Obama: Just Another Liberal Hack Politician

By
April 24, 2009

Politico has a video dealing with Obama's refusal to call the Armenian genocide a genocide, which he said he would do. It was supposed to be a sign of his great character and strength. Epic fail.

And his Cap and Trade scam is exposed as just a tax plan in disguise – by a Democrat for good measure.

Man, Al Gore just can't get enough taxes to save the world, ay?

In any event, Obama is being exposed as just another liberal hack politician. His alleged principles go out the window once he gets elected and he wants to tax the economy into depression, no matter what the economic climate is.

So much for change. All Obama is offering is more of the same old liberal tripe we've been hearing for years. Without the media packaging, he might not have even been elected. And they won't be able to hide his record, or positions in two and four years.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. IslamoLlama says:

    Politico has a video dealing with Obama’s refusal to call the Armenian genocide a genocide, which he said he would do.
    I find this hilarious, because a) not really the biggest issue currently facing the American people b) that’s some amazing “gotcha” politics right there and c) when a politician announces “I’m going to call the genocide in Armenia a genocide” then fails to use the precise verbiage demanded by a bunch of media hacks… are you suddenly unsure of where Obama stands on historical events that occurred over 80 years ago? Did he radically shift his policy towards Turkey or Armenia during that time? This will effect foreign policy how now?
    And his Cap and Trade scam is exposed as just a tax plan in disguise – by a Democrat for good measure.
    Haha. The same Cap and Trade McCain was touting this time last year? Exposed you say? Were you not aware of the details of the Cap and Trade plan until Rep Dingell spelled it out for you? Obama specifically uses funding (read: INCREASED TAX REVENUE!!!) from the plan to fund his Health Care initiative. What, exactly, did you think the plan entailed before today? Are you even now aware of the details of Cap’n’Trade or has this just been boiled down to a Taxes/No Taxes issue again?
    Seriously, you are the biggest pile of pundit fail on the internets, Dan.
    In any event, Obama is being exposed as just another liberal hack politician.
    Wait, didn’t you “expose” this last year when he was running for President? And again when he was sworn into office? And again, basically every time he says something you don’t like? At what point does he stop being “exposed as just another liberal hack” and start being “a politician Dan Riehl continues to not like”?
    Finally, “Exposed” <— This may not mean you what you think it means!

  2. MarkJ says:

    Obama has hubris. Know what often happens to guys who have hubris? This:
    http://cecaust.com.au/images/mussolini-hanging.jpg

  3. rrpjr says:

    I remember how many of my Hollywood and Berkeley friends thought Obama was such an exotic discovery when it was clear to anybody who peeled back even the first layer of his suave postiche that he was a walking cliche of tired urban liberalism. And when I pressed a few to give me one example of a new idea he ever introduced or a reform he ever proposed, they would answer, serenely lost to the non sequitor, “he’s so articulate.”

  4. Xerocky says:

    “Obama specifically uses funding (read: INCREASED TAX REVENUE!!!) from the plan to fund his Health Care initiative.”
    Will cap n’ trade raise tax revenue? In the One’s own words..
    “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
    So what effect will that have on consumer spending? And in turn what will decreased spending have on jobs, on income, on income tax? LOWER TAX REVENUE!! And then with less money to pay for his Health Care initiative, who will end up paying more, much more to make up for the gaping shortfall? The same people who the plan was supposed to help in the first place, those who need it the most. Obama’s backers (the ones who keep getting the bailouts without getting fired) will be fine because they’ve already got theirs at our expense.
    This socialism thing has been tried, and it doesn’t work.

  5. IslamoLlama says:

    “– So what effect will that have on consumer spending? And in turn what will decreased spending have on jobs, on income, on income tax? LOWER TAX REVENUE!! –”
    That’s some magical thinking right there. The energy companies will have to spend more money on infrastructure and will therefore be forced to raise rates. That will take money from electricity consumers and channel it into the industrial sector that specializes in improving the efficiency and reducing the carbon output of electricity plants. How will the jobs created by the new investment in technology result in decreased jobs or income? How will this affect income tax revenue at all?
    “– And then with less money to pay for his Health Care initiative, who will end up paying more, much more to make up for the gaping shortfall? –”
    Poor individuals, with correspondingly smaller homes and fewer electronic devices, use proportionally less energy than their richer neighbors. Likewise, businesses use a percentage of the country’s energy. So the tax will be shared by businesses and consumers. Bigger (more successful) businesses use more electricity than their smaller neighbors, so they’ll pick up the lion’s share of the tab. Which makes sense, since they’re producing the lion’s share of the mess.
    What’s more, green energy firms will benefit greatly from the initiative. Green Mountain, which gets its electricity from wind and solar plants, won’t need to raise its rates a dime.
    So green business is promoted, more jobs are created, businesses pay more in energy bills but less in actual health care costs. Big energy consumers (commonly the rich) pay more than small energy users. But everyone can save if they just cut their energy usage. This all saves the environment and promotes the economy.
    I’m seeing nothing but sunshine and rainbows here, Xerocky.

  6. southdakotaboy says:

    Well IslamoLlama since you think there are going to be all these wonderful new jobs created (and I admit there will be different jobs created) what happens to all the people who used to work in the old industries?
    Think about it for a second: you have people who work in the coal industry right now hundreds of thousands. If we switch to green energy at best you will simply move the same number of employeed people to a different job. This is not job creation just job movement.
    Also many of the “new” jobs created by this switch will be temporary in nature. Why? Well for starters you have to continually dig coal out of the ground. You also have to haul it from one place to the other. If you install solar panels and wind turbines everywhere there is less need for people once the initial installation is completed.
    So yes there will be a negative effect on the economy.

  7. Lala says:

    Down in W. Va. the people are chasing the “smoking police” out of the bars. Just wait until Obie tries to close down the coal mining.
    If Lame-0-lama had her own website would anyone visit to read her drivel?

  8. SacTownMan says:

    “I’m seeing nothing but sunshine and rainbows here”
    Sounds like an old acid flashback there Lame-O!!
    Nothing like celebrating the raping of America’s free market system and the resulting multi-trillion dollar debt dumped on our kids and grandkids to pay for Xerxes’ grand social experiment!
    Poor people live in smaller houses but they will still see their energy bills skyrocket and your boy will do everything in his power to ensure that they stay there! And true to form gotta love the whole “make the rich pay” plan! Only problem is the “rich” will simply quit hiring and close down production and the whole “house of cards” simply falls apart!
    Green jobs are “promoted” really means that regardless of the free market system you and your fellow trolls intend to “dictate” to others how to live their lives. Lots of money for Algore and G.E. and don’t forget Uncle George! Now you just need to figure out a way to tax those cow farts!
    Yet again the Dems overplay their hand and just like 1994 you and your half-witted friends will find yourselves asking..
    “How did we screw up again?”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_election,_1994
    Time for the “bitter, clingy” folks to take this country back so we can restore the Republic! That’s if there is anything left after you and your fellow asshats get done with it!

  9. WBestPresidentEver says:

    I will hold nothing back. It is a communist socialist pig.
    It will be gone in 2012. I hope we last that long.
    The silent ones are sitting back taking this all in. When election day comes around you will see the results.

  10. LogicalSC says:

    What the hell is “progressive” about promoting a regression to 17th century methods of energy? Liberals are truly the stupidest people alive.
    IslamoLlama, there is a damn reason that our ancestors worked so hard to find other methods of providing energy. Because IT didn’t WORK and was NOT efficent, yet a hundred years later here come the freaking “regressives” trying to revert back to these discarded methods.
    Our government has wasted billions on wind, water and solar “power” since the 70s and just like our ancestors the results have been a dismal failure. This will be the next subprime debacle as the liberals will have to borrow billions to subsidize these unproductive “jobs”. And wait till the eco-terrorists find out that IslamoLlama will have to build hundred of thousands miles of bird-killing windmills and insect-frying solar arrays. IslamoLlama might find one of these nuts burning down his house.
    Freaking idiots.

  11. jeff says:

    forcing people to support inefficient green energy is just another version of the broken glass fallacy … it creates no net jobs but actually ends up costing jobs …
    if you don’t know what the broker glass fallacy is then … well you are too ignorant to comment on this subject …

  12. jeff says:

    correction:
    if you don’t know what the broken glass fallacy is then … well you are too ignorant to comment on this subject …

  13. Lala says:

    Read Ayn Rand’s “Anthem”
    It’s what’s coming. Living by candlelight.
    Oh, btw, the people of the UK are stocking up on incandescent bulbs since they are to be outlawed there soon. 100W are the favorite.

  14. unseen says:

    Lala,
    they will also be outlawed here starting in 2011. congress passed that law back in 2006. one of the first things dem congress did when they got power

  15. 13yankeebravo says:

    I see comments the say that the companies that use more power will bear the cost of the higher prices so that is fair according to that commenter. There is one problem with that idea the companies will pass on those higher costs to the consumers or just shut down their operations in the US and go overseas where the costs are cheaper. Remember companies do not pay taxes they pass them on to their buyers.

  16. Lala says:

    I was watching some show today about cement plants in California. The owner employs about 140 people and he said that if the costs get to be too onerous he’ll have to shut down. He went on to say that 40 percent of cement comes in from Mexico and China, so that when he shuts down it will just mean more coming in from them. And they don’t have no stinkin’ cap’n’trade.
    I’m always amused by those who think corporate taxes come out of profits.

  17. southdakotaboy says:

    Everyone I’ve been saying this off and on again for awhile now and really don’t get much respons but I’ll say it again. We need to crash the economy in a hurry. Most people who voted for the Democrats don’t really understand the harm their policies will do in the long term and that is what the left in this country is counting on.
    We on the right need to just step back and not help. Let the people who voted for Obama feel the pain as fast as possible. How do we do this? It is simple really, don’t buy anything that you don’t absolutely need. That means no major purchases of any kind. If you do have to replace something try and get it 2nd hand and pay cash (so they can keep it off the books). If you must buy something big from a store pay for it in cash.
    Don’t go to the movies. The movie industry employees a huge number of people not just a few over paid actors. If they have to start laying off people it will have a huge impact on the economy. Next cut back on going out to eat. It is cheaper to buy from the grocery store and more fun to cook at home, have a round robin party with friends(every weekend at a different house) you wouldn’t believe how much fun you can have with some board games and a couple of beers.
    Next when in public ridicule Obama as much as possible. Don’t be rude or crude about it, but make him look stupid. Start off with something like “I knew Bush was dumb, but did you see what Obama (did/said). This makes the person who supports him think that you are on their side while subtly undermining thier faith in Obama by making him look/sound dumber than Bush.
    If we let the left own the economy we will be able towin back our country.

  18. cindi says:

    broken glass fallacy? lmao. are you serious?

  19. Mark_0454 says:

    Lord Christopher Monckton not allowed to testify at climate change hearing, after being invited by Republicans
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing

  20. Xerocky says:

    “I’m seeing nothing but sunshine and rainbows here, Xerocky.”
    Back away from the bong.

  21. Xerocky says:

    “How will the jobs created by the new investment in technology result in decreased jobs or income? How will this affect income tax revenue at all?”
    Do you liberals even read your own words? What’s happening right now? Many businesses are closing their doors, many are on the brink. So what if energy costs “skyrocket” like the One swears that they will? For many companies, that will be the proverbial straw. Period, end of story. Loss of jobs, loss of tax revenue.
    New technology jobs? How many and when exactly? Do you think that they completely counter the negative effects of this tax increase that the one is planning? I and most reasonable people think that that will be too little too late.

  22. Mark_0454 says:

    There has been a lot of discussion about the cost of cap and trade. It is best to start with the easiest calculation. The CBO estimates the government will bring in $366 billion from the program. There are about 300 million people in the US. This works out to a little over $1000 each. You can’t get there on 18 cents a day as the congressman from Wash. State has claimed. Check the assumptions on these numbers. The people who say this will cost only pennies a day do not include tax revenue going into the government on the logic that you get a benefit from it. If you pay an extra $3000 a year in energy costs, the government is using that money for windmill subsidies, research for electric cars and so forth. So you are benefiting and therefore those costs are not counted. That seems like a very screwy assumption.

  23. IslamoLlama says:

    “– Do you liberals even read your own words? What’s happening right now? Many businesses are closing their doors, many are on the brink. –”
    And yet energy prices are the lost they’ve been in years. It doesn’t appear that the price of electricity is the biggest drag on the economy right now.
    “– broken glass fallacy? lmao. are you serious? –”
    That’s one way of looking at it, certainly. But you’re assuming that the carbon tax is “breaking a window” so to speak. I’d argue that the proverbial window has already been broken for some time. The carbon emissions are polluting the environment. The factors are running well below peak efficiency. Energy is producing more carbon than it should need to.
    In that sense, Obama isn’t breaking anything. You simply have shopkeeper with a broken window who refuses to get the eyesore fixed. Obama is demanding he fix it. If the shopkeeper then raises his prices… that’s just the nature of business.
    As it stands, coal power plants are creating a mess in the form of carbon emissions. You can either demand they curb the size of the mess (which costs money up front) or let them continue to pollute the atmosphere (which costs money down the line). Certainly, if the ice caps continue to melt, storms continue to worsen, sea levels rise, and fresh water becomes depleted, that adds up to a lot of “broken windows”.
    The only fallacy here is in the persistent global warming denial. There’s the dogged notion that 30 years of climate science is one giant conspiracy theory cooked up by Al Gore and George Soros. If you don’t believe excessive carbon emissions are a problem, then it just looks like a needless tax. If you do believe we are polluting the atmosphere, the carbon tax pays for itself long before universal health care becomes involved.

  24. Mark_0454 says:

    Lord Monckton’s letter to Congressmen Markey and Barton.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/markey_and_barton_letter.pdf
    Temperature graphs on page 5. No warming for seven years.

  25. Lala says:

    1970’s propaganda – we will all starve in 30 years, the earth is cooling, the air is so dirty we won’t be able to survive, overpopulation is the biggest problem ever, we are all going to die.
    The only one I believed is the last one. It’s nonsense that the earth is warming because of human activity, if it’s even warming at all. Lies, lies, and damn lies.

  26. “Certainly, if the ice caps continue to melt, storms continue to worsen, sea levels rise, and fresh water becomes depleted, that adds up to a lot of “broken windows”.”
    Uh huh.
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
    Add to that the fact that this is the Obama Party who screams about “carbon emissions” as it fires up Air Force One to fly less than 100 miles to an Obama Party “retreat”. Just like taxes, they demand others pay them, like the welfare children they are.

  27. Lala says:

    How about that trip to London? 500 people, for what purpose?

  28. IslamoLlama says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
    Extensive linkage to all the arguments for global warming your heart could desire. I’m not saying you can’t find a link to someone who can’t agree with you. Hell, hit up Heritage Foundation or AEI and you’ll find a host of denialists and well funded scientific groups that are happy to agree with them.
    Also, smoking doesn’t cause cancer. I can link you to extensive studies to prove my point. :-p
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#noteb
    “– ^ The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. Professional societies include American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Research Council (US), Network of African Science Academies, and Royal Meteorological Society (UK). –”
    Also, Obama hasn’t made any move to curtail retail airline travel. I’m not sure what the point of harping on Air Force One is when his energy policy targets fossil fuel power plants. Power Plants != Airplane Engines.
    And if you want to really argue hypocrisy, you could easily point out his desire to bring in an additional 16,000 troops to Afghanistan or his desire to fund billions in highway construction. Because 500 people on a couple of airliners in a skip across the Pond? Pocket change by comparison. Repairing and constructing thousands of miles of highway? Humongous carbon mess.
    Demanding a coal fired power plant updates its turbines to 21st century technology to cut 15% off its carbon output isn’t some draconian economic tyranny. Encouraging emissionless electricity production with a mild tax incentive won’t reduce us to cave man style living. Obama isn’t even proposing a system even the GOP Presidential Nominee was happy to support.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/politics/animal/main4090647.shtml
    “– We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
    ….As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system….Through the sale of offsets — and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real — our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions….Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use.–”
    We’re talking about a free-market friendly policy on one of the few industries that has weathered the economic crisis extremely well. When you’ve got companies like Exxon bringing in $40 billion a quarter profits – making it the most profitable company in history – are you seriously suggesting that a minor emissions fee (not unlike the fee it would pay for emitting too much mercury or sulfur) would bring the economic titan to its knees?
    I think you’re seriously divorced from the financial realities of the energy sector. These businesses are rolling in cash. My biggest concern is that cap and trade won’t be heavy enough, and that these companies will happily just pony up the cap and keep polluting at the same rates they’ve always used.

  29. Mark_0454 says:

    IslamoLlama,
    the links really aren’t for you, they’re for others who might want to read about the subject.
    Above, you say the only fallacy is denial of global warming. There is plenty of evidence it is not warming, or that the warming is part of a natural cycle. Seven or eight years is too short a time frame to make a conclusion about climate. But, I think it is a long enough time frame to make one skeptical. The links are for those who may want to see there is evidence global warming is not an imminent catastrophe. We may not know for a while, but it is not a fallacy to look at the data. Or you say, power plants are making a mess with CO2 emissions. Again, debatable. Who is right? I don’t know for sure. But is is not “denial” to look at the data.

  30. Philip McDaniel says:

    It seems a lot of people have a ‘religious’ belief in Global Warming – a lot like the religious belief in an Obama-savior. Who knows what the psychological underpinnings are for these delusions – and they are delusions. As Lincoln supposedly once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
    The ones pushing Global Warming can be separated into two distinct groups: Those who do not know the science but see advantage – money, power or whatever in supporting and propounding this scheme, and those who do know the science but either keep their mouths shut out of fear or push the agenda because they can keep their federal funds coming by so doing.
    Fortunately, there are still scientists around who understand how to collect data, interpret it, run tests and propose hypotheses for further analysis. Science is not done, as Al Gore, et al would have it, by consensus. It is done by the vast majority of working scientists, engineers and technicians worldwide whose ‘religious’ belief is an honest search for truth. They understand and employ the rigorous requirements of the Scientific Method to learn that truth. If you are interested in learning about Global Warming then I suggest you check out this blog: http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  31. LOL says:

    ah yes, of course…
    it is conservatives, the proud movement of creationists who are the true scientists of the world

  32. Lala says:

    There was nothing, nothing at all, and all of a sudden there was something. Gas. And the gas caused a big bang. And things appeared. Out of nothing and nowhere. And odd things were born like LOL.
    Here’s photos of ice at the North Pole. I put them on the wrong thread before.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

  33. Xerocky says:

    “There was nothing, nothing at all, and all of a sudden there was something. Gas.”
    But that’s “science” so look out!! It must be the one and only truth, or else you’re a slack jawed idiot!!
    I also like the argument against intelligent design, that aliens planted us here. Panspermia they call it. Wow, that’s good science!
    Great blog post about the north pole there, thanks!

  34. IslamoLlama says:

    “– Above, you say the only fallacy is denial of global warming. There is plenty of evidence it is not warming, or that the warming is part of a natural cycle. –”
    The “evidence” you speak of is rejected by the combined expertise of 40 different countries’ research departments.
    Again, I can give you “evidence” that there is no link between smoking and cancer. I can give you plenty of it, in fact. It’s still not evidence any good doctor would agree.
    And here we come to the crux of the argument. The merits of Cap and Trade hinge almost entirely on your belief or rejection of Global Warming. I mean, if you’re going to reject the vast body of scientific work on the subject… I guess you’ll be tea bagging in opposition to the Obama Administration for the foreseeable future.
    “– I also like the argument against intelligent design, that aliens planted us here. –”
    WOW! Someone didn’t make it through High School Bio with a passing grade. It is also worth noting that my Uncle Steve is not a monkey. Take that evolution!

  35. Lala says:

    It’s not “Global Warming” anymore, it’s “Climate Change”

  36. SacTownMan says:

    “It is also worth noting that my Uncle Steve is not a monkey.”
    Any evidence? If he shares any genes with you he is sure be close and don’t discount the generations of inbreeding your family has practiced!
    Keep sticking with the Algore mantra. It helped him go from 2 million in 2000 to 100 million in 2009, just a coincidence I’m sure.
    And the Move-On talking points are STILL working so great for you, keep up the great Astroturfing! Just keep ignoring anything that doesn’t fit the liberal dribble, you know “Bush did it”, “I inherited this”, “tax cuts for 95% of Americans”.
    You even managed to use your favorite testicular washing term in the last post, very original!
    You are a credit to your inbred race! Have a great family reunion with “Uncle” Steve!!

  37. Philip McDaniel says:

    LOL!
    Good one, SacTownMan

  38. seekeronos says:

    “— I also like the argument against intelligent design, that aliens planted us here. Panspermia they call it. Wow, that’s good science! —”
    “—– Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… —–”
    (Romans 1:22, KJV)