Tag Archives: National Review

Obama continues to vote present because he just likes Being There

Obama has not only diminished the nation in the eyes of the world but he’s diminished the office of president in the eyes of the American people.  It’s a shame when Americans have lost all pride in the POTUS and the first family. It’s sad that he’s such a bumbling fool, which reflects on all of us.

From bowing to foreign leaders:

from AmericanThinker.com

to denying American  exceptionalism to escorting the Dalai Lama past the garbage and out of the White House via the back door,

from FrugalCafeBlogZone.com

Obama has weakened our position on the world stage.

So, when the president is selling $5 raffle tickets from his living room in the White House for a dinner with him or Joe Biden, it’s obvious to all that the prestige of the office is in the basement. It’s on par with the sleaziness of selling the Lincoln bedroom.


Let’s hope a dinner with a common American goes better than this one did:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The Obamas are totally out of their element as the First Family of America.


Obama has the Alinsky community organizer job down very well: give the idea and incentive and then delegate so if (or when) it doesn’t work out, he has clean hands. It’s really nothing more than a continuation of voting “present” by just Being There.

Just Being There (in the White House) is all he really wants anyway: the perks and the private concerts with super stars, the private jet and personal chef. Honestly, after reading Michael Barone in the National Review today, I can see why BO wants to be president again. Being There is just so easy.

Which past leader does Barack Obama most closely resemble? His admirers, not all of them liberals, used to compare him to Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.


But there is another comparison I think more appropriate for a president who, according to one of his foreign-policy staffers, prefers to “lead from behind.” The man I have in mind is Chauncey Gardiner, the character played by Peter Sellers in the 1979 movie Being There.

Peter Sellers as Chauncey Gardiner in Being There. And many believe that just like Chauncey, Obama walks on water, too.

As you may remember, Gardiner is a clueless gardener who is mistaken for a Washington eminence and becomes a presidential adviser. Asked if you can stimulate growth through temporary incentives, Gardiner says, “As long as the roots are not severed, all is well, and all will be well in the garden.”

“First comes the spring and summer,” he explains, “but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.” The president is awed as Gardiner sums up, “There will be growth in the spring.”

Kind of reminds you of Barack Obama’s approach to the federal budget, doesn’t it?


On all these issues, Obama seems oddly disengaged, aloof from the hard work of government, hesitant about making choices.

That doesn’t sound like Lincoln. Or Roosevelt. Or even Jimmy Carter. More like “then we have fall and winter.”


The Roots of Obama’s Contempt

Throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama made it obvious that he wanted to fundamentally “change” America. It was equally clear that his wife Michelle supported him in this endeavor. She did so time and again in 2008 by giving speeches critical of the country as it existed prior to Obama’s presidential run. What wasn’t as evident, until Obama secured the presidency, was why this was so; why were he and Michelle so ardent in their belief that America needed “change” to begin with?

The answer is that Barack and Michelle harbor great contempt for this country and flaunt it so brazenly that they appear to be bound together by it.

Not surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh picked up on this contempt quicker than most, and even before last year’s election was settled, he warned that Obama’s America would be one where wealth (which is power) would be taken from those who have and given to those whom Obama believes ought to have instead. Limbaugh’s criticism was more than validated by Obama’s campaign promise to implement new taxes on all incomes over $250,000 per year in an attempt to “spread the wealth.”

By early summer 2009, Limbaugh claimed that Obama was “closing out the American dream.” Again, this criticism was well founded, since by June Obama had nationalized the American automobile industry, passed a $700 billion stimulus package, pushed cap and trade through the House, and was going full steam ahead on universal health care. In light of Obama’s unmitigated war on the private sector, Limbaugh poignantly added: “If al-Qaeda wants to demolish the America we know and love, they’d better hurry because Obama is beating them to it.”

We have to understand that Obama “looks at this country as an obstacle, … [and as a] country [that] was immoral and unjust before he was elected.” We also have to recognize that this is the same view of the country Michelle holds, as was made evident in her now-infamous announcement that she was proud of her country “for the first time in [her] adult life” once her husband closed in on the Democratic Party nomination.

Simply put, Michelle shares Barack’s conviction that many facets of America were wrong prior to his ascension to high office. In this way, the president and first lady are united in contempt for the United States.

Writing in National Review Online, Michael Ledeen explains Obama’s mindset this way:

He’s possessed of the belief that America has done a lot of terrible things in the world and should be prevented from doing such things ever again.

This belief in the “terrible things” America has done led to Obama’s international apology tour and his quasi-sycophantic Muslim outreach earlier this year. Both these things were direct outgrowths of Obama’s contempt for this country, or what Ledeen refers to as a “hatred of freedom.”

Even more to the point, Ledeen surmises that Obama “rather likes tyrants and dislikes America.” And who could argue? We’ve seen Obama’s fondness for tyrants firsthand through his support of Manuel Zelaya instead of the freedom-starved citizens of Honduras, his adoration for Hugo Chavez, and the fact that he’s trying to “[ease] up on the Castro regime [diplomatically]” without also demanding that Castro give at least a little in return (like allowing “free elections in Cuba”).

Again, it’s hard to think about Obama’s “hatred of freedom” or his low view of common men without thinking of Michelle’s opposition to freedom and her elitist outlook on people as well. Who can forget her words to working-class women in Zanesville, Ohio, during the 2008 campaign, where she urged them to forgo a pursuit of financially rewarding careers and choose instead to give themselves to community work? What was she doing if not asking them to forgo the freedom and opportunity available to them in this nation and pursue instead a plebeian’s life?

Ultimately, like her husband, Michelle has a contemptuous view of freedom and the people it could benefit most because she wants to be the center of the universe. She is a member of the ruling class who can’t go without reminding us commoners of the sacrifices she makes for our benefit. We must remember to bow when she passes by.

from Pajamas Media/AWR Hawkins

AWR Hawkins is a conservative writer who holds a Ph.D. in military history from Texas Tech University.