Visit Rubin Reports.

The Obama-Romney debate has been analyzed from many angles, especially about who won. Yet in the course of the event, Obama said what might be the most revealing slip he has ever made. This one phrase tells more about Obama and the ideology of his left-wing supporters than every other word they have spoken in the last four years.


It came near the end of the debate when Obama was summarizing his policies. He was clearly on comfortable ground, going through all of his cliches. But then, lulled into carelessness by rote repetition of his basic slogans, Obama got lost for a second–as demonstrated by his trademark stutter when he becomes unglued–and dropped in an amazing admission. Obama said:

All those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination, is — is channeled and [emphasis added] — and they have an opportunity to succeed. And everybody’s getting a fair shot. And everybody’s getting a fair share — everybody’s doing a fair share, and everybody’s playing by the same rules.

Obama was flattering the American people (genius, grit, determination) and promising that everyone will get a fair share (redistribution of wealth?) and fair shot–terms he has never actually defined. As for everybody playing by the same rules, Obama and his supporters favor different rules for each race, gender, and ethnic group, not to mention crony capitalists.

Yet it is that word “channeled” that gives the game away. Channeled by whom? The government, of course, and the great geniuses whose ideology and book-learning seeks to dominate the economy and culture, forcing people to do things for their “own good.” Who has ever proposed that some power should override the liberty of the American people to channel them, to tell them what to do?

The problem is that in a free enterprise (with reasonable regulation) country under the Constitution, Americans decide for themselves what to do. Nobody channels them, a phrase which sounds like a rancher driving his cattle to market. “Channeled” is a nice way to say manipulated, pushed, forced, and ordered.

We are not speaking here of laws against, say, murder or robbery or littering. These are clear and explicit, accepted by a consensus. This is something far more hidden, in which the implications of laws–for example, how Obamacare is intended to produce nationalized medicine–lead to something that the public opposes or certainly doesn’t want. And it is far wider and more systematic than under any previous government, too.

Thus, Americans will be told what they can do in pursuit of good health, what they can eat, how they can do business, what they are supposed to think and know about, what their religious institutions can do, and so on. Can one imagine any of the great American presidents talking about how he was going to “channel” the people with an increasingly large government that soaked up all the capital; determined the investment; set the rules to direct the health system, energy production, the auto industry, and just about everything else? Clearly, Obama wasn’t channeling George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

In that moment he revealed himself totally. And, as far as I’m aware, nobody even noticed it.

PS: Another typical Obama moment came after the debate when he ridiculed Romney for saying that there were no laws that rewarded companies with tax breaks for exporting American jobs. Any real intellectual or serious leader would simply have cited the specific laws to which he was referring, but Obama merely kept saying how silly–or dishonest–Romney had been without giving any evidence. And any other president would have been pressed to provide evidence. A small incident but quite revealing of how fantasy-based administration policy has become.

Visit Rubin Reports.



  1. Barack Obama’s Demolition of America
    by Josh greenberger

    (October 3, 2012) This is probably the first time in history that a bad economy has worked in favor of a president. It seems, no matter which way the unemployment figures go, very little negatively impacts Barack Obama’s polls.

    Excerpts from the following two articles inadvertently give some insight into this:

    Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2010: “One in Six Americans Receives Government Assistance:”

    “Fifty million [people] are on Medicaid, a record high and a whopping 17 percent increase since December 2007. Food stamp enrollment has climbed nearly 50 percent since 2008 [the year Obama won the election] and now stands at 40 million, or one in seven people. Ten million Americans receive unemployment benefits, and 4.4 million get direct cash assistance, an 18 percent increase from two years ago.

    “And these are the numbers from only four of the more than 70 welfare programs funded by the federal government.”

    Two years later –, August 9, 2012: “More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare:”

    “According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.”

    That’s 1 out of 3. That is, the number of people on public assistance more than doubled in only two years.

    How does this help Obama? Well, in better economic times, many people who were out of work would rather get back to work than remain on public assistance for one simple reason; their jobs paid better.

    Things today are different. The job market has so deteriorated that many people on public assistance are more afraid of losing their assistance than they are of not finding a job; because many of them have already long given up on finding a job, or finding a job that pays enough for them to get off public assistance.

    So, when you have a president who is constantly promising to give you some one else’s money (“spreading the wealth”) and offering you easy access to public assistance, the natural response, under such dire circumstances, is to welcome such assistance with open arms. And the worse the economy gets, and the greater the increase in the number of people becoming dependent on public assistance, the greater the support for the candidate people perceive as most likely to help them maintain their public assistance.

    I spoke to one woman who said she did not care for Barack Obama but planned on voting for him because she didn’t want to lose her government benefits. What some people don’t seem to realize is that a president with a greater economic sense than Barack Obama (Mitt Romney, for example), could greatly improve the economy, creating a plethora of jobs, thereby eliminating the need for many people to require public assistance. But that’s besides the point.

    The point is that the distressing economic situation we’re in at the moment may not be an accident. There may be more than Barack Obama’s incompetence at play here. It’s beginning to look more like our sharp economic downturn during the Obama presidency may have been deliberately orchestrated from the start.

    Many of the economic hardships thrust upon the U.S. by Obama — from excessive business regulations to oil-drilling restrictions to tax increases — was, I’m convinced, a deliberate prelude to eventually handing out easy government assistance, which, in turn, would prompt voters, out of necessity, to vote for Obama.

    If this is so, the Obama presidency, without having created any significant new products or services to stimulate the economy, could be the biggest ponzi scheme in history; people are being given billions of dollars in assistance from a stagnant economy that’s already in the red. This ponzi scheme is likely to blow up long after the 2012 elections. You’d think a president would recognize this. I believe Obama does.

    Every vote for Barack Obama is, in my opinion, another nail in the coffin of America, as we know it. If this is all just too mind boggling for you to accept, perhaps you should just ask yourself a simple question: If Obama couldn’t fix the mess (allegedly) left by George W. Bush, what are the chances of him fixing the even greater mess left by himself? Probably between slim and nil.

  2. there are many here in the u.s. who love the Lord and love the children of Abraham;Issac ;Jacob….. We pray daily for you. Pray for us that we be not found fighting against The Holy One of Israel..That we be not deceived.. but found true and faithful To the Living God.. Whom we matter come what may.. Let us be found on The Lord's side…If our leaders choose not for Israel; intercede with The Lord on our behalf that He shall be merciful to us here who believe and follow Him.. He Who lives forever…

  3. The major recent shift of a number of Democrat voters along with Independents toward Romney is the result of the Romney-Obama debate, which clearly showed that President Obama is running the White House as he conducted himself during the debate: Lazy and disengaged as correctly described by John Sununu on FOX and NBC. Voters found out that President Obama cannot think on his feet. This also came across during the UNIVISION interview with Latin America anchor Jorge Ramos.

    President Obama’s supporters and even some media commentators found their own credibility destroyed when it became obvious that the White House is really being run by political strategists (who know nothing about economics and foreign policy) and a president who must have a teleprompter to read words prepared by handlers who to this day have had the press and media in their back pockets. For four years the president’s handlers and the main stream media have kept the real Barack Obama out of America’s living rooms, and it all came crashing down this past week.

  4. How can Israel's enemies take this seriously when the Nazis never faced any consequences? Most of them were rescued by America, and lived out happy, prosperous lives working for the U.S. government! Just as America is rewarding Israel's enemies today!

  5. The past week has been one of constant bad news for Obama. The debate, the continued stream of damning information about his policies in Libya, with direct refusal to provide security when it was twice requested, and his lack of leadership in Syria. Now Turkey is BEGGING Obama to wake up. Too late. Go see "Obama 2016." Google: Barry Soetoro. He is no friend of Israel.

  6. Angela le Page, willard romney does not like Israel and in his latest staements said he wants to negotiate peace with the palistianians!
    He has now taken the same exact approach as President Obama, so according to you, willard is going to face the wrath og g-d. You do know that willard does not like Jews and agrees with the Mormon Church's baptizing dead Jews into their religion, and he himself has done that many times!

  7. A great catch. I watched the dedate and didn't catch this but the use of this word is likely exactly what Obama was thinking when making his famous comment about "fundamentally transforming America" and when he complained that the Constitution doesn't specify what government can do, a fact he obviously intends to change as part of this great, undefined transformation. "Channeling" is obviously what he means to do and the more one thinks about it the more understandable his actions become when considered in this context.

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...