Obama’s Takedown of Republican Economics + Commentary

Click here for President Obama’s Full Speech – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/07/full-text-barack-obama-speech

Barack Obama speechs on the economy in Kansas

Now, a commentary from author and journalist Terin Miller:

“The original Democratic party economics closely followed those of John Maynard Keynes. It worked pretty well, until Republican president Richard Nixon, on advice from a young guy named Alan Greenspan, took the U.S. currency off a bi-metal standard (backed by both silver and gold, in other words, more than just “the full faith and credit of the United States Government,”) and imposed price controls on commodities.

As almost always happens, the lifting of price controls, the cost of the never-declared war in Vietnam, and followed by a manufactured “energy crisis” as middle eastern oil countries realized they could control, and increase at will, the cost of the price of oil extracted from their lands, propelled the economy to double-digit inflation.

Now, if all things stayed constant–if wages kept pace with inflation–inflatiin is relative. But they didn’t. Next, Ronald Reagan and the Chicago School of supply-side economics most clearly advocated by Milton Friedman swept into power, comparing the U.S. budget to a personal checking account and insisted on balancing the budget while cutting taxes (revenue) on “enterpreneurs” and removing regulation actually set the groundworkfor the recent collapse (arguably). Paul Volker, not Ronald Reagan, nor Milton Friedman, nor Alan Greenspan,.actually saved the country, by slamming the breaks on inflation with high interest rates and trying to enforce existing (remaining) financial regulations.

Volker was replaced by–yes, Greenspan–as Reagan, who had created more government, rather than less, and spent more money than either Nixon or Carter, despute complainingand campaigning against “tax and spend” Democrats, actually began increasing deficits with his borrow-and-spend policies. Note: you can’t really balance your checkbook by borrowing money to pay your bills Ultimately, you go bankrupt, not able to default like a country.

Glass-Steagal was removed under Bill Clinton, the first “centerist” Democrat after Reagan and GHW Bush convinced some that Reaganomics–called rightly “voodoo” economics by GHW Bush before becoming Reagan’s VP, and admittedly so when he had to go back on his word to not raise taxes, Clinton’s removal of Glass-Steagal, which prevented insurance companies and others from entering banking, also helped lead to the current problems in the U.S. economy. But, despite that, with tax rates on the wealthy near 50 percent, under Clinton’s economic policies–tax, but not spend as much–we actually had a budget surplus. That surplus nearly immediately evaporated when GW Bush returned supply side economics to the country, pushing for still more cuts in taxes on the wealthy, and more deregulation.

It was not Obama who brought Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to tell people about the original Troubled Asset Relief Program, essentially declaring “Give me $750 billion and ask no questions or the economy gets it…” The “Great Recession” did not begin in 2008. It began, economically speaking, with two consecutive quarters of negative growth–contraction. Beginning in the last quarter of 2007. Imagine winning a vote to go to the bottom of a pit.

That’s essentially the economy the Democrat Barack Obama inherited. How do you get out? Keep policies as they are, making the whole deeper? Or ask people to take dirt originally in the hole from the surface–borrowing cash you don’t have–and drop a bit at a time bavk in so you can eventually climb out? The Democratic Party ,Keynsean economic policies of borrowing to “prime the pump” by putting cash in peoples’ hands to spend.

Our economy, in case Black Friday didn’t convince you, only runs when people spend money. You can’t spend money if you’re out of work. The desire for greater and greater profit had killed the very part of the economy it depends on–consumers. Also known as the happily, gainfully and more than subsistance earning employed. It’s not the Dmocrats whose economic policies have proven wrong.”

Tea Party rhetoric twists the language of emancipation

Tea Party rhetoric uses the language of civil rights to manipulate America’s white working class

Tea Party activist Glenn Beck’s ‘Restoring Honor’ rally in Washington on 28 August 2010. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

This November, the United States will hold elections for 37 crucial seats in the Senate. At present, Democrats hold 57 out of 100. It’s a tenuous balance: if the Senate ends up with a Republican majority, President Obama’s ability to advance any part of his policy initiatives will be in grave doubt. As a result, this is already shaping up to be one of the meanest campaign seasons in history.

Enter Glenn Beck, a recovered alcoholic and cocaine addict, darling of the Tea Party movement, a loose association of arch-libertarians, social conservatives and those who are diffusely angry at “liberal elites”. Having hovered at the edge of rightwing shock jock media for years, Beck burst onto the national scene only recently, thanks in large part to the sponsorship of Roger Ailes, former Republican party adviser to Presidents Reagan and George HW Bush, and current head of Fox News.

Beck’s poisonous power to manipulate the sense of disenfranchisement felt by white middle- and working-class citizens is serious business. He scares me, he scares Democrats, and he even scares many traditional Republicans who feel he panders to extremists. Listening to Beck is not unlike attending an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. The world is broken down into simple ideals, laddered steps toward enumerated goals, reiterated creeds of belief and renunciation. As in AA, God is the only authority; admission of an engulfing corruption is the necessary starting point; and “restoration” of sanity is the goal.

Beck’s expressed agenda involves rescuing America from what he depicts as its current state of depravity. While Beck frequently claims that he is “not political” – “I’m an evangelist for America” – his diatribes draw relentless divisions among We, You, Them and Those. “We” are “patriots”. “They” are “traitors”, “progressives”, “socialists” and “Nazis”. Beck is a masterful narrator of “reverse” race and class grievance. Despite all data to the contrary, he asserts that it is whites who collectively suffer at the hands of black racists – Obama and his seven circles of “radical” “comrades” being the prime and reiterated example. “We” will “reclaim the civil rights movement” in the name of individual rights and freedoms, says Beck. “We will take that movement because we were the ones who did it in the first place.” Continue reading

Some Believe Obama Is Anti-American — New Research Shows Why

Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)

By Douglas LaBier, Ph.D.
Created Sep 20 2010 – 8:57am
Some recent research about the psychology behind smear campaigns explains why some people accept or believe in outright lies or distortions. A current example is the attempt to paint President Obama as anti-American, a secret Muslim, and pursuing a hidden socialist agenda. Recent polls show that these falsehoods are accepted by a growing number of Americans.

The new research reveals how and why such smear campaigns can take root. That’s important to know, in order to expose the efforts of those who push to increase the acceptance of falsehoods as part of a strategy for political gain.

Those efforts reflect a temporary but growing backlash against significant, massive shifts in our country. That shift is towards attitudes, values and behavior towards acceptance of diversity, empathy, policies that serve the larger common good, and recognition of global responsibility. My posts here are about the impact of these shifts upon psychological health and resiliency. The new research reveals some important information about the political/social backlash to the cultural shifts underway, and how to make sense of it.

Regarding the smear campaign against Obama, the research found that people are more likely to accept false representations, both consciously and unconsciously, when they are reminded of ways in which Obama is different from them – whether about racial, social class or other differences.

The study was led by researchers at Michigan State and others at University of Arizona, the University of British Columbia and Leiden University in the Netherlands. In four separate experiments (three were conducted before the Presidential election and one after), the researchers looked at both conscious and unconscious acceptance of political smears by mostly white, non-Muslim college students.

One part of the study consisted of showing some participants false blog reports that Obama is a Muslim or a socialist or that John McCain is senile. Another part looked at how rapidly participants could identify smear-relevant words such as “Muslim” or “turban” after Obama’s name was presented subliminally.

Among the findings: Participants who supported McCain said there is a 56 percent likelihood Obama is a Muslim. But when they were asked to fill out a demographic card asking for their own race, the likelihood jumped to 77 percent. This indicates that simply thinking about a social category that differentiated participants from Obama was enough to get them to believe the smear.

Participants who were undecided about the candidates said there is a 43 percent chance McCain is senile. That number increased to 73 percent when they simply listed their own age on a card. Undecided participants said there is a 25 percent chance Obama is a socialist, but that number jumped to 62 percent when they considered race. Continue reading

Barack Obama, ‘Muslim’ president

Like many Muslim Americans, I had high hopes – now dashed: our brother drinks beer, eats pork and won’t fast at Ramadan…

Wajahat Ali

guardian.co.uk, Friday 20 August 2010

Barack Obama in Kenya
Exhibit A: Barack Obama dressed as a Somali elder during his 2006 visit to Kenya. The photograph was circulated during the presidential election campaign in 2008, regarded by Democrats as a smear. Photograph: AP

One wonders why only 20% of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim, considering the overwhelming evidence conclusively proving his slavish allegiance to Islam and utter disregard for Christianity.

After Obama’s wishy-washy defence of Muslim Americans’ freedom to build a community centre, which includes a mosque, two blocks away from Ground Zero, a poll from the Pew Research Centre reveals that nearly 20% of Americans – up from 11% a year ago – consider him a Muslim, and nearly 43% are unsure of his religion.

As a Muslim American, I presciently spotted the tell-tale signs of Obama’s Muslimy-ness and raucously celebrated – along with the entire monolithic entity of 1.5bn Muslims – our successful Islamisation of America. With one of us finally implanted in the White House and the other wearing a Miss USA tiara, minarets on the Capitol and a burqa-clad Hillary Clinton were only a lunar cycle away.

The smoking gun proving Obama belonged to the “stars and crescent” occurred during his interview with influential pastor Rick Warren, when he publicly admitted, “I believe Jesus died for my sins and I’m redeemed through him – that is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.” Further testimony came with his 2009 Notre Dame graduation speech, where Obama referenced his community organising days in Chicago, boldly declaring, “it was through this service I was brought to Christ.”

His decisive break with Christianity and subsequent undying fealty to the Islamic empire clearly then occurred at the White House Easter prayer breakfast, where he welcomed the esteemed guests as his “brothers and sisters in Christ“. And how can one forget Obama publicly denouncing Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his pastor for over 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago?

However, despite this powerful evidence of his Islamic faith, my mind is plagued with doubts concerning Obama’s authentic Muslim credibility. The world takes photos of him eating lunch during Ramadan, a holy month for Muslims in which we abstain from food and drink until sunset. Also, Obama apparently likes beer – which is strictly forbidden in Islam – and he never hesitates to flagrantly exhibit this sin. Memorable examples include his drinking bout with Professor Henry Louis Gates’ arresting officer, Sgt Crowley, or his chugging a few bottles while awkwardly bowling to pacify nervous, middle-class white voters in Pennsylvania during the primaries.

It also appears that President Obama indulges in eating swine – thoroughly forbidden for Muslims – and he was subsequently caught devouring a tasty piece of salami with Mayor Bloomberg of New York, who may also be a closet Muslim given his recent stirring and eloquent defence of religious liberties in light of the Park 51 mosque controversy. Continue reading

Obama throws support behind controversial Islamic center


Washington (CNN) — President Obama threw his support behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near New York’s ground zero, saying Friday that “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country.”

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” Obama said at a White House Iftar dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

The president’s remarks drew praise from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who announced his support for the Islamic center last week.

Bloomberg compared Obama’s speech to a letter President George Washington wrote in support of a Jewish congregation in Newport, Rhode Island. “President Obama’s words tonight evoked President Washington’s own August reminder that ‘all possess alike liberty,’ ” Bloomberg said in a statement. Continue reading