Why is it that so many political science majors are left leaning? Could it be that they don't look at politics as a battle of ideas, or is it because they want to shape something?

I have read many articles where Obama is compared to Reagan. Not a single one of them made since until this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/25/obama.carter.reagan/index.html

John Geer, a Vanderbilt University political scientist, said the comparisons to Carter are weak.

The more analogous comparison so far, Geer said, is to Reagan, who also entered the White House with a full plate of foreign policy problems -- mostly surrounding the Cold War -- and a major economic crisis at hand.

Reagan was a gifted politician, Geer said. He was known as an inspiring communicator, and his appeal crossed party lines. Like Obama, polls showed that Reagan was more popular than his policies. More than 20 years after he left the White House, Republicans still look to him as the last great face of the party.

In his book "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote that although he and Reagan had differing political viewpoints, he understands the Republican president's appeal.

"Reagan spoke to America's longing for order, our need to believe that we are not simply subject to blind, impersonal forces but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies, so long as we rediscover the traditional values of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith," he wrote.

Obama completely missed why Reagan had appeal. If you pay attention to the above quote you will notice that something is missing. FREEDOM. Obama mentions nothing of freedom in his recollection of Reagan.
With all of the times Reagan spoke of freedom, it seems hard to me for someone to have missed that. Reagan had appeal because he believed in what he was saying and it was easily noticeable.

Now this makes more sense to me. Obama didn't agree with anything that Reagan stood for; he simply admired his ability to communicate --that's it.

Obama is like a history major who only remembers dates, but can't tell you why anything happened. Without substance, acknowledgment of events is completely useless. So, if Obama resembles Reagan in any way, how come his answers to similar problems are to do the exact opposite of Reagan? When, in fact, Reagan's policies worked.

So, is Obama lying every time he speaks of personal responsibility? Take, for example, Obama's speech to the school children. The speech to school children did not coincide in anyway with Obama's policy. How can one speak of personal responsibility and not mention freedom? If Obama believed in what he was saying, he wouldn't be attempting to take control of so many aspects of individuals' lives.

Obama did exactly what I thought he would. He gave a conservative speech to school children to help mask his intentions. Say one thing, do another. This is where media needs to step up and stop shielding Obama. If he is such a genius, let him stand on his own. Report what is known, and let things play out in the open.

Remember what the Obama administration tried to do to Fox News? If any United States administration tries to silence the media, there is cause for immediate concern. If this administration gets its way, journalism will be completely and finally dead.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

It would seem that Fox News is the current target of the White House. One might wonder why. Of course the answer is simple. Fox News has shown (through Cable TV and the web) opinions that are contrary to that of the Obama administration.

It is interesting to see how the White House deals with dissent. Instead of having people from the administration go on Fox News and debate the issues, they try and delegitimize Fox News. This is no different than getting into an argument about a matter of historical fact. Sometimes one person says, “You’re too young. You don’t know what happened back then.” Of course attempting to pull age/rank is not a response; it’s an admission to defeat.

The fact that the White House believes that it has to stop a news agency is proof that the news agency is effective. The White House, wanting to stop a news agency by attempting to discredit it is proof that the news agency is reporting facts. If there were factual issues with Fox News' reporting, why has there been no direct debate amongst those on Fox News and those in the Obama administration?

Many people consider Fox News to be a completely right wing news agency. For those people I offer you this:

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/05/27/fox-pink-eyes.html

It's hard to believe, but Pink Eyes — a.k.a. Damian Abraham, the notoriously manic lead singer of Toronto hardcore band F---ed Up — has joined the ranks of Fox News commentators.

After two guest appearances on the ultra-conservative cable news network's early-morning show Red Eye, Abraham has been asked to come on the show more regularly.

So, we have "Pink Eyes" on Red Eye. But wait a minute! I was told that Fox News was a right wing echo chamber! If that was the case, why would they have so many liberals on their shows? Ever heard of Hannity and Colmes?

That's the problem with delegitimizing a TV news network. It's hard to do because you just bring it more viewers. Those viewers are going to see the liberals right next to the conservatives.

I'm afraid that the White House has lost this one.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to manipulate other news networks into isolating and excluding Fox News, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

Perhaps the other major networks caught on to the fact that this was an attempt by the White House to silence the media. If they try to silence Fox News; who's next?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.buycostumes.com/Illegal-Alien-Adult-Costume/60504/ProductDetail.aspx

I saw this and couldn't resist myself. I can't think of any reason why this costume would anger anyone.

Now, if the alien was wearing a sombrero and a mustache, I could see where some people might get offended.

People need to lighten up. It's like the boy who cried wolf. If these "immigrant rights groups" cry every time the word alien comes around, nobody will listen. I stopped listening when they had the immigrant parades in 2006. A day without immigrants. You know, the one where the majority of the crowds were waving flags from other countries, while at the same time screaming for rights here in the U.S.

You can see, from the above images, that the people at these rallies really love The United States of America. Notice the sign that says "Full Rights for All Immigrants." If that were the case, why would anyone become a U.S. citizen? Oh that's right --these people don't want to be U.S. citizens.

I think that the alien costume is far less offensive than these images from A Day Without Immigrants 2006.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This is not a surprise.

So Obama wants to change the country. We're here to change the country, right? I ask one simple question, "change the country into what?"

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299824.stm

The committee said he won for efforts to boost diplomacy and co-operation.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

Since when does a U.S. president govern based on "values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population?"

So, the Nobel Committee believes that to lead the world, you must do so through consensus. That consensus being based primarily in countries other than the one Obama took an oath to protect. After all the U.S. doesn't represent a majority of the worlds population. So if Obama were to govern based on the world's consensus; the U.S. citizens would have much less pull when compared with the rest of the world.

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

So Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for things he has not yet done. Does this not illustrate the illegitimacy the Nobel Committee?

Obama's response is rather strange:

"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements," he said.

"It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."

How exactly is a prize awarded to Obama "a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century?" Were all other world leaders sitting on their hands until the moment that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? This is absurd.

The real reasoning behind this award is that Obama is currently, and will continue, to weaken the United States. Obama's policies have, and will reduce the United States' influence globally.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.