Obama, Clinton insult and defame American citizens

I took a few days to think about this note before posting it, so plenty of people have had the chance to comment during the four days since Barack Obama gave the clearest indication yet of his all-consuming arrogance.

Before I get to Obama, a few words about Bill "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" Clinton:  In a speech on Friday at a leftist think-tank, Clinton compared the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, the 15-year anniversary of which is today (April 19th).

Clinton talked described Tea Party activity as "disorientation" and in usual Clinton finger-wagging style said that pro-liberty activists should "be careful with what you say and do not advocate violence." Of course, Clinton's unsubtle implication with those words and bringing up the memory of Oklahoma City are an attempt to tar Tea Parties as havens for would-be violent fanatics despite the utter lack of evidence to support such an insinuation.

It's part of the Dems' scheme to paint anyone who opposes the tyrannical Progressive agenda as racist, stupid, and dangerous.  If anything, it is nothing more than projection.  After all, who is more racist than people who claim that Tea Party members must be racist and violent because they're mostly white people?  Who is more dangerous than politicians who want to demonize and silence millions of citizens?  Who is more stupid than a politician who doesn't realize that today's elections are determined by independent voters and that independent voters aren't fooled by bogus claims that people fighting for low taxes, limited govermment, and respect for our Constitution are parallels to McVeigh or Klansmen?

And now, to our own Dear Leader, Organizer-in-Chief, Barack Obama:

While on a trip to Florida where he talked about privatizing part of NASA (an arm of government which is at the bottom of any sensible person's list of what we first need to privatize), Barack Obama said that he was "amused" by the Tax Day Tea Parties and that those of us who believe government is over-taxing and over-spending "should be saying thank you" to him.

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh did an excellent few minutes of "thanking" Obama for the many assaults The One has launched against the liberty and economic well-being of the nation. But that isn't enough, in my view.

Barack Obama is turning into a Keith Olbermann-like clown, so full of himself and so surrounded by sycophantic advisers and kool-aid drinkers that he is utterly unaware of how deep and wide are the increasingly negative feelings about him across the nation.

But at least Olbermann is just a media figure.

Barack Obama is arguably the most powerful man in the world (despite his efforts to weaken the country he leads).  For the president of a free republic to ridicule millions of American citizens, the people whose bank accounts and childrens' futures he is mortgaging in his rush toward "transforming" America into just-an0ther-nation, is reprehensible.

Even if the Tea Party represented a tenth of the number of people it does, it would still be one of the largest grass-roots movements in American politics in recent memory.  Barack Obama's casual dismissal of the wakening giant should and will only serve to anger us more.  Indeed, I can imagine (based on projecting my own reaction on to others) Obama's comments causing the creation of personal anger against him as opposed to the entirely policy-oriented anger and dismay we've felt so far during his tyrannical reign.

Barack Obama has gone from being a socialist/fascist petty tyrant to insulting millions of us...to insulting you...to insulting me.  In terms of politics, Obama may think he's riling up his far-left-wing loony base but there could hardly have been a more boneheaded move in terms of motivating conservatives and offending independent voters than calling serious-minded protest "amusing".

I can practically see the smirk on Obama's face as he made the comments and I can only hope that someone would have the courage to slap it off his face...and that voters will give him the electoral equivalent of that slap in November and again two years hence.

One last thought on this (for today): The narcissistic and condescending views of Presidents Obama and Clinton is not peculiar to them. Such views are an inherent part of being a true-believing Progressive.  Progressivism is based on a fundamental lack of faith in individual citizens or in organizations of citizens to make the best decisions for themselves or for the nation.  Progressivism's key attribute is its insistence that the "smart people", the technocrats, the people who really "care", should be handling the levers of power over every important aspect of our lives, from education to resource allocation.

It is of no matter to a Progressive that every such political construct has failed in the past, with the size of the failure proportionate to the size of the implementation of Progressive (i.e. socialist) ideas.  For a Progressive, past failures only mean that not-quite-smart-enough people were put in charge, or that the government domination of the private sector wasn't complete enough for their plans to work.

It is no wonder that Progressivism thrives, like scum on a stagnant pond, in the halls of academia, where professors are masters of dozens or hundreds or thousands of students and where they can spend their meetings and conferences telling each other how smart they are. After all, it is in the narrow interest of each of them to do so: To the extent that an academic supports the ego and the career of another academic, he increases the chance of someone returning the favor.  It's a mostly closed system and, like that stagnant pond, takes a fairly large event to substantially change, to allow even a modicum of life-giving respect for individual liberty.

Barack Obama comes from such halls, having never had an private sector job (at least not as an adult), never produced anything, never met a payroll, and being surrounded by people like Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago -- the same Sunstein who has argued that government should encourage pro-government pawns to infiltrate chat rooms and anti-big-government meetings, even if it means government paying such infitrators to sneak pro-Progressive propaganda into such arenas.

So, let's be clear about the fundamental assumption of Progressives like Barack Obama and Bill (and Hillary) Clinton: you are a stupid sheep designed to be dominated and led. Your job is to do what you're told, to speak when spoken to, to eat your vegetables like a well-behaved child. And when you find the meal being shoved down your throat to be too bitter, your complaints are "amusing".

Sorry, Mr. Obama, but now you've really gone too far.  Although I'm just one person, I hope and believe I represent many when I tell you that it's one thing to awaken the sleeping giant and another thing entirely to beat and taunt him.  I was already motivated by your policies to oppose your presidency.  But now you've made it personal. Now I'm also motivated by a deep dislike of you and I will work tirelessly to defeat your agenda and defeat you and your allies in every election where I might have an influence.  And when you are defeated, I will take the same joy in that as any soldier takes when his army wins a war against an invading enemy, the same pride that soldier would have knowing that he was part of defending his nation against a force which hated it, didn't understand it, and wanted to "transform" it from a free society into a tyranny.

You, Mr. Obama, are doing everything you can to transform yourself from a modestly objectionable petty leftist dictator into an outright enemy of the citizenry.  It is a transformation which is dangerous, destructive, and to use one of your favorite terms, "historic".  And it is under your control.  At this point, it's becoming clear that you're willing to be the enemy of millions if it means you get your Progressive agenda jammed down our throats at home and American influence curtailed abroad. And while I understand that your approach is the obvious conclusion of Progressivism, it is nevertheless saddening to watch our nation recognizing how completely you fooled most of them (but not me) with your campaign facade of moderation.  I might suggest that you have a hard choice to make, but obviously you've already made it.  So be it.

[One short but important warning, lest some leftist agitator wants to take my words out of context:  I am not calling for political violence of any sort (though I wouldn't object to someone slapping Barack Obama for the sheer insolence of his professed "amusement.")  This nation is far from the place that Thomas Jefferson probably meant when he suggested that "the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."  Our anger and frustration, and more importantly our desire to see our republic continue as a place where liberty thrives, must be channeled into winning at the ballot box.  Indeed, part of the strength of the Tea Party movement has been the wise self-restraint of its members, the remarkable lack of violence throughout hundreds of anti-big-government protests involving hundreds of thousands of people.  We must, as a movement, remain vigilant against the ability of the left and supporters of big government to characterize us as violent or racist; we must  maintain our true character as an awakening of the American people against tyranny, nothing more and nothing less.  So, please, if you're as angry as I am -- and if you take Obama's words as the personal insult that I do -- react by redoubling your efforts to beat liberals and might-as-well-be-liberals this November...and in every election in the future.]

  • Ed
    Comment from: Ed
    04/19/10 @ 07:56:03 am

    You blew your argument by calling your president "the enemy." Political opponents are not your enemy. Your president is not destroying your country. You disagree with his policies which is fine. The county is OK.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    04/19/10 @ 08:44:27 am

    Ed, I take your point, but at what point does someone become more than a "political opponent"? Isn't a man who wants to "transform" America and whose every action seems designed to attack capitalism at home and American influence abroad (not just current influence, but the ability to exert influence if we wanted to) and who has taken serious steps down that path reasonably considered an enemy? I am not offering hyperbole when I suggest that almost everything Obama does strikes me as something that an enemy agent would do, not something that even a "liberal" president would do. The more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with the concept that Obama is the enemy.

  • Ed
    Comment from: Ed
    04/19/10 @ 09:39:00 am

    I don't see this transformation of which you speak. I see possible improvements. I don't see captalism taking any hits. Corporations are still and will always create profit. I also don't see our influence lessening abroad. If anything our influence is improving. We were already pretty weak abroad due to our overstretched military. Russia invaded Georgia and Bush could do nothing. Obama is working towards a world with fewer nuclear weapons. Even Reagen worked towards that. Enemy? Not.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    04/19/10 @ 09:57:07 am

    No objective observer of our nation could honestly say that capitalism is not under assault. Your assertion means you are ignorant or an anti-capitalist.

  • Mark Smither
    Comment from: Mark Smither
    04/19/10 @ 10:12:13 am

    What a reasoned ad hominem argument you present, Ross. take a deep breath and try to un-swallow the Kool Aid, if that's possible. Specifically name the taxes that Obama has raised in the last year. And try to read and consider (rationally) the points that Andrew Sullivan makes in the following column: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/why-im-passing-on-tea.html

  • teejaw
    Comment from: teejaw
    04/19/10 @ 10:40:57 am

    Obama has declared war on us, the people. He is “amused” that we don’t want all the government he intends to shove down our throats. He thinks we should thank him for trying to dominate every nook and cranny of our lives. And when we stand up and say “Stop,” he gets angry, takes offense, and mocks us. He clearly considers us his enemy. Anyone who tries to stand in his way is his enemy. That makes him our enemy.

  • teejaw
    Comment from: teejaw
    04/19/10 @ 11:36:49 am

    We know from the experience of the past 14 months that Obama and his Alinsky radical followers intend sweeping, unprecedented and dangerous changes that will sweep away our freedom and expose us to terrorism from foreign enemies and left-wing domestic thugs (e.g., unprovoked attack on Allee Bautsch and Joe Brown in New Orleans; New Black Panthers; Nidal Hassan, etc.). To say all this amounts to no more than a political difference of opinion is naive. It is akin to saying that Robespierre and the Jacobins were mere political adversaries of the ordinary French citizens who imprudently voiced criticism of the revolutionary government in 1793.

  • james baker
    Comment from: james baker
    04/19/10 @ 12:59:44 pm

    Ed's first comment shows that he cannot be reasoned with. To wit: 1) Ed employs the logical fallacy of an Appeal to Loyalty. By using the modifier 'your' to describe the current president, Ed is telling 'you' that, regardless of the merits of Ross's argument, BO is 'your' president, and so loyalty disallows 'you' from referring to BO as 'your' enemy. Ed uses this modifier in three sentences of his five-sentence comment, twice in the third sentence. Such repetition evidences conscious attempt to deceive. 2) The final two sentences of Ed's first comment deny the damage being done by BO's Marxist policies. Here, Ed employs the fallacy of wishful thinking. He attempts to substantiate this denial in his second comment with additional deceptions employing distraction, the power of suggestion, and false equivalence. Ed makes no constructive points that merit being "taken". I suggest keeping it simple; just ridicule the moron.

  • Chris Jenkins
    Comment from: Chris Jenkins
    04/19/10 @ 01:11:19 pm

    It is interesting how everybody got so excited and active about having freedom swept away and being exposed to terrorism after Obama was elected, despite the incredible growth of government, the attacks of 9/11, and the subsequent warrantless wire-tapping that occurred after 9/11--all under GWB's watch. And as for even attempting to place blame on Obama for Nidal Hassan is beyond ridiculous and to use Ross's words--Ignorant. I can't believe people can actually talk about tyranny with a straight face. Please. The election of 2010 is coming. If you don't like the guy, vote against him. Maybe others will agree with you. You guys act like 53% of America voted for an un-American traitor who wants to ruin the country and I don't buy it. It's just plain silly. For the record, I am a big L Libertarian who did not support the opportunistic Bob Barr. Flame away...

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    04/19/10 @ 01:36:18 pm

    Mark, My attack is absolutely not ad hominem. There are too many new taxes, mandates, and bureaucracies in Obamacare for me to name. Beyond the taxes he's raised, however, the key issue is the spending he's raised in perpetuity unless we get legislators and a new president with a lot more courage than we've seen since at least 1994. Chris, I do not see you as a libertarian even if you are a "big-L Libertarian". In any case, yes 53% of America voted for a man who fooled most of them. I can live with "un-American traitor who wants to ruin the country" as a close-enough description of the man. So, thanks.

  • kjdiamond
    Comment from: kjdiamond
    04/21/10 @ 12:16:22 pm

    What a stupid argument that Chris makes that all of a sudden everyone is upset at our government now because Obama is in office. If I am not mistaken, there were plenty of people, mostly on the left, that were very vocal during Bush's time in office. The only difference between now and then is that you agree with Obama, and didn't agree with Bush. So now the arguments are irrational and the only reason people are upset is because they are racist and don't want a black President. How idiotic. At that time, you had no problem demonizing Bush and calling for his ouster for treason. It was considered your "patriotic" duty to dissent. Now, it is sedition and treasonous to call out the administration for their policies. Cut the crap. You want to know why people are upset? They know that spending under this administration, and the Democratic Congress that came to power in 2006, has grown to historic proportions. The only way to pay for this spending is to tax. That is why people want to make a change because they want to reign in the spending, that started with Bush II, and keep taxes to a minimum as increased taxes lead to reduced GDP, capital investment and higher unemployment. Repealing taxes if difficult, so you have to stop it before it starts. Therefore, you have to start an effective campaign BEFORE the tax increase pass. You reading any of this Mark Smither. It isn't the here and now we worry about. It is the what is coming around the bend that has us worried because these deficits have to be paid for and the only way is to either reduce spending or increase taxes. Good luck with the former, no matter what party.

  • Methinks
    Comment from: Methinks
    04/21/10 @ 01:14:18 pm

    Specifically name the taxes that Obama has raised in the last year. Have you been under a rock or something, Mark? 1.) mandatory purchase of health insurance or a fine - a tax by any other name. 2.) expansion of government workers (which all require tax revenue to support) 3.) a nearly 5% income tax increase on those earning more than $250K. 4.) a 3.9% tax on investment income with a 0.9% kicker for those in certain income tax brackets. 5.) increased regulation - the compliance costs of which are just a tax. I mean, saying that Obama didn't raise taxes is as laughable as saying George Bush cut taxes.

  • Tom of the Missouri
    Comment from: Tom of the Missouri
    04/21/10 @ 01:24:45 pm

    Go get em Ross! Your sentiments are my sentiments exactly. My sentiments have not changed either since I first heard of the guy, his past (the part that is still not hidden by him), his voting record, his associations, etc. It was all there for everyone to see, assuming you were one of the few who cared to look or notice, since day one. Keep up the great work. I wish I was not so busy trying to keep afloat in my small business in The One's economy to hit the streets and help you. All I can do is vote for freedom and share my thoughts with those that are interested in listening.

  • Midas Mulligan
    Comment from: Midas Mulligan
    04/21/10 @ 03:41:39 pm

    Great post Ross. Let's make government dread going on the internet. Make them feel like the thieving bums they are. If you have a store, don't take food stamps. If you have an apartment building don't accept HUD. If you have an office building, don't renew the lease of government tenants. We are in charge, all they can do is threaten force, don't be afraid, don't transact with them.

  • VH
    Comment from: VH
    04/21/10 @ 09:52:22 pm

    Excellent post! The smear campaign launched by the Left against Tea Party protesters makes me sick. These were the same people that were screaming that dissent and protest was patriotic just a short time ago.

  • Scott
    Comment from: Scott
    04/22/10 @ 07:07:00 am

    Chris J is right on. The ranting hyperbole now coming from the right about Obama's "big government socialism" just rings silly and hollow. Bush was the biggest entitlement spender since LBJ, combined with the worst aspects of a Wilsonian foreign policy, and topped off with an unparalleled disregard for the Constitution.

  • Comment from: Rossputin
    04/22/10 @ 07:21:05 am

    Scott, I am not a defender of George W. Bush, for whom I never voted. But Obama's spending makes Bush look like a piker. For example, the CBO says that Obama's budget proposal will more than double the deficit accumulated from 2010-2019 over their baseline predictions. That's absolutely enormous. Think of it this way, Bush doubled the national debt. Obama is on track to double the post-Bush debt, i.e. to multiply by four the pre-Bush debt. It's stunning and it's morally reprehensible Your moral equivalence between the two men simply shows your partisanship, not any rational analysis.

  • SheetWise
    Comment from: SheetWise
    04/22/10 @ 10:26:41 am

    You write -- "Progressivism’s key attribute is its insistence that the “smart people", the technocrats, the people who really “care", should be handling the levers of power over every important aspect of our lives, from education to resource allocation. It is of no matter to a Progressive that every such political construct has failed in the past, with the size of the failure proportionate to the size of the implementation of Progressive (i.e. socialist) ideas. For a Progressive, past failures only mean that not-quite-smart-enough people were put in charge, or that the government domination of the private sector wasn’t complete enough for their plans to work." I think there's another possibility. Progressives do understand that unbridled capitalism will deliver the most to the most. They realize that capitalism will deliver exactly what people want. That's their objection. The market works too well. They are absolutely convinced that we're not smart enough to know what we want. They're willing to accept the inefficiencies of central control in order to save us from our own desires. These people are absolutely convinced that we need less salt, fewer calories, more home ownership, smaller cars, longer vacations, less nuclear power, less coal power, fluorescent light bulbs, smaller toilets, more wind power, and fewer windmills. Free and working markets are simply not going to provide those things -- because many of us don't want them.