Who’s Behind the Anti-Obama Billboards?

Posted by majestic on April 4, 2010

billboard From 11 Alive:

ATLANTA – 11Alive News first broke the story about several anti-Obama billboards that popped up around Atlanta two days ago.

On Friday we found out who’s behind them.

“There’s a group of entrepreneurs, small business owners, that have frankly just said, ‘we’ve had enough’ and they’re taking the gloves off,” says Atlanta author and motivational speaker Tommy Newberry.

Newberry is an outspoken conservative whose books include, “The War on Success: How the Obama Agenda is Shattering the American Dream”.

He has now come forward as the spokesman for what he says are about a dozen business owners who hatched the idea for the billboards about two months ago.

He says they are political conservatives who are unsatisfied and troubled with the direction the Obama administration is taking America.

“The health care bill was maybe the final straw that set them off,” Newberry adds.

He says they asked themselves, “why don’t we use the free market to help slow the slide into socialism?”

They launched their website, Billboardsagainstobama.com, about two weeks ago and began putting up a half dozen of the rotating digital billboards Wednesday.

The billboard messages include “Stop Obama Socialism” and “Now It’s Personal. America’s Coming for You Congress! Vote Liberals Out in 2010!”…

[continues at 11 Alive]

Posted in: Obama, Politics

Hadrian999

2 things, kind of arrogant to say they speak for all of america,
kind of cute that they think election results have anything to with government policy
GoodDoktorBad

Poor artist rendition of Obama. Somehow I don't think the artist likes him very much. It reminds me of one of those old Amos and Andy type depictions. Racist undertones galore…….
Spooky

I just love the fact that these are all going up in Atlanta.
Spooky

What's that? No don't worry! We'll get really big billboards!
theearthworm

funny how anti-bush and anti-war and 911 truth billboards are not allowed from what i have heard.
tonyviner

I keep hearing these people going on about how bad the government is. My question is, “Where the hell were these people when all of these problems were being started?” Obama is by no means a white knight (pun), but he does have quite a mess to deal with. It's just too bad he is starting to seem more like the politician that we all hoped he wasn't.
tonyviner

I saw them in Kansas City recently, as well.
honu

Agree with you…where do these F-tards get off thinking they speak for all of America. In case these douches don't remember, even in 2000, Bush didn't win the majority vote. Any of these a–holes who think this country is truly right of center needs an enema.
Spooky

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. Still, it seems odd that they aren't putting them in D.C. to me. I think its the “Hey Congress” bit that bothers me, that and the implication that liberals aren't “American” or something to that effect.
xylus

Billboards against Obama?! I fear they will discover more enemies and, soon, it will be billboards against the world! Oh billboards, why have you turned against us?
5by5

Intentionally poor. They've given him a stereotypical large, hooked “Jewish nose” because why play on one irrational racist fear when you can play on two?
5by5

Exactly. I don't recall these people losing their damn minds when Bush was creating the unfunded mandate of the Prescription Drug Act which also prevented the gov't from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices.

We didn't go from a $3 billion dollar surplus to a $14 trillion dollar deficit in the year since Obama was elected. That jump off a financial cliff happened well before he took office when the drunken frat boy was out using the national credit card on a spending binge for crap none of us needed.

Now as any Keynsian economist will tell you, President Obama actually NEEDS to spend even more (ironically) to supercharge and a economy to pick up the slack for what corporate American is failing to do.

I don't understand people who fear the government here either. You live in a DEMOCRACY. Your voice may be small, but collectively it isn't small, and moreover, at least you HAVE a voice in a Democratic government like the American system.

You have ZERO voice in a corporation.
brentskinner5

Ah, yes, the “Everyone who dislikes Obama is necessarily racist” theory — come up with a well-reasoned argument in defense of the man's policies. An argument bereft of emotion would be nice, please. Thank you.
brentskinner5

You end up with ZERO voice in Socialism, the very worst of monopolies — government monopoly. But that's a nuance that'll always be lost on folks like you. It's pretty damn good entertainment, actually, watching all the bitter clingers cling bitterly to their hatred of Bush every time anyone presents the self-evident regarding Obama et al. I'm running out of popcorn.
brentskinner5

Keynes?!?!?!?

Please.

In the late 1930s, even the top Democrat in Congress went on a bit of a crusade, doing his best to spread word that Keynsian economics were FAILING.

Only WWII got us out of that mess. Maybe we'll need another huge war (e.g., on a world war scale); maybe that's been the plan all along.
GoodDoktorBad

Why do you assume I like Obama or his policies? Why do you assume that I think everbody who doesn't like Obama is a racist?
My comment pertained to the graphic depiction of Obama's face. If you don't agree with my take on that tidbit, oh well.
Also, an argument bereft of emotion is not an argument, a dis-passionate discussion is what you ask for. Funny how you demand from me that which you yourself cannot deliver…
brentskinner5

Funny how you read into my words all sorts of emotions that aren't even there. Funny, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you indeed think most tea party people are racists. You're right: I've assumed. But it would be pretty funny indeed if what I've assumed weren't in fact true. By the way, a dispassionate discussion is not what I've requested. You can be as emotional as you want in delivering an argument based on reason, not emotion. But I'm not surprised you have trouble grasping the finer nuances of such things.
brentskinner5

$14 trillion happened long before Obama took office? Right. How long are you jokers going to ride that horse? Until it collapses, just like our economy under the weight of Keynesian economic policies repeatedly shown to be UNSOUND.

You just might want to take a look at the following graphic, which is based on NONPARTISAN CBO estimates:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/wp-content...

Oh, and before your fingers spring to your keyboard to declare me a knuckle-dragging Bush follower, please try to get it into your thick skull that he was not a conservative, and neither was the batch of Republicans he had in tow. That means we ought to be upset with those Republicans, but NOT with conservative ideology.

Cue emotional response labeling all conservatives as gay-hating, nuclear war-loving evangelicals in three, two, one…
voxmagi

What a lovely mish mash of WorldNetDaily psuedo-babble you've managed string in between hyperbole and insults. Unfortunately, it loudly declares that your 'research' consists of pithy quotes from neo-con policy advocates. Keynsian economics works as a predictor of economic stability, not as a guaranteed cure-all, but thats still better than the Chicago school of neo-liberalism which has a 30+ year track record of dismantling economies faster than war, plague, famine and socialism combined. It's only taken 30 years of deregulation to transform America from superpower into super debt slave…thanks Milton Friedman…we were so tired of wealth and success and a healthy middle class! At last the burden has been lifted from us!

You've managed to fling quotes from advocates that characterize themselves as free market ideologues (not racist, gay baiting religious nuts)…but who really support the freedom of global organizations to act without restraint by pesky things like the rule of law or the will of the people of nations. The word socialism gets used in these contexts as a pejorative to blacklist any attempt by democracies to enforce the rule of law on corporate entities.

Where the social conservatism comes into the mix: you can't sell people free market ideals as a solo dish. Making billionaires into trillionaires just doesn't fill people's hearts with romance. You have to offer something that impassions crowds. And so we get social conservatism attached like a leech to the party most willing to back neo-liberal economics, circa 1980 Reaganism to now. That brings the fringe into the fold, but unfortunately its created a party so backward in every respect that centrists shrink from it in horror. Emotion based politics always has an edge over policy based politics, and its a damn shame, but its still true, and its all thats keeping the neo-cons afloat after 30 years of ripping the sanity and respectability out of American banking and investment oversight.

PS: I harshly critique Obama as well…and will continue to do so for as long as this administration continues to nursemaid some of the worst policies from the last 3 decades, but that doesn't make the new Right any less wrong.
GoodDoktorBad

I'm not sure what your so angry about, whatever it is, you are really comical. Thanks for the show…
brentskinner5

Great parrying tactic, there — disregard my points and, instead, label me as an inexplicably angry rube. I don't believe your feigned confusion for even a moment, but I *am* glad you find me comical; by design, my insults were peppered with humor, after all — to help you get through the pain.
brentskinner5

I just accidentally deleted a long response to your comment, but I'm too tired to write it again. Just know that I indeed responded. Maybe I'll rewrite it later.
GoodDoktorBad

You have been in attack mode since your first reply, so yes I suppose you do appear as “an inexplicably angry rube”.You seem to enjoy creating scenarios about me in your mind. Frankly, I could give no particular support for Obama or just about any other useless politician on the “right” or “left”. They pretty much all leave a bad taste in my mouth.
As for teabaggers and racism, there are obviously some tea baggers that have racist motivations, whether they all do or not, I couldn't say. In some ways I even sympathize with their views. They are just people after all, with legitimate complaints. But also, in my view, it represents a “Mob” mentality, a kind of madness created out of confusion and frustration. I can see it, and by noticing the process, I've managed to avoid the worst of the madness so far….or so I hope…
I'm sure we can all agree at least that things are screwed up here in America.

I really wish race were a non-issue, but I can see that its not, at least for some.
I don't know and I don't really care what your political views are, since personally, I'm a bit anti-political if anything. How's this? Fuck Obama and fuck the teabaggots too. Equal opportunity angst.

Oh no, was that an emotional display?
brentskinner5

I quoted nobody directly. I simply mentioned historical fact reported in the business press — Bloomberg, I believe it was. And what do you have against WorldNetDaily? Please refrain from presuming that I'm somehow against all things regulatory. Only an idiot is against regulation, and only idiots think the answer is always and necessarily more regulation.

We must draw on solutions in accordance with their spectra of applicability — with a sense for the ways in which that applicability changes as other variables change. Or is that too difficult for our political class? Deregulation tends to invite problems; expecting the millions who comprise a vibrant free market (one that no human can fully comprehend) to abdicate its organic nature to a central command, which by nature will necessarily be myopic, is asinine. And we only need to look to the former Soviet Union to learn what tends to happen to all the Left's dearly-held principals when the extreme control they advocate gets implemented: rampant pollution, widespread poverty, a general malaise when it comes to life itself.

Irony never had it so good.

So, it appears that we agree. But I'm sure as hell curious how you can possibly attribute our country's problem to the putative sins of Milton Friedman. Did you forget that we eventually balanced the budget once true libertarians, championing his ideas, wrested control of congress from neo-liberals who'd already shown themselves to be complicit in a Clinton agenda that, in '92-'94, was already beginning to look a lot like Obama's?

I think it's abundantly clear from the few comments I've left here that I'm no fan of GWB. Still, the problems that neo-liberals love to point to as his fault never really gained traction until the liberals' own mid-2000s majorities in congress got what they wanted legislatively and ignored GWB et al.'s repeated attempts to stop it. Before that, GWB had razor-thin majorities in both houses — hardly an environment to ram through right-wing legislation. And, even with sizable majorities in the legislative branches, Obama has still been vexed by an opposition — and with a mainstream press corps firmly on his side, no less.
NoOneofNote

It is worthy of mention that a bottle of water cost 300,000 times more then an equal amount of public water and is not held to the same health standards (infact only about a third of all bottled water tests above tap water health regualtions and in certain studies up to a third of all samples actually contained toxins.) It’s also important to point out that before the implication of public fire protection people frequently had their homes burn to the ground while negotiating with the private fire companies.

The only point is that while a free market is healthy for luxaries, no private organization has ever provided a better human need.
NoOneofNote

It is worthy of mention that a bottle of water cost 300,000 times more then an equal amount of public water and is not held to the same health standards (infact only about a third of all bottled water tests above tap water health regualtions and in certain studies up to a third of all samples actually contained toxins.) It's also important to point out that before the implication of public fire protection people frequently had their homes burn to the ground while negotiating with the private fire companies.

The only point is that while a free market is healthy for luxaries, no private organization has ever provided a better human need.

Who’s Behind the Anti-Obama Billboards?

more disinformation

more disinformation