Time for Thorns

Lynn Sweet reports that Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama’s presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee, will be senior adviser and assistant to President Obama:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/valerie_jarrett_will_be_senior_1.html

She identifies Jarrett as the chief executive of Habitat Co., and gives us an aide’s characterization of Jarrett: “She’s always been the other side of Barack’s brain.”

What she omits is that Habitat managed Grove Parc Plaza  from 2001 until this winter,  and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Grove Parc is in a district  Obama represented for 8 years as a state senator,  and holds 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government.  About20% of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage.   Newsbusters relays part of a Boston Globe report here:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/michael-m-bates/2008/11/15/ap-ignores-jarretts-slum-ties

Perhaps such behavior by “elites” is so common in Chicago that the SunTimes considers it normal.  If Karl Rove had owned a four-plex where sewage backed up into kitchen sinks, would someone have considered that newsworthy?

For those who can’t believe that Rahm Emanuel shares his new boss’s fondness for conscription, watch:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80829

Both believe the “shared experience” of “being American” is best taught by the government, just in case the brainwashing by public schools has been insufficient.  The initial reaction to the language on the change.gov site has merely taught them that they need to give it a new name.  Liberals and leftists have a rich history in the art of creating a more palatable term for something not so tasty.

For starters, how many liberals proudly claim to be liberal?  Almost none.  Instead, they characterize themselves as “progressive”, because their actions have given liberalism such a bad reputation.  About the only people who actually adopt the liberal title are assorted leftists who wish to avoid admitting what they are.  You have to give Bill Ayers credit for being honest — he says he’s still an anarchist.

The One will be ready “to rule” us on Day One, an Obama  surrogate informs us, and the invaluable Newsbusters captures the moment here:

http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1.html?q=blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/11/10/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1

complete with video.

We have moved rapidly from arrogant to creepy, and we still have  over two months to go.  The “change” candidate has thus far hired Chicago hands and Clinton retreads, with the exception of Robert Gibbs, who has  already proven himself  a facile  communicator, deflector, and evader

This:http://www.spectator.org/archives/2008/11/07/wasting-no-time

has 2 juicy stories – first, the elevation of perennial investigator Henry Waxman to the  House Energy and Commerce Committee, which means he can meddle in even more areas, and be exponentially more obnoxious.

But the real news is the “Obama/Biden Transition Project,” a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, with no limits on the contributions it can receive and no requirements to divulge the names of individuals or organizations that give it money.

Other incoming administrations have set up inaugural funds, and others to deal with legal costs and other expenses to close down the campaign, and some have had quasi-corporate offices to deal with transition issues.

This appears to be the first tax-exempt fund.  Regardless of the purpose, Obama campaign officials say it won’t be shut down after the transition ends.  I smell a White House slush fund that will make the Clintons’ renting out the Lincoln Bedroom look like kindergarten graft.   Don’t I remember Obama promising openess and transparency?  Didn’t Nancy Pelosi promise the same things?

The president to be slipped up on his website by revealing “…Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.”

Greg Mankiw spotted it: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-draft.html

Of course, it has since been altered so no one can accuse him of being what he actually is.  Of course, his new chief of staff Rep. Rahm Emanuel, also favors compulsory “service”:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80539

I encourage you all to watch Obama’s web site at   http://change.gov/

in case he accidentally lets the truth out again.

The last time I heard so many ers, and ahs and stammers I was listening to high school students try to be coherent.  What irony in watching the fox who did so much to break the basket of economic eggs assume proprietorship of the entire hen house!

Did anyone besides FOX News notice that Obama didn’t really answer any of the questions, but merely repeated various platitudes, aspirations and bromides from his stump speeches?  I flipped channels, watching the faces of the press.  If the matter weren’t so grave, it would be funny to see them trying to substitute seriousness for the adoration on their faces.  Candy Crowley made a half-hearted attempt at a question on national security, and Obama stammered and stuttered and said he couldn’t discuss what he had been briefed on.

He similarly dodged a straightforward question on whether he intended to increase taxes on higher income people.  What he did eventually say was that he still intended to implement the policies necessary to grow the economy from the bottom up.

In other words, the critiques of his planned policies still hold, and it’s becoming apparent that he won’t allow reality to intrude on his plans.  I shudder to think how he will improve national security with such a mindset, though I think he’s clever enough not to follow Bill Clinton’s path of never meeting with his CIA chief.  I expect we’ll eventually discover that he stopped Bush’s practice of meeting with the security and intelligence chiefs when in DC, and get his briefings from staffers.  I can’t imagine he has the slightest desire to have those chiefs understand his thinking and mindset.

What happened to his soaring rhetoric, his fluency, his effortless ease in communicating?  Do we see the first hint of an impending crash with clarity?

UPDATE: See: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/office_of_president_elect_of_t_1.html

for a screen shot of the sign pronouncing office of President-Elect, which is a designation, not an actual office, though His Oneness has made it one to suit his sense of consequence.  I saw things like this in high school, and it strikes me as both unintentionally humorous and conceited, as well as a bit creepy.

Is anyone surprised by Obama’s selection of his campaign press secretary as his White House press secretary?

Robert Gibbs did a splendid job throughout the campaign of giving the press lots of stimulation and almost no information, and will continue in that role.  The media is still so enthralled with its newly acknowledged position as Obama boosters that it is already gushing that no one knows Obama better, understands his history… ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

And that is as truthful as much of what the media has “reported” about Obama, personally and politically.

I’m watching Obama’s victory speech now.  He said he promised to listen, especially when he disagreed.  How does that square with his trying to sic the Justice Department on ads he disagreed with, or having supporters try to crash a radio station interview with Stanley Kurtz  (after declining to provide a spokesman to appear with him), or threatening to pull the FCC licenses of radio and television stations running ads he disliked?

I just muted the sound to take a long-distance call from a friend, and was struck by how very different Obama looks when speaking words you cannot hear.  Lots of lip-licking, which is what many people do when they’re about to tell a whopper.  Much moving his head side-to-side, another sign of words and thoughts mismatched. I had noticed it before, but since I can read lips to a degree, I was startled by the contradiction between the words and the body movements.

Obama is repeating the fluffy rhetoric of the campaign, and still saying nothing.  I wonder how he will react when he is finally forced to say something with specific meaning, to finally BE something definable.  A crowd shot found Jesse Jackson a few minutes ago, looking incredibly sulky and mad.  Now it has shown him looking all teary and overcome with emotion — reminds me of Bill Clinton changing from open laughter to somber lip-biting instantly  when he realized the camera was on him at Ron Brown’s funeral.

The campaign has exhibited its skill in staging yet another event, but I wonder if they truly believe they can govern this way, as one continuous four-year stage show.

We now see that throngs of young Obama supporters in front of the White House, chanting “Yes, we can!” and literally jumping up and down.  Some of them look to be in the 10-15 age range, but most appear to be college age, which now seems to extend to 25.  One woman held up a sign saying “Why wait?  Evict Bush now!”  I expect that is what most of them feel.

I am unsurprised by their lack of grace.  After all, they voted on emotion, not reason.  They have learned no history, have acquired no sense of what makes America the nation it is.  They have been taught only to feel good about themselves, while having done nothing to earn it.  This election has also taught them that lying and cheating is perfectly permissible.  Their naivete is remarkable.  Perhaps because I grew up on a farm and wasn’t shielded from nature’s cause and effect,  I wouldn’t have fallen for such ear candy even at age 10.

Big Media and the Obama campaign are already setting up the premise that the terrible Bush economy, which of course, The One had absolutely nothing to do with despite his years of advocating ruinous policies, will be the cause of every problem during the Obama administration.  And why not?  He used the ploy with great success throughout his campaign, and Democratic control of Congress insures there will be no awkward hearings to investigate anything which might have his or other Democratic handprints on it.

That’s what Obama is claiming is at his back, but it sounds like more hot air to me.  The reports on early voting don’t reveal the great flood of the young and hip who are supposed to swamp the polls to vote for The One.

I’m taking a neighbor to the polls tomorrow, an elderly black gentleman who figures this might be the last time he can stand in line to cast his ballot, which is why he didn’t vote absentee this time.  And he is not voting for Obama, because, in his words, “something ain’t right about that feller.”  I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, many people with far better educations, and much less common sense, will make a choice which is as wrong for them as it is for the country.  I wonder what they’ll think when they’re recruited for the Obama civilian defense force?

UPDATE:  I found the Mao quote, “The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise.”

How many times have you heard Obama use the word “win” in connection with Iraq, unaccompanied by “can’t”?

Have you ever heard Obama say judges should simply follow the law?  How many photos have you seen of him surrounded by police and members of the military?

How often have you heard him deny his position on Born-Alive legislation, even after National Right to Life published the Illinois Senate committee documents proving that he has lied?   How frequently has  he claimed to  support the individual right to own firearms, while also saying DC’s effective ban of guns is constitutional?

Does it strike you as dangerous that the Democratic ticket is composed of two men who both claim to have taught constitutional law, yet neither seems cognizant of the plain meaning of our Constitution, much less be inclined to abide by it?

How many of you are tired of being told that allowing the government to take more of your money is patriotic, and that wanting to keep more of what you have earned is selfish?

How many of you don’t care what religion someone is, but find it incomprehensible that a Christian could spend 20 years listening to gussied-up Marxist cant, since Marxism is the  antithesis  of  Christianity?

How many of you think Obama’s long and deep connections to ACORN and its associated groups is accidental?  How many of you think the sheer number of radicals Obama has associated with most of his life tells us nothing about his own views?

How many of you think the election is already being stolen?