The question is not whether the spiral would continue downward, but how quickly it begins to start back up after the plan has had the opportunity to have an effect. Sixty days is hardly a fair amount of time to claim something a failure that is correcting 8 years of a downward turn.

 

[Hear Again]

Same as Wall Street and the stock market. Since the Obama administration has taken over, the market has tanked.

Reba,

The stock market dropped significantly several times before Obama took office.
Besides, Obama has only been in office since January 20th. How do you correct 8 years of economic hardship between then and now? Even the experts are saying that it may take another 8 years to reverse the problem.

 

[Maria]

no. FYI - Orwell book did not mention anything about unification... just spying on citizens for Domestic Dissents and that was under Bush Administration for 7 years.

No, I did not say about Orwell mentioned anythin' about unification. Of course, I know Orwell book was about " spyin' " on citizens. Big Brother.

It was my opinion when askin' ASLGal about " North American Union ". Just curious what she knows or thinks if, anythin'. I would like to know her opinions/viewpoints.... respectfully, of course.

 

[Maria]

ah-ha! Perhaps it's this article that you read???

Russian scholar says US will collapse — next year


btw - number of gay men???? WTF!?!?

No, not that article.

 

[Maria]

ASLGal & Maria - let me kindly help you there...

Memos Reveal Scope of Power Bush Sought in Fighting Terror

Since you highlighted with red fonts : " That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. "

Ok, I highlighted with bold fonts above : ".... as a step toward greater transparency ". Greater transparency ? Care to tell me who is really his foreign policy advisor ?

 

[shel90]

Same as Wall Street and the stock market. Since the Obama administration has taken over, the market has tanked.

Wow! I didnt realize that Obama has so much power over Wall Street in such a short time!

 

[jillio]

Since you highlighted with red fonts : " That opinion was among nine that were disclosed publicly for the first time Monday by the Justice Department, in what the Obama administration portrayed as a step toward greater transparency. "

Ok, I highlighted with bold fonts above : ".... as a step toward greater transparency ". Greater transparency ? Care to tell me who is really his foreign policy advisor ?

OMG! Do you know something we don't?:Ohno:

 

[Jiro]

No, I did not say about Orwell mentioned anythin' about unification. Of course, I know Orwell book was about " spyin' " on citizens. Big Brother.

It was my opinion when askin' ASLGal about " North American Union ". Just curious what she knows or thinks if, anythin'. I would like to know her opinions/viewpoints.... respectfully, of course.

ooo ok! my apology then.