Monday, March 30, 2009

Obama Derangement Syndrome

Exactly what Pasto Epa & I along with others have been saying for some time now. . .


from Front Page Mag

Obama Derangement Syndrome

By David Horowitz Monday, March 30, 2009

I have been watching an interesting phenomenon on the Right, which is beginning to cause me concern. I am referring to the over-the-top hysteria in response to the first months in office of our new president, which distinctly reminds me of the “Bush Is Hitler” crowd on the Left.

Speaking of this crowd, have you seen any “I am so sorry” postings from that quarter as Obama continues and even escalates the former president's war policy in Afghanistan and attempts to consolidate his military occupation of Iraq?

Conservatives, please. Let's not duplicate the manias of the Left as we figure out how to deal with Mr. Obama. He is not exactly the anti-Christ, although a disturbing number of people on the Right are convinced he is.

I have recently received commentaries that claim that "Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history" and "never has a politician in this land had such a quasi-religious impact on so many people" and "Obama is a narcissist," which leads the author to then compare Obama to David Koresh, Charles Manson, Stalin and Saddam Hussein. Excuse me while I blow my nose.

This fellow has failed to notice that all politicians are narcissists – and that a recent American president was a world-class exponent of the imperial me. So what? Political egos are one of the reasons the Founders put checks and balances on executive power. As for serial lying, is there a politician that cannot be accused of that? And once, the same recent president set a pretty a high bar in this category, and we survived it. As for Obama's speeches, they are hardly in the Huey Long, Louie Farrakhan, Fidel Castro vein. They are in fact eloquently and cleverly centrist and sober.

So what's the panic? It is true that Obama has shown surprising ineptitude in his first months in office, but he's not a zero with no accomplishments as many conservatives seem to think – unless you regard beating the Clinton machine and winning the presidency as nothing. But in doing this you fall into the “Bush-is-an-idiot” bag of liberal miasmas.

It is also true Obama has ceded his domestic economic agenda to the House Democrats and spent a lot of money in the process. But what’s the surprise in this? After all, Bush and McCain both proposed (and in Bush's case pushed through) massive government giveaways (which amount to government takeovers as well). This is bad, but it doesn't make Obama a closet Mussolini, however deplorable the conservatives among us may regard it. Moreover, he's already run into political resistance even within his own party. Charlie Rangel has made it clear that the itemized deduction tax hike is not going through his committee – and that should tell you that the American system, the one the Founders created, is still in place.

Even as astute a conservative thinker as Mark Steyn has been swept up in the tide that thinks Obama is a “transformative” radical. But look again at his approach to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, as noted, he is carrying out the Bush policies – the same that he once joined his fellow Democrats in condemning. And that should be reassuring to anyone concerned about where he is heading as commander-in-chief.

In other words, while it's reasonable to be unhappy with a Democratic administration and even concerned because the Democrats are now a socialist party in the European sense, we are not witnessing the coming of the anti-Christ. A good strategy for political conflicts is to understand your opponent first – not to underestimate him, but not to overestimate him either.

Once conservatives do that, they will find some silver linings in the first moves of the Obama administration. Through a combination of ineptitude and zeal, Obama has in two short months locked down the conservative and Republican base. On fetal stem-cell research, on borders (e-verification), on spending, on unions, on shutting down talk radio, Obama has flexed the leftist muscle so nakedly and unmistakably that there isn’t a conservative left who will vote Democratic in the next election (and there were many who did so in the last).

As we move forward, Obama faces increasingly tough choices in the wars against Islamic fascism in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza and Iran. Hopefully, he will make the right choices, and should he do so conservatives will need to be there to support him. If he makes the wrong choices, conservatives will need to be there to oppose him. But neither our support nor our opposition should be based on hysterical responses to policies that we just don't like. Let’s leave that kind of behavior to the liberals who invented it.


Anonymous said...

"Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

Barry Goldwater

Outlawing group demonstations for the purpose of changing legislation is tyranny.

It is not "deranged" to protest a congress and a president who think this type of crap is appropriate. It is crazy not to.

This is in the current version of the GIVE Act:

“H.Amdt49 Pass Amendment to prohibit organizations from attempting to influence legislation; organize or engage in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes; and assist, promote, or deter union organizing.”

Yes, it says what you cannot believe it says.

revereridesagain said...

It is important to keep people focused on the freedoms and constitutional principles being violated by this administration, and not to get distracted by the cult of personality. Focusing on Obama himself just drains attention from the sociofascist juggernaut of which he is the figurehead. As some of the more honorable Obama voters begin to realize that yeah, that was One Big Ass Mistake America, they will also need to get over their infatuation with Teh One without veering off into OBS to avoid having to confront the issues.

Anonymous said...


So, so true. Bush was going down the same road, as are many, many republicans in congress.

"It's the Constitution, stupid."


Always On Watch said...

I agree that BDS is dangerous and discredits the right.

But pointing out any of his flaws is considered BDS by his adherents.

The tipping point into BDS can be fuzzy sometimes, IMO.

Always On Watch said...

Another thought: Did BDS condition average Americans into not being reached in any way other than derangement syndrome?

Epaminondas said...

Obama should be disemboweled ideologically, ONLY thru the words, and expositions of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry and Paine...etc.

Let THEM be accused of ODS.

Pastorius said...

I agree with Epa. Your point about that HR is important, but it can be disemboweled (to use Epa's term) by appealing to our founding fathers.

That's why, you may notice, my mantra is that Obama is out of line with the American Tradition.

Anonymous said...

Not just "Tradition" - law. The Constitution is THE law governing the limits of the federal government. Any "law" that goes beyond those limits is illegitimate and illegal and, frankly, is NOT ENFORCEABLE.


Pastorius said...

Not everything he's doing is outside the law. However, most of what he's doing is outside American Tradition.

It is not in line with what our Founding Father's proposed for our country.

We can legally vote for a Socialist government to confiscate our property, but that does not mean it is American.

Anonymous said...

The government cannot take property without compensation, per the Constitution. It is not amenable of majority vote overrule.

The government has taxation power; there is a case right now about whether the government can take a businesses cash and give it to another (Illinois - money from a riverboat gambling bunch to give to a horse-racing group, I think.)

That case will be interesting.

But 50%+1 cannot vote to take my house away without compensation. At least, not without violating the Constitution.


Anonymous said...

Obama should be disemboweled ideologically, ONLY thru the words, and expositions of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Hancock, Henry and Paine...etc.

That statement, quite laudable, assumes that people care about fellows who died some 200 years ago. I'm not sure that such an assumption is valid anymore.

Epaminondas said...

Anon, if the majority wish for Obama's america, and not Jefferson's and Adams' then there is little to discuss, and WE BETTER HAVE A LOT OF FRIGGIN KIDS AND HOME EDUCATE, or MOVE...

Pastorius said...

You're right. There would be nothing to discuss at that point.

Instead, it would be time for a New American Revolution.

As Patrick Henry said ...