 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
July 01, 2008 The Obamas are Just the Ghosts of Clintons PastBy James LewisThis is typical of the dismal human judgment of liberals -- it takes them more than a dozen years just to figure out they've been suckered -- or at least, to tell the rest of us what they know. It's one of their repeated intellectual failures, this inability to judge human beings with open eyes, fairly and accurately. They only have two human categories: Good and Evil. To persuade them you are Good all you need is slick talk. Political con artists learn to do that very nicely. They are attracted to the liberal mind like bees to honey. Well, today the same folks are stepping in the same doo-doo again. Michelle Obama is just another Hillary Clinton; she's the hard-nosed ideologue in the marriage, the scrapper who only feels happy with a long enemies' list. Michelle is bitter the way Hillary is bitter. She literally sees the world in black and white, just like Hillary sees the world as feminist good and evil. Both of them believe their political opponents are Evil -- whether their enemies are defined as white folks in general, men in general, or only Republicans. When Hillary knowingly married Bill the Sex Addict, she just confirmed her prejudices about men in general. When Michelle married Obama the Messiah, she just confirmed her prejudices about whites and blacks in America. That is why these people never learn; they are mentally stuck. As for Barack Obama, he's just a younger, skinnier, and darker Bill Clinton, slaying the willing suckers by the millions. That's the meaning of "change.'' Obama travels with his political rock band from gig to gig, and all the liberal bots fall on their knees. It's pathetic to see what Americans have become. Our media think that a mere change in the racial makeup of Democrat frontrunner means a change in reality. That is utter folly. It's just another skin color fronting for the same Left. On questions of policy there is no daylight between the Clintons and the Obamas. They all want to see a United States of Socialist America, a USSA. They will do anything to make that real, as long as they get to appoint the apparatchiks, the ruling class. Don't believe it? Well, check out the race and gender spoils system that now controls the US educational system, including our universities. Michelle Obama grew up with Jesse a Chicago beacon of black asseriveness, and Jackson was one of the original founders of the racial spoils system. Both Michelle and Barack are the products of that race-and-gender spoils system; they have made a career from it, and in Michelle's case, they have helped to run it. That is the model for Obama socialism. It's much more powerful than traditional socialism, because classical Marxism only politicized the working poor; yet the poor can rise in America and become middle class. When the poor stop being poor, they begin to stop voting Democrat. But it's much harder to change your race and gender, which is why demagogues like Rev. Wright make sure that you feel stuck in racial despair. That's why Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers believes in pounding racial grievances in America even more than economic ones. Both the Clintons and the Obamas have lifelong associations with two scary groups: The hard core Left and a corrupt Democrat Party machine. Obama's first father figure and mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a black radical from the old days of segregation --- embittered, disappointed, and full of anger toward the country. Davis grew up during Jim Crow, and became a member of the Communist Party during the Stalin period, 1945-1950. Bitterness in a black man at that time is easy to understand; but signing up for Josef Stalin's "Left fascism" is over the top. Yet that was Obama's first mentor. What do you think Davis taught his young disciple? Hillary's radical moment came right after she left home, when she flipped from being a Goldwater Girl to a radical Wellesley feminist at the very height of screaming gender rage in the 1970s. It shaped and defined her adult life. Both the Clintons and the Obamas have their closest friends on the extreme fringe of the radical Left -- the same people who used to be kept out of the Democratic Party because they were too close to Stalin and the Moscow-controlled Communist Party. Anti-Communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Hubert Humphrey, Scoop Jackson and the AFL-CIO would never have tolerated the likes of Jeremiah Wright or Saul Alinsky. The voters would have punished them, and rightly so. You don't collude with the enemies of your country. At least, not before the current Left came to power. And then there is the corrupt machine connection. Obama was pushed into the national limelight by the Chicago Democrat Machine, in alliance with radical Left groups like ACORN. The Machine includes sweethearts like Tony Rezko and Governor Blagojevich -- who was repeatedly mentioned in the recent Rezko trial. As for the Clintons, they were cheek-by-jowl with the Arkansas Democrat Machine. We know that Obama got the Illinois Legislature to vote money for Michelle's employer, which then gave her a $ 200,000.00 salary jump in one year. Hillary had to make her 100 grand from phony cattle futures in Arkansas. But Michelle had a much sweeter setup. After all, who in Chicago was going to say that she isn't worth that kind of money? But the result was the same. Democrats used to stay away from Jimmy Hoffa, Sr., who was radioactive; but Obama just agreed to lift Federal judicial oversight over the Teamsters Union, designed to keep it free from corruption. So much for Mr. Clean. Still, the sight of the hard Left carousing with the corrupt and mob-tied Party Machine is not exactly an example of Good Government at Work. When the Clintons got into the White House they ran a Welcome Wagon for a long series of crooks from places like Macao and Indonesia, along with agents for the Chinese, who just happened to swipe all kinds of defense secrets at the very same time. Pure coincidence, of course, and not the sort of thing our vaunted media would ever expose for fear of what they might find. They would rather talk about Monica's blue dress. The Monica scandal was a distraction from very serious national security leaks in the Clinton White House, which have never been acknowledged. So, who would the Obamas bring into the White House? It's a frightening prospect. If he weren't headed for prison, Tony Rezko might be on the list. Obama's foreign policy team contains doctrinaire Leftist fantasy-mongers. To gain credibility they have just been joined by Team Clinton, the very people who failed to protect the United States after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; we owe the 9/11 assault to their blind folly. http://www.newsweek.com/id/139894 They have been able to evade responsibility by using a solid phalanx of media spinners, and by stacking the 9/11 Commission with the likes of Jamie Gorelick and Bob Kerry. In sum, the Left may have dumped the Clintons, but they continue to perpetuate Clintonismo. That is the key to the coming election: nothing has changed. Obama even lies about "change." For the Left, change always means going back to the past, and in this case, the past means the Clinton Administration. But this time, with a solid Democrat Congress and a solid phalanx covering for them in the media, they are determined to win it all. James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
|
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
While I dislike the Obamas, the are not as bad as the Clintons.
Everyone knows that the Clintons are murderers. The had Vince Foster and Ron Brown murdered. If you turned off the mainstream media for a second and pay attention to Rush and the real news you'd know that
Posted by: The Humungus | July 1, 2008 01:41 AM
No. The comparison between Clintons and Obamas are outrageously unfair. The discussion is a little bit forcedly contrived and unnatural.
Bill Clinton never attempted to pursue outright Black Liberalism and Socialism, even during his campaigns. His pro-poor agenda was under control, outweighed by traditional market-based policies. His efforts were fully balanced by a republican-controlled congress.
But Obama's case is different. He is actually a Socialist protege way back his early political life in Chicago. He was a protege of New Party, afficiate of Chicago Democratic Socialists, a sister of Communist Party USA. All his past experience and associations were toward Socialist Agenda, primarily on the cause of Black Liberation against white-controlled, democratic capitalism front.
Given the democrats' control of the Congress, populist support and MSM backing, Obama can easily pursue his "hidden" agenda without resistance.
Clintons are typical Democrats of the past. Of course, the Far Left voted then for Clinton. But Clinton knew better. After election, he had to pursue "cetric" Democratic ideas, as suported by history.
It is Obama that we should worry: Democrats, Republicans and Conservatives alike.
Communists have been hiding on the shadow of the Democratic Party - a fusion strategy of Harrington of CPUSA. In this election, they are most vocal and active. Yes! Bill Clinton blamed the Far Left for the loss of Hillary.
If conservatives think that it is just like old good time to whine on the failings of republicans, you are wrong! All the odds favor Obama, the first true champion of Socialism in America.
Hillary must get out of Obama's New Dem Party soon,rebuild and rally again the true Democratic Party in 2012.
Posted by: seeker | July 1, 2008 03:43 AM
And the way the KoolAid is pouring out all over the country I expect the NDP to do and keep saying anything to fog the field of battle.No outrage will be loud enough,No transgresion will be large enough,No scandel will resonate long enough as the friendly media muffle it all to the bottom of that Bus.
BTW,I think that USSA moniker would read better as : United Socialist States of Amerika. Excuse me while I go and wash these words from my mouth,I feel nauseous.
Posted by: Rich K | July 1, 2008 04:09 AM
Obama also funnelled 100's of millions into public housing projects in Chicago which either never got built or just fell into ruin.Corrupt developers just walked away with the money.Of course none of these revelations would put one single Obama supporter off,just like nothing the Clintons ever did turned off their supporters.The dems in general are corrupt to the soles of their feet and they justify it all by the phony claim that they care.Look at the millions that live in despair in this country because they have bought into the politics of victimization.
Posted by: Spidey | July 1, 2008 04:51 AM
Close and sweet but I believe the Clinton's were more interested in the big bucks whereas Obomarxist wants to destroy traditional America (even more than it has been already, by the left)
Posted by: Don L | July 1, 2008 07:29 AM
Thanks so much for American Thinker. I recommend it to everyone. What is it going to take for the American people to wake up? Obama is every thing this country should despise. Just watching the Dems. applaud this man is sickening. Do they hate this country so that they what it destroyed?
Posted by: Luonne Dumak | July 1, 2008 07:35 AM
the modern leftist liberals and the obama campaign had no other choice than to turn on the clintons. how could they (the left) praise the clintons and yet, at the same time, try to get obama the nomination?
for the past 8 years, bill clinton was the greatest president ever, according to the left, now, they hate him as much as they hate george bush.
however, i agree with the article: the obamas are just as shady as the clintons ever were. the only difference now is that the left has control of the media, which refuses to publicly question obama.
Posted by: mark abby | July 1, 2008 07:52 AM
Regarding the Senator's Patriotism, I hope you will consider this:
http://zachjonesishome.wordpress.com/as-a-veteran-my-heart-sinks/
As a Veteran, my heart sinks every time I see this photo and think that this man may become President of the United States and be in charge of our military.
Posted by: ZachJonesIsHome | July 1, 2008 09:42 AM
I'm afraid all this investigative journalism will go for naught. You are preaching to the choir. This is Clinton redux in that the masses could care less about all this mortgage, Black theology, community activist stuff. No one is paying attention right now. Most voters get interested about 60 days before the election. That's why McCain-Feingold kicks in at that point. These eternal politicians can read the tea leaves. They are wily, if nothing else. So while I enjoy reading these exposes, I feel they will have no effect on the upcoming election. If the election were held in a vacuum, maybe it would matter. But Obama is running against the second coming of Bob Dole and it will be up to McCain to defend himself against the attacks that have just started. Based on his "response" to Clark's attacks, it will be a long summer.
Posted by: Jeff T | July 1, 2008 10:19 AM
The Clinton's had their own mentor - Jimmy Carter. Obama might as well grow green feathers and perch on Carters shoulder. O's rhetoric is Carter's rhetoric. That man scared me enough in the 70's. I don't want a Carter on steroids occupying the White House.
Posted by: Pam L | July 1, 2008 10:24 AM
The Obamas know,as did the Clintons, that if you look slick and talk cool, you are in with most American voters. We have arrived at that time in our history when facts mean nothing to our dumbed down population;only appearances matter. Today's youth gush about how "cool" Obama is ,knowing nothing and caring even less that he is truly an empty suit whose avowed socialist policies will greatly weaken the country. This election reminds me of a high school prom king "election"; power to the most cool!
Posted by: BobF | July 1, 2008 12:28 PM
Lewis makes a great point here. The Obamas and Clintons are exactly alike in that they know they have to hide who the really are and what they really want to do to the country. If they were honest about being raving socialists nobody would vote for them, so they rely on spin, lies, a lapdog media and the teachings of Saul Alinsky to build their campaigns on a foundation of deceit. Example: What happened to all the women fainting in Obama's presence? This contrived farce went on for about a month everywhere he went. Then when it became obvious to everyone that it was fake-my gosh even a few of the MSM called it "theater"-it stopped as suddenly as it had started. Exactly like Hillary's fake burst into loud, obnoxious laughter every time she was asked a tough question, which, granted, in the beginning wasn't often. Her response was contrived to send the message that the question is so ridiculous that she could hardly fashion a reasoned response. And then she'd duck the question. Sadly we have become a nation so gullible and celebrity obsessed that most voters don't see this act for what it really is. If we the people are stupid enough to elect a hard core leftist, radical BLT believer endorsed by Hezbollah as our next president then we'll deserve exactly what we get-and it won't be pretty.
Posted by: Mark | July 1, 2008 12:28 PM
There are millions of sheep in this country who will be led to the slaughter, along with the rest of us who could see it coming.
Posted by: Will Becker | July 1, 2008 01:55 PM
Rich K, I totally agreed with you. In fact, the blogged last week in commentarymagazine.com the same moniker USSA for the United Socialist States of America. I had fled communism in Vietnam and became a naturized US citizen in 1982 in the land of freedom and liberty. What would become of my beloved adoptive land with Obama looming in the horizon to turn it into a Marxist country?
Posted by: Richard V | July 1, 2008 01:55 PM
seeker,
The Clintons started their time in the White House with the largest tax increase in American history. It was followed up with an attempt to give us universal government-funded health care. There was nothing market-oriented about it. The Clintons weren't brought under control for two years. It wasn't until 1994 that the GOP won Congressional majorities. Even then, that wasn't enough. Clinton played the media and liberals like the violins that they were, and are. The GOP was portrayed as greedy and selfish. The media ran interference throughout the Clinton term.
This year the messenger has changed but not the message. The media wasn't all that taken with Bill Clinton when the 1992 campaign started but everyone loves a winner and so they quickly got in line behind him. Since 2004 there was an assumption that Hillary would be the nominee and the coverage reflected it. Then the primaries began and Democrats realized they might not need the Clintons to win the White House. Once it appeared Obama had a better chance to win, the Clintons became expendable. If McCain pulls off an upset and manages to beat Obama in November both Clintons will be back, gloating and telling Democrats: see, I told you so! The Democratic party will be theirs again for four more years.
Posted by: pmk | July 1, 2008 04:57 PM
Comparing Barrack Hussein Obama and his hideously angry wife to the Clintons is a bad move for conservatives. This makes the Obama's look like a safe choice for the undecided voters and Dems who are still tuning into right wing sources for info. Obama is anything but a safe choice. Obama is the most dangerous candidate to ever run for President - he is in his own league - and that is how you need to present him... an ex-Muslim hiding Muslim blood and upbringing... meetings with terrorists from Hamas and Hezbollah - launching his political capmaign at a domestic terrorist's home. Attending racially divisive, anti-American hate flinging festivals at his church for 20 years. This guy has no business running for any office. The Clintons weren't perfect by any means, but they never posed a threat to our country like Obama does. You should rethink this stance and avoid it from now on. I am a democrat voting for McCain - and if you all keep telling democrats and undecided voters that Obama is just like the Clintons - you are going to influence some of them to move towards Obama.
Posted by: Dem4McCain | July 1, 2008 05:13 PM
"They only have two human categories: Good and Evil."
Actually, it's more like Bully and Victim.
Posted by: Avi | July 1, 2008 10:55 PM
How much hate it takes to write something like that?This article is so dumb and evil that it scares me.
Posted by: maz hess | July 2, 2008 04:30 AM
I must disagree, in part, with this comment. It only took sixteen years for our media to tell us what was clear to the rest of the world before the Clintons ever got elected in 1992.
It was the Conservatives who could easily see through the facade of the clinton's and easily detect a very vile and nasty pair to whom lying was a way of life.
Liberals would sit and listen to the clinton's lies and believe every word and denounce those who would dare to point out the very obvious lies as well as their vile and immoral behavior.
Posted by: Kenneth Harrell | July 2, 2008 03:43 PM
I've always thought of Michelle as a black Hillary Clinton, with an attitude, so you'll get no argument from me. And, Barack is turning out to be as bad as Bill. He's not there yet, but I'll give him a few years. As for the poster that said everyone knows the Clinton's had Vince Foster killed, that's absurd. I guess I should also believe that Barack had his church's minister of music, his supposed gay lover, killed last year, too. And, I'm sure EVERYONE knows that Barack was a Muslim before he converted to Christianity, too, right?
Posted by: sarah | July 2, 2008 04:40 PM
dem4mccain,
If you would vote for Obama just because someone else compares what he did to the Clintons, that's your business. Are you upset that people are telling the truth about the Clintons? Were you a Hillary supporter who switched only when she didn't get the nomination? It's still a free country. Do as you please. Just realize that threatening the rest of us in order to stifle debate is not a good move.
Posted by: pmk | July 2, 2008 04:44 PM