Yesterday's Fort Myers, Florida town-hall meeting--more revival meeting than political event--represents all that's disturbing about Barack Obama and what he brings out in his drones. Beatlemania for a political leader isn't a good thing. Just ask the Germans. I implore you to watch this video, which demonstrates the results of the cult of personality that the president has cultivated.

I implore you to watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fu06uRSNs4&feature=related

"...Being a Christian as well, I feel that God would be the right person to follow in this election, and he [Bush] follows God, then basicaly I'm going to be following him."

or this one of brain dead Palin/McCain supporters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_bt_i-2BiU&feature=PlayList&p=ABC07B03CF4E50A4&playnext=1&index=37

you conviently left any criticism of the fanatic right wing out of your commentary Flynnster.

Wait a minute, are you saying the "President" is low on substance and heavy on the showmanship?

Who knew!

Good one on Amercian Thinker today. Splains a lot.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/murphys_law_the_peter_principl.html

Bush was at least an adult; Obama is a child constantly preening for adulation.

Idolatry is wrong no matter what the object of worship. That some worship(ped) "an adult" and others "a child" is immaterial.

That said, I have never, ever seen the degree of messianic worship the current president attracts. It is sick.

In 1934, as FDR demagogued his way through the long, long Great Depression, Herbert Hoover wrote the following in his book, The Challenge to Liberty:

"Thus the scene of the tragedy of Liberty world over must be suffering and discontent among the people. The drama moves swiftly in a torrent of words in which real purposes are disguised in portrayals of Utopia; idealism without realism; slogans, phrases and statements destructive to confidence in existing institutions; demands for violent action against slowly curable ills; unfair representation that sporadic wickedness is the system itself; searing prejudice against the former order; dismay and panic in the economic organization which feeds on its own despair. Emotions rise above reason. The man on horseback, ascending triumphantly to office on the steps of constitutional process, demands and threatens the parliament into the delegation of its sacred power. Then follows consolidation of authority through powerful propaganda in the pay of the state to transform the mentality of the people. Resentment of criticism, denunciation of all opposition, moral terrorization, all follow in sequence. The last scene is the suppression of freedom. Liberty dies of the water from her own well-free speech- poisoned by untruth."

Bush required no worship nor did he get any.

Obama has demonstrated often that he needs it.

Does it concern anybody that O will be spending our money to bring thousands of Hamas refugees to the U.S.?

http://www.pamibe.com/2009/02/obama-bringing-hamas-terrorists-to-us/

Uncle Tom Obomb maybe halfwhite, but this brother form a commie mutha got his moves form revie Right!

The Bush Cultists are just upset that that their cult hero is no longer in power. I don't belong to any cult. We'll see if the Obama cultists match the Bush Cultists in sophistry, and nonsense. It's still an open question.

Bush had no cult. The left owns cults buddy. Good site Daniel.

"Bush had no cult."

He had many followers saying stuf like, "Being a Christian as well, I feel that God would be the right person to follow in this election, and he [Bush] follows God, then basicaly I'm going to be following him."

Quit playing dumb. That is cultish.

Eric, "Idiots" - you guys are hilarious.

For the last three weeks, the newest occupant of the White House has demonstrated in spades that he is an inexperienced, incompetent, corrupt liar who is in a job that is way beyond his capabilities as a community organizer and campaigner for political office.

He is everything we knew he would be.

But that doesn't stop his hard core supporters from continuing to swoon over him or stop his Ministry of Propaganda (aka - MSM) from continuing their sycophantic ways (tingles up the legs and all).

When one is confronted with facts about someone and still argues for them and supports them in the face of demonstrably ineffectual and dangerous behavior, that person is a cultist. A true believer. And for them, the One represents a religion.

Dear Garden of Idiots: Bush was seen as a good disciple of God in a world against God, so we better get behind him -- at most, he would be treated like God's *prophet*. There is something, well, islamish in the real hard core Chrisitian Bushies (and something of the Lincoln cult-of-the-great-leader in his non-evangelical devotees).

In contrast, Obama is being treated like the Annointed One. At that "town meeting" I pictured someone trying to touch his cloak so that they would magically get a new job, new car, new bathroom, etc.

I ain't seen nothing like this before -- though I admit to never attending holy-roller healing and speaking-in-tongue "services."

The arguments over whether Bush had mentally impaired/troubled sycophants and whether Obama has more (he clearly does) is really beside the point. So too that Obama is clearly inexperiences, yada yada.

These concerns do not reflect the reality of how our government(s) work(s). This country has a ruling regime/class/party and the figureheads at the pinnacle are in essence inconsequential. I am not suggesting that there is a tiny cabal behind the scenes pulling the strings of whichever president is in power. Rather, I am saying that there is a significantly large oligarchy of media, political, corporate, and cultural elites who share the same general outlook/worldview and hence ideology. They clash at the fringes of issues but retain a solid core of agreement. Hence the lack of "change" on any basic political propositions, esp. regarding the power of the unelected Executive bureaucracy and the extra-constitutional (unitary-sovereign) Executive office.

This is why magazines can declare on there cover "We are all socialists now" (was it Newsweek, can't remember?). The royal "We" is this elite ruling class which dictates to the rest of us and shares the spoils of power amongst themselves.

Bruce,

If I got it right, your post here seems to indicate that there are virtually no intrinsic differences between one administration and another as they're all ultimately in it for the power. And that power is wielded by the few.

I don't disagree that power is the ultimate goal and that there are just a handful of button pushers, but you have to see a vast difference between the current and the previous gang with regard to philosophy and competence and, many would argue, honesty.

As the American philosopher George Maroutsos puts it: If you have power and you haven't abused it, you don't have power. You just have responsibility. President Clinton was a man who had power. President Bush was a man who had responsibility.

So how do we think that Obama the narcissist will handle it? He’s never had any real responsibility so he doesn’t know what that is. But he has had his taste of power.

This will end up being a Greek Tragedy.

I thought acting unilaterally was a bad thing?

So one of the first EOs issued by Brak was an order putting a halt to publication of any new rule in the Federal Register until it could be reviewed and approved by the White House. Rather than trust the previous administration on anything, they've chosen to assume the worst on EVERYTHING. And it will have consequences.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123448309124879823.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

I just hope my plane wont fall out of the sky because the airlines didn't get the latest safety memo for their maintenance checks....

Can you say - clusterf$%k?

ASDF is just the local Bush Cultist here in the Flynn Files. It's absurd that anyone could think that an administration that deliberately lied this nation into a war, committed felonies against the Constitution -- and then lied to cover it up -- practiced torture, and all but bankrupted the country is honest and responsible.

I'm withholding judgment about Obama. I gave the same consideration to George Bush. Obama surely has a celebrity appeal and unlike George Bush can actually complete a sentence and doesn't always come across as an incompetent boob. But Obama's celebrity-like status doesn't mean it's a cult -- at least not yet. A Bush Cultist isn't just someone who likes George Bush, but someone whose total sense of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and bad, all comes down to whatever suits the partisan interests of George Bush. Most people who wear the conservative label are not conservatives but Bush Cultists. Now there are a few conservatives out there -- Pat Buchanan, Thomas Fleming, Peter Brimelow, Ron Paul etc. -- but they hardly constitute a movement.

For instance, there was absolutely no concern in the conservative movement during the 2000 election, or even afterward, that it should be the number priority of this country to invade, occupy, and "democratize" Iraq. We never heard a peep about it. However, once George Bush began proclaiming the wisdom of invading Iraq, then all the Bush Cultists fell right in line. Monkey say; monkey do. Bush say; Bush Cultist do.

I don't know Eric. I think you have Bush on the brain. And not in the good way.

Amen Eric... how could anyone deny his blatant abuse of power and say "President Bush was a man who had responsibility." with a straight face without being a kool-aid drinking cult member???

Uncle Tom Obomb couldnt shine Gdbs shoes. let alone run this country.

ASDF,

I am suggesting that these consecutive administrations (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama) have been characterized by a largely shared worldview/ideology on the most important points regarding the nature of US national governance and policy. I also have seen them as practically speaking progressively worsening one to the other. However, I see Bush II's 8 years as like the upward slope on the exponential curve of worsening executive government over the last 20 years of these presidents.

Will that exponential curve continue under Obama? Sure, maybe his administration will even see the actual failure of the regime itself, it is certainly possible. But I for one am not going to pine for the days under Bush even if that turns out to be the case. Just because Stalin was really really bad doesn't mean life under Lenin was an antediluvian paradise.

You are very focused on your estimation of the "persons" involved here, of their characters. I actually do not agree with your positive assessment of Bush's character, but even if I did, my emphasis is on their practical policies and what those actions reveal about their political beliefs and values. That is where I just don't see the meaningful differences.

Bruce,

“You are very focused on your estimation of the "persons" involved here, of their characters. I actually do not agree with your positive assessment of Bush's character, but even if I did, my emphasis is on their practical policies and what those actions reveal about their political beliefs and values. That is where I just don't see the meaningful differences.”

I would agree with your overall clarification and it certainly seems as though things have been marginally worse with each regime since Reagan. I would just add that you could probably say that about most regimes looking back as the world and people have evolved and things have never become less complicated.

I’m not that naïve to think that Bush was just some good old boy from Texas but I still disagree with on your assessment of Bush’s character.

Background and character matter and regimes, to an extent, are a reflection of the Man at the top. Bush, with all of his flaws and poor decision making, was a more stable and grounded individual with a strong moral compass and religious convictions who, I think, cared about this country. By all indications, I don’t see that as being true of the Marxist we have sitting in Washington now who has in a very short period of time demonstrated that he is more interested in his own self-aggrandizement and world opinion than he is about the country he purports to lead.

Both men have surrounded themselves with people of like values and purpose accordingly. So maybe the ultimate goal of each man and regime might be similar. I just believe that B.Hussein Obama hasn’t the character (or brains for that matter), along with his handlers, to not create even more day-to-day difficulties for us taxpayers and in the process more chaos in general.

And I’d like to be hopeful that this new administration will “curve” the trend of the previous regime(s) but I just don’t see it. All we knew about this man, his background, his associations, his politics, have come to light in the first few weeks of his administration and what we’re witnessing is the ineptitude of inexperience and corruption of a small fish in a suddenly big pond.

"I just hope my plane wont fall out of the sky because the airlines didn't get the latest safety memo for their maintenance"

Homer, I know it's a stretch, but with the recent crash of Flight 3407 near Buffalo, could it be?

Same as the old boss?....

"Reverend Jeremiah Wright may be gone but he won't be forgotten. That's because President Obama has named Otis Moss, Jr. - father of the current pastor of Trinity United Church - to sit on the brand new Advisory Council for the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Moss co-wrote a book with Wright and has penned articles for Trinity United publications.

"By the way, Otis Moss III( his son who took over at Trinity United )wrote in a church bulletin: that American entertainment companies operate with contempt for the black community. Seems I have heard this comment before, usually with an elaboration regarding the heritage of Hollywood execs.

"This was the same church bulletin that featured an op-ed written by a Hamas leader. Black liberation theology has an undercurrent of anti-Semitism."

Dangerous or not? You make the call.

asdf, probably not. But it's certainly in the realm of possibility. The reports that go back to the FAA will indicate problems with parts, specific configs, etc. found during maintenance checks. The point of the notifications is to ensure that everyone knows what the other operators have discovered during their scheduled maintenance. If these are not disseminated to the other airlines, it's conceivable that the lack of infomration could lead to a chain of events that would lead to a crash or other safety issue. You'll have to forgive me if I don't quite trust the FAA to appropriate classify what is and is not important enough to rise to the level of an emergency notification. They're talking about things like the vertical stabalizer kits that went out for A300s (actually before) and after the Queens crash in 2001. That's obviously a disaster waiting to happen if the kits hadn't been installed. It's the little things, like noticing that the inflight entertainment system from a particular manufacturer is prone to overheating (See the Swissair flight in 98), or other info that, if heeded, can avoid serious problems down the road.

Sorry, but as a frequent flyer, these things tend to get my attention...

I don't blame you. It's one thing to have to drive a car everyday and then one day, something runs foul. Most times it's no big thang'. But when flying regularly, it's got to be somewhat of a worry because so many things can go wrong at any time and when airborne, the margin for error is slim to none.

Serious diligence by the airlines is a necessity to maintain safety and politics should not endanger that safety.

Seems to me that the sharing of knowledge among the airlines is crucial and it should be a concern that the FAA or any other government agency would be responsible for maintaining the flow of information.

Well, yeah. Certainly airworthiness directives are not the intended target of the FR publication freeze. Again...I though unilateralism was a bad thing....

It is. Good luck.

1BO1SN dudxprvkdyaf, [url=http://ynouazmzakho.com/]ynouazmzakho[/url], [link=http://ocomexdmefum.com/]ocomexdmefum[/link], http://apgljxtmidqn.com/

Eric,

Not surprisingly, I don't agree with anything you said in that paragraph as they are the typical liberal generalities that have used to slam GW for that last seven to eight years. But educate me please, what specifically do mean by "committed felonies against the Constitution".

ASDF,

I explained that to you many times. He ignored FISA laws not to spy on Osama bin Laden, but innocent Americans calling home from Iraq. I didn't know that liberals were that concerned about the rate of federal spending, but I suppose Bush can even make the biggest liberal blush? That's quite the accomplishment. But I'm glad you are now conceding that the Republican emphasis on "less government" is just a charade.

Oh, yeah, the FISA thing. Yes we've gone over that before but there are so many things that the bashers allude to, I needed to know which one you were picking.

I like that line about how the administration was really not not to spying on OBL but innocent Americans. That's funny.

And don't forget that Bush and the Cheney Halliburton Hurricane Machine were responsible for the WTC Towers, likely the aim being just so they could spy on innocent Americans.

ASDF, I don't like repeating myself so I'll copy and paste a comment I made to you last year. The sentences in quotes are your comments followed by my responses.

"What you’re explaining here is that it’s corrupt and immoral to want to protect and secure your country. This is a stretch."

I've argued nothing of the sort. However, committing felonies and pursuing unaccountable executive power are immoral, illegal, and corrupt.

As whistleblower Adrienne Kinne said, "Personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything having anything to do with terrorism. It was just personal conversations that nobody else should have been listening to."

She went on to say that Bush's claim that the program was only directed at al-Qaeda "I would say that that is completely a lie — I would call it a lie — because we were definitely listening to Americans who had nothing to do with terrorism…"

Even if the Bush Administration didn't listen to the personal conversations of Americans overseas, that does not make it acceptable to violate the law (commit a felony) and then try to cover it up. President Bush only resurrected the Osama bin Laden boogeyman when he got his hand caught in the illegal wiretapping cookie jar. This shows that it's not about protecting the country, but creating a surveillance state that watches Americans and that is answerable to no one. Clearly evidence of corruption.

But it gets worse. When it became clear that leading Republican Dick Armey of Texas was not behind the Iraq war, vice-president Cheney paid him a visit and flat out lied to him.

As reported in Gellman's new book Angler, "He told Armey two things that he's never said in public and that are not true," Gellman continued. "He said that Saddam personally, and his family, had direct ties with al Qaeda. And he said that Iraq was making substantial progress towards a miniature nuclear weapon."

So the vice president deliberately falsified our intelligence in order to convince Dick Armey to support the war. Sadly, it worked. If deliberately lying to start a war isn't immoral, then what is?

"(foreign and domestic) pointed to Saddam as being one of the sponsors and a proponent of terror against the United States."

What terrorism did Saddam sponsor against the United States?

"the World and particularly the Iraqi people are way better off with those guys off of the planet."

This is your opinion, which is really nothing but an expression of your blind support for George Bush, but this is the wrong question anyway. The question is how is the United States better off occupying and fighting in a country that did not threaten us?

"program and how when things got hot, most WMD’s were moved into Syria."

Do you still believe this? Every investigation into the WMD fiasco has concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq was developing WMD. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that any WMD were secretly sent to Syria.

"So, I don’t see how GW’s push to keep this country secure for the last 7 years has been so corrupt and immoral."

This is ahistorical. Perhaps if Americans were being killed by the truckload during the Clinton Administration at the hands of radical Muslims. Or if Russian Communists were killing thousands of Americans throughout the 1980s, you could argue that the illegal measures taken by the Bush Administration have made us safer. But this wasn't happening. We are no more safer in the Bush Administration than in previous administrations. However, unlike previous administrations, the Bush Administration is arguing for extra powers, more surveillance powers, and the ability to exercise them with impunity.

You simply cannot assert that in the absence of such measures we would less safe because there's no evidence that any of these extra measures have done anything to protect Americans. You are simply falling for the oldest statist trick in the book: government scares the people; people give the government more power.

The lies and illegalities of the Bush Administration do not bother you because you are not really a conservative. You are simply a Bush Cultist who likes Bush and repeats the talking points of his administration.

"the Bush Administration is arguing for extra powers, more surveillance powers, and the ability to exercise them with impunity."

I hope this is a historical response by you because last time I looked, Bush has been out of office, or at least ineffective, for some months now. If it is, ok, if not, proof again that you have Bush on the brain and are and will continue to live in the past.

From what you write, I would bet you're more fanatic in your hatred of Bush than I am in my marginal support of a few of his policies. As for being a Conservative, maybe I'm not but you can't judge how much or little I am by using my arguments here as a barometer. You don't know me dude.

Frankly Eric, I think your obsession with all things Bush is unhealthy to the extent that you completely dismiss the horror that was 9/11 that Bush, his administration and the country had to deal with. Memories do seem to be short in this country.

So I don't think you can compare even remotely what Bush had to deal with during his Presidency with that of what other modern day Presidents had to deal with because they had a cakewalk compared to GW. Thus the extremity of how he needed to handle the situation.

But it doesn't matter because you can’t come to terms with any of it. You take the approach of an expert who has all of the data and who is assessing right and wrong after the fact with the luxury of assessing a crisis from a distance. You choose to use that as a mechanism to bash Bush when in this particular case, there was a lot of gray in the middle that needed to be dealt with and we’re lucky we had a decisive adult in office to deal with it.

Ultimately, we could go back and forth about this but we just disagree and I obviously think you’re wrong and you think the same.

Just consider that there was one other President who was in power the last time this country was attacked and he too took control by twisting arms and not so marginally skirting the Constitution. I’m sure that some disagreed with him too but like Bush, he did what he thought was right to protect this country.

ASDF,

Obviously you lack the ability to read because I said in my previous post that this was something I posted to you last year.

I don't dismiss the horror of 9/11; I just strongly oppose the cynical and unethical manner in which the Bush Administration used that horror to promote their own policies -- policies that were not in our national interest. However, because you are not a conservative these policies don't bother you. You support Bush because you're a Bush Cultist.

You are no more capable of recognizing Bush's sins than Michael Moore is able to recognize the fact that OJ Simpson is a murderer. To Michael Moore whites are racist; society is institutionally racist and any evidence that condemns a famous black man is just an elaborate plot by whites to stick it to a successful black men. He is impervious to all the facts. You simply pooh pooh any criticism of President Bush as being liberal -- even though it isn't -- and then make inane arguments because your ideology -- just as inane as Moore's -- begins with the premise that Bush is a good man, with a good character, trying to protect the country. Naturally if you begin with this premise, and take the premise as axiomatic, you are going to reach this conclusion as well.

Arguing with you is pointles because you're the one who makes inane and childish references to Hurricane Haliburton machines and just dismiss any criticism as "liberal," despite the fact that I could quote conservatives who make the same arguments.

Idiots (,Garden of),

There are degrees of difference between the clip that Dan links to and somebody calmly saying "George Bush follows God". First of all there's the calmness portion, second of all, we have the lack of acknowledgment from Bush as another component. It doesn't make it the same "religious experience" simply because they both concern religion (Being somewhat notable as noisome to you, perhaps.)

The second link is interesting because although the CNN clip does not document the "back and forth" from the Obama group that the reporter mentions was across the street. It only documents what was called back. Otherwise, you have people making jokes. The enthusiasm is parallel to the "back and forth" "across the street" but is deliberately shown out of the context that it occurs in to show that McCain supporters are capable of shouting such things (but we already knew that one could shout "terrorist"). The enthusiasm aspect is there, but again there's no sheer gratuity or acknowledgment.

Again, apparently, the enormity of the President of the USA planning 3,000 deaths doesn't strike many as newsworthy, even if somebody were to shout it. And so the press doesn't go out of its way to document the "incivility" of believing this, and the type of person who holds to this idea. However, the press is more than willing to "expose" conservatives as uncivil because they can should their opinions.

Hilarious, that this guy wants a career in the media! Yet, he wants his MacDonalds job to the worth more than the market regards it. Maybe he can the get cheerleading job when Chris Matthews gives it up. I haven't seen many things much less worth of a college diploma than "Communications major".

Sorry Eric, I wasn't sure that if the last part was recent or part of your research into the archives of the Flynn Files. So I stand corrected on that point.

If only I had the time and inclination that you obviously do to delve into reams of previous posts.

You know, you are obviously a smart guy, but you think like a Lilliputian. I expect you're not a very deliberate person because if you were, you'd understand how and why Bush did what he had to do.

For people like you, the perception outweighs the substance and I'm just glad that people like you are not in any position of responsibility where hard fast decisions need to be made and some toughness if required.

Anyway, we really don't have to worry about any of this going forward because there's a new sheriff in town and with him, the world is more dangerous and our country less secure.

ASDF,

Your bana-lity knows no depth. If Bush is interested in protecting this country and has the best interests of this country mind -- and always wants to keep this country safe -- then why did he refer to the Minuteman as vigilantes?

I could not agree with you more about that. But as I've written, if you had taken the time to pay attention, there are many things about the guy that I particularly didn't like.