Fleeced by Dick Morris
I noticed today that Dick Morris & Eileen McGann's new book Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies ... Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It
is up to #1 on Amazon. Glenn got the book in the mail last week and I have been reading it over the last few days when I get a chance (so many books, so little time). It is a quick and worthwile read if you want to get Morris's perspective on how the government, Presidential candidates and various companies are out to screw you out of your money, rights, and safety. Most of the book is common knowledge for those of you keeping up with politics but you can certainly learn a thing or two from Morris even if you are politically savy.
Morris focuses a good part of the book on Obama and the problems should he be elected come November. Morris states that Obama would take the country on a sharp dangerous left turn starting with increased taxes with the top rate near 40%, lifting the tax on Social Security taxes, doubling the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, and rolling back the increases in the threshold for the inheritance tax passed under Bush. He states Obama would open the door wide to illegal immigration making it easier for them to become citizens and voters, socialize medicine through a federal insurance program that would include illegal immigrants, weaken the Patriot Act, and lower penalties for some of our most dangerous drug criminals and give many a free pass to leave prison. In addition, Morris states that he would pull out of Iraq unilaterally and leave it to its (likely bloody) fate while blaming President Bush should it become a base for terrorists.
Morris points out that during the primary season, Obama has been clear about what he would do as president:
I have noticed this when talking with people around my area who are Obama supporters. They often support gun rights, are against illegal immigration, don't want higher taxes, and are concerned about terrorism. Yet, they seem to have no idea that on these issues, Obama stands in stark contrast to what they themselves say they want. I hope as the election nears that those on the line or who favor Obama because they want something different will stop and think about the agenda they are actually supporting.
is up to #1 on Amazon. Glenn got the book in the mail last week and I have been reading it over the last few days when I get a chance (so many books, so little time). It is a quick and worthwile read if you want to get Morris's perspective on how the government, Presidential candidates and various companies are out to screw you out of your money, rights, and safety. Most of the book is common knowledge for those of you keeping up with politics but you can certainly learn a thing or two from Morris even if you are politically savy.Morris focuses a good part of the book on Obama and the problems should he be elected come November. Morris states that Obama would take the country on a sharp dangerous left turn starting with increased taxes with the top rate near 40%, lifting the tax on Social Security taxes, doubling the capital gains tax and taxes on dividends, and rolling back the increases in the threshold for the inheritance tax passed under Bush. He states Obama would open the door wide to illegal immigration making it easier for them to become citizens and voters, socialize medicine through a federal insurance program that would include illegal immigrants, weaken the Patriot Act, and lower penalties for some of our most dangerous drug criminals and give many a free pass to leave prison. In addition, Morris states that he would pull out of Iraq unilaterally and leave it to its (likely bloody) fate while blaming President Bush should it become a base for terrorists.
Morris points out that during the primary season, Obama has been clear about what he would do as president:
The trouble is that most voters haven't been listening to what he's been saying. Enthralled by his charisma, enraptured by the ideas of electing a first black president, thrilled to have an alternative to the deadly oscillation of Clintons and Bushes in the White House, the voters have allowed the specifics of Obama's agenda to get lost along the way. They have missed the dangerously radical substance that lies behind his attractive rhetoric.
I have noticed this when talking with people around my area who are Obama supporters. They often support gun rights, are against illegal immigration, don't want higher taxes, and are concerned about terrorism. Yet, they seem to have no idea that on these issues, Obama stands in stark contrast to what they themselves say they want. I hope as the election nears that those on the line or who favor Obama because they want something different will stop and think about the agenda they are actually supporting.
Labels: interesting books, politics
posted by Helen at 7:48 AM
35 Comments:
I have noticed this when talking with people around my area who are Obama supporters. They often support gun rights, are against illegal immigration, don't want higher taxes, and are concerned about terrorism. Yet, they seem to have no idea that on these issues, Obama stands in stark contrast to what they themselves say they want.
It doesn't talk very much paying attention for the average voter to acquire these basic facts. I've noticed the same thing. Obama is "trendy," like iPods and at one time, hula-hoops, and it's also politically correct to vote for black folks for public office. One stupid electorate, that's for sure.
People can be highly resistive to information that contradicts their cherished beliefs (even when, or especially when, those beliefs are emotion based) to the point that they literally do not allow the threatening contradictions into their awareness. This trait makes "charisma" very dangerous when it is exhibited by someone seeking great power: audience thinking off, feelings on, irrational behavior to follow. I am pessimistic about the liklihood of Obama true believers "waking up" and changing their minds, because it isn't the thinking part of those minds that is responsible for their blind adulation.
Morris is obviously a very savvy political strategist. He also despises the Clintons from past association; and I believe the intense dislike significantly colors his stated views on HRC, WJC, Obama, the Democratic Party in general and the current election. I try to keep this in mind when reading or listening to his opinions.
...I hope as the election nears that those on the line or who favor Obama because they want something different will stop and think about the agenda they are actually supporting.
I agree with Helen. McCain will probably get my vote, but...
When I voted for postReagan Republicans, how much of what I thought I was getting did I get?
After November 2006, the GOP hasn't lifted a finger to clean up its act. Republicans whose strategy consists of demonizing Democrats have worn out their welcome with me. It is Republican incompetence that has left the Democrats unimpeded from becoming unhinged.
I'm not religious, but wisdom is where you find it:
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Both parties have beams in their eyes, but the point stands.
One problem is that Barack is the media darling, even moreso than Clinton was in the 90s. That's why when Clinton went to bat for Hillary, he didn't get the giddy support he was acustomed to. He was no longer the darling.
The media loves Barack, and aside from his own campaign and the onslaught we can expect from groups like MoveOn (didn't you know John McCain wants to send babies to Iraq?), the media will all but run Barack's campaign for him (both his positive and McCain's negative).
This is gonna be the summer of Barack Love in the press. Get me my barf bag.
Why the hell are people worried about terrorism?
For those of you who are, another blogger has some interesting thoughts about Obama and "national security". Ralph Peters wrote this this for the New York Post (I can't take the blame for where this stuff is posted):
Hmm: Take a gander at Obama's senior foreign-policy advisers: Maadeleine Albright (71), Warren Christopher (82), Anthony Lake (69), Lee Hamilton (77), Richard Clarke (57)...
If you added up their ages and fed the number into a time-machine, you'd land in Europe in the middle of the Black Death.
More important: These are the people whose watch saw the first attack on the World Trade Center, Mogadishu, Rwanda, the Srebrenica massacre, a pass for the Russians on Chechnya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, the near-sinking of the USS Cole - oh, and the US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
Their legacy climaxed on 9/11.
You couldn't assemble a team in Washington with more strategic failures to its credit.
I'm not sure if this guy did the leg-work himself or if he found this info elsewhere, but this sure is an interesting analysis.
I have been stunned for over a year at the uncritical adoration of Barack Obama. The man is a Marxist. In speeches he couches his extreme views in ambiguity, yet in his position papers, his intentions are clear. (Though he will likely redact these writings any day now, if not already.)
The problem as I see it is the electorate. They think they are voting for American Idol instead of the leader of the free world.
Trey
Look how long much of the media gave George W. Bush a free pass. I don't watch TV news, so I can't assess the claim that the media is now doing the same thing with Obama, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
cinderkeys,
When in the last election did the media --MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC--give George Bush a free pass? I heard nothing but negativity about him.
"Look how long much of the media gave George W. Bush a free pass. I don't watch TV news..."
That's worth a chuckle. Are you suggesting then that the NYT, Boston Globe, LA Times et al which you regularly read gave Bush a pass? That's worth another chuckle.
President Clinton stated for years that Saddam had weapons. Democrats throughout the 90s warned of the need to deal with Saddam and his weapons. Every western intelligence agency on the planet said Saddam had weapons. Saddam himself threatened Iran with weapons he didn't have. The media even reported on Saddam's weapons. Even in the NTY, which itself reported on Saddam's weapons when it reported on the 1.1 million Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam. In retrospect, I wish we never would have went into Iraq. But it isn't fair to rewrite history.
The media has some culpability for fighting our enemies propaganda war for them. When I worked at a hospital, I was warned to be careful what I said because it would be taken as the gospel truth because I worked there, even if I didn't know what I was talking about. When someone in the middle east hears that the NYT has reported that "Bush stole an election, orchestrated 9/11, lied us into a war to murder innocent Iraqis, steal their oil to enrich his friends at Halliburton, and replace Islam with Christianity", is there any surprise that some of them shoot at us thinking we are the enemy? After all,they are Americans, they should know.
Honestly, I think President Bush will fair better on judgment day than many members of the press. I'd rather be the one saying "I fought the greatest evil of my time, and made mistakes" than saying "I helped the greatest evil of my time because it helped my political party get power."
Long rang. I apologize. This media nonsense just gets to me. Stepping down.
Helen & p. rich: I don't believe Bush is still getting a free pass. And not being a regular consumer of TV news, I don't know exactly when that stopped.
Having professed my ignorance, I'll ask a question: Do you believe the press was as critical as it might have been during Bush's first term? Was his honeymoon period no longer than that of other presidents?
@cinderkeys: "Having professed my ignorance, I'll ask a question: Do you believe the press was as critical as it might have been during Bush's first term? Was his honeymoon period no longer than that of other presidents?"
Nah, you show no ignorance. You just have better things to do in your life to marinate in news.
But insofar as th ehoneymoon period goes, I honestly do not think Bush had one. Bush came into office under heavy scrutiny in the media, since most of them did not think he really won the election, and he was the first president inagurated to have lost the popular vote in anyones lifetime. Couple that with a declining econony he inherited, after a few years of prosperity before him (for which Clinton was credited, and the popular vote winner who they believed was the real president elect was part of), and he came in under a cloud. (I won't debate who was to credit or blame for the economic ups and downs.
What I think was perceived as a honeymoon period was after 9/11, there was the "rally effect." People tend to rally behind the president in crisis. This was very early in his administration. I don't think this period lasted long, and he soon after became the most hated president in my lifetime.
I also think it has escalated as they gotten more and more frustrated with him. They about lost it when he won in 2004 (some still absurdly claim that election was rigged), and have been throwing everything they can think of at him. After 2006, which was war/propaganda fatigue and a normal slide for a 6 year president with his party in full control of government, they took it to mean "finally, we got him."
In short, I think it has been hard on him from day one, with a short break during 9/11. I don't mind the press being hard on a president (that's one of our checks and balances), but I do have a problem with activists and partisans masquerading as unbiased journalist.
Best,
Trust
"The front-runner for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination faltered Thursday in an international affairs pop quiz posed by Andy Hiller, a political reporter for WHDH-TV in Boston."
-CNN 5-NOV-99
"WACO, Texas _ Wrapping up his Texas vacation Wednesday, President Bush prepared to defend his agenda in Washington against Democrats eager to blame him for the economic slowdown and shrinking federal budget surplus.
In the last stop on his so-called Home to the Heartland Tour..."
-Chicago Tribune 29-AUG-01
"President Bush set out Monday for Europe where he will face European and Russian leaders skeptical about his administration's national security and environmental policies."
- CNN 11-JUN-01
Bush was quizzed on names a reporter needed index cards to know before he was even elected. Don't forget Dan Rather's use of obvious forgeries to smear Bush before the 2004 election.
President Bush had a honeymoon period like the Clintons had a "loving marriage". Both are lies the left tells itself to make them feel better.
Also shows "Europe liked the US before Iraq" is BS.
-CNN 5-NOV-99...-Chicago Tribune 29-AUG-01...- CNN 11-JUN-01
I probably wouldn't even have to try hard to find conservative-leaning "news" shows and newspapers that had their mouths firmly planted on a certain part of George Bush's anatomy. One would hardly be pointing out a lack of a media pass by referencing two liberal news establishments. If you really want to prove your point that Bush didn't receive a media pass, prove to me that Fox News, the most-watched news channel, gave Bush a pass.
The problem with the news is that each side (the Republican mouth piece over at Fox and the Democratic mouth pieces over at CNN and MSNBC) only gives passes to their candidates and don't report on anything that looks bad for the establishment as a whole. A much larger problem is that millions of morons watch those news shows. O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, and Nancy Grace have certainly captured the single-digit-IQ demographic. Unfortunately, that seems to be the largest demographic of voters out there.
Do you believe the press was as critical as it might have been during Bush's first term? Was his honeymoon period no longer than that of other presidents?
It isn't the purpose of the press to be critical, though one might think so given the current state of journalism. Keep in mind that 9/11 occurred only 7 months into Bush's first term and pretty much shaped the entire term, which makes any first-term comparison with Clinton mostly a waste of time. Also keep in mind that with the exception of Fox (founded in 1996 and less influential in 2000 than today), every major city newspaper and network news channel leans left - some much more than others. That alone should tell you that any Democrat will get more passes for mistakes in office than any Republican.
WJ Clinton, when he was running, might as well have had the media on his campaign payroll. Today that's true of Obama, to Bill's constant consternation. I know it sounds paranoid, but Republicans have to get elected and function in office in spite of the press. It is not a level playing field.
Hope I didn't sound too snarky earlier. Opinions and questions are a good thing if sincerely intended.
@j.bowen
You do make some good points, but it is worth noting that some of the people you mention, like O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes (who is liberal), Dobbs (who leands left), etc. are not journalist. They are commentators. My beef is with people, on both sides, who market their opinions as unbiased facts.
trust said...
You do make some good points, but it is worth noting that some of the people you mention, like O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes (who is liberal), Dobbs (who leands left), etc. are not journalist. They are commentators.
In some countries they aren't even called commentators. They're called news readers.
Also, I don't care so much about people marketing their opinions as facts. As an adult who is capable of using reason and logic, I am able to differentiate between a person's opinion and fact. What bothers me are the people who actually believe in the things that these talking bobbleheads say. It's scary that people like Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs actually influence people who are allowed to vote.
You do bring up the scary prospect that the moderating statements that Ann Althouse thinks are the real Obama as opposed to the primary are just the summer season comments before the 'real Obama' emerges after the election. As H.J. Haskell quotes Cicero re: Caesar, "I see no reason for my being alarmed except the fact that once depart from law (in Obama's case an identity we can have some sense of if we don't believe his now former self), everything is uncertain; and that nothing can be guaranteed as to a future which depends on another man's will, not to say caprice."
I remember reading that the press and other media have always been left. They just never said so.
Not too many people asked, either.
It was an epiphany.
Fox is nowhere near as kind to the right as the other outlets are to the left. Fox truly is separate and apart from the other networks. But the reason is, in my opinion, because of the revenue it brings in. It is easy enough to find middle to right leaning talking heads. Also easy enough to get them to flip one way or the other if the money is right, eh, Kiran?
Imagine being the only outlet in a nation of 300 million that presents and supports the views of roughly 50% of that population. Profitable idea, I'd say. With Glenn Beck now on CNN Headline, it appears even CNN sees that light. Beck is on twice a night, at strategic times. Not because CNN believes in him, but because he gets a few to come over to CNN to watch, and the advertising dollars come with him.
Fox's ratings are high on given shows, being they are the only shows expressing those particular points of view. Everything else being left, is going to have watered down ratings, as the individual viewers will be spread across that spectrum. That ain't rocket science.
Olbermann is a nut case in my opinion. He has not received over 30 seconds of my news viewing life. It didn't take that long to scratch his name off the list.
If any network were expected to be truly fair and balanced, it would be PBS. On TV as well as radio. I do not support them financially, and have not for many years, because of their leanings.
On the risk of going out on a limb, here, and shine a little light on the black and white thinking that’s distorting and misrepresenting some of Obama’s positions: He does not support illegal immigration (he voted for that ridiculous fence!); he does support the recent SCOTUS opinion on the 2nd Amendment; he just voted for FISA, last week; and wants to give the middle and working classes tax relief.
The Obama supporters that you are taking to, see the gray areas between McCain’s positions and liberal, polar opposite. These issues (as you’ve chosen to define them) are not in contrast to their beliefs. To say that Obama wants to take away your guns, open the boarders and doesn’t want to protect us from terrorists is disingenuous. He’s a centrist, not the uber-liberal you’re all so scared of. Relax. Your smarter than that, but then this is politics, not exactly an intellectual exercise.
I hate to admit it, and please don't flame me for this, but I think I'll have to vote for Obama this year. For me, it's not a mtter of right or left, it's a matter of state power versus personal liberty.
While neither side is great on that count, Obama at least maintains the left positions that allow for personal rights. McCain takes all the state power positions the right has staked out over the years and merges them with a "serve your country, whippersnappers!" attitude that loses all the benefits the right used to offer. I'd love to be conviced otherwise, but everything I hear come out of John McCain's mouth sounds like "you OWE your country, and it's time to start paying".
Did Obamarama send the last two posters in here?
Nice try.
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen. "
The man who can't accept our right to eat what we want or even keep our homes at the temperature we want is going to respect other rights? Are you delusional?
He cosponsored a bill in 2000 to limit handgun purchases to one per month.
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby." -he Audacity of Hope
These are not the words of someone who supports the 2nd amendment.
The man consistently says he will raise taxes and has voted against tax cuts for the estate tax, capital gains, and the AMT.
The only way you could consider Obama a "centrist" is if you are to the left of Fidel Castro.
Leftists are so funny, except when they are in political office or on a federal court. Then they are destructive. So, Obama is a centrist who believes in personal rights.
Bwahahahahahahaha...
He’s a centrist, not the uber-liberal you’re all so scared of.
Yes, because he says so on a campaign trail. Go to Thomas and look up some controversial bills and see how he voted. In practice, the only thing that really matters, he is the uber-liberal we're all so scared of. The people who aren't scared are the people who believe in his version of centrism and the people who follow him like the rats who followed the Pied Piper.
Ah, good to know we can have an open and reasoned discourse on politics.
Once more (and then I'm done defending myself against ideologues who refuse to read what I wrote), I never said Obama was anything other than a rediculous, leftist Democrat. What I did say is that he at least adheres to the ideals traditionally espoused by the Demecratic Party regarding personal liberties. While not perfect on that scale, he is at least better than John "Draft 'em all!" McCain.
Not that it's relevant, but my voting record in presidential elections is as follows:
1992: George H.W. Bush
1996: Refused to vote, both candidtaes were horrible
2000: George W. Bush
2004: John Kerry
Why? Because I liked the first Bush, I hated Dole, I despise Al Gore, and Bush II is at best an idiot and at worst a totalitarian. Guess what, folks: I actually fall in that nebulous "center/independent" grouping that either party needs to try to win over, and if this is your idea of how to do it, with slurs, attacks and barbs, then on your own heads be the results.
You have got to be kidding.
I hate to admit it, and please don't flame me for this, but I think I'll have to vote for Obama this year. For me, it's not a mtter of right or left, it's a matter of state power versus personal liberty.
While neither side is great on that count, Obama at least maintains the left positions that allow for personal rights. McCain takes all the state power positions the right has staked out over the years and merges them with a "serve your country, whippersnappers!" attitude that loses all the benefits the right used to offer. I'd love to be conviced otherwise, but everything I hear come out of John McCain's mouth sounds like "you OWE your country, and it's time to start paying".
Despite your wishful thinking, this is precisely backwards. You are suggesting that socialist/ collectivist Obama would be better for personal liberty. But that is what he is willing to give up for you in order to achieve his socialist goals.
From gun control through eminent domain and on through affirmative action quotas, Obama is on the wrong side of pretty much any issue from the individual rights point of view.
I believe, through attrition, we will all eventually be renters, and no longer home owners. Soon after, all rental property will become property of the government. Private ownership will go away, in all forms. That day, even if an unexpected consequence, will surely come. I used to believe I have seen too many movies and think everything is a line. No longer. I see a "one world" coming, as too many believe that is the answer. The lock step followers and lackeys are all being duped. Who in their right mind trusts government? When an individual spends millions of their own money trying to secure a $400K a year job, doesn't someone else besides me smell something fishy?
There are many who evidently believe that all men are not created equal. Therefore, wealth must be redistributed evenly to all. In order for that to occur, from each his ability, to each his needs will become the mantra, but that's not what they will actually say. That's not a right leaning point of view - at all. However, the ones who want to lead that "change" believe they are above everyone else, they know what needs to be done. They will not be included in it, but above and separate from it. Ruling over the rest of us. Hillary Clinton is there, but her rep is soiled. She's beyond her chance. I doubt she'll get re-elected in NY State. Barack Obama is there, although he says he is not. Two of Saul Alinsky's biggest fans and followers.
The fence won't be built along the Mexican border. I believe it will eventually be built around the beltway. D.C. will also find a way to get the guns back out, too. The hell with the Constitution, they've got a ruling class to protect.
Here's a question for all who think that a gun a month is too few. What do you wierdos do with all those guns, eat them?
(We should only be so lucky!)
By the way, I'm dying to hear one of you "informed" conservatives explain how Obama is a "Marxist." Do you have even the remotest idea what you're talking about? What elements of Marxist ideology appear in Obama's speeches or writings? Where does he discuss dialectic materialism or the Proletariat, when does he call for the withering away of the state? I've got news for you: being in favor of progressive taxation isn't tantamount to Marxism. Of course, you're probably the same people who think that Islamofascism is a meaningful term! As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a bunch of maroons!
Now the book is at 23. It sounds like he makes some good points on Obama. I really do not understand the raising of taxes on investments, inheritance and possibly even income taxes. One of the few ways to become richer is through investments and it will make it harder. Is he trying to force people to stay in poverty? Also people who have managed to build some wealth should be able to pass that on to their children.
J. Bowen - Your link didn't work, but thanks for posting the information.
Helen and P. Rich - The only thing I can add is that liberals think the media gave Bush a free pass on entering Iraq.
BR549, I think you make a good point that they still try to be businesses. I am usually surprised to see the news stations running ads from the oil companies.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
Post a Comment
<< Home