Saturday, May 30, 2020

My Rant For Today... A Report on a Book Report

This is a book report and at first glance may appear to be unbiased but as you read through you'll come to realize the author's one-sidedness.  He begins by stating that Obamacare was the only one major legislative achievement while in reality it was a disaster and not only was accomplished by lying to the American people and then reversing that lie at the Supreme Court (it was not a tax then it was a tax), but it also was unsustainable and hurt more people than it helped (And by the is not a right and the Founding Fathers intentionally did not mention healthcare in the Constitution.)
So in keeping with the author's choice of words, "Assessment" why did he not assess the major faults of Barack Hussein Obama.  Specifically Obama's military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) during the Egyptian crisis.  As most prudent people know, the MB have documented their desires to end Western ideology and swear to place the flag of Islam over the White House. Fortunately the Egyptians won over the MB and jailed their was around this time that the Egyptian people chastised both Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Then there was the well planned event of payments to the Iranian government during Obama's second term.  With the help of John Kerry and others, Obama had the U.S. Navy on a fake mission that allowed for the Iranians to capture the American sailors aboard the patrol boat.  On that same boat was a female sailor who carried with her a bag full of money which the Iranians immediately took and after publically embarrassing the navy released the patrol boat with all the Americans safely aboard.
This and many other assessments should be included in any narrative about Barack Hussein Obama...the worst president in American History.  By the way, Obama was not born here and I can say that with assurance because no one can prove that he was. ~ Norman E. Hooben

Source for the following: Boston Review

The Presidency of Barack Obama: A First Historical Assessment
Edited by Julian E. Zelizer
Princeton University Press, $24.95 (paper)

Photograph courtesy of the Obama White House

It becomes clearer every day that Barack Obama, a historic president, presided over a somewhat less than historic presidency. With only one major legislative achievement (Obamacare)—and a fragile one at that—the legacy of Obama’s presidency mainly rests on its tremendous symbolic importance and the fate of a patchwork of executive actions.
Obama was a distant politician. In the end, he was reluctant to fight the political battles that make for sustainable policy.
How much of that was due to fate and how much was due to Obama’s own shortcomings as a politician is up for debate and is a question that emerges from Princeton historian Julian Zelizer’s new edited volume, The Presidency of Barack Obama.

With contributions from seventeen historians, the book bills itself as “a first historical assessment” of the Obama presidency. The overwhelming consensus, Zelizer writes, is that Obama “turned out to be a very effective policymaker but not a tremendously successful party builder.” This “defining paradox of Obama’s presidency” comes up again and again: the historians, by and large, approve of Obama’s policies (although some find them too timid) while they lament his politics.
The politics were pretty disastrous. As Zelizer summarizes, “During his presidency, even as he enjoyed reelection and strong approval ratings toward the end of this term, the Democratic Party suffered greatly. . . . Democrats lost more than one thousand seats in state legislatures, governors’ mansions, and Congress during his time in office.” Zelizer could have gone further. According to Ballotpedia, more Democratic state legislative seats were lost under Obama than under any president in modern history. Yet even with such political fallout, the overall tone of the book is surprisingly wistful. Or perhaps it is unsurprising when you notice that it was written shortly after the 2016 election. The contributors, like the nation, were shell-shocked by the results, and the book, which has a few strong chapters, suffers from the sting of Donald Trump’s victory—after which it became difficult to say anything negative about a normal president.
The legacy of Obama’s presidency mainly rests on its tremendous symbolic importance and the fate of a patchwork of executive actions.
As such, the book frequently makes excuses for Obama. As Zelizer says in the very first chapter, “The President could take Speaker of the House John Boehner out to play as much golf and drink as much bourbon as their hearts desired, but it wouldn’t make one iota of difference.” Some of the contributors likewise treat Obama’s political problems as if Obama had nothing to do with them, and in so doing they tend to absolve Obama himself from any responsibility for them.

This sort of benefit-of-the-doubt thinking, however, does not produce very insightful history. True, playing golf and drinking bourbon would not alone have changed the composition of the Republican caucus, but it would have given the president a better idea of what he was up against. Moreover, it caricatures what really happened: Obama was not just distant from the Republicans in Congress—he was distant from the Democrats as well. His reluctance to engage members of Congress cut across the aisle, with many Democrats just as furious as Republicans. This would only occasionally break out into the press, but it was well known on the Hill.
So while it is true that Obama faced an extremely oppositional Republican Party, historians must not ignore the fact that Obama was a distant politician. In the end, he was more concerned with policy and reluctant to engage in the political battles that make for successful and sustainable policy.

This flaw is evident in one of the book’s best essays. In “Neither a Depression nor a New Deal,” Eric Rauchway describes the Obama presidency’s “original sin, ” its response to the Great Recession.
Rauchway recounts how Christina Romer, the first chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, came up with a number ($1.8 trillion), “based on arithmetic and data,” that she thought would be necessary to jumpstart the economy again. Given the sense of emergency at the time and the Democratic control of both houses of Congress, Obama could have used his rather large amount of political capital to authorize and then fight for a larger stimulus package, one which focused intensely on job creation and retention. But the star economist on his team, Lawrence Summers, disagreed with Romer and argued that the economy could be stabilized using a much smaller stimulus. Obama chose to go with Summers’s plan; the results of that decision would reverberate throughout his presidency.
Obama’s refusal to engage members of Congress cut across the aisle, with many Democrats just as furious as Republicans.
First of all, while Summers’s plan worked, the recovery was very slow. Second, instead of focusing relentlessly on jobs, as Romer, most of Congress, and most of the nation wanted, the administration quickly pivoted to its next policy agenda item: health care. As Rauchway writes, “Obama’s decision to deemphasize stimulus in favor of pressing for health insurance reform was a gamble of immense, if unknowable, magnitude and consequence.”

By 2010 Obama’s fate was sealed. In the midterm elections, Republicans ran on the slow recovery, the perception that the stimulus package favored Wall Street, not Main Street, and the Democrats’ tone-deaf obsession with the health care bill. They easily took control of the House, picking up sixty-three seats—the biggest midterm election gains for the out party since 1938. And from then on, the Obama presidency struggled under a radicalized Republican Party. As Paul Starr writes in the collection, “Obama repeatedly chose substance over politics, which hardly seems like a fault in a president—except that the failure to get credit later limited what he was able to do.”

And so for its remaining six years, the Obama presidency had to confront a Republican Party that was hell-bent on opposing everything he did. But was such opposition set in stone?
At its height, the House Republican Tea Party Caucus consisted of only 60 members out of 242 Republican members of Congress. That left 182 Republicans to be wooed by a new and charismatic Democratic president—far fewer than what was needed to break gridlock. But a president who would not court members of his own party was not likely to try or to be successful at courting members of the other party, either.
In the summer of 2010, for example, Obama tried to pass a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill to combat climate change. It failed miserably, and after that, climate change legislation “fell off the political radar,” according to Meg Jacobs. It was replaced by an aggressive strategy of executive actions, from the Clean Power Plan to the Paris climate accords. And yet, as Jacobs concludes, “With the election of Donald Trump in 2016, many of Obama’s advances became vulnerable to rollback by the new GOP president who believes climate change is a ‘hoax.’”
There are only two ways a president can forge a legacy: accomplish things with bipartisan support, or nurture a party so that future politicians will protect his accomplishments. Obama did neither.
Indeed, as Zelizer’s volume makes clear, the problem with executive action is that it is so easily undone. The majority of the book is spent cataloging Obama’s many well-intentioned executive actions that are in the process of being reversed by his successor.

Obama, for instance, presided over a Justice Department that made meaningful gestures toward reducing incarceration and demanding accountability for police violence. But these moves can be undone by the current attorney general, Jeff Sessions, leaving Peniel E. Joseph to characterize this part of the Obama legacy as “an opportunity found and frustratingly lost for advocates of criminal justice reform.” Writing about Obama’s urban policy, Thomas J. Sugrue calls Obama’s actions “miniscule” and “too cautious” and notes that, “In Obama’s last two years in office, American cities began to burn again.”
Obama’s most significant executive action came as the result of his failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. As Sarah R. Coleman notes, “In the summer of 2012, under pressure from party activists to show some effort on immigration reform before the November election and unable to rise above the partisanship that dominated Washington as he had hoped, President Obama turned to his executive powers and announced the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.” But again we see the weakness of executive action. As Coleman concludes, “President Obama ends his two terms with few successes and a mixed legacy on immigration and refugee policy.”

Of course there were successes in the Obama administration that appear to be sustainable. The fact that the Affordable Care Act escaped congressional repeal by the skin of its teeth is one bright spot in an otherwise dreary picture, even though the Trump administration continues to undermine it at every step. And as Timothy Stewart-Winter points out, Obama will likely be remembered as the “Gay Rights President,” in honor of the astonishing progress toward LGBTQ rights made during his years in office.
But as this first accounting of the Obama presidency shows, a president’s policy legacy is indistinguishable from his political legacy. Meaningful, sustained progress on policy requires some continuity in the political base. Rather than remake the Democratic Party from top to bottom, Obama opted to focus his political hopes on the continued success of his campaign, Obama for America. Writing in this volume, Michael Kazin notes, “Organizing for America (OFA), the group Democrats created just before the inauguration to harness the momentum of the Obama campaign to their legislative program, failed to keep the party’s young, multicultural base mobilized against the Republican onslaught that followed.”
Only now has Obama come to the realization that his legacy depends on politics after all.
The Presidency of Barack Obama is a good example of how hard it is to write history quickly. In twenty or so years, we may well discover that Obama’s distance from politics was intentional and designed to preserve an image of the president as “above politics.” As we know from Fred Greensteins’s book on President Dwight D. Eisenhower, The Hidden Hand Presidency: Eisenhower as Leader (1982), Eisenhower intentionally obscured his acute political sense. But his “above it all” approach to the presidency did not change what was the liberal, New Deal trajectory of the country any more than Obama changed the conservative, anti-government zeitgeist.

In the end there are only two ways a president can forge a legacy in U.S. politics: accomplish things with bipartisan support, or nurture his political party so that people are elected who will carry on and protect his accomplishments. Obama’s legacy is in trouble because he did neither. For him, the first path was difficult—and some would say impossible. He faced a Republican Party controlled by extremists determined to undermine him at all costs. “It’s one of the few regrets of my presidency,” he said in his last State of the Union address, “that the rancor and suspicion between the parties has gotten worse instead of better. There’s no doubt a president with the gifts of Lincoln or Roosevelt might have better bridged the divide, and I guarantee I’ll keep trying to be better so long as I hold this office.”
That left him a second path: build a Democratic Party strong enough to carry on his accomplishments. Though he did not do so at the time, Obama’s current pledge to nurture a new generation of leaders (through his foundation) and his support for former Attorney General Eric Holder’s campaign to fight gerrymandering are signs that he has come to the realization that his legacy depends on politics after all. It is a late realization but, given that the fifty-six year old has many years of influence before him, perhaps his post-presidency will help build the political support for the kinds of policies he advocated as president.

While we have you...

...we need your help. Confronting the many challenges of COVID-19—from the medical to the economic, the social to the political—demands all the moral and deliberative clarity we can muster. In Thinking in a Pandemic, we’ve organized the latest arguments from doctors and epidemiologists, philosophers and economists, legal scholars and historians, activists and citizens, as they think not just through this moment but beyond it. While much remains uncertain, Boston Review’s responsibility to public reason is sure. That’s why you’ll never see a paywall or ads. It also means that we rely on you, our readers, for support. If you like what you read here, pledge your contribution to keep it free for everyone by making a tax-deductible donation.

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

Untitled Post... Corona Virus, New World Order, Bill Gates, George Soros, Henry Kissinger, End Times.... Take Your Pick

I spent several hours breaking this up into 'byte' size pieces, however if you want to view the entire video simply scroll down to the bottom video.
There's a lot of information one can gather from Reverend Danny Jones' sermon especially for those who only recently got concerned (due to the corona virus) about where our country is headed.  Much of what he has to say here may sound a bit worrisome and I hope that is the case.  Many of us have been on top of these events for years with little or no appreciation from the rank and file...or should I say, the average citizen for most citizens are psychological captives* in that they don't really know how others see them and may be a bit surprised when they discover things are not what they thought them to be. What I'm really trying to say is that some people seem to be living in a bubble; here's hoping the bubble will pop...
Part One

Part Two

Part Three
Part Four
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight

Full Video
* "It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison, and yet not free - to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national state, or of some private interest within the nation, wants him to think, feel and act.
"The nature of psychological compulsion is such that those who act under constraint remain under the impression that they are acting on their own initiative. The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free. That he is not free is apparent only to other people. His servitude is strictly objective."
Brave New World Revisited, Aldous Huxley, 1958

Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Harvard University The Deep State's Anti-Religion Anti-Constitution Does Not Want You Teaching Your Children

Like an indecent exposure, Harvard University openly exposes itself as being part and parcel to the Deep State ~ by Norman E. Hooben

First take a look at some of these headlines (I’ll print just one full story following my commentary):

The Christian Post

Washington Examiner 
Harvard prof calls homeschool Dangerous

We know from past studies that Harvard University (among others in the United States) has accepted bribe money from Saudi Arabia to produce history textbooks with an entirely different chronology than traditional…or should I say, “Truthful” textbooks.  The official (we make that ‘official’ because this is what Barack and Michelle Obama insisted) reasoning behind this scheme is to change history in the eyes of our younger generation. In fact, Michelle Obama even gave a speech in Puerto Rico with that as its main theme; ‘We Got To Change Our History’.  Later, Hilary Clinton added to that scenario by emphasizing that “We need to get rid of religious codes.”, aka, the Ten Commandments. With that said, I’ll add a line from Caleb Parke’s editorial that follows my commentary:

He added, “Bartholet's call for a presumptive ban on homeschooling because she considers American homeschooling parents too ignorant or too religious goes against the weight of decades of scholarly research on homeschooling which demonstrates positive academic, civic and social outcomes.””

 “Parents too ignorant or too religious?”  This is right out of  The Communist Takeover Of America ~ 45 Declared Goals ~ Rule 17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.  Rule 31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history.
Back in 2008 I wrote a piece called “Muslims Discovered America ..."?" Where I presented a video wherein you’ll find that they even attempted to change history by saying that a Muslim discovered America before Columbus.
Now one may ask, what does this have to do with the Deep State.  Harvard University is rank with Communist infiltrators.  In fact, one former professor is now a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Justice Elena Kagan was once the Dean of Harvard Law School where she intentionally deleted the U.S. Constitution from the school’s curriculum.  Hmm, get a law degree from Harvard without knowing the highest law in the land, the United States Constitution.  Kagan was appointed by Barack Obama her former student…she taught him well; he doesn’t need the Constitution, he has a pen and a phone.

Don't forget to watch the video here:

Harvard Prof calls homeschooling ‘dangerous,’ says it gives parents ‘authoritarian control’ over kids
Published April 21, 2020 By Caleb Parke ~ Fox News
A Harvard law professor is under fire for her comments in an article about the “risks” of homeschooling as parents face closed public schools because of the coronavirus pandemic.
In Harvard Magazine's May-June issue, Elizabeth Bartholet, a law professor and faculty director of the school’s Child Advocacy Program, worried homeschooled children will not be able to contribute to a democratic society.
"The issue is, do we think that parents should have 24/7, essentially authoritarian control over their children from ages zero to 18?" Bartholet asked. “I think that's dangerous. I think it's always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.”
Without citing specific examples, the civil rights and family law teacher argued homeschooled children are at higher risks of abuse.
“I think an overwhelming majority of legislators and American people, if they looked at the situation, would conclude that something ought to be done,” Bartholet said.
Michael Donnelly, director of global outreach and senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), of which is targeted in the article, told Fox News the views expressed are “extreme.”
“Bartholet’s dystopian recommendations are tone-deaf and have provoked a firestorm of response from political and religious perspectives – as well they should have,” Donnelly said. “Her obvious distrust of average Americans is loud and clear.”
He added, “Bartholet's call for a presumptive ban on homeschooling because she considers American homeschooling parents too ignorant or too religious goes against the weight of decades of scholarly research on homeschooling which demonstrates positive academic, civic and social outcomes.”
A Harvard University honors graduate student, who was homeschooled until she went to the Ivy League school, responded in a post on Medium Monday.
Melba Pearson called the article “an attack on the fundamental rights and freedoms that make our country (and until recently, institutions such as Harvard) what they are.”
She said it is "disappointing" Erin O'Donnell, who authored the article quoting Bartholet, argued that government has more of a right than parents do to educate their own children.
“The idea that a government, already so inefficient and inadequate in so many areas, can care for and educate every child better than its parent is wrong,” Pearson wrote.
The alum points out that statistics back up homeschooling, calling out the article's "faulty" logic.
Pearson argues she was better prepared for Harvard because she was homeschooled, not in spite of it.
"It is deeply disappointing that Harvard is choosing and promoting an intellectual totalitarian path that calls for a ban of the liberties that helped me and countless others succeed, for it is those liberties and ideals that have made America the great nation it is today," she concludes.

Caleb Parke is an associate editor for You can follow him on Twitter @calebparke