• Obama's Self-Awareness is Unnerving

As Obama was running for President of the United States, I made no shortage of republican enemies by suggesting that his election might be the best possible outcome. In supporting this assertion , I made three specific observations;

• Not electing the Republican removes the ''villian'' figure so vital to the success of liberalism.
• By attempting to actually enact the Obama agenda, the mask would come of and the left would be finally seen as the radicals that they are.
• Obama was copiously unaware of how much of a puppet he truly was going to be and had no clue what he was in store for.

Though I feel I can most assuredly say that I was validated on the first two points, I am not so sure on the third. For the most unnerving thing to watch is how, reacting to the iceberg coming into view, prominent Democrats from Jim Webb to Doug Wilder to Ben Nelson to Blanche Lincoln are pleading for a course correction, only to see Obama stubbornly reaffirm the very course and speed guaranteed to cause the greatest impact.

This week, Gallup released a survey that showed Obama polling 44% against an unnamed republican in a hypothetical 2012 match up. Think about the ramifications of that. 56% of the American electorate nows says... "Palin ... Huckabee ... Romney ... McCain ... or the flying spaghetti monster. We don't care! Anyone but Obama!"

When the man elected President by the largest vote total ever, is losing by double digits to a ghost, 15 months later, how can one not take notice?

If you think I am exaggerating the point, think again. An incumbent's job approval and reelect numbers are the best possible indicators of what that incumbent will get on election day. President's Bush 41 and 43, and Bill Clinton, as well as countless other politicians like John Corzine got exactly the vote percentages their approval / reelect numbers indicated. Right now, both of those figures put Obama at 44%. That means, that if the election were today, Obama's defeat wouldn't be a probability, it would be an absolute certainty. In fact, his numbers are roughly in the middle of the area between Michael Dukakis, who lost 40 states, and Walter Mondale, who lost 49. If the election is today, Obama loses 56-44 or darn close to it.

Gone would be all 10 of the former W swing states Obama took in 2008 but that would just be the beginning. Michigan? Gone. Pennsylvania? Toast. Wisconsin, Minnesota and possibly even New Jersey, Maine, Maryland, Delaware, Washington and Oregon.

Looking at the 2010 landscape, there doesn't seem to be a spot of earth Democrats can find for a firm foothold. Even stalwart libs like Barbara Boxer and Charles Schumer could be in danger.

Faced with this prospect in 1995, Bill Clinton triangulated. Faced with it in 2010, Obama yawns.

If Obama truly is completely aware
of what he is doing and totally
comfortable with the absolute
certainty of his own inability to be
reelected, then we must be truly alarmed.

Does Obama really have that much of a tin ear or is there something else afoot here? The question is one we all assumed we knew the answer to. Obama, some of us surmised, really is a clueless sicophant, totally oblivious to the electoral destruction he has wrought on his own party. Others have speculated that it is not his intellect but his stubborn, narcissistic pride that makes it impossible for him to yield. Both views are credible and do not lack in supporting evidence.

However, his recent interview with Diane Sawyer, as well as his clash with Blanche Lincoln, have forced us to examine a third- and far more frightening- possibility. This third possibility had previously been raised by only a few- Rush Limbaugh among them.

Possibility number three is that Obama has always known he would hit the iceberg and, for reasons too disturbing to examine heretofore, is not at all distressed by the prospect of sinking the ship. In fact, as all on board are running for lifeboats, he is busy conducting the orchestra to play his masterpiece even as the ship goes down.

I am not comfortable waxing conspiratorial but one must examine this possibility in response to his chillingly frank comments to Sawyer and Lincoln that it is not his job to get reelected, that he would much rather be a ''very good one term President" (in his own estimation) and that nothing is to be gained by doing anything in the fashion of the previous administration.

In other words, as all three statements indicate, given the choice between implementing his radical agenda, and getting reelected, Obama is more than happy to settle on the former over the latter. This is not idle speculation on my part, he has said as much. Just look at his disturbingly obtuse reaction to the stunning election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts;

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So, Scott Brown won because of Bush? Obama cannot possibly believe that. Here's another charmer;

"I hope we don't lose sight of why we're here," Obama said. "We've got to finish the job on health care. We've got to finish the job on financial regulatory reform. We've got to finish the job, even though it's hard."

and this jaw dropper...

"If anybody is searching for a lesson from Massachusetts, I promise you the answer is not to do nothing," Obama said. He later told senators to avoid their instinct in tough times to "tread lightly, keep your head down and to play it safe."

In other news, Obama guaranteed that the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns would play each other in Super Bowl 45.

See if you follow my point here. Scott Brown went from a 30 point deficit to a 5 point victory in 6 weeks by doing just one thing- explicitely promising to be the 41st vote to stop Obama's healthcare plan. In short, Brown won by promising to prevent the Titanic from hitting the iceberg. Vulnerable democrats, anxious to stop the bleeding would have great cause for relief even if they could not publicly say so.

Unfortunately, much to their great consternation, Obama's response was to say- in so many words- that the frustration expressed in the Massachusetts election- is because of the thwarting of his efforts to ram the iceberg. If Democrats want to take the correct lesson from Massachusetts, he asserts, then they need to redouble their efforts to hit the iceberg by all means. For, hitting the iceberg is the only possible way of keeping the ship from sinking.

One could easily (and understandably) conclude from this that Obama is certifiably insane. Or, one could also conclude that he is crazy, alright ... crazy like a fox.

If Obama truly is completely aware of what he is doing and totally comfortable with the absolute certainty of his own inability to be reelected, then we must be truly alarmed. Yet, the all to frightening reality is that that is exactly where the evidence points.

The outrage at Obama's agenda caused 2 million people to march on Washington in September of last year. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get two million people to march on Washington? Especially two million Conservatives who have lives?

Obama is now openly tossing aside his
oath to Americans that anyone making
less than $250,000 a year won't see
their taxes increase- in his words-
''one single dime''.

Obama never even looked up. He didn't even try to downplay the event or spin it or rationalize it. His reaction to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts endeared the same indifference, as did the losses in Virginia and New Jersey. Falling back on the Titanic analogy again, Obama has now hit the iceberg and the ship is sinking fast. Obama's only reaction is the same as Mr. Ismay's... "When can we get going again, damnit!?".

If Obama is determined to hold to a ''damn the torpedos, full speed ahead'' approach, then we are powerless to stop him solely by changing public opinion. We simply must stop him by taking actual seats of power from his party.

Looking ahead to Obama's imminent election, many thought (myself included) that the short term damage of an Obama Presidency might pay off by the long term damage to the Democratic party. Now it appears the Obama's political calculation may be that even the long term damage to the Democratic brand will pale in comparison to the structural changes he can make towards a permanent socialist ascendancy.

Humor me on this. Hear me out.

If Obama's job, in his estimation, is not to get reelected, what is his job? Does Obama see himself as a greater servant of the cause? A political martyr, if you will? Most soldiers put coming home as one of their top priorities but a few care little if they come home or not. An even smaller number know they aren't coming home and are pleased at the prospect of Jihad or Kamikaze or whatever you wish to call it. Is Obama a suicide bomber in the political sense?

Consider a news story that just came to light. Obama's administration is attempting to have imprisoned inner city felons- who cannot vote- counted as part of the equation used to assign electoral votes and congressional districts. Think about the ramifications of this. Your state will not only get greater government assistance and congressional representation, but will actually hold more sway in a Presidential election in direct proportion to the increase in violent crime in your state. Those states who reduce crime will actually suffer as a result. The state with 2 million murderers, rapists and child molesters gets more electoral votes than the state with only a million. Since it is a proven fact that socialism contributes to poverty and poverty contributes to crime, Obama is actually trying to implement a mechanism that would permanently enslave Americans to a vicious cycle of dependency on Socialist government.

Is this the only- isolated- example of this truth? Hardly.

Hidden within the Senate version of the health care bill is a structural Senate rule change that would prevent repeal, of Government arbitrated control of health care rationing, from even being considered before the Senate. The language actually states that any such motion would be a violation of Senate rules of order!

Can you imagine? Censorship by legislative edict!

Further, the health care bill is structured such that all current illegal aliens residing in the United States would receive instant amnesty and, as a direct result of their inability to document legal income, would receive government run health care at our expense.

Oh, but there's more...

Did you know that the tax based cost structure of the bill would mean that a married couple filing jointly would pay up to $10,000 more annually for their government run health care than for two single persons making the exact same combined income? This is an insidious return of- and even doubling of- the marriage penalty.

Let me spell that out. Joey and Martha Smith, parents of two, married for 35 years. Combined income $59,000. Bruce and Sylvester, radical homosexual activists, living together in hedonistic perversion. Combined income $59,000. Tyrone and Lawanda, shaking up together. Lawanda has six kids by six fathers. Combined income $59,000. Juan and Julio and 15 family members in a 1 bedroom apartment. Combined income. $59,000

All but the Smiths get $2,000 health care. For the Smiths, it's $12,000.

Call me a racist, xenophobic homophobe if you must, but be sure and explain this to Mr. and Mrs. Smith first. I'd be curious to hear their thoughts on the matter.

Add, to these provisions, a hundred other proposals of team Obama;

• Card check legislation that would abolish the secret ballot and force many- by intimidation- into government influenced unions.
• Cap and trade which would cause energy prices to skyrocket, pushing millions more into poverty and government run dependency.
• Forced community service without pay. In esscence, slavery.
• Government control of education and the capping of salaries.
• Government takeover of banks and other buisnesses and franchise awards based on government patronage rather than merit.
• The''fairness doctrine'' and other attempts to muzzle free speech and the press, such as an open war on conservative radio and Fox News.
• An open suppression of the free expression of religion by criminalizing age old religious views about homosexuality, abortion and the religion of Islam.
• An open assault on the buying power of Americans by devaluing the dollar through massive spending and the forced rise of fuel costs, through an iron fisted opposition to American energy independence.

All of these things may not be implemented, to be sure, but it will not be due to a lack of effort by the Obama administration.

Case in point. According to Rasmussen reports, six in ten Americans now reject Keynesian economics as a way to stimulate job growth and 3 in 4 reject current federal government policies generally vis-a-vis the economy.

The Obama response? Double down on a losing bet.

Not only did he endorse yet another massive spending bill but he is publicly bragging about his intention to let the Bush tax cuts expire; Obama is now openly tossing aside his oath to Americans that anyone making less than $250,000 a year won't see their taxes increase- in his words- ''one single dime''.

Is this Obama's ''read my lips'' moment? Absolutely. However, unlike Bush 41, who was cornered by a hostile congress, Obama is not at all timid about the prospect of ever exploding deficits, ever increasing taxes and the assured wrath of the voters that comes from the deliberate rejection of his own solemn vow.

In short, Obama, for whatever reason, just flat out doesn't give a flip.

If we can accept that most certain reality- and we can- it is more than fair to speculate on the modus behind it. For me, it is becomming clearer and clearer that Obama is, not so much concerned with the political winds of 2010, or even 2012. He seems to be looking at laying the groundwork of a future, structured socialist permancy. He does not even seem concerned whether he ever receives the credit or the blame. Whereas Clinton was obsessed with his image and legacy, Obama is obsessed with his agenda. I am not exaggerating the contrast, it really is stark. To get reelected, Clinton ditched Carville's and Begala's in your face liberalism in favor of Dick Morris's moderate pragmatism. Obama has done the opposite! With each electoral setback, he braces himself more forcefully against the blizzard winds and continues marching forward into his socialist abyss.

Obama appears to see himself as a willing foot soldier in a much, much larger war to ensure ''equality'' as he defines it. Whereas we thought he was the dupe, he may very well be an evil genius that cares little about how many casualties his own side suffers.... as long as he takes the hill. Can he be stopped from taking it? Certainly! But it would be very unwise of us to imagine that he can be pressured into stopping himself.

Examine his own rhetoric. Obama is determined to ''punch his health care bill through from the five yard line.''

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/obama-health-care-is-on-5-yard-line-and-weve-got-to-punch-it-through/

This is a game to him. Victory, to him, is not measured by winning the hearts and minds of Americans but by getting his schemes in the endzone ...

... at any cost.

SonlitKnight