SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt. 3

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2009-06-17 00:40

SOLO-International Op-Ed: The Anti-American President, Pt. 3

Lindsay Perigo
June 17, 2009

And so it continues. Appeasement abroad, Marxism at home.

Not content with having nationalized the banks, President Benito Obamadinejad is now threatening a new agency to prevent "reckless behaviour" by bankers. He is ramping up his campaign for socialized medicine, heedless of individual rights and the die-while-you-wait socialized disasters in the likes of Britain, Canada and New Zealand. He appears not the slightest bit embarrassed by his nincompoop Vice-President's latest slip of the tongue admitting "everybody guessed wrong" in assessing the amount of money required for Obamadinejad's first "stimulus package"—a mere bagatelle, of course, given the trifling trillions involved.

Meanwhile the egregious fawning towards overseas tyrants proceeds apace. As North Korea builds more nuclear weapons and the capacity to drop them as far afield as the country he's sworn to defend, Obamadinejad cuts back on missile defense expenditure. As Iranians tremble on the brink of overthrowing their tyrannical regime in the wake of a fraudulent election and await a signal from the leader of the Free World, Obamadinejad says he wouldn't want to be seen "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs. This is the same Obamadinejad who tells Israel where it may and may not build houses and that it may not destroy Iran's nuke facilities. Obamadinejad, mindful no doubt of his commitment to sit down unconditionally with the current regime, says he's heartened that Iran's Supreme Leader has started an investigation into the election results.

Let's remember, by contrast, the clarion call that a President worthy of the name, Ronald Reagan, issued in 1981 when Poles similarly took to the streets and the Polish communist tyranny imposed martial law:

"... The Polish nation, speaking through Solidarity, has provided one of the brightest, bravest moments of modern history. The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law. Two Decembers ago, freedom was lost in Afghanistan; this Christmas, it’s at stake in Poland. But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it."

Obamadinejad says the difference between Ahmadinejad and reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi "may not be as great as advertised."

Mousavi, if his own words are to be believed, wants to speed up economic liberalization, remove the ban on private television stations, guarantee freedom of speech, transfer power from the unelected Supreme Leader to the elected President and end the repression of women. Unlike Ahmadinejad, Mousavi does not deny the Holocaust, and has many times condemned it.

Using an alleged similarity between the two as an excuse not to endorse ringingly the incipient revolution is unconscionable. Even the French, usually the first to duck for cover, have managed to step up, via President Sarkozy:

"The extent of the fraud is proportional to the violent reaction. It is a tragedy, but it is not negative to have a real opinion movement that tries to break its chains."

Whether the Iranians will be sufficiently emboldened to break their chains, with such an abject coward and traitor in the White House, remains to be seen. An even more pressing question is how soon Americans will become sufficiently emboldened to break the chains of Obamadinejad.

Lindsay Perigo: editor@freeradical.co.nz

SOLO (Sense of Life Objectivists): SOLOPassion.com


( categories: )

A coherent case against Obama . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Reply posted to the new front page thread

The Curious Case of William Scherk

Michael Moeller's picture

Analogous to Benjamin Button, Sherk seems to be moving backwards from the facts of reality as time marches on and Obama's policies get progressively worse. Ironically, he lampoons others for for ignoring facts and reality. Furthermore, Sherk covers this up with his transparent mockery (eg. "ObamaDracula"). On multiple threads, Scherk implies, if not boldly asserts, that his opponents are wedded to ideology at the expense of facts. Could the alternate explanation be that Mr. Scherk has no coherent ideology to help him integrate the facts and make a sound judgment? Check.

What does he provide for "facts"? Excerpts from speeches that show Obama way late to the punch? Support from the likes of Kissinger, Lugar, Buchanan, and others as if they represent influential right-wing critics? I think he forgot to dig up comments from Colin Powell and Arlen Specter.

Let's not forget Scherk's trotting out of Obama's approval ratings, which he neglected mention have dropped to the mid-50's over the past few months. Nor does Mr. Scherk mention that the public strongly disapproves of most of his actual policies by a margin of 20 points on some of them. In the contest of his personal popularity vs. his policy popularity, something has to give--and I highly doubt its going to be the popularity of his policies as more and more Americans feel the consequences of his disasters.

Let's take a look at some of these public policy "facts" since Obama has been in office:

(1) The closing of Gitmo with no "exit strategy". Besides ignoring the precedent for military tribunals, this policy is frought with hazards, such as dragging dangerous terrorists into civilian courts and the fact that evidentiary standards in civilian courts aren't meant to deal with war situations (eg. the battle over the use of hearsay evidence).

Putting those dangers aside, the sparse details Obama later gave on his "exit strategy" include a category called "preventive detention". As he laid out in his speech before the National Archives, this would include those suspected terrorists that represent a danger to America, but cannot be tried and convicted. Is this his attempt to circumvent the problems of prosecuting in civilian court? If so, he is blazing new trails. One can argue whether the due process of the enemy combatants given CSRT process under the Military Commissions Act receive adequate due process, and I argue that that do. Here, however, Obama is raising the prospect of giving them no due process at all. Where are all those who demanded habeas and prattled about the "rule of law" in criticizing the Bush policy (using CSRT process)? Apparently they have no qualms if Obama's goes beyond Bush and grants no due process. What about you, Mr. Scherk?

(2) Let's not forget Obama's attempt to revive the fairness doctrine under a different guise. You like that Scherk?

(3) Obama's nationalization of GM and Chrysler. In the process, Obama turns the "rule of law" on its head by throwing secured creditors under the bus (who are first in line under bankruptcy laws) and handing over the reins of control to the government and the UAW. Sherk, do you like that investors are being denied their rights under the laws of the US so that the government and unions can assume control of a US industry?

(4) Obama's stimulus package and bank bailouts that raises the debt to levels of all previous presidents combined--ALL. As to the claim that "Bush and Reagan did it too", take a look at this video for a sense of perspective. If you object to Bush on such grounds, what do you have to say for Obama, Scherk?

(5) Obama disbanding enhanced interrogation. First, he releases memos he thinks buttress his case for torture, but refuses to release any documents that vindicate the efficacy of these interrogations, and has the audacity to refer to his actions as "transparency".

Fine, he can change policy being a consequence of elections and all that. However, he also raises the specter of criminal prosecutions for policy difference--the criminalization of politics that the Founders sternly warned against. An action that cuts out the very core of the American political process, and something that no subsequent administration has done to a previous administration. You dig this brand of "change", Scherk?

(6) Obama's appointment of upteen "czars" to control various factions of economy. Its bad enough they are hiring/firing various CEO's and controlling the pay of management in companies receiving TARP funds, but Obama's cronies are also trying to control the pay of managers in banks who did NOT receive TARP funds. Think he is overstepping his reach a little, Scherk?

(7) Obama's pursuit and resurrection of cap-and-trade that represents a huge tax on energy and has the power to destroy the energy industry in this country, including raising the cost of just about every good produced. You like this environmentally-driven wacko energy policy, Scherk? In the midst of a severe economic recession/depression?

(8 ) Obama's attempt to nationalize healthcare. Oh wait, excuse me, the "public option" where the government "competes" with private industry. In other words, paving the way for a government takeover of healthcare. You like your nationalized healthcare up in Canada, Scherk?

I listed these polices roughly chronologically, and they are getting progressively (pun intended) worse over time. As to the ones he changed course on or abandoned, such as the revival of the fairness doctrine, the detainee photos, the Bush Administration criminal prosecutions, and the Iranian protestors, what do these have in common? Did Obama suddenly discover American principles? Or did each one of these have vociferous criticism and public outrage? Just like I said earlier, he floats disastrous political trial balloons to see what he can get away with.

Again, Scherk mocks those who see the above policies as a significant threat to liberty and declares they are wedded to ideology in spite of the facts. I submit that Scherk's mockery and apologia represent his distance from the facts and lack of any coherent ideology, or at least a lack of an ideology in favor of liberty.

Michael

Contradictions and incomprehension

William Scott Scherk's picture

The repression in Iran is wholly the responsibility of the clerical leadership, starting from Khamenei.

Ask yourself, Mr Marcus McHardass Harderdickthananybody: what kinds of action from the outside, what kinds of words from the outside, what kinds of words will dissuade the leadership from repression?

You seem to think that some magical words from Obama and elsewhere will change the game in Iran. Yet, you haven't laid out how game change would happen.

I'll leave you to the ignorance of the debate, name-calling and neocon hysteria -- it doesn't matter to events in Iran. Here's a few more people you can call cowardly appeasing pissers-in-corners: George Will and Peggy Noonan.

From ThinkProgress:

Will calls right-wing attacks on Obama’s Iran response ‘foolish criticism.’

Since turmoil broke out in Iran over the country’s disputed elections last week, conservatives have been forcefully criticizing President Obama for not doing enough to intervene on the side of those protesting. Their criticism comes despite numerous expert opinions — even from Iranian human rights activists — that the U.S. should not meddle in the situation. This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) continued the attacks. “He’s been timid and passive more than i would like,” he said of Obama. Later on the program though, conservative columnist George Will called such criticism “foolish”:

WILL: The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.

Watch it:

In her Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Peggy Noonan, another conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan, denounced the right-wing attacks, particularly those from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “To insist the American president, in the first days of the rebellion, insert the American government into the drama was shortsighted and mischievous,” she wrote, adding that “the ayatollahs were only too eager to demonize the demonstrators as mindless lackeys of the Great Satan Cowboy Uncle Sam, or whatever they call us this week.”

-- point again, Marcus -- the debate doesn't sort out neatly into dickless appeasing leftwing Chamberlain Obamamaniacs, and Hard Dick Heroic Mouthpieces of Honour and Splendour. Your poliitically-correct screed is devolving into froth and spittle. You can do better.



WSS

Shrek you contradicted yourself...

Marcus's picture

"And the Iranian leadership obviously doesn't give a fuck about what anyone says inside or out -- they want to save their own asses."

In your last post you said the leadership mis-translated Obama so that he was saying something hostile towards them.

Now you claim that they don't give a fuck?

These are always the last ditch arguments of the appeaser, i.e. no matter what anyone does it wont change anything.

In 1937, Schrek would have probably advised Churchill to tone his words down regarding Hitler because they are just words!

Shiraz protests, Shiraz sipping . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Lindsay's cryptic comment is troubling and indicative:

Might have known Appeaser Andy was doing their thinking again.

This shows me two things:

-- PerigoChurchillMessiah hasn't budged from the couch and Faux News and thimbleful of Shiraz since his last cryptic injunction on nameless fence-sitters to Toe This Line.

-- PerigoLordArbiter hasn't a clue what Sullivan is doing over at his Atlantic blog. He truly believes that Andrew Sullivan is in the hut with the Islamofascists, against all evidence.

The cryptic 'they' of course refers to Saint PerigoChristOnHigh's nemeses, the figments of a Bizarro Objectivist world where up is down and left is right and anyone who questions Dear Leader Kim Il Perigo is a demon.

If Dear Leader is too fastidious to see Sullivan's conduit to reports from inside Iran, he could have a gander at the constantly updating site of NIAC . . .

Sample:

1:35 pm: There is a high quality video showing major violence at Shiraz University. At one point the camera man yells at security forces and pleads with them not to beat an old lady but they do so anyways. The video shows people calling security forces traitors, mercenaries, and other insults



WSS

Limp . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Marcus, the crushing of dissent in Iran has nothing to do with you, nothing to do with me, nothing to do with what comes out of Obama's mouth. The election farce and mounting repression has nothing to do with what you or anyone else howl about here on SOLO -- regardless of the Principal's fantasy that the masses "await a signal from the leader of the Free World." And the Iranian leadership obviously doesn't give a fuck about what anyone says inside or out -- they want to save their own asses.

Your inability to engage with anything I write tells me you are the right person to be in charge of Hysterical Ranting Responses and Charging Off In All Directions. Your faith in the magic of Obamadracula's words to quell the hideous basiji nutcases is disquieting. There is no chance any supercharged US hero is going to run to the rescue.

As for which dick might be hard enough for you, I have no idea, but your penchant for steely throbbing rhetoric is duly noted. I imagine this is how you bark down any dissent from the party line in your real life. How charming you must be in mixed gatherings. I am reminded of nothing so much as a demented Neo-Trotskyite raging stupidly against wrong thinking by the Socialist Workers. Irrelevant to real events and kind of sad/ridiculous.

*************************** `

Seriously, it would be great if some really fine sounding, tough-sounding and ass-kicking words from the US President could make a positive difference to the ugly situation. You think it probably would, though you haven't explained how. I think it would backfire on the demonstrators, and have tried to explain how -- to point you to other thinkers of some Rightist Renown who have also explained it. I have pointed to figures in the Iranian resistance who think the same thing.

Maybe we are wrong, you know? Kissinger, me, Obama, Buchanan, Lugar, Ebadi, etcetera. But spitting up bile is no excuse for argument.

Let me put it this way: big tough statements have their uses and are thrillingly emotional and can rouse people to action and can also make people feel strong, united, good and purposeful. I suspect that a portion of the 'we need tough talk' sentiment in the US is a desire for this kind of emotion -- "at least we are doing something, telling it like it is!" Another part of the instinct is that fighting words can inspire . . . fighting actions. In this sense they play a part in motivating and sustaining cohesion, fighting spirit, all those things that inform esprit de corps and drive forces to victory. Churchill talk.

Your heart is in the right place. We all want the Iranian demonstrators to win. We all feel horrified at the present bloodshed and repression. We all want a hero to utter the words of encouragement and spirit that will drive events the right way . . .

I'm just suggesting (along with many others from across the left/right gap) that it doesn't matter and it brings more chance of death upon those we support. The irony of the mistranslation is that the ruling elite has instructed the media to lie to the people, to tell them that Obama is directing them to revolt. I guess you missed that part.

I'd be happy to discuss some of these things with you or anyone here. Like I say, maybe I am wrong. But I think you aren't interested in debating . . .

What is it that you want Obama to say?



WSS

Getting ugly

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Fox just reported acid being poured from helicopters on the demonstrators. Obamadinejad has called for the crackdown to stop. Yeah, that'll stop it.

What a limp dick!

Might have known Appeaser Andy was doing their thinking again.

Mullah Obama takes a stand...

Marcus's picture

What does that prove?

Marcus's picture

"Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators."

That your heroes appeasement of the current regime is not just cowardly, but also completely impotent.

What a limp dick!

Iranian TV broadcasts mistranslation from Obama

William Scott Scherk's picture

Interesting note on Andrew Sullivan's round the clock roundup of events in Iran:

12.53 pm. The state media are putting words into Obama's mouth:

This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting." Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators.

So the Khamenei regime wants the same posture from the Obama as Krauthammer and Wolfowitz. They just don't know what they're talking about, do they?

12.50 pm. From this stunning footage, it appears that the riot police have met their match in one area, at least.
[link to Sullivan post today at The Atlantic]

The frightening news keeps coming in at Sullivan's blog. He has turned over his space to constant feeds from Iran, including videos.

Sullivan's blog also posts Obama's statement:

The President's Statement

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.
As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.
Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The Huffington Post also has an excellent set of breaking reports, tweets, videos, etcetera. The mainstream media are apparently riding on the back of the bloggers and other independent reporters.

SOLOists, please list your sources of breaking news.

WSS

My god!

Olivia's picture

These people need all the support they can get - so many are on the eve of their deaths. Fuck Obama's weasel words! Considering how America was born under less oppression, he knows better. If this goes the way I fear it might I'll never be able to look an Obama supporter in the eye again. Never.

High Noon Tomorrow

Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Supreme Stinking Stupid Superstitionist today said anyone who protests from this point will face the consequences. So much for Obamadinejad's appeasement being tactically sensible. Another demo is scheduled for Saturday 4 pm. But for Obamadinejad, this could have been a Berlin Wall moment. It still might be, in spite of him.

BTW, there were those who were horrified when Ronnie said, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." It was undiplomatic, provocative, and might have upset Gorbachev.

Oh dear. And what would the Obamadinejadists have made of this?!

And one more, not just for Brandroid humanity-diminishers but for Randroids who don't get it that one doesn't have to be an Objectivist to be a hero:

What hangs in the balance...

Olivia's picture

Charles Krauthammer weighs in via the Washington Post.

"In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons. "

Full Article.

Britain = "most evil"

Marcus's picture

A sign of the times, the UK gets labelled by the Ayatollah the "most evil" of her enemies, while the US get labelled "most eligible" partner.

The US should hang her head in shame. Obama has almost completely destroyed lady liberty fighting for freedom.

No 5 on the video viral chart!

Marcus's picture

Amateur footage of one of the post-election demonstrations in Tehran.

Bullshit Schrek!

Marcus's picture

"The Iranians in the street consider outright US endorsement of their actions as the kiss of death and a further excuse for repression."

Where did you get that from?

I've heard Iranians in the street interviewed and they have said the exact opposite. They want the US and others to side with them against the regime!

Follow the leader . . .

William Scott Scherk's picture

Lindsay Perigojesusreagan: 'Obamadinejad says the difference between Ahmadinejad and reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi "may not be as great as advertised."'

The full quote from Chavez-Obama-Hitler-Dracula is:

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised." "I think it's important to understand that either way, we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the U.S."

I think it is clear that the US administration would favour a Mousavi administration over another run of the madman currently in the President's chair. Mousavi is on record that he would dissociate the nuclear power/weaponization threads.

Lindsay has pointed out that Mousavi's stated positions ("if his own word are to believed"), if implemented, would lead to an Iran with more liberty. This is certainly possible, though Mousavi would face the challenge of dismantling the clerical regime. As everyone here understands, the foreign, security and judicial policies in Iran are set in Qom by the Supreme Leader.

There are three threads running on SOLO regarding the Iran crisis: in one, Mousavi is said to be an incipient tyrant bred in the heart of the Khomenei regime as its PM, having birthed Hezbollah and massacred university students during his earler reign. In that thread the message is the same as Obama's.

Another thread, let's call it the "Linzoffian" tangent, has slid off the page somewhat. This is the bellicose posturing for swift and destructive attacks against Iran with the full might of the US and allied forces. Subsidiary to this is the urging that Israel bomb the shit out of Iran's nuclear facilities.

The third thread tries to pretend that Objectivists have the corner on correct policy towards Iran, and is accompanied by a loathing of the mob, democracy and the utility of voting itself..

One thing that can't be digested by the current party leader here at SOLO is that ObamaDraculaSatan's public policy has the backing of such disparate voices as Kissinger, Kristol, Lugar, and other important voices of the right.

Also of note is the enormous assistance US-supported organizations are presently giving to Iran's dissidents, in secret, through the same conduits which flowed US dollars, materiel and other support during the Ukrainian and Georgian crises. The CIA and other covert operations have and will play a part in events. This is not to mention the support to Iranian expatriate dissidents in the diaspora that has been ramped up since Obama came to power. I tend to think that PerigoWashingtonPinochet reads only cartoon cutouts of the news of the day.

Of interest is what Perigochurchillmessiah would think of the rejection by Mousavi, his advisors, Montazeri, Rafsanjani, the bloggers, agents and undergound leaders of the Iranian resistance of any overt US moves in the crisis? The Iranians in the street consider outright US endorsement of their actions as the kiss of death and a further excuse for repression.

As for the reference to Poland, the more important question is what did the Reagan administration do in the aftermath of the Solidarity uprising in 1981? The uprising was crushed by martial law. Poland did not throw off the shackles of the Jaruzelski regime until 1989.

There is a lively debate in the US about the proper policy towards Iran in the short term, and voices raised against the prudence of the current administration. Here's some commentary from the quisling appeasers at the Wall Street Journal, whose support of the Satanic Marxist Fascist Vampire ObamaChavezPolPot is well known:

The elevation of a more moderate face in Tehran, as opposed to Mr. Ahmadinejad, could delay action against Tehran if foreign governments decided to give Mr. Mousavi some political space and time, these diplomats warn. In such a dynamic, hardliners in Iran could rapidly push ahead with Tehran's nuclear program.

"If your goal is to increase the international sanctions regime against Tehran, it's much easier to do if the Iranian president is a Holocaust-denying radical," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad. [link]



WSS

These guys are good

gregster's picture

Found this on my rounds.

"Where are you America?

In America, if the government turns into a goon squad, you have the constitutionally-protected ability to shoot back. In Iran you have no such ability as the Iranian government has never recognized the unalienable rights as set forth in our Declaration.

So in Iran the population risks mass death to protest.

In America the population risks loss of some income since you'd have to cut work.

The Iranians take to the streets; we take to our couches and have another beer.

Grow a pair of balls America.

The people of Iran are putting us to shame."

You all need to knock it off

atlascott's picture

The racism, that it.

Or is it to be supposed that it is simply a coincidence that President Obama happens to be a man of color, and his detractors here all are not?

Before casting stones, perhaps you Kiwis should first look to how you oppress the Maori.

###

Ultimately, this is the last line of defense you will always encounter in America. For many, many people in the US, Obama represents the culmination of a long struggle, and victory for a race of people. [I would argue that it is an imaginary culmination in a largely illusory struggle and that there is no such thing as a victory for a "race" of people, the term being a non sequitur.]

There are many, MANY people who will blame Obama's eventual fall on "whites'" racist motives. He could set up literal death camps in this country and he would STILL remain a folk hero to many, many people.

This accounts for his 65% approval rating--one third of those who are being polled would approve of anything he did.He will remain in power and beloved until this Lady burns.

Counter-attack

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The good news is the sheer horror of Obama's high-level Nanny State fascism is inspiring a tiny libertarian revolt in the otherwise philosophically completely lost Republicans and conservatives, as well as a few others.

Ditto

Robert's picture

Too attempting to earn a crust to say anything more than Bravo.

Great work.

atlascott's picture

I have enjoyed all in this series, and this is the best.

WOW

Kasper's picture

This was a great piece Linz. Powerfully and eloquently written. I hope it gets used up elsewhere too.

Oh Bravo Linz!

Sandi's picture

Your last sentence must be repeated!

"An even more pressing question is how soon Americans will become sufficiently emboldened to break the chains of Obamadinejad."

Yes, it is excellent. And

Richard Wiig's picture

Yes, it is excellent. And it's looking it's looking increasingly as if this uprising will be more than just a flash in the pan.

Wow! Labour Brits smarter than Obama Yanks!

Marcus's picture

From Times Online
June 17, 2009

Obama tightens grip on banks as Darling demurs

Carl Mortished and Patrick Hosking

President Obama will today announce sweeping reforms of the US financial system including a new regulatory agency, new powers for the Federal Reserve and a new supervisory council to monitor risk and prevent a recurrence of the financial turmoil that caused last year's market collapse.

The root-and-branch reform of the US financial system is to be announced today prior to a speech by Alistair Darling to the City of London when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will outline the lessons of the financial crash and and criticise the behaviour of bankers.

In his Mansion House Speech tonight, Mr Darling is expected to emphasise corporate governance, rather than new institutions, as the best way to prevent financial calamity in the future. His approach will be in contrast to the US initiatives to be announced later today which include new powers, new institutions and regulatory bodies...

http://business.timesonline.co...

Yes, excellent...

Marcus's picture

...and this press release lays bare that Obamadinejad is not just an evil socialist at home, he is stupid and inexperienced in foreign policy too.

WSS, Matty-Sulivan et al should try to read and understand this.

One of Your Best

Jeff Perren's picture

Outstanding from start to finish.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.