"They're fighting back. The empire is striking back."
The above is from President Obama yesterday in Ohio (from a Real Clear Politics story linked on Drudge--drudgereport.com--under the headline: PANIC of 2010). This comparison by Obama of the GOP with the Evil Empire of "Star Wars" was, of course, pretty much ignored by the CORRUPT Associated Press and Yahoo "News"--as well as probably most of the rest of the mainstream media (part of the real Evil Empire of the present establishments of both parties--although mainly leftist Democrats joined by establishment Republicans--that have been destroying this country). I cannot ignore it, because President Obama is STEAL LING MY LINES--again (he does it all of the time).
Yes, it was me--in more than one article--who warned you that we are facing the situation of the second Star Wars movie: "The Establishment Strikes Back.". As I warned you, several times, the mainstream media establishment, and the establishments of both parties, are striking back--in Delaware, Alaska, Florida, and everywhere else, the establishments of both parties are desperately trying to suggest that the people don't know what they are doing, and trying to save what is left of their own power by convincing the people that they are HICKS and IDIOTS--while desperately engaging in the "politics of personal destruction" against all anti-establishment candidates. Drudge is right. This is PANIC time for the establishment. I just wish President Obama would stop stealing my lines as part of the Establishment striking back.
You say Obama is not part of the "establishment"--especially not not the "establishment" previously in Washington? Oh, but he is!!!!!! Obama did not magically appear no the scene to fight the Washington establishment in 2008. He was the "keynote" speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention nominating that establishment guy, John Kerry. 2004 was the year Obama was elected to the Senate from Illinois, coming out of part of the Chicago machine.
And what did Obama DO in Washington? Not much. He certainly did not do ANY:THING to stop the spending and bailouts of the Bush Administration (which I, in contrast, opposed to the point of disowning President Bush in 2006--even before the big bailouts). In fact, Obama SUPPORTED the Bush spending and bailouts, except for wanting to spend MORE. Obama SUPPORTED the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill on illegal immigration, except that Obama did his best to confuse his p9osition on the bill (as Obama does on almost everything). In reality, to the extent Obama had any problems with the Bush/McCain/Kennedy bill, it was that the bill did not go far enough in granting illegal immigrants amnesty.
Democrats took control of Congress in January of 2007. Obama was part of that majority, and COULD have LED that majority if he had any good ideas. He did not. DEMOCRATS controlled spending completely beginning in January of 2007, and really controlled domestic policy--as we headed toward this economic crisis. Yes, Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Congress were right there helping President Bush "drive the car into the ditch"--with MORE power than Bush. Indeed, Democrats had really controlled domestic policy from the time Hank Paulson (a favorite of Congress and Democrats) was appointed Secretary of the Treasury in early 2006. Paulso was the SAME as present Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner. I have, of course, broken the scoop that Paulson and Geitner are the SAME PERSON, but that has been suppressed in a conspiracy of silence againsts me. Then Ben Bernanke was appointed Fed chief in early 206 as well. It is no accident that Bernanke is STILL Fed chief--reappointed by President Obama. Obama WAS, and IS, part of the establishment that has brought this country to ruin. It is no accident that John McCain's campaign was mainly a matter of "me too", as McCain agreed with Obama on almost everything--just not willing to go quite as far. McCain, in fact, refused to really criticize Obama. He was more comfortable criticizing anti-establishment conservatives.
Obama is merely continuing the policies of the Bush second term, only WORSE. We are in the midst of Bush's Third Term. Remember, it was Bush who got the disastrous Medicare Drug Benefit Program passed. Even on health care, Obama has simply been more radical than the Republican establishment Big Government guys and gals. He has not been different in kind. "Stimulus"? Remember the FAILED Bush/Democrat/Obama stimulus of the spring/summer of 2008? Yes, it was actually a more efficient "stimulus" than the Obama PORK "stimulus" bill, but it still FAILED. Obama was on board with basically ALL of the domestic policies of the Bush second term, except for taxes and wanting to spend more. Democrats like taxes, and that is the only really difference between them and Bush in Bush's second term. Democrats wanted to repeal the Bush tax cuts, even then--the same tax cuts now scheduled to end in JANUARY. Can you imagine just how bad off the economy would be if the DEMOCRAT Congress, including Obama, had been able to override a Bush veto and and raise taxes as the economy was already headed for recession? The mind boggles about how bad off we would be now. As it is, even Democrats are realizing that raising taxes in January on ANYBODY will be a major disaster.
Thus, I wish Obama would quit stealing my lines. He should leave it to the expert. I get the lines right, and the players right. He does not.
P.S. Exactly WHAT did Rid, Pelosi and the other Democrats in Congress do to prevent the present economic crisis when they took control in January of 2007? Ask yourself that when you vote this fall. Bush almost never vetoed a bill, and hardly threatened to do so, except on taxes. Democrats in Congress have been part of the "ruling class" that got us into this mess, and it is funny to see them trying to suggest they were not there. It has NOT been 18 months that Democrats have been in control. I has been almost four years, and really more than that when you properly realize that Democrats in Congress were part of the ruling establishment during the entire Bush Presidency, and especially during his second term. Even before that second term, Bush had teamed with Kennedy on several bills-not just the later illegal immigration bill--such as "No Child Left Behind". Yes, Bush was more "bipartisan" than Obama, because Bush was fundamentally a Big Government, Washington establishment guy (just like Obama, but not quite as extreme). No, I don't care if you also keep in mind the failure of the GOP "establishment" when you go to the polls this fall. Who you should vote for, if you have the opportunity, is every ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT candidate. This fall, those candidates are almost entirely Republican--including those members of Congress who voted AGAINST the wall Street bailouts. Obama, you will remember, voted for those bailouts. It is not accident that the recipient of the MOST Goldman Sachs PAC money was Barack Obama.