…in the presidential campaign.
“This is a nasty race.”
and
“Neither candidate deserves my vote.”
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
16 Responses to Two memes
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
This election will truly settle our fate
President Romney now doesn’t that sound great
Worst four years such a disgrace
Axelrod will make this all about race
What breed was the dog that Barry once ate
just. stop.
Whatever happened to hope and change?
TeamObama should have gone with:
Hype and Corruption…at least that would have been honest.
As if your vote mattered. Please, spare me. Obama/Romney..does it matter. The Empire moves on…..
There’s always so much hypocrisy in politics—I was gratified to hear Paul Ryan’s new campaign slogan: “Oh yeah, I guess maybe I did do that.”
“This is a nasty race.”
Translation: “A Democrat somewhere is making noises about taking their own stand in a fight.” Our media overlords clutch their pearls and faint onto their divans when Democrats don’t knuckle under. It’s distinctly at odds with what voters think.
Oh, and what about the meme of voter suppression?
“Millions for obstacles, not one cent for suffrage.”
I’m the the second meme crowd, and sick of voters who line up blindly behind their Party Guy. But I’ll vote.
If Mitt Romney wants to fight back against the onslaught of Obama’s vicious and deceptive negative advertising, then Dontae and Angela Adams need to become household names in America. In fact, they need to become symbols for what the Obamas are really about.
The Adams’ story begins with Michelle Obama’s appointment as an executive director of the University of Chicago Medical Center. Mrs. Obama established satellite health centers ostensibly designed to tend to the community’s medical needs. David Axelrod, currently the senior strategist for Obama 2012, subsequently teamed with Michelle to launch an advertising campaign to redirect community members away from the prestigious medical center and to these facilities.
Mrs. Obama’s plan was benignly called the Urban Health Initiative. Axelrod’s ASK Public Strategies promoted the plan to the community. One of the promotions was that the plan guaranteed free shuttle rides to and from the external satellite clinics.
There is something highly commendable, indeed noble, about bringing medical care to the indigent by going into their neighborhoods. That is, if there is not another agenda in play.
The university medical center is a premier medical institution and caters to well-insured and affluent clients. Some of Chicago’s poorest south-side neighborhoods are within a two-mile radius. These people generally have Medicaid or Medicare, if any insurance at all, and the hospital cannot command the kind of reimbursement payments from them that it can command from the well-insured and affluent.
Hospitals get additional subsidies from the federal government to cover charity cases. When Michelle Obama worked for the medical center, it spent less for the care of the indigent, as a portion of total budget, than the average non-profit hospital in Cook County, although the indigent constitute a substantial portion of the population in the surrounding neighborhoods. Indeed, the Mail (London) On Line, in a long story about Mrs. Obama, raised the issue of why she went to work for a hospital which, the Mail alleges, was known in the community for its ruthless greed.
Mrs. Obama, with David Axelrod’s help, redirected the indigent away from the hospital to the satellite centers, where care was less costly and, of course, less encompassing. In 2007 and 2008, the medical center, a non-profit organization, was turning a profit well in excess of 100 million dollars. The hospital appeared to community activists to be engaged in a process of dumping the poor and cherry-picking from the rich in order to enhance its revenue. In 2002, the year Michelle started working at the medical center, it refused to admit a man suffering from stomach pains, allegedly because he had no insurance. He later died at another hospital. Four years later, the Department of Health and Human Services fined the hospital because of this case.
In August 2008, twelve-year-old Dontae Adams was attacked by a stray pit bull that nearly tore off his lip. Dontae’s mother, Angela Adams, rushed him to the emergency room at the University of Chicago Medical Center. There, Dontae received Tylenol, a tetanus shot, and antibiotics, but the medical center refused to admit him for the vital surgery to sew back on his lip. Angela Adams claims that the hospital refused to accept her Medicaid for the surgery.
A panicked but highly aware mother, Angela Adams took Dontae on a public bus for the hour-long journey to the county medical center. Arriving at five in the morning with gauze pressed to his bleeding wound, Dontae was quickly admitted to surgery so his lip could be reconstructed and his speaking ability preserved. With high praise for the mother’s reactions, surgeon Mark Grevious, who reconstructed Dontae’s lip, told the press that this was a serious matter, and it needed to be addressed.
The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), in the wake of the Dontae Adams incident, expressed grave concern over Michelle Obama’s medical initiative, diplomatically calling it “dangerously close” to patient-dumping.
For its part, the university’s physicians, who reviewed the Adams’ case, claim the hospital acted properly, and that admitting Dontae to surgery would have enhanced the prospect of infection. Obviously, the opinion was not shared by Dr. Grevious. Dr. Nick Jourles, president of the ACEP, said that there is no reason why surgery would have enhanced the likelihood of infection.
Mitt Romney, contrary to the pro-Obama campaign ad that falsely asserts that he condemned a cancer patient to death, killed no one. Michelle Obama, in contrast, implemented a policy to redirect poor patients from a hospital that receives tax breaks and incentives, in the hundreds of millions, to treat them. One of these did die as a consequence of that policy. That is not to say Mrs. Obama killed anyone. It is to say that she helped implement a policy and underscored a medical culture of keeping the poor out, and that policy had consequences.
One child could have been speech-impaired for the rest of his life, save for a valiant and determined mother, because of the medical center’s policies. And those are the cases that made news.
The tag line for portraying Mrs. Adams’ experience should come from her own words: “It’s not just about my child.”
So if Mitt Romney wants to stop talking about how Barack Obama’s negative and deceitful campaign is beneath the dignity of the office and wants to come out swinging, I want to see a poster showcasing Angela Adams as a woman of courage and valor who did not let Mrs. Obama’s initiative deprive her son of his ability to speak. And I want to know, who is the faceless and nameless man who died from poverty because of alleged patient-dumping? His death needs to speak to us as part of this campaign. Portraying his death would give dignity and justice both to the man and to the Romney campaign.
Some argue that for the Romney camp to take on the first lady would be a losing battle. Hardly, as both the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune have surfaced the story. And the story has tentacles that reach into the complex relationship between then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama and convicted felon Tony Rezko’s pay-for-medical play scheme.
South-side Congressional Democrat Bobby Rush and Republican Senator Charles Grassley unsuccessfully tried to get a national hearing on patient-dumping. It’s only the national media that has stayed away from the story.
If Ann Romney’s T-shirts and horses are campaign issues, then why shouldn’t Mrs. Obama’s controversial program of redirecting indigent patients be a campaign issue? Why is it that activists in the communities surrounding the University of Chicago have opposed the program? It’s time for the Romney campaign to raise those issues.
In a statement to a predominately black audience, Vice President Joe Biden, while attacking Gov. Romney, uttered these words: “He’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules — unchain Wall Street! They gawn’ put y’all back in chains.
You would think it remarkable that in the year 2012, a powerful politician who is one heartbeat away from being the president of the United States could show such insensitivity for over 40 million black Americans and get away with it. Just as remarkable, but not surprising, is the deafening silence of the ultra-race-sensitive NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Congressional Black Caucus. Once we understand why calls of indignation are not forthcoming from this group, we can glean some important insight regarding the team strategy of today’s black and white liberals/socialist/progressives. For with this group of ideologues, it truly is all about Team.
Joe, due to his reputation of being a bumbling politician, cannot solely be blamed for his racial indiscretion. The mantra for the Obama campaign and their surrogates has focused on one thing regarding race, which is to take every opportunity to depict the Republican Party a group of rich white racists. The problem with giving this assignment to ole Joe is that his mouth habitually runs faster than his brain. He simply cannot be trusted without a teleprompter and a promise to read from it. Otherwise he’s apt to say the strangest and the most stupid things.
The strength of the team strategy that allows Joe and other white liberals to insult the black community and get away with it can be found with a group that W. E. B. Du Bois, in 1900, called the Talented Tenth. This is a group of professional liberal black elitists who consider themselves the “Best of their Race.”
Du Bois provides the perfect template for our present-day Black Talented Tenth members. He was a socialist with an ideological belief in the superiority of certain members of his race over others. This allowed him to embrace and introduce abortion into his community. He would give the original all-white, wealthy socialist originators of the NAACP a black face of trust to deliver for years their anti-capitalist message. He gave cover to the white liberal/socialist/progressive establishment’s design to unionize his race, and in the case of Margaret Sanger, to abort their babies. His compensation was prestige, a good job, honor within the integrated world, and the greatest enticement for any Black Talented Tenth: a reputation as an intellectual.
The Black Talented tenth is alive and well today, and its members are being called upon to play both offense and defense for the left: defense with their silence for buffoonish statements by Vice President Biden, and offense by coming up with a new word, “niggerization,” by MSNBC’s Touré to explain Romney’s racist propensity for calling President Obama an “angry man.”
This symbiotic cover can be seen in the arrogance of liberal white men joking about raping the first black female Secretary of State, Condi Rice, with no fear of reprisal. XM satellite radio hosts Gregg “Opie” Hughes and Anthony Cumia laughed as a guest they called “Homeless Charlie” talked about wanting to rape Secretary Rice. Cumia gleefully said, “I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice’s face…as you were just like holding her.”
The response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the liberal women’s groups: silence.
In Madison, Wisconsin in November of 2004, WTDY program director and morning host John Sylvester called Rice — then the nation’s first female national security adviser — “Aunt Jemima.” When asked to apologize by his critics, Sylvester said “he was planning a giveaway on Friday’s show of Aunt Jemima pancake mix and syrup.” “I will apologize to Aunt Jemima.”
Response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus: silence.
On November 4, 1994, Julianne Malveaux, black liberal/socialist academic, said of Supreme Court Justice Thomas: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early, like many black men do, of heart disease. … He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”
Response of the NAACP, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Caucus: silence.
The success of the long-established relationship between the liberal/socialist/progressives and the Black Talented Tenth has been due to their commonality in commitment to an ideology and self-aggrandizement above all else. As black Americans continue to be insulted and dismissed by protected white liberals, the Black Talented Tenth will continue to benefit from political donations, speaking engagements, national media presence, accolades as the official Black Leaders, and perpetual gigs on MSNBC and CNN.
After all, it is all about Team.
…and just for the heck of it, here’s Owens’s (hi Burgess!) interview with someone named Rush:
http://www.burgessowenstalks.com/Interview.html
Transparency? Here’s some Real Transparency
Good grief! How stupid does the Obama campaign think Americans are? How much contempt do those Chicago elitists have for those of us out here clinging to our guns, our religion and because of them and their incompetent leader, our livelihoods? I’m referring, of course, to this latest bit of preposterousness emanating from the White House spinmeisters: the turnout crowds at Obama campaign events are intentionally small because we’re deliberately controlling access to maintain an atmosphere of intimacy between the great one and our true Kool-Aid drinkers.
Excuse me, but Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Sure you are, Axelrod. As any successful political campaign consultant will tell you, it’s really smart to keep the crowds small and make that really close, confidential connection. Sure it is, especially at fundraisers. That’s a real formula for winning, know what I mean? Who wants the tens of thousands of enthusiastically cheering voters who are turning out at the Romney/Ryan events? That’s just so gauche and totally unbecoming, not to mention a testimony to the coarseness and unsophistication of those spiritual, gun-loving knuckle-draggers who unfortunately occupy such a large geographical portion of America. Bunch of damn Tea Party fools, don’t you agree Mr. Plouffe? When you and Axelrod write your book chronicling the disastrous and failed campaign you concocted in 2012, perhaps the chapter on limiting the crowds at Obama events should be titled:
Crowds? We don’t need no stinking crowds!
Truth is folks, this transparently laughable idiocy isn’t aimed at the kinds of Americans who read American Thinker; no, it’s hard targeted on those who are hopelessly unaware and eternally naive. Unaware and naive are the nicest possible excuses you can make for people willing to believe that a messianic politician really doesn’t want to be greeted at every stop by massive, adoring, idol-worshiping crowds like he was the last time around.
And these are the fools who look down their elitist noses at the rest of America.
Colin, I’m curious: are all these essays being sent in from the same address?
This is astonishing. The Daily Caller reports that documents obtained by the House Judiciary Committee show that the Obama administration falsfied reports of record deportation of illegals.
Based in internal documents from ICE, deportations are actually down.
According to the committee’s review, in 2011 officials at the Department of Homeland Security began including the number of individuals removed through the Alien Transfer Exit Program (ATEP) in its annual removal numbers. ATEP is a program which moves apprehended illegal immigrants to another point along the border.
The committee chair claims that counting those individuals as removals is misleading because there are no repercussions for illegal immigrants who are deported through the program, and they can simply try to re-enter.
“It is dishonest to count illegal immigrants apprehended by the Border Patrol along the border as ICE removals,” Smith explained in a statement. “And these ‘removals’ from the Border Patrol program do not subject the illegal immigrant to any penalties or bars for returning to the U.S. This means a single illegal immigrant can show up at the border and be removed numerous times in a single year — and counted each time as a removal.”
Given the new information, the committee’s Republican majority subtracted the ATEP removals from ICE’s deportation totals.
With the ATEP subtraction, in 2011 the estimated 397,000 deportations become approximately 360,000, and the 2012 removals to date drop from about 334,000 to an estimated 263,000, according to the committee estimates. Projections for number of people to be deported by end of the year drops from 400,000 to 315,000 removals.
The administration has been talking out of both sides of its mouth on enforcement anyway, with Obama issuing his executive order applying the DREAM act to some illegals while claiming record deportations. The political calculation of this guy is so cynical, with the entire executive branch of government enlisted in his re-election campaign.
Clinton was bad. He was selling access to the Lincoln bedroom and using commerce department waivers to get campaign cash.
This guy is worse.
“Why do people seem to take an instant dislike to links from The Daily Caller?”
“It saves them time.”
Obama’s way of beating Romney and Ryan has nothing to do with real issues. It’s pure trash-talking and deliberate flipping of the truth: R&R are poopie kids! Yuck!
Which makes this election about the lowest point in American politics since 1804, when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel. When rational argument disappears, ultimately you get trash-talking, endemic lies, and violence. This is not open debate. It is cynical mass manipulation.
All of which brings me to the Great Liberal Fat Crisis, an “epidemic” we are told is worse than the Chicago murder rate, scarier than mad mullahs with nukes, more insidious even than the corrupt media, and more catastrophic than the O’conomy.
If fat is the question, what’s the answer? Michelle Obama thinks the answer is to drive the Chicken McNugget out of business. Lib politicians always look for scapegoats. Liberal “thinkers” seem to think fat is the fault of capitalism.
But the starving people of the earth think the real answer is to have more and more wonderful fatty, sugary food.
Gosh, it’s so good!
The fat crisis is another neurosis of prosperity. It runs in the minds of overfed people who worry about their body image. How do I look in the mirror? Nancy Pelosi is the living incarnation of adolescent values carried into the seventh decade of life.
But when it comes to fat, I blame liberalism, the source of most of our neuroses today.
Why?
It’s very simple.
Q. Why do people get fat?
A. They eat too much.
Q. Why do they eat too much?
A. Because they are lonely, isolated, and emotionally needy.
Q. Who made them lonely, isolated and emotionally needy?
A. Liberalism.
Q. How dat?
A. By attacking marriage, pushing divorce, making the welfare state preferable to husbands and fathers, breaking up the normal lives of children, cobbling up artificial families as if they are the real thing, promoting sexual adventurism, seducing the young into the monoculture of the left, spreading destructive personal values, and above all, by slicing and dicing the American people by race, gender, age, class, and sexual fantasies, while scaring and scaring the masses through the deeply corrupt media.
Q. Oh, yeah? And what else?
A. By teaching class envy in the schools and colleges, telling rich innocents there is such a thing as a free lunch, and trashing capitalist democracy, the most benevolent political system ever devised.
Q. How do you know all the mind-twisting has worked?
A. Because Obama has waged the first 100% trash-talking campaign in American history, and half the voters don’t seem to notice anything wrong. They can’t tell the difference between political debate and mudslinging. It is a huge, historic failure. We have some shockingly bad politicians — Joe Biden comes to mind — but what’s even worse is that we have badly corrupted voters.
Q. So are liberals the only fat people around?
A. Only between the ears.
No, the rest of us are just as brain-laundered by the Democrat-Media Complex, so that men are afraid to talk to women and children, and vice-versa; whites are afraid to talk with blacks; rich people are afraid to talk to the poor; and above all, conservatives are afraid to talk, period. Which is what the liberals desire more than anything else, because they live in fear of dissent.
Isolation, loneliness, and divide-and-conquer politics are now so pervasive that conservatives get just as fat as liberals, to make up for lost family and friendships. In the San Francisco Gay Area, it is difficult for men to be friends with men without gay sex rearing its obsessional image, and the same is true for women and women. But same-sex friendship, as Emerson said, “is the masterpiece of nature” precisely because sex is left out of it. Think Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, a fictional version of the many great and lifelong friendships of the 19th century. Friendship was celebrated then, and rightly so. When everything becomes sexualized, something genuine and real is subtracted from everyday life.
Across the board, liberals have imposed irrational, made-up values for normal, healthy, natural values. I don’t care what they do in the hay. The trouble is when their personal instability and hunger for novelty are imposed on the rest of us as the sole standard of conduct. Liberals are imperialists.
If you doubt all that, when is the last time you had a sane conversation with a liberal about politics?
I rest my case.
Liberalism makes you fat.
Remember, a vote for Obama is a vote for fat!