Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Why is Obama Destroying America?

I was on Bill Bennett this morning and we talked for about 15 minutes on the topic:
Why is Obama Destroying America?

I did not convince him, I hope I influenced his thinking, but 3 million other people were listening.
And I managed to get off every point I had hoped to.

I'd appreciate comments on the conversation.

Pascal Fervor had asked me to wake him in LA yesterday if I thought I was going to be on, but my comment did not fit the format and was only referred to since I had dropped the call.
So I did not wake him again today :).


  1. You both make good points. I agree Obama istrying to destroy what you and I view as "America", but the issue is is it on purpose or are his intentions misguided? Obama and his minions would claim they are looking to make a better opportunity, to fix what is wrong. You and I would argue he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    In the ned it is about whose vision of America prevails. Unfortunately too many people do not care and the media is on the other team.

    1. "are his intentions misguided?" I was hoping to prove his intent.
      Now, I suppose you could begin to question malicious intent...

    2. Mark Levin, in tonight's first hour (on going), is proving malicious intent. Catch his podcast for 7/15. It will post sometime between 9 &10 PM EST at http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts&id=191&is_corp=0

      In his second segment at about 10 minutes in. I'm not sure what he said in the first segment cuz I missed it, so there may be preliminaries there

    3. After the 1st 5 -6 minutes, it appears to consume the entire first hour of his commercial interrupted show (6-37 minutes of the podcast)

  2. Very nice Ed.

    Don't fret. I think you did influence his thinking. What he is willing to say is another matter. Bill Bennett remains the most diplomatic of the Salem broadcasting stable. Indeed, among most all of the talkers.

    Listen how he lays out what the obstacles are for your views to be accepted and thus for your wish to be fulfilled. He would never call out the Soviet-style Media (SSM) by that name as I do, but he is addressing how hard it is to break their influence on the American people.

    Ponder his question to you this way: "How are you going to break through the indoctrination and its daily reinforcement by the SSM? "

    Notice he was not interested in discussing motive (He's unconvinced yet that understanding them can help. That needs work). He says he's more concerned about Obama ACTIONS.

    Then your response, for next time, could be "Let us accept your [Bill's] presumption that Obama's actions are that of a sane actor": it does not take long for a sane actor to assess the consequences of radical actions.

    Consider just two of them: open borders and shutting down power plants. Health risks due to illness of the invaders (let alone hostiles hidden among them) and deaths due to the next bad winter, respectively. Those are foregone conclusions and can't be called mistakes. They'd be collateral damage believed acceptable going in. And both involve his taking extra-legal actions. The first in ignoring laws to protect the border, using the military if needed. The second in selectively applying the laws through the unanswerable EPA bureaucrats essentially trampling the Bill of Rights.

    And beyond the unlawfulness, who gave him the right to make the unilateral decision that such unprecedented levels of collateral damage are acceptable? And what say did (or will) the victims have had in the discussion? Will the discussion have been one sided (Obama's opinion) and will another set of debates have been declared over?

    "Bill. Setting aside all other influences that I mentioned, isn't it clear that Obama's overreach for power is motive enough?"

    Yes, you got in most all your points. Bennett was very open today to you. Keep it up as long as he lets you. Maybe prepare more. Presume you will have less time most times.

    About the only thing you didn't connect was Obama senior's anti-British colonialism and how it is easy to see America as the heir to it (English IS the language of world business). Sadly, that could be a hard sell because so few people would know history (British colonialism? WTF?) But it could help when Bennett is finally willing to discuss motive, as it would tickle his own historical memory.

    1. You just wrote a blog post.
      All excellent points. Thanks.
      As you say, I think there's only so far he's willing to go on air.

  3. Ed, I think Bennett's on your team but, if he agrees, he gets the "Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage" moniker most Conservative talk show hosts don't want...the 'zealot'. I thought his questions to you were excellent and gave you even more opening to view your opinion that Obama IS consciously doing this.
    I thought Bennett's question, basically, "SO WHAT? If that's true, what then?" was important. And I liked your answer.
    I don't know if you listen to Medved; I like his show very much but find him utterly naïve from time to time when not agreeing with a more Conservative caller than he is. I think Bennett isn't naïve......he just wants that open discussion and never told you you were wrong. Good stuff.
    I agree with you, by the way. BIG time, as you know!

    Pascal...remember when one of the VERY first things Obama did from OUR White House which AMERICA had rec'd, which was the bust of Winston Churchill?...sent right back to England because Obama didn't want to see the "colonialist's" face.

    1. Good memory Z. Yep, that does add evidence of how well tied Obama Jr is to Obama Sr's views. Very first thing upon arriving at the White House? Wow.

      And I agree with you that Bennett seems to endorse Ed's view, just does so diplomatically. Very unlike Medved. And never forget that Medved started out life as a very strident Leftist who engaged in agit-prop. I think he's still doing it to constitutionalists -- he certainly gives Leftists more room to spew their nonsense than lets conservative callers ever get the last word or admit they're right (unless it serves his own interests).

    2. 1. It occurred to me to call Dr. Marty, a frequent caller and friend of Bills.
      Dr. Marty is a brilliant man and I managed to locate him and call his office and leave a message. He called me yesterday afternoon and we talked for about 40 minutes about this subject.
      I was thrilled that he was happy I called!
      He pretty much agrees that Bill knows better.
      2. I listened to the rest of yesterdays show and Bill had a call sparked by mine and Bill was pretty negative thinking we were demanding a personal attack on Obama that would blow up in our face.
      Today, another regular caller (Original Dave) called and agreed with me also, whereupon Bill admitted briefly that we were right, but it we must avoid personal attacks on the president lest it helps him.
      30 sec audio

  4. Thanks, Pascal. I follow Medved to a certain point and then he goes somewhere that leaves me thinking 'WHAT?" I do think he's a Conservative, but VERY naïve about the damage Obama's doing, don't you?

    Ed, so cool that Dr Marty called, tho I don't know who he is, sounds great!
    I do agree with Bennett in that I believe the Left's trying HARD to tick us all of so badly that we have Palin asking for impeachment, Boehner suing. ... it goes right into the scoffing Leftys' hands..it's PURE ALINSKY. BUT, what the heck DO we do? How DO we fight the ridiculous lies and bad behavior of this government?

    By the way....you probably know who Brent Bozell is....I learned last night from a dear friend who knows him well that he's William Buckley's nephew! Cool, huh?

  5. Ed, you made calm well reasoned points. And we know more about obama that you just can't bring up in that sort of venue right? Like proof of Everything is in some filing cabinet somewhere...
    Of course anyone who hasn't gotten it by now....

  6. I liked everything you said except the opening slap to Mark Levin and his "get off the phone" schtick. (maybe you were playing BB so he wouldn't interrupt you though. If so, well played!) Mark Levin gets it. BB obviously does not, or if he does, then Z is correct again that he is more concerned with his image. I, for one, am tired of the namby pamby approach. BILL: "for the sake of argument" "let's assume (obama) wants to ruin America." Really Bennett? That big of stretch for you pal?

    1. Well, I was comparing styles.
      Bill allows more slack, especially when a lib calls.
      He lets them hang themselves.
      But he is very caller friendly in general which is the attribute was trying to recognize and encourage.
      I'm tired of the namby pamby approach also, which is why I was calling him without alienating him.
      He's getting an earful now, since I called.
      I think he's getting it.
      He's a voice in the repub party and I'd like him to speak for us.

  7. amen bro..it's been the agenda from day one with ahem so called Reverend anti semite anti America Wright~!

    1. Calling things by there proper name.
      Not name calling.
      Just saying: They're communists.
      Victoria Jackson: "There's A Communist Living in the White House!!"

  8. Sometimes I think Bennett and Medved (tho Bennett can never be taken for a lib) are less afraid of Obama as they are of Republicans being looked upon as LOONS with conspiracy theories. You know? I do know that even I am starting to look at the looniest conspiracy theories of the last five years and thinking "Man, were they RIGHT?"!!
    Jerry's right....is it a stretch to hear ALL THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE and think Obama's NOT TRYING to ruin much of our country as we know her?

    1. Sometimes I feel like I'm wearing a tin foil hat....

  9. A couple of comments bothered me a great deal about this conversation, actually. I will begin with the supposition that having a communist president is no longer a big deal. Maybe it is just I ... but does Bennett have any idea how many Americans died facing communism on the field of battle? How is it no longer a big deal when an American politician embraces communist ideology, which is antithetical to every one of our founding documents? Honestly, this notion that whether or not our president is a communist is no big deal makes me ill.

    Similarly, Obama was elected based on his promise to “fundamentally change” the United States of America. Begin with our constitution ... examine what this means, in fact ... and tell me again (a) this president is not destroying America, and (b) why it isn’t such a big deal. Fundamental change means destroying the old while bringing in the new. Who is unable to understand this?

    We are sliding into an abyss, Ed ... and Stalin’s prediction of 1933 is coming true. The communists are defeating us from within.