Axelrod puppet Barack Obama studies Axelrod puppet Deval Patrick as the latter offers empty slogans and gestures

David Axelrod manufactures commodities, not politicians: they don suits; they read teleprompters; they promise something new and unprecedented; but these newfangled objects cannot govern. No, I am not referring to Barack Obama, although this news does not bode well for Axelrod’s latest product; I am discussing Deval Patrick, who according to a 7News Boston poll has lost all credibility with the voters of Massachusetts.

Readers of No Quarter recall how Obama and Patrick read from the same script penned by David Axelrod.

I guess the voters of Massachusetts are finally experiencing a moment of disenchantment. Perhaps they now realize that all Axelrod’s commodities cum politicians can offer are “just words.” I quote the Boston Herald:

The survey of 400 registered voters – Democrats, Republicans and unenrolled alike – shows angry Bay Staters quickly losing faith in the state government, with Patrick taking the biggest hit.

Only 34 percent of those surveyed in the poll conducted for 7News by Suffolk University say the governor deserves re-election, while a stunning 47 percent say it is “time to elect someone else.”

Voters gave Patrick a 43 percent unfavorable rating and a 44 percent favorable rating. The rest are undecided….

Asked about Patrick’s job performance, 49 percent disapproved, 40 percent approved and 11 percent were undecided….

Patrick’s dismal poll numbers come after battering in the press over his naming of a senator pal to a costly plum post, raises for sheriffs, addition of two pricey staffers to the Pike payroll, embarrassing comments by his transportation secretary and his own dismissal of the controversies as “trivial.”

Aloof and oblivious to the cronyism of his administration, the incompetence of his Cabinet members and the apparent lack of ethics and fiscal responsibility he and his operatives are exhibiting, Deval Patrick is the ominous reflection of his political semblable Barack Obama.

No wonder why the NRSC has created the following advertisement:

The NRSC now knows what we have always known: Obama is just another Patrick. Indeed, he is just an updated version of a model everyone now knows is failed. He is, in other words, just so many ethereal words.

I am sure Obama will dismiss all the contradictions highlighted in the NRSC advertisement as so much trivia. He will probably claim that we cannot hold him accountable for what he promised during the campaign. After all, all he had uttered before the desperate crowds were “just words.” And I am sure he will become as aloof and oblivious as Patrick has as more and more voters lose confidence in his ability to lead as controversy compounds controversy. Commodities are alluring during a campaign, but they prove to be defunct the moment one tests their ability to govern. All that once appeared to be solid evaporates into so much hot air, I guess. The object that seemed so tangible in its promise provided nothing more than an impalpable mirage.

Obama is quickly becoming a Patrick, who from all indications is dead on arrival in 2010. Certainly if Obama continues on the path he has forged thus far, he too will be a flash in the pan, a wonder who lasted one term. This should be of no surprise, for he and Patrick are cut from the same cloth, hewn from the same block of wood, carved by the same Axelrod. And besides, his/tory has this tendency to repeat itself, rendering the past, the present and the future all into one grand, temporally suspended farce. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would have made her/story. For she was not assembled in Axelrod’s toxic factory.

I hope The Fates bring you all a wonderful new year, with good health, with loved ones around you, with work you find meaningful, and with a life lived well.

And may we all have a new year, a new era, of justice and truth winning out; with accountability being the rule, not the exception; with a return to ethics and morality so that the vast majority consider plagiarism, theft of policy ideas from others, and voter fraud reprehensible, not acceptable; that winning at all costs is no longer the norm; that our “elected” officials are held to standards of decency and honesty; may we see the end of misogyny and sexism being accepted, even encouraged; may we see the end of treating too many American citizens as second class citizens, whether based on skin color or whom one loves; and may we have a peace that reigns, here and around the world.

Yes, Emily Yoffe, the writer, treats us to this informative study about emotions, and how Obama used them to bring in the masses. Now, many of us already knew it was rhetoric over substance, but here she lays it out for us in her Own way:

For researchers of emotions, creating them in the lab can be a problem. Dacher Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley, studies the emotions of uplift, and he has tried everything from showing subjects vistas of the Grand Canyon to reading them poetry—with little success. But just this week one of his postdocs came in with a great idea: Hook up the subjects, play Barack Obama’s victory speech, and record as their autonomic nervous systems go into a swoon.

In his forthcoming book, Born To Be Good (which is not a biography of Obama*), Keltner writes that he believes when we experience transcendence, it stimulates our vagus nerve, causing “a feeling of spreading, liquid warmth in the chest and a lump in the throat.” For the 66 million Americans who voted for Obama, that experience was shared on Election Day, producing a collective case of an emotion that has only recently gotten research attention. It’s called “elevation.”

Elevation has always existed but has just moved out of the realm of philosophy and religion and been recognized as a distinct emotional state and a subject for psychological study. Psychology has long focused on what goes wrong, but in the past decade there has been an explosion of interest in “positive psychology”—what makes us feel good and why. University of Virginia moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who coined the term elevation, writes, “Powerful moments of elevation sometimes seem to push a mental ‘reset button,’ wiping out feelings of cynicism and replacing them with feelings of hope, love, and optimism, and a sense of moral inspiration.”

* Oh, isn’t she witty?? And way to keep the bias out of this “scientific” piece.

Ah – so Obama has learned how to hit the reset button so that normally thinking human beings will be transported into La-la land. Everyone has now donned their rose colored glasses, and let all the bad reality just slip away. Oh, see how much happier they are than those of us still stuck in the real world!

This is just the beginning, though. Seems this idea has been around for some time:

Haidt quotes first-century Greek philosopher Longinus on great oratory: “The effect of elevated language upon an audience is not persuasion but transport.” Such feeling was once a part of our public discourse. After hearing Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, former slave Frederick Douglass said it was a “sacred effort.” But uplifting rhetoric came to sound anachronistic, except as practiced by the occasional master like Martin Luther King Jr. or Ronald Reagan. And now Obama.

We come to elevation, Haidt writes, through observing others—their strength of character, virtue, or “moral beauty.” Elevation evokes in us “a desire to become a better person, or to lead a better life.” The 58 million McCain voters might say that the virtue and moral beauty displayed by Obama at his rallies was an airy promise of future virtue and moral beauty. And that the soaring feeling his voters had of having made the world a better place consisted of the act of placing their index fingers on a touch screen next to the words Barack Obama. They might be on to something. Haidt’s research shows that elevation is good at provoking a desire to make a difference but not so good at motivating real action. But he says the elevation effect is powerful nonetheless. “It does appear to change people cognitively; it opens hearts and minds to new possibilities. This will be crucial for Obama.”

Wait, say what? First we have “moral beauty,” character and virtue being exhibited by Obama in his speeches (or so it seems to his followers), written by the Bozo on the left:

Then we have an acknowledgment that people who voted for McCain are pretty much right that the extent of this “elevation” is pushing a button, concluding with the benefits to OBAMA of the mind control (well, what the hell else is it when it wipes the slate clean, making normally rational people start believing in a hope-y change-y rainbow unicorn??)? Wow – that is some massive movement, all within one paragraph: character not demonstrated but framed in “words, just words” which many did not buy into but good for Obama those who threw away their analytical, rational selves. Check.

There is so much about Obama in this regard, though:

Keltner believes certain people are “vagal superstars”—in the lab he has measured people who have high vagus nerve activity. “They respond to stress with calmness and resilience, they build networks, break up conflicts, they’re more cooperative, they handle bereavement better.” He says being around these people makes other people feel good. “I would guarantee Barack Obama is off the charts. Just bring him to my lab.”

I’m sorry, sir, but you seem to be caught up in the Rainbow Unicorn of Hope yourself. Obama has actually demonstrated he is NOT calm, but rather testy (examples here, here and here), quick to anger, and a bully. You are buying into the MSM definitions of him, not the REALITY of him. Just like when they termed George Bush’s arrogant smugness as “charm.” Despite the attempts by the MSM to paint Obama as the new Buddha, he has shown in debates and unscripted interactions who he really is. Maybe you shouldn’t be watching MSNBC while you do your “research.” Just a suggestion.

I barely know what to say about this next part, so I will just leave it to you:

It was while looking through the letters of Thomas Jefferson that Haidt first found a description of elevation. Jefferson wrote of the physical sensation that comes from witnessing goodness in others: It is to “dilate [the] breast and elevate [the] sentiments … and privately covenant to copy the fair example.” Haidt took this description as a mandate. Since it’s tricky to study the vagus nerve, he and a psychology student conceived of a way to look at it indirectly. The vagus nerve works with oxytocin, the hormone of connection. Since oxytocin is released during breast-feeding, he and the student brought in 42 lactating women and had them watch either an inspiring clip from The Oprah Winfrey Show about a gang member saved from a life of violence by a teacher or an amusing bit from a Jerry Seinfeld routine.

About half the Oprah-watching mothers either leaked milk into nursing pads or nursed their babies following the viewing; none of the Seinfeld watchers felt enough breast dilation to wet a pad, and fewer than 15 percent of them nursed. You could say elevation is Oprah’s opiate of the masses, so it’s fitting that she early on gave Obama her imprimatur. And that for his victory speech was up front in Grant Park, elevation’s moist embodiment, feeling so at one with humankind that she used a stranger as a handkerchief.

Thank heavens Haidt is such a dedicated scientist. Ahem. How else would we know why Oprah was so moved to use someone she didn’t know as her handkerchief?

Are we PAYING for this research, by the way? You know, with our tax dollars?? Just wondering.

Back to the research:

The researchers say elevation is part of a family of self-transcending emotions. Some others are awe, that sense of the vastness of the universe and smallness of self that is often invoked by nature; another is admiration, that goose-bump-making thrill that comes from seeing exceptional skill in action. Keltner says we most powerfully experience these in groups—no wonder people spontaneously ran into the street on election night, hugging strangers. “We had to evolve these emotions to devote ourselves into social collectives,” he says.

When you start thinking about mass movements, all those upturned, glowing faces of true believers—be they the followers of Jim Jones or Adolf Hitler—you don’t always get a warm feeling about mankind. Instead, knowing where some of these “social collectives” end up, the sensation is a cold chill. Haidt acknowledges that in “calling the group to greatness,” elevation can be used for murderous ends. He says: “Anything that takes us out of ourselves and makes us feel we are listening to something larger is part of morality. It’s about pressing the buttons that turn off ‘I’ and turn on ‘we.’ “

Thank heavens someone finally said it. I mean, besides those of us in the reality-based world. It is important for a scientist to be able to step outside him/herself. And with Obama, what we have is massive turning back the clock on women’s rights, race relations, transparency of our “elected” officials (a PEBO who doesn’t have to submit ANY paperwork for the greatest job in the world, but demands that and much, much more from his subordinates. I’d sure like to see this Haidt guy do some research on that. Or anyone in the freakin’ MSM.).

Your patience with this article is about to be rewarded:

Even at its most benign, elevation can seem ridiculous to outsiders. Think of how Obama’s opponents love to mock his effect on people. During the campaign, if your chest was contracting while all about you chests were dilating, you may be a Republican. If you were unmoved by Obama, watching your fellow citizen get all tingly, even fall into a faint (too much vagus stimulation, and you’re going down), was maddening. “Other people’s reverence seems unctuous and sanctimonious,” says Keltner.

Obama himself seemed aware of the dangers that too much elevation might pop his candidacy like a helium balloon hitting a power line. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer described Obama’s canny strategy to make his rhetoric more pedestrian for the final months of the campaign.

Or, one might still have one’s WITS about one, thus not being taken in by this charlatan, this snake oil salesman. But of course, anyone who was not moved to tears or into a faint by this lying, conniving, arrogant, bullying, race-baiting, misogynistic, homophobic unqualified first term senator was just because someone was a “Republican.” Newsflash: those of us who actually prefer qualified, intelligent, candidates who compose their own policy positions rather than steal them from others, and come up with their own words to use, not plagiarizing others, may simply be mature. I’m just sayin’. Despite the MSM’s characterizations of Hillary Clinton’s speeches, I attended two of them, and I am here to tell you she is moving, compelling, funny as hell, and brilliant. But not once did I feel faint. Nor did I ever feel faint when Obama was speaking, even as I watched his 2004 speech which seemed sufficient experience for those “elevated” people who swooned over his “borrowed” words. But that’s just me. And millions others. Whatever.

Oh, but you knew it wasn’t going to stop there. There had to be a way for the author to turn this back to Obama worship:

While there is very little lab work on the elevating emotions, there is quite a bit on its counterpart, disgust. University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin has been a leading theorist in the uses of disgust. He says it started as a survival strategy: Early humans needed to figure out when food was spoiled by contact with bacteria or parasites. From there disgust expanded to the social realm—people became repelled by the idea of contact with the defiled or by behaviors that seemed to belong to lower people. “Disgust is probably the most powerful emotion that separates your group from other groups,” says Keltner.

Haidt says disgust is the bottom floor of a vertical continuum of emotion; hit the up button, and you arrive at elevation. This could be why so many Obama supporters complained of being sickened and nauseated by the Republican campaign. Seeing a McCain ad or Palin video clip actually felt like being plunged from their Obama-lofted heights.

Disgust carries with it the notion of contamination, which helps to explain the Republicans’ obsession with Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Jeremiah Wright and their frustration that more voters didn’t have a visceral reaction that Obama had unforgivably sullied himself by association with these men. But this time, elevation won. And expect that on Inauguration Day, even if the weather’s frigid, millions will be warmed by that liquid feeling in their chests. (Emily Yoffe is the author of What the Dog Did: Tales From a Formerly Reluctant Dog Owner. You can send your Human Guinea Pig suggestions or comments to emilyyoffe@hotmail.com)

Oh, yes – it was the REPUBLICANS’ problem that they, and all others not in the tank for Obama, were concerned about a CONFIRMED DOMESTIC TERRORIST, a convicted felon, and a racist in whose church Obama sat for over TWENTY years. And of course, it had nothing to do with the MSM downplaying those connections, even dismissing them )like Obama’s speechwriter groping a cut-out of the incoming Secretary of State of the United States), because those inconvenient people/facts did not fit their preconceived narrative of who Obama is. It wasn’t so much Republicans who wanted to highlight the nefarious associations of the PEBO, but AMERICANS who care about the sanctity of the Constitution, who care about with whom the PEBO chooses to associate himself. Unrepentant domestic terrorists, convicted felons (don’t forget Kwame Kilpatrick!), and anti-American racist ministers are not the kinds of people with whom a potential president should surround himself. In my humble opinion, of course.

In conclusion, what this “research” highlights is that Obama followers really did drink the Kool Aide. Vindication for those of us who did not, and managed to keep ourselves in emotional balance. Now we can say, “Told you so!” But, they’ll probably be too busy polishing their rose-colored glasses and looking for the rainbow unicorn to notice…

It seems that more and more students are cheating, according to a nationwide survey, and not just a few. According to the survey, almost 3 out of 4 (64%) of students admit to cheating on exams, about 4 out of 5 on homework, and more than 1/3 admit to cheating more than once.

More than a third plagiarized their papers, often from the internet. I might add, it wasn’t just in school that these behaviors were evident. No, about 1/3 also admitted to stealing from friends, parents, or a store. Kinda blows the educators’ whole excuse, um, I mean, THEORY, that students were cheating more because of higher expectations and university requirements (which does not seem to include ethical behavior). Uh, yeah. Wow.

And it isn’t just here in the US. According to a survey in the UK, half of the students at Cambridge admit to cheating, too. These students were most likely to plagiarize, with only 5% being caught at it. Just 5% caught at plagiarizing out of over 50%. Holy smokes.

Here’s the thing – Obama AND Biden are known plagiarizers. Some of you may recall that Biden actually had to drop out of a presidential campaign for failing to mention the author of a speech he gave once, though he did give credit to the others he used. Biden, though, also plagiarized papers while in law school (!!!!) too. It seems he was a serial plagiarizer. Back then, that actually seemed to matter to people. Sadly, not any more.

Obama’s instances of plagiarism are almost too numerous to mention, but here are just a couple(H/T to Big Head DC):

And this one:

I could go on and on. Feel free to do a search and you’ll see what I mean.

Anywho – our students have become a bunch of cheaters, both in and out of schools. Teachers are catching but a very, very few of them. I have to say, though, when university professors turn a blind eye to the plagiarism of their candidate (and his vice president), is it any wonder that students are getting away with rampant cheating? (I know, I know – too many students, too few teachers, the demands of “No Child Left Behind,” and all of that. But this did not happen overnight. And it isn’t just in overcrowded schools. It is systemic.)

Now, I’m not blaming it all on the teachers. Families and our society in general play a big role in this, well, moral decline is the phrase that comes to mind. This “win at all cost mentality” seems to have infiltrated our culture, and is just insidious. Cheating, lying, and stealing have become all too common, and all too accepted.

What is worse is that students are not learning the material (according to the article). I would suggest they are not learning how to study, or even how to think, as a consequence. As for the claim that the students are under pressure to meet university requirements, how does it help them to cheat if they make it to the universities, and don’t KNOW ANYTHING? All it does is bring down the quality of education in the universities by having to play catch-up in so many areas. Or having to tutor so many students because they don’t know how to study. And on it goes. The lack of real world consequences to the lying, cheating, and stealing does have wider ranging affects.

Certainly there have been none for the Obama camp. Quite the opposite, in fact. It doesn’t give me a lot of “hope” that things will “change” for the better anytime soon…Not only was Obama’s and the DNC’s actions excused, but there was downright glee at the actions of many of his young supporters actions to throw this election (and nomination) for Obama. And nary a word of reproach was heard from the Candidate/Nominee. Nope – and for good reason. Given his own actions, he was scarcely in a position to criticize the actions of those who helped to elect him.

We need some major changes in this country – in our schools, our families, our culture in general. This level of cheating – over HALF of our students – cannot continue, not without continuing degrading effects on our country, our schools, our very selves. Until people are held to a standard, and held accountable for their actions, I fear this trend will continue. And all of those students and young people who saw the positive result of their dirty work will just be inclined to continue it in the future. We are all at fault for allowing this to happen, and to continue unabated. To now cast away all of the unethical and immoral actions of the President Elect as old news is to condone those actions.

How is it that in just twenty short years we have gone from condemning actions like plagiarism in our candidates and running them out of the process to condoning it in our candidates? How does this happen?? I leave it to those more knowledgeable than I to debate and discuss the reasons, but I do know that until we take a stand, our country will continue down the path evidenced by our young people and president elect. I, for one, am not willing to stand by while this country tolerates, no, accepts, liars, cheaters, and thieves in our students, our culture, or in our leaders. That is not an option. Speaking out, speaking truth to power, not sweeping the past year under the rug and accepting that this is the “new politics” is what I will be doing. How about you?

UPDATE: The CEO of the organization that did the survey of 30,000 teens was on FOX News this morning. Here is the video:

Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality – oh, wait a minute – yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really – to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate – by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point – he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud – from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow – where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

Throughout this campaign season, any attempts to discern the “content of (Obama’s) character” have been thwarted by the Propaganda Machine, formerly known as the Fourth Estate, his handlers, the DNC, and his followers who claim, irrationally, I might add, the “Obama will heal us!” as Cher did on The Ellen Degeneres Show Nov. 3rd, as if he truly IS the Obamessiah, ignoring the tremendous splitting of the country, of the Democratic Party itself.

For the first time in memory, a candidate was NOT “known by the company he keeps,” “the birds of a feather which flocked together.” Rather, any mention of Bill Ayers was met, even by university professors with the illogical justification that Obama was only 8 when Bill Ayers and his compatriot, Bernadine Dorhn, were bombing the US Capitol, Pentagon, and other US buildings.

That may be so, but the ideology which drove Ayers and Dorhn is the ideology to which they still adhere. Obama has chosen to have them in his life, to live near them, work with them, and seek them out, as we recently learned for sure (as many of us suspected, and confirmed in this article by Steve Diamond at No Quarter, “Ayers and Obama In Regular Contact Says Source Close to Obama Candidacy“).

The list of his close associates in addition to Ayers and Dorhn are troubling: Rezko, Wright, Khalidi, Kilpatrick, Farakkhan, Blogajevich, et al, a list that contains convicted felons and one under investigation. I have said before, and will say again, any ONE of these people would have sunk any other candidacy, yet in the case of Obama, they were brushed aside as irrelevant. As was the glaring reality that Obama took the majority of his policy positions, often lock, stock, and barrel, from Hillary Clinton. But the Propaganda arm flipped it around, and his minions, again, many university professors, brushed aside his plagiarism as inconsequential. What a great lesson they are teaching their students, and their children.

Along those lines, I am in disbelief that adults, people who would not hire Obama at their own universities or businesses with his refusal to provide ANY documentation of his academic life, or allow friends, families, or fellow students to discuss him to ANYONE trying to get information on this first term senator running for the highest office in the land, would gladly give this man their votes.

I despair that adults, and their children, believe that the means justify the ends, that hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voter registrations, over 200,000 in Ohio, and 212,000 discovered in Georgia, in which voters were registered in GA, as well as OH or FL, are dismissed because as one neighbor, a retired university professor said, “ACORN does great work.” The level of voter registration fraud was through the ceiling, as the 16 investigations into ACORN indicate, yet the Propagandists say NOTHING about this as Obama “wins” contests in states where voter registration fraud was rampant. Even duplicate voting is brushed aside, as this video demonstrates (and h/t to a listener of Truthteller’s Election Night Radio Show mentioned):

Um, no – it is NOT okay for anyone to vote more than once in an election. It is FRAUD, and it is ILLEGAL!! But we already know there were instances of this in OH and FL. Heck, in VA, felons were allowed, no, RECRUITED, to vote for Obama, but absentee ballots to our military serving abroad went out late, sparking a lawsuit to make sure THEIR votes were counted. And on and on it goes.

As I said, I despair that adults are teaching our young people that you cheat, lie, and steal to get what you want. While you are at it, make sure you are a sore loser, hammering away at the vanquished in a juvenile, mean-spirited manner, never having learned the concept of gracious winning (especially when the “winning” is suspect). These are the same people who said NOTHING, or were SUPPORTIVE, of the Democratic Party forever smearing its very name by stealing votes from one candidate to give to another. The ends justify the means, and if that means we tarnish, tear down, belittle, smear, and steal from a candidate to win, so be it. Oh – and blame them for it, too, while we are at it as the NY Times did in an incredibly offensive editorial it had up last night celebrating Obama’s defeat of Clinton (I won’t link to it – go find it yourself if you want to read that dribble). We have now taught our young people that you can register as many times as you want, and vote as often as you want – just like on “American Idol”! – to make sure YOUR candidate wins. Fair and square is old school. Now it is win at all and any costs, and belittle your opponent while you are at it.

Then there are the issues of misogyny and race-baiting that sustained this campaign, with the willing participation of the Propaganda Arm, Obama, and the DNC. The treatment of women during this campaign was a low I have not seen in DECADES, yet many women were willing participants to this abuse, claiming even as Obama contradicted them, that he was going to be great for women. Ask Hillary. Ask Sarah. Ask those folks wearing, “Sarah Palin Is a C–t” t-shirts, or the organization that used the “C-word” as its acronym regarding Hillary. Women were treated as not just objects, but as sexual anatomy period, in a most vulgar and derogatory way. Still, since it was the DNC, too many women accepted this treatment from the very party of which they are the majority. How they can celebrate the future presidency of a man who treats women in such a hostile manner is beyond me. That goes for the GLBT community, too. But hey – they got their “Bro Before Ho,” so I know they are happy.

The race baiting that was used to tear down our only two term Democratic president in decades was horrendous to watch, especially as members serving in Congress, people whom President Clinton had helped personally, went out of their way to paint him with the stigma of being racist. Hillary, too. Two people who have worked TIRELESSLY to end discrimination in this people were called racists, and it stuck. Then anyone who would not, could not, imagine voting for the most inexperienced, unqualified candidate who was taking Chicago-style politics national, with his thugs attacking people around the country, were labeled, no, BRANDED racists if they did not support Obama. As women’s rights have been set back decades after this election season, so have been race relations. All in the service of getting this man elected because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character, which is still largely ignored or unexplored by the electorate and the Propagandists.

I do not think this is what Dr. King had in mind. I do not think this is what our founders had in mind, either. This election, with its win at all costs, even if it means cheating, lying, and stealing, is not democracy. It surely isn’t decent. And it is not the American Way. At the moment, I can’t see how this will change – how we will regain any semblance of justice, of knowing right from wrong, of being ethical, moral, good. Yes, we made history last night, but I ask you, at what cost to us, to our country? I weep for us today, at what we have become. I have to hope, and pray, that we will regain what we have lost, but for today, grief overwhelms me.

Excuse me? “Innocent”? Firstly, it was clear from your own crowd’s reaction (gasps followed by applause) that they believed you were referring to Sarah Palin. Secondly, you may think that most of us are bitter, gun-clinging, Bible-totting “white trash,” but we’re not dumb enough to buy that you didn’t mean exactly what you said, Barack. Your remark was a direct response to Sarah Palin’s now forever-famous and -beloved ad lib about hockey moms in her RNC acceptance speech. And, you elitist, by calling Sarah Palin and John McCain “pigs,” you’re reinforcing the stereotype adopted by the D.C. elitists that anybody for McCain/Palin has to be “white trash.”

NOW look at what reporter Warner Todd Huston at Newsbusters.org discovered (via Memeorandum.com):

It is looking like Obama’s comments were not off the cuff, but scripted. And, not only were they scripted, but they were stolen without attribution from a Washington Post political cartoon by Tom Toles from September 5. Will the media notice?

I’m going to “cut to the chase” and show you the results of reporter Huston’s painstaking findings. I’ve cropped the cartoon to show the relevant part, and placed Obama’s actual transcript right beside it:

Here’s the BARACK OBAMA transcript of his lines before he says, “you know, you can’t, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” [sic] “John McCain says he’s about change too. “Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is – watch out, George Bush – except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.”

In other words, Newsbusters’s Huston has proven that Obama’s preceding remarks, leading up to the insensitive “pig” line, are almost word for word from the Tom Toles cartoon from September 5.

First, here’s the Obama transcript, in full, from that segment of his off-teleprompter rally spech yesterday:

John McCain says he’s about change too. Exce- and and so I guess his whole angle is – watch out, George Bush – except for economic policy, healthcare policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl-Rove-style politics, we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.

That’s not change.

That’s that’s just callin’ sumpin’ the same thing somethin’ different.

But you know, you can’t, you know, you you can put, ah, lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.

Now, here’s the Washington Post cartoon, uncropped:

Read the full story at Newsbusters.org.

You can catch other bloggers’ reports on Obama’s, um, “borrowing” of those lines at Memeorandum.com.

If you want to get the big picture on just how huge this story has become, check out the full coverage of almost all the news stories and blog posts on every facet of “Lipstick-gate” at Memeorandum.com.

Okay, I have to stop before I throw up. Here’s the thing. Obama “won” the Democratic nomination through theft, bullying, intimidation, coercion, and collusion. Personally, I have a problem with that. Not just because I am a minister-type who specialized in Ethics, but as a human being with a conscience, as a US Citizen, and especially as a (former) Democrat. TO say it offends my sensibilities is a massive understatement.

What is this teaching our young people? What does this say about Americans in general? Apparently, you can plagiarize with reckless abandon, and now university professors will simply shrug it off as no big deal, as long as you are their favorite, I suppose. When did it change that plagarizing would not result in expulsion from an institution? At the very LEAST, the student would be brought up on charges. But Obama does it? No problem – “his policies are pretty much the same as Clinton’s anyway – and he is more electable” would be the retort.

Well, hell to the yeah they were the same – he would take her policies, and often take them whole cloth as his own. Not even bothering to change a WORD. Then the media would report what HIS policy was, and say Clinton’s was similar. Ask each one to EXPLAIN them, and only one could – Clinton. But that’s okay, because he is the Hope and Change candidate!!

So, stop worrying about those pesky little details already! He just has to read froma teleprompter, someone else’s words, and he is their hero. How shallow and superficial can people be that they will accept this kind of behvior from someone who wants to lead this nation? And where will he LEAD us, if this is how he acts?

And bullying. I could have SWORN schools(and hopefully, PARENTS) were trying to teach students that bullying is wrong. It diminishes the one being bullied not just in a physical manner, but in emotional and psychological ways as well. Yet bullying was all too evident in this Primary season, from DNC elites trying to get Hillary Clinton out of the race prematurely (and I contend, she SHOULD be the Nominee even now), to pushing around elderly women and others in caucus situations. The use of intimidation and threats of violence toward Hillary Clinton supporters was off the charts. And it was accepted (promoted?) by the media, the DNC, and the Obama camp. Not just accepted, it was seemingly encouraged, if not a flat out strategy of the Obama camp. Add to that the media’s constant refrain that is Obama DIDN’T get the nomination, there would be hell to pay in Denver. Riots would break out, and the young people would DEMAND he be made the nominee. It was an attempt to cower people, and to bully delegates and Superdelegates into selecting Obama.

Then there was the cheating. There were NUMEROUS documented incidents of cheating in the caucuses. Texas alone had over TWO THOUSAND documented complaints. TWO THOUSAND in one state. No doubt, there were more incidents that did not go reported out of fear, people leaving the polling place who had been strong-armed.

But by FAR, the worst offender was the DNC. They did everything in their power to manipulate this nomination from stripping FL and MI 100%, while allowing states more favorable to Obama to go unpunished, to the very worst thing I think a political party, a democratic COUNTRY, can do. They stole votes. They flat out stole votes from citizens in Michigan. THAT was the tipping point – for Obama, for the Democratic Party, and for me. That was when they fully and completely crossed any line of decency. That is when they betrayed not just the citizens of Michigan, but the citizens of the United States. That is when they blew to smithereens their moral compass, and it had already been pretty roughed up by that time.

And there was so much more, so much more that went on this Primary season that others have written about more eloquently, and in more detail, than I can here. We all know what happened, and how it happened.

So, everyone puts on their best frocks and suits, smiles big, and acts like this was all legit. Meanwhile, they expect the vanquished one, the one who should have won, who got the most votes, who did not lie, cheat, and steal, to act as a gracious loser, to step up and support The One whose ascendancy was aided and abetted by the most nefarious means, while The One could act as a petulant, arrogant, vindictive, petty punk. And the loser has to smile, and ask for everyone to get on board with the Selected One. Smiles all around, acting as if none of the immoral, unconscionable acts had not happened.

Well, I won’t forget. I DO have a moral compass, ethics by which I live my life. And I will NOT support a candidate or a Party that engages in such immoral acts, that ENCOURAGES such activities by its members. No way. I still have a soul, and won’t be selling it for the likes of Barack Obama. Hell to the no. And I know that I am not the first, and won’t be the last, to decry what has happened to our political party, to our country, to our young people. But I do know what I won’t be a party to it.

And so, my new course is to work as hard as I can to restore the integrity, the honor, the ethics, of the Democratic Party. Or any party that will act in a way that does not demonize and dismiss candidates and their millions of supporters, that acts with integrity and a sense of good will towards others. One that, yes, follows the Golden Rule of treating others as you would like to be treated. Bill and Hillary Clinton demonstrated just that this week. This wil be a long hard battle, the fight to return the Democratic Party to democratic ideals and principles. But fight we must. We cannot allow this travesty to become the standard. I cannot allow it. I hope you will join me. I hope we can make this right. I still have hope – not in Obama – but in human decency.

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them – FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words – just speeches – just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short – he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

Below, more of Flineo’s very best videos:

See more of Flineo’s brilliant videos, and more about Obama, here:

This is for Main Street (and for the forgotten people Barack Obama doesn’t know). Go there to see another of Flineo’s videos — it’s heart-breaking — and to learn what happened to Obama’s own constituents who he ignored because he was focused on cozying up with political fixer Tony Rezko, now on federal trial in Chicago.

And then there’s one that haunts me:

SEE ALL of Flineo’s brilliant work.

√ Obama LIED repeatedly in the weeks before today’s confession.

Today, he said, “Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely …”

Compare that with what Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times on March 15, 2008, “But the sermons I’ve always hear were no different than the sermons you hear in many African-American churches. I had not heard him make such, what I consider to be objectionable remarks from the pulpit. Had I heard them while I was in church, I would have objected. Had that been the tenor of the church generally, I probably wouldn’t be a member of the church.”

But on March 14, when CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked Obama if he ever heard from others about Rev. Wright’s controverisal remarks, Obama replied with a flat “No.”

√√ Obama had the audacity to say this today: “….And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods – parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement – all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us. This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up.”

How dare he? With the hundreds of thousands of poor people (including thousands of black people) he ignored in Chicago — whose plight he claimed to be unaware of — while he cozied up with his pal Rezko? Read about The Forgotten People, whose stories will sicken you.

√√√ While Obama decried his pastor’s “view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam,” the Israpundit blog has noticed that an “anti-Semitic group has been permitted to post on the official Obama campaign website”:

March 7, 2008

New Black Panther Party Supports Obama; More on the UCC Issue

NBPP = “A mix of black nationalism, Pan-Africanism and racist and anti-Semitic bigotry.”

Noting that this page has acquired 396 points (presumably from activities with Obama ‘08 or ratings from other participants), it is difficult to believe that Obama’s staff is not aware of this page. Furthermore, there is a link for reporting the profile to the administrator. We presume that it has been used but, as with our numerous complaints about Obama’s promotion and endorsement of Al Sharpton, the reports have probably been brushed off or ignored. …

[...]

[Khallid Abdul] Muhammad’s rise through the group’s hierarchy was abruptly halted in November 1993, after he delivered a notoriously anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, homophobic and racist speech at New Jersey’s Kean College. In his remarks, Muhammad referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers,” called for genocide against whites, vulgarly ridiculed Pope John Paul II and demeaned homosexuals. The speech attracted significant media attention, and Muhammad was condemned by a wide range of religious and political leaders – including the U.S. Congress, which issued a condemnation in 1994 that decried the speech as “outrageous hatemongering of the most vicious and vile kind.” Farrakhan responded to the controversy by removing Muhammad from the group’s leadership, although the NOI leader noted that he faulted only the form, not “the truth,” of Muhammad’s remarks.

Then there’s a must-read article by the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank today: “The Audacity of Chutzpah.”

√√√√ Fafnir in a comment here today noticed that Obama even “Xeroxed” the title of his speech, “A More Perfect Union,” from the title of Jesse Jackson Jr’s book.

THE TITLE:
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
“A More Perfect Union”
Constitution Center
Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

–

Then there’s that the line is borrowed from Bill Clinton’s 2000 farewell address:

[W]e must remember that America cannot lead in the world unless here at home we weave the threads of our coat of many colors into the fabric of one America. As we become ever more diverse, we must work harder to unite around our common values and our common humanity. We must work harder to overcome our differences, in our hearts and in our laws. We must treat all our people with fairness and dignity, regardless of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, and regardless of when they arrived in our country–always moving toward the more perfect Union of our Founders’ dreams.

:::::::::::::::::::

My earlier posts today on his speech:

• This is for Main Street (and for the forgotten people Barack Obama doesn’t know)
• We Are The Ones [Update]
• One Must Show Up to Heal Racial Divides

::::::::::::::::::::

NOW, the voice of one of our regular commenters at No Quarter, who wishes to remain anonymous because he worries about retaliation from pro-Obama people:

Obama chose to solidify the black people with his speech. He united them together by saying that the anger of the Black people is justified. And then he turns the black people against the white people.

He’s telling the white people that you are dumped and ignorant that you don’t know racial tension exists in this country. We have the right to be mad because of white peoples’ action. We are the good guys here. So if you want to be good, join us. If not, you are one of the racists like my granny, Ferraro, and the Clintons.

So his speech aims to solidify the black vote, and “retain” the white vote using guilt. I’m saying retain because I don’t think he will gain any new white votes because of this speech.

This strategy will work only if there are a lot of white people who feel guilty that they were part of the white racists. This group of people will buy Obama’s speech.

Any white people who have sympathy with black people but don’t see that they have contributed anything to continue the racism, but actually trying to improve it, will find Obama’s speech very offensive. I hope that this is the majority of the American people. My feeling said this group is already mainly Hillary’s base. She might pick up new votes here.

Any white people who practice racism would never ever vote for Obama to begin with. So no gain here for him.

That’s why I think, no matter how beautiful and articulate his speech was, it has little impact to gain any new vote for Obama. He will actually be losing some of the white vote after his speech.

As Taylor observes, “This is about character. It’s about Obama’s con. It’s about presenting yourself as authentic, when the truth is just the opposite.”

Taylor also went to Obama’s site and found the speech, but no credit to Patrick is given. Jake Tapper at ABC News did some further digging and found that “Deval Patrick’s Timeline Doesn’t Mesh with Reality“:

“In a telephone interview on Sunday [with the New York Times], Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week," the Times’ Jeff Zeleny wrote. "Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.”

But Obama was quoted using Patrick’s language before the Summer of 2007.

"’We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words," Obama was quoted as saying in a March 19, 2007 New Republic story. " ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”

So….the claim that Patrick an Obama "first" discussed this last Summer does not make sense.

It should also be noted that in addition to the "Yes We Can" slogan that Obama used in 2004, Patrick used in 2006, and Obama uses today, other language from the two clients of political guru David Axelrod has come from both men’s mouths.

To wit:

Patrick in June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention:  "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

Obama one year later, as quoted in USA Today: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

FOR MORE HISTORY ON THIS, see:

• “Plagiarism Stories Dominate News [UPDATED]”

• “Obama’s Books: Composite Characters, False Memories”
• “Obama’s Plagiarism Goes Wide””
• “Just Words, But Whose Words?“

As Tapper asks, This is just “about words”? Nope. It’s about character. It’s about being who you PRETEND to be.