Glenn Beck of Fox put forth an interesting analogy last evening about how a terrorist uses tactics to take a hostage and how counter terrorists use the same tactics to save captured hostages. It is all done very simply: with speed, surprise and violence of action.
The suggestion here was that Obama was using the same tactic as terrorists to take the U.S. hostage. Within less than one year in office, Obama has used speed, surprise and violence of action to deliver the ‘transformation of America.’ The only difference is that his violence of action is in the mode of verbal rhetoric.
Now, I want to make it clear at the outset that I am neither a pawn nor a clone of Beck or Fox, but I found his analogy of ‘opinion’, not news, quite compelling.
For after all this column is opinion, but the site is managed and directed by a journalist.
Beck is an entertainer, delivering opinion and denies vehemently that he is a journalist. In fact in another staged event – after the White House declared war against Fox News — Beck set up a red phone and a direct line that the White House can use to correct any message that Beck delivers if they can prove it’s incorrect.
Two nights into the phone connection, no calls were received from the White House and I don’t think they will play Beck’s game, but will continue to attack. It is the community organization game plan.
Nevertheless Beck has more than a germ of an idea here.
I have selected two issues to demonstrate this point, or if you will, the Beck analogy:
President Obama was not disingenuous in his promise for wealth redistribution. It was dramatically revealed with a surprise man on the street discussion with ‘Joe the plumber’ who asked Obama a question about wealth redistribution during the presidential campaign. Obama answered honestly, but didn’t like the play it got in the media
This made news – negative news for Obama and made ‘Joe the plumber’ a household name. The Obama goons attacked with speed, surprise and violence of rhetoric action to destroy, Joe – they succeeded.
Now when Obama got into office he acted with speed, I don’t know of what surprise, or violence of action; but a $787 Billion stimulus package was passed and it was the beginning of the wealth redistribution that Obama promised.
Today this stimulus package has only benefited, unions, welfare recipients and those receiving food stamps. The job picture is bleak as is the loss of homes that many Americans could not originally afford, but the liberals wanted them to have.
This administration works on a strategy that we must take advantage of a crisis at hand and turn it into an opportunity that meets its objectives.
And so, the $787 Billion stimulus package fit into the plan — not for jobs or homes – but for wealth redistribution.
And now we have Obamacare – that’s government controlled health care reform. This is Obama’s signature legislative objective during his first- and hopefully last – term in office.
This is another form of wealth redistribution, taxation of the wealthy for the poor and illegal aliens. And, it will take the money before it provides the service.
Obamacare works on the premise of QUARY – that stands for Quality Adjusted Remaining Years.
Kind of a scary thought that a formula would determine life or death at any age – but it is particularly troublesome for the elderly.
You see the formula would mandate doctors to determine when and on whom certain procedures will be allowed and when a person does not have enough ‘good’ years left in them to make it worthwhile.
This would be a value judgment by a Board.
I can’t help but think about the hypocrisy of our nation when we decry the inhumane actions of other nations, yet we are proposing QUARY as part of health care reform, which is basically another form of human elderly cleansing.
Some liberal schmuck said some years ago, ‘it was all about the economy, stupid’. But it’s really about the money – we spend too much.
No, it’s not about humanity, morality or about what’s right or wrong.
They want to judge how many good remaining years a senior might have left based upon cost vs time as well as how many good years a fetus has left before they abort it.
We are living in a world of Obama mendacity.
4 users commented in " Is Obama Taking The U.S. Hostage? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackback“It’s the economy stupid” was first used during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush. President Bush was considered to be unbeatable due to military operations in Panama and the Persian Gulf. During this period the economy was undergoing a recession and Bush 41 reneged on a 1988 campaign promise and signed an increase in taxes. It served to point out correctly that Bush was neglecting domestic problems.
To describe President Clinton as some liberal schmuck shows not only a lack of knowledge and facts but illustrates the worst of the deterioration our country is experiencing in political discourse and spiteful partisan bitterness.
To disrespect the office of the presidency in that way is disgraceful.
To be accurate and factual, it was not Bill Clinton, as you said, that said, “It’s the economy stupid”. It was James Carville, a political operative and adviser to Clinton – therefore no disrespect to the office of the Presidency! Furthermore, Clinton was not President when the statement was made during a presidential campaign, no matter who you might want to attribute the statement to. The real question here, and the subject of the column that you do not address: Is Obama Taking The U.S. Hostage?
Please read my comment. I didn’t say that Bill Clinton used the phrase. I said “it was first used during Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign”. Yes, it was coined by James Carville and widely used during the campaign. It became the Clinton campaign slogan, was very effective and probably had a lot to do with his victory because it resonated with the electorate.
The fact is that rhetoric and phrases used by designated presidential surrogates during a campaign, whether they be in print or debates or interviews cannot be separated from the candidate. The surrogates speak for the candidate and express his views and opinions.
If you’re aware that Carville originated the phrase why not mention his name as the source? It would be more transparent.
In my opinion by stating that some liberal schmuck said “it was all about the economy stupid” can only refer to the candidate whose campaign it was and not to an advisor who for the most part remain anonymous.
You may feel it doesn’t disrespect the office, I differ with you.
Do you really feel that Carville is a liberal schmuck? He’s a pretty bright guy – married to a conservative.
I’ll try to answer your Obama and hostage thoughts.
I need a drink.
Carville’s best move was to marry a conservative – I guess he is pretty bright. Cheers!
Leave A Reply