“How outrageously wrong this unapologetic Jim Hoffa is”

September 6, 2011 | Filed under Barack Obama,Sarah Palin,Unions | Posted by

Sarah Palin reacts to recent events… and in my view, connects:

PalinThumbsUp So, now these union bosses are desperately trying to cast the grassroots Tea Party Movement as being “against the workingman.” How outrageously wrong this unapologetic Jim Hoffa is, for the people’s movement is the real movement for working class men and women. It’s rooted in real solidarity, and not special interests and corporate kickbacks. It represents the needed reform that will empower workers and job creators. We stand with the little guy against the corruption and influence peddling of those who collude to grease the wheels of government power.

This collusion is at the heart of Obama’s economic vision for America. In practice it is socialism for the very rich and the very poor, but a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us. It is socialism for the very poor who are reduced to a degrading perpetual dependence on a near-bankrupt centralized government to provide their every need, while at the same time robbing them of that which brings fulfillment and success – the life-affirming pride that comes from taking responsibility for your own destiny and building a better life through self-initiative and work ethic. And Obama’s vision is socialism via crony capitalism for the very rich who continue to get bailouts, debt-ridden “stimulus” funds, and special favors that allow them to waive off or help draft the burdensome regulations that act as a boot on the neck to small business owners who don’t have the same friends in high places. And where does this collusion leave working class Americans and the small business owners who create 70% of the jobs in this country? Out in the cold. It’s you and your children who are left paying for the cronyism of Obama and our permanent political class in DC.

Ask yourself if the folks you heard demonize concerned, independent Americans yesterday really speak for the working class when they’re all too happy to burden your families with the bill to bail out the President’s friends on Wall Street.

We should not forget that for all his lofty rhetoric, President Obama is a Chicago politician. Graft, cronyism, and quid pro quo are the well-known methods of an infamous Chicago political machine, of which Barack Obama emerged. This corruption isn’t just the result of a few bad apples. It’s the nature of a skewed system that’s typical of one not allowing a level playing field. If one desires opportunity for all, then the only solution is sudden and relentless reform. I know of what I speak. I too served in public office in a state that had a corruption problem. The difference is that I fought the corrupt political machine. Barack Obama used the machine in his state to advance. He never challenged it. And he’s evidently brought the same Chicago “pay-to-play” practices to the White House.

Read the whole thing… contrast her words with any words from this President… for sincerity, for passion, for genuineness…

Obama falls way short.

« « Not Going Postal Just Yet
“If you don’t agree [with Obama], you’re against rebuilding America” » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 6, 2011.
Filed under Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Unions.
Tagged with: • .
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!

  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • retired.military

    Liberal heads explode in 3…2…1…

  • http://www.facebook.com/michael.laprarie Michael Laprarie

    “I too served in public office in a state that had a corruption
    problem. The difference is that I fought the corrupt political machine.
    Barack Obama used the machine in his state to advance. He never
    challenged it.”

    This is the fundamental difference between Palin and Obama, in a nutshell.  And I think the real irony is that Obama’s campaign fiction writers portrayed him as a political ubermensch who had literally transcended the temptations (cronyism, corruption, partisan politics, etc.) that plague mere mortals and who alone was uniquely capable of bringing America up to his level of moral superiority.  Man, were we ever suckers.

    • retired.military

      “Man, were we ever suckers”

      Only if you voted for him.  Most people on this site knew what he was to begin with.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

        Or rather, knew what he wasn’t.  It was pretty clear in his record.

        He wasn’t qualified.  He wasn’t capable.  He wasn’t experienced enough to know he didn’t know everything.  And the lack of media scrutiny didn’t help.  The media could send reporters to go through Palin’s garbage – but they wouldn’t bother even looking at Obama’s record… or lack thereof?  (Maybe they only got half the order they normally use for an election and had to conserve where they could?)

        I didn’t vote for him, but when he won I was really, really hoping that there was more to Obama than met the eye – that somehow I missed seeing someone competent and capable underneath the blinding glint of the teleprompter. That there would be substance behind the seeming… 

        But I was wrong. 

        Damn it.

        • Anonymous

          The liberal, intellectual elite, and guilt-ridden of the MSM where too hung up on a “historic” election.

          My favorite line is still Brian Williams comment: “We don’t know much about him, do we?”
          Strange comment from a “reporter” who had 2 years to get to “know” Barry Obama.

  • Anonymous

    Barry and Hoffa…Two clueless son of a bitches..

  • Anonymous

    Nice pic.  I’m drooling.

    Sarah does hit the nail on the head in this sentence, makes me wish she was sincere instead of trolling for celebrity and cash:

    In practice it is socialism for the very rich and the very poor, but a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us.

    Of course, that’s not just “Obama’s vision,” it’s also the rest of the oligarchical system that will continue if Perry or Romney were elected.

    Bachmann, I’m not so sure, but only because she might start WW III or impose the Republic of Gilead .

    • Oysteria

      Chico – “Funny that Wizbangers are always defending the “brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us,” too.”

      For a relatively intelligent guy I’m surprised you don’t understand that statement.  That “brutal form of capitalism” she speaks of is the type that Obama is creating for ‘the rest of us”.  One where you are burdened with piles and piles of regulation that his rich favorites don’t have to be bothered with and that his poor blind followers, who are more than willing to give up their votes for government largesse, don’t even have to be aware of.  What it all boils down to is whether or not you’re willing to throw yourself into one of those two camps.  Anyone in between who doesn’t bow in wonderment will suffer under that yoke.

      But it’s just a lot more fun for you to cast aspersions at the rest of us I guess.

    • PBunyan

      So typical Chico.  A few weeks ago you asked for some examples of things Sarah as said, and I replied along the lines that that would be casting pearls before swine.  Thanks for proving me right yet again.

      Here we have Sarah saying a lot the same things you regularly post and still you dismiss her as insincere based on nothing but your own insularity.  You may not be a die-hard leftist zombie like some (cough-Armstrong-cough), but you do possess the same close-minded, thoughtless bigotry that is so common amongst them.

    • Anonymous

      Well, I guess her appeal, and her problem, is that she can throw out a phrase like “socialism for the very rich and the very poor and a brutal form of capitalism for the rest of us” and people can read into it what they want.

      Example: I think she’s channeling Matt Taibbi or Ron Paul, Oysteria thinks she’s channeling something else.

      She does not get into specifics of what she wants to do.

      • Oysteria

        I don’t think she’s “channeling”.  She stated clearly what it means.  It looks as if when you read one sentence or paragraph you aren’t retaining anything from the previous one.  Jay Tea has said it numerous times:  If you want to know what Palin thinks you don’t have to look for hidden meanings.  Just listen to what she says.  You seem to be having trouble accepting that.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          Don’t think that’s it – but like pretty much anyone, he’s running it through a perception filter based on what he’s learned or been taught over the years.  Judging it by that, I can understand what he’s objecting to.  I don’t agree – but I think I understand.

          (Everyone does – by the way.  Oh, you know that old joke – ‘a conservative is a liberal that got mugged’?  Sometimes it takes real trauma to change the filter parameters…)

          Chico -

          “She does not get into specifics of what she wants to do.”

          I might point out that Obama’s been pretty much an ‘idea’ man – he leaves the messy details of actually implementing his ideas to others.

          “Bachmann, I’m not so sure she’ll continue the oligarchy, but only
          because she might start WW III or impose the Republic of Gilead with
          Christian sharia law (see The Handmaid’s Tale).”

          Sure she would. Just like Bush was looking to create a Christian Theocracy but was foiled by those wily Democrats, right?

          Sorry, Chico – but that was just plain stupid.

      • Anonymous

        There’s your problem CC.  You cannot imagine she is using her own words and thoughts, she must be channeling someone else’s.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

          Groupthink at it’s finest.   The left depends on it, and can’t imagine anyone not getting all their opinions from a specific, authorized source…

  • herddog505

    Can somebody explain to me why people consider Palin to be stupid?  Whether one agrees with her or not, she writes and speaks quite well.

    Obama’s vision is socialism via crony capitalism for the very rich who continue to get bailouts, debt-ridden “stimulus” funds, and special favors that allow them to waive off or help draft the burdensome regulations that act as a boot on the neck to small business owners who don’t have the same friends in high places.

    Exactly.  In the past week or two, we’ve seen two examples: Solyndra, that got millions of “loan guarantees” because they had political connections; and Gibson Guitar, that got raided because they didn’t.

    Speaking more broadly, this is something I just don’t get about liberals: they yap about “the common man” and “the monied interests”, yet persist in building up the government apparatus that makes it possible for the “monied interests” to stamp all over the common man.  Palin seems to recognize this problem, which puts her miles ahead of even the most brilliant (snort!) liberal.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

       Palin’s stupid because it’s necessary for the meme.  If she were recognized as intelligent by all, then she might be matched against Obama’s ‘qualifications’ and ‘experience’ – and then we’d see Obama for the empty suit he is.

      (Not that we couldn’t in the first place.  Even the late Lee-Lee saw Obama as unqualified, until Hil got dumped and at that point he did a 180 to fit the meme…)

      I really have to wonder sometimes why people are so incredibly unwilling to look at reality when politics come into play…

    • Anonymous

      “Can somebody explain to me why people consider Palin to be stupid?”

      VDH explains it.

      “So why the war against Palin, when Palinisms are not demonstrably different
      from Bidenisms, Obamaisms, or Goreisms? Uppity-ness I suppose is the short
      answer. In the binary world of a Sullivan, Letterman, or Griffin, or in the
      larger culture of network news, NPR, PBS, the New York Times and
      Washington Post and their columnists, and the weekly newspapers like
      Time and Newsweek, Sarah Palin is apparently all that they are
      not.

      In such a metro, hip, in-with-it culture, one is supposed to have a
      thinking-man’s or artiste’s billet of some sort in Washington or New York (that
      it often comes from nepotism, insider networking, or marriage matters little).

      Being a mom of five children flies in the face of the demography of yuppie
      careerism, abortion, and the gay world.

      Cross-country skiing is OK; snowmobiles
      polluting the atmosphere and gashing the Earth are not.

      Credentials matter much:
      University of Idaho and sports journalism are not polar, but planetary,
      opposites of Yale and law. Wasilla is to the Upper West Side or Chevy Chase as
      Uranus is to planet Earth.

      And how can it be fair that Sarah Palin seems
      stunning after five children when so many in the DC-NY corridor after millennia
      on the exercise machine and gallons of Botox are, well, “interesting
      looking”?”

      • herddog505

        So why the war against Palin, when Palinisms are not demonstrably different from Bidenisms, Obamaisms, or Goreisms? Uppity-ness I suppose is the short answer.

        I think that there’s much in this.  Witness Richard Cohen’s latest column, which asserts that Bad Luck Barry has “lost” the Hamptons: it drips with elite liberal snobbery.  The elites (both sides of the aisle) have a very clear idea of what constitutes “one of them”, and Palin… ain’t.  Palin is not Ivy League; Palin isn’t east coast / DC / NYC / Boston; Palin doesn’t use “summer” as a verb; Palin isn’t rich or pretend to be.  How dare this… this… this… PROVINCIAL SNOWBILLY aspire to the presidency!  Why, it’s even more gauche than the cowboy Bush; at least he went to Yale (even if it was only because of his daddy)!

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    Funny, these do not sound like the words of a stupid person. In fact, I’d characterize it as brilliant and incisive. This single article contains more wisdom than every word produced by Obama’s pathetic career combined.