Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

Mr. L Cuts Through the Nonsense on Islamic Supremacists

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Telling You What the Media Won't

Take a little time and listen to Mr. L’s Tavern from Thursday, the 13th of September.  His commentary is on the money.  It’s disgusting that our lame-stream media won’t offer honest appraisals like this, but it’s the reason they’re slowly losing the last of their readers and viewers. Mr. L takes on the coddling of Islamic supremacists, as performed [again] by Barack Obama and his foreign policy.  It’s a disaster for this country, and whether you believe he is simply naive, or you believe that Barack Obama is actively engaged in undermining this nation, it’s impossible to dismiss what Mr. L explains in this installment of his show:

 

Be sure to check out Mr. L’s Tavern for more great commentaries!

Advertisements

Obama Administration Had 48 Hour Warning – Did Nothing

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Arabs Spring a Trap

The UK Independent is reporting that there had been a high level security leak that provided the militants al-Qaeda the information necessary to carry out the attacks in Benghazi, including timing about Amb. Steven’s visit, and information about the safe-house location that ultimately came under mortar fire.  Worse, the White House knew about the threat but did nothing to pass the information along to personnel on the ground in Libya, waiting until after the disaster to send a special Marine anti-terror team into Libya.  No warnings were issued to personnel that would have permitted them to call off the Benghazi trip or otherwise augment security.  It was a set-up.  It had nothing to do with any film, except perhaps as a cover.  With this new information, it should be clear that Barack Obama is incompetent to lead this nation, and his lack of leadership is now a security threat all its own.

The entire attack was orchestrated, and it is now becoming clear that somebody who had extremely sensitive inside information about the movements of the Ambassador and other Embassy and Consular personnel must have provided that information to the attackers.   Muslim Brotherhood links to the White House must be examined, as must all Libyans, or other personnel working in and around the Department of State both in Washington and on the ground in Libya.   This crisis evinces the most stunning foreign policy and intelligence failures since the “Bay of Pigs” in 1962, and it appears to be worsening.

Given past threats on or around the 9/11 anniversary, one would think there would have been at least general warnings sent out to Embassies and Consulates worldwide, but neither the State Department under the leadership mismanagement of Secretary Hillary Clinton nor anybody in the Executive branch answering to the President seems to have been the least bit concerned.  More, we ought to suspect there are insiders in either the State Department or in the Executive branch feeding information to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Not only do we have amateurs in the White House and in the State Department, but we must have somebody playing for the other team in close proximity to sensitive information.   Barack Obama has left us financially broken, militarily naked, and isolated from our only reliable ally in the region, Israel.  He has no time for Benjamin Netanyahu, no time for security or intelligence briefings, and no time to lead this nation.  Meanwhile, the lapdog media in the US continues to pretend none of this is happening, while  none of our reporters will even attempt to ask President Obama a question.  We had 48 hours or more of warning, and President Obama didn’t bolster security? Nobody in the lame-stream media is even slightly curious?

This is a dereliction of duty that shouldn’t be forgiven or forgotten.  I don’t want to hear any excuses about him having a blind spot with respect to Islam because of his acculturation.  No way.  This is the President who bowed his way through the Middle East, and apologizes repeatedly to Islam.  This is a wreck, and he made it.

Barack Obama’s Despicable Conduct of US Foreign Policy

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Hoisting al Qaeda's Colors

We’ve known for some time that US foreign policy has become the instrument by which America has been ceding its interests around the globe, but what the response of President Obama and his State Department to attacks on US personnel in Libya reveals is a sickness that pervades this administration from top to bottom.   We have seen administrations in the past that have failed to put America’s interests first in our global relations, but it is clear from the record that Obama’s foreign policy consists of a single maxim: “America Last.”  This nightmarish projection of the dreams of Obama’s father onto American foreign policy is not merely wrong-headed, or ill-conceived, but instead plainly and virulently anti-American.  At every turn, Obama and his minions place the interests, the safety, and the security of the American people dead last, and the media scurries to cover it up.  Examining what’s happened in Libya and around the Middle East, it is impossible to conclude that the results were accidental.  The events we’re witnessing are the direct result of a policy that puts America last, at home, and around the world, and Barack Obama is that policy’s author.

On September 11th, 2012, American consulates and embassies came under attack by radical, militant Islamists.  In Benghazi, our ambassador to the nation of Libya, Chris Stevens was murdered, his life poached by murderous thugs who were bent on attacking Americans on the eleventh anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001.  Outside the consulate, the chant  “Take a picture, Obama, we are all Osama,” could be heard, and while Americans were under attack, the first assumption the State Department made about the motives of the attackers was that it had been a backlash against an anti-Islamic film aimed at exposing the crimes of Islam against the Coptic Christians of Egypt.

This is not merely naive, but foolish.  In what is clearly a coordinated effort to attack US possessions and personnel, our ambassador was beaten and killed, dying of “severe asphyxia.”  Meanwhile, Barack Obama does nothing, but as bad as that is, I am astonished by Hillary Clinton’s naive remarks in a statement released in the aftermath of the attacks:

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be.”

These are the words of the Secretary of State of the United States of America?   A few things come immediately to mind:  When many responsible Americans, myself among them, warned that the so-called “Arab Spring” was a farce, we were mocked as “reactionary” and “conspiracy theorists.”  When we looked on in horror as Senator McCain(R-AZ) went to Libya, and actively supported the imposition of a no fly zone in Libya, many were horrified because all the signs were present that we had climbed into bed with al Qaeda and affiliate organizations.  Secretary Clinton’s advancement of the “Arab Spring” and “Democracy Movement” notions of the Obama administration are simply deplorable, and this question posed as a rhetorical device by Clinton simply serve to demonstrate the point that she should resign in disgrace.

Naturally, in her long and rambling statement, she expressed appropriate grief at out losses in Libya, but then she began the excuse-making on behalf of Libya:

“But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post.”

This is disgraceful.  It is true that Libyan security teams moved our consular staff, but what Mrs. Clinton doesn’t state here is that it was these very Libyans who told the militants where they had moved our people, essentially giving them up.   Meanwhile, as of this writing, there are al Qaeda flags flying over at least two US facilities in the Middle East, and other facilities are now under attack, including Yemen, and al-Jazeera is propagandizing as flags are burned in Tunisia.  The consulate in Berlin has been evacuated because of a suspicious package.  Iraqi militants are threatening, and new attacks have been launched on US facilities in Cairo, Egypt.  The Examiner is now reporting that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was murdered.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama is too busy to attend security and intelligence briefings, since he can’t miss a fund-raiser anywhere.  I find it simply mind-numbing that our consular staff in Libya  is left to issue a statement or that Hillary Clinton is issuing statements, while Barack Obama appears long enough to say a few words, takes no questions, and walks away.  “The buck stops here” apparently doesn’t apply to President Obama, but I have some questions:

  • Why wasn’t a coordinated attack of some sort on the 11th of September anticipated by the Obama administration?
  • Why wasn’t security augmented before the attacks?
  • When Ayman al-Zawahiri issued a statement a urging Muslims to rise up and attack Americans around the world, why didn’t this administration react to the danger?
  • Why hasn’t President Obama attended all the security and intelligence briefings?
  • Why is this President still playing patty-cakes with the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Wing of the White House?

Rather than seeking answers to these questions, the American press has largely gone into a protective mode, giving aid and comfort to President Obama, instead going after Mitt Romney by pretending there had been some gaffe by virtue of his statements on this matter.  The truth of the matter is that these had been some of the finest moments of what has been a mostly lackluster campaign by Team Romney.

Ladies and gentlemen, the United States is once again under attack, and as the acts of war against us accumulate at consulates and embassies around the globe, we need a President who is willing to take on the threats arrayed against us.  Governor Sarah Palin made a strong statement on Wednesday, rebuking the intolerably useless under-reaction of the Obama administration.  It’s clear that Barack Obama isn’t going to stand up for America, her interests, or even her citizens serving abroad.  There’s something fundamentally broken with Barack Obama’s worldview that would permit him to continue on his current course in light of all that has happened.  We have a man in the White House who is seeking to damage the country, and through his inaction in the face of mayhem and murder is abetting the enemies of America.  Barack Obama should heed now his own advice to Hosni Mubarak. Speaking of Egypt, Obama said: “[the transition] must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin now.”

Amen.  Go home, Mr. Obama…and take Mrs. Clinton with you.

 

Obama and the Convention of Zero

Saturday, September 8th, 2012

Joining the Collective

In mathematics, it’s known as the empty set.  It’s a grouping with no constituent parts, and if the Democrat National Convention proved anything, it was that this is a party with no heart, no soul, and no intellect.  One of my concerns has long been that the Republicans seem determined to follow in the footsteps of the Democrats, and it is clear that the GOP establishment has its tendencies in the direction of the void, but this week, the whole world was treated to the meaning of what it is to be a Democrat in 2012, and it is horrifying.  One might feel badly having watched the grotesque spectacle of a clear majority of the delegates screaming their contempt for the State of Israel, never mind their dismissal of faith.  Among the sea of screeching voices, there were some who voted for the platform amendments at issue, and it is for them we might have a small measure of pity.  They succeeded strictly because it had been commanded from the top, but you could see it in their faces:  They knew they had lost to at least a simple majority of the delegates.  This is the fruit of three generations of Democrats who have sold their souls to an unerringly anti-American, anti-existence faction that is now an irreducible majority of their party.  Barack Obama stands now as the spokesman for a dead ideology that is both massive and empty at once.

In physics, a singularity is an object of infinite density, exerting a force of gravity from which there can be no escape. One may be pulled into a black hole, one’s very atoms being accreted onto its mass and subsumed into the whole, but one can never escape, and having arrived there, is reduced to approximately nothing.  Nothing escapes.  It is impossible to discern anything about a singularity, because we can’t see them. In this sense, they are nothing.  Not matter, in any form we know. No energy exists there, save for that generated by its gravitational attraction.  No light can escape its grasp, and nothing new is born there.  It is a place to which energy and matter disappear, never to be seen again.  This is the Democrat party, and those faces looking bewildered before the cameras as they realized that despite winning “in the opinion of the chair,” the majority of their party had condemned them to the blackness of their ideological singularity, thus pulling them in.  Those who still wanted Israel’s capital at Jerusalem to be recognized as such were confronted by a mass of people who did not.  Those who still wanted the simple but significant three-letter word “God” to appear in the platform realized they were a minority.  Like the stellar flotsam and jetsam whirling about the event horizon of a singularity, it was too late, and the look on their faces revealed the horror of their situation: The Democrat Party has become a party of death, destruction, and depravity, and drawn in too close, there can be no escape.

Bill Clinton was fetched-in to mount a defense of the indefensible.  As ever, Clinton did what he always does: Lie. Perhaps the more mortifying part of it in this instance is that he too had become part of the flotsam and jetsam, and while he offered one distortion after the next on behalf of a President who he doesn’t like, and who has ravaged the country by design, with malice aforethought, Bill Clinton waggled his finger at the American people just as he did when he said infamously: “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.”  As he lied then, so too did Bill Clinton prevaricate with vigor at the convention.  He attempted with the feigned sincerity of  the ages to tell the American people that they are better off today than they had been four years ago.  Ladies and gentlemen, there can be no forgiveness for this.  There can be no rationalizations.  When a former President of the United States tells a whopper of this scale, what can possibly redeem him?  Naturally, the media loved him, but that had been a predictable result based on an ideology they share.  Once subsumed within the singularity, there is no escape.

Michelle Obama told us she loves her husband.  Forgive me, but I think she lied.  I think Mrs. Obama loves the idea of her husband, but what love is expressed in such a manner?  The entire focus of this speech was to answer Ann Romney, but if she held that as her goal, she failed.  She concocted stories of the early poverty of the couple, but those tales of woe do not match the record.  To say Mrs. Obama had fibbed to the convention, and to the American people would be a gross injustice.  She lied, and under the harsh lights of the convention stage, she did so with practiced, perfected gusto.Again, the media extolled her virtues, couching much of their praise in terms of the quality of her delivery, but seldom noticing the first thing about the shoddy set of alleged facts she presented.  We knew this would happen too, because once inside, there is no return path.

Not to be outdone, President Obama spoke about the things in which Democrats believe.  He lauded Bill Clinton, but he did not mention that Clinton had been on a path to a disaster similar to his own until the Gingrich revolution of 1994. He did not explain how more of the same would save the nation.  He did not offer an excuse so much as he begged for more time.  He appeared like the man whose car is being repossessed, begging the repo crew for more time, for one more extension, and for one last chance to make it right.  He might plead with the lenders, but they are tired of his excuses and want no more of them.  They simply wish to be made whole, or to minimize their losses.  They are not in the mood to offer more time, believing it has expired, and they have begun to suspect that to extend more patience will be rewarded only with more broken promises and a longer list of unrealized deliverables.

The President made more promises, vows about continuing a change begun with his election, but nevertheless being a change that has been disastrous for the country. The truth of Barack Obama’s “change” is akin to the spaghettification one would undergo on the way into a black hole: It might be change, but it won’t be pleasant, and it’s not what had been imagined. The “hope” also abounds, but it is baseless: There can be no escape and no coming back from this singularity.  These last four years, we have been fortunate in one respect, and one respect only: We have defied physics because we have been able to catch a glimpse what lies beyond the event horizon, and the American people, driven by self-preservation, simply do not wish to go there, knowing now in full what it will mean.

Clint Eastwood’s empty chair is an apt symbol of the emptiness of the President Obama, but it is also an expression of the fundamental problem of the ideology of the left.  The only source of their power is the gravity of their aggregated mass, but they have no energy, they create nothing new, and they offer nothing but death as an answer to all problems.  Consider the litany of issues in which Democrats and their cohorts offer solutions, and it is always in the direction of the zero.  Unwanted pregnancies?  Abortions. (Kill them!)  Profits?  Taxes. (Kill them!)  Increased longevity?  Death Panels. (Kill them!)  Civilization? Environmental regulations. (Kill it!)  Population growth?  Contraception. (Prevent them from living!)  Everything about the root ideology of the left is leveraged in favor of death, destruction, and depravity.  This is the hallmark of their message, but whether they succeed or fail is entirely your choice.  You have now been dragged to the edge of their event horizon, but unlike so many of their past victims, you know what lies beyond it.  You know that it’s a gargantuan, relentless, and crushing emptiness.  This election may very well be your last chance at escape.

Six billion subsumed voices await you inside.  After all, misery loves company.

A Teachable Moment For Barack Obama, Courtesy of Bristol Palin

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

Be sure to drop by Bristol Palin’s blog-site today and share with her what you have built, all without government’s help.  She authored a post Thursday in which she brings more needed attention to the obscenely foolish notion put forward by Barack Obama last Friday that if you have a business, and you’ve been successful, “you didn’t build that.”  Says Bristol in response: “I built this, Mr. President.”  Darn right! It’s time more people begin to tell this President that they have built plenty all without his help, and despite his interference.

Bristol has invited her readers to share all the things they have built, all on their own, and I think it’s a great idea to highlight just how misguided Barack Obama really is. Be sure to visit Bristol’s blog to show some support!

Right on, Bristol!

 

 

 

All The President’s Help

Tuesday, July 17th, 2012

Is this man drunk?

Listening to President Jack-Ass, one would think that nobody could create the first thing without the government standing there to help them.  I take offense at the notion, and more, I am willing to demonstrate how the biggest obstacles I have faced have been born of government regulation, idiotic laws, and crony-capitalism powered by criminal thugs like Barack Obama. As many of you will know by now, I am a horseman, in addition to the profession in which I work, and I have a small thoroughbred farm together with my wife. When we began this endeavor, there was no barn, no tractor, no fences, or horses or even running water. There was no electricity, there was no dwelling, and there wasn’t much at all but an empty field alongside a rural highway with a dozen or so trees scattered far and wide upon it. From the outset, there were problems, and almost all of them were induced by government, and our trials and tribulations have been exacerbated by that same entity, though not exclusively the federal ones. With “help” like his, I would think we’d have been better off on our own.

First, I’d like you to consider the words of the jack-ass-in-chief:

 


Apart from the fact that this maniacal leftist clearly views us all as his property, and all as the beneficiaries of his master plans, he also contends that nobody gets success on their own. In his America, that may be increasingly true, as to be successful, it often seems you must grease the palms of an inordinate number of politicians, both in Washington, and in your home state. Let me take you through a brief litany of how all of these dear helpers, these masterminds of distribution, have helped to hold my small farm down.

In 2004, the entirety of Texas began to fall under a drought that lasted and lasted. For those of us dependent upon feeds and hay, the costs were striking. We watched an ordinary round-bale of coastal Bermuda hay go from a price between $30-40 dollars up to over $110. Just when one thought it couldn’t possibly get worse, the government stepped in to “help.” If you happened to be a cattleman, it was fine help. The government was handing out drought relief, but the key qualification is that your crop had to be for food. Horses did not qualify, since their primary use is not down at the burger stand. Some of you might wonder if I’m not complaining merely because I didn’t get the cash, but I tell you that it was a horrible situation, and I didn’t want the cash, but what I really didn’t want was government deciding who would win and who would lose. You see, all of the cattlemen were now flush with cash, and they could go into the market and buy whatever scarce hay was in existence, and import it from other states too. We soon saw the price of a round-bale escalate from around $100 up to a high of over $170. Now, some of you might be asking: “Well, what if the government hadn’t given them the cash, how would they have fed their cows?” The answer is: They wouldn’t. They would have loaded them up and trucked them to the feedlots and sold them while they could get what they could for them. In short, the market would have responded appropriately. The price of beef would have dropped briefly before spiking upwards, and that would have brought higher prices for future beef that would have eased the pressure on the hay side of the market for everybody.

Of course, in 2005, as all of this was happening, I thought this was a temporary condition, and that the drought would end, and people would come to their senses, and I wouldn’t have need of drastic measures like selling my horses for meat. You see, in a market in which fuel prices were also spiking, and the disposable income of many people was suddenly thin, guess what wasn’t such a big seller any longer? That’s right: Horses. Now you would think that with the end of the drought, the troubles might begin to ease, but no, that wasn’t to be. Government had another nasty surprise: They effectively banned the funding of inspections of horses taken for slaughter. As you might well guess, I hadn’t intended to slaughter mine, but that’s hardly the point. Horse meat is a fine source of protein, much leaner than beef from cattle, and has fed people the world over for eons. In point of fact, long before man ever mounted a horse, he ate them. Some relatively small number of horses always went to slaughter, and much of the meat was exported, or fed large cats at the zoo. These animals shared one general characteristic: They were unfit for other uses, by and large.

What resulted when government decided to “help” again was a glut of unwanted horses, competing for and taking up resources that drove up the cost of maintaining every horse, market-wide. Worst of all, it had exactly the opposite effect of what had been advertised: Many horses were being abandoned, under-nourished, and dumped wherever and whenever their hard-pressed owners could dispense with them. Perhaps all the more ironic, a huge number began to be trucked over the Southern border into Mexican slaughter plants, where they don’t give a damn about humane conditions, never mind meat inspections. In many cases, the horses that did go to slaughter met a more gruesome fate than had they merely been slaughtered here. Meanwhile, the prices of horses was plummeting across the industry, as consumers were under all sorts of new pressures, and as the value of their homes and their money fell, buying a horse hit near rock-bottom on the priority list for many who had enjoyed them for decades. It got so bad, that late last year, Congress actually repealed the ban, although I don’t know if any domestic horse slaughter operations are back in business. The damage has been done.

Just these two federal actions might be enough to convince you of the obstacles government has put in the way of my family’s farm, but there is still a good deal to consider even at the state level, particularly here in Texas. You see, our state hasn’t participated in arrangements like its neighboring states. If you go to Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or New Mexico, you will find state-bred programs that actually encourage the breeding of horses in those states. Texas has such a program too, though on principle, I do not participate because I see it as a socialistic subsidy. The difference is that in the adjoining states, they have permitted the expansion of gambling to include “video lottery terminals”(that look suspiciously like slot machines) but the deal struck in these states to allow for the enhanced gambling requires that they be placed at racetracks, and that a portion of the revenues be plowed back into purses for qualifying races limited to state-bred horses. Texas has opted to forgo this form of revenue, with pious-sounding legislators pretending they have been swayed by a moral concern over gambling. In truth, like anything in politics, what you must do is follow the money. Various estimates show that as much as $6 Billion leaves Texas for gambling venues in these adjoining states. There are bus-trips you can get on that will take you over to Louisiana from Houston, where you can sample those “video lottery terminals.” Even if the estimate were double the actual amount, it’s still a huge amount of cash that flows out of Texas into our neighboring states.

How much money do you suppose is spent lobbying legislators in this state to continue to uphold their firm “moral” stance against expanded gambling in Texas? That’s right, for all their posturing, many of the legislators in question are merely taking cash in order to vote against something that would provide large revenues to the state that is now merely bleeding out across our borders. Every other year, in our biennial legislative session, somebody brings a bill up, and in short order, it is killed. It’s brought up because it’s like ringing an alarm, to which all the lobbyists respond, and their answer is always in cash. Suddenly, all these legislators concerned about the evils of gambling are able to jump up and make strong statements against expanded gambling, while no small number of them have their palms greased.

Now you might say that because I don’t participate in the State-bred program anyway, it shouldn’t be of concern to me, but it is, and the reason is clear. What has happened is that while the purses in adjoining states have grown in proportion to their VLT revenues, they have stagnated or even shrunk in Texas. At this competitive disadvantage, how do you suppose Texas-bred horses now sell? Even if you were inclined to participate, the ROI isn’t there. Austin has a proposed track license, with the Austin Jockey Club. That license may never be exercised because the industry is suffering so badly in Texas under this scheme. Lone Star Park in Grand Prairie filed for bankruptcy protection. Other tracks are operating on the edge of solvency. The legislators don’t care because they’re getting positive press for their “moral stand” against gambling, while the competing-state lobbyists pile on the dough. That, my friends, is crony capitalism disguised as the moral majority.

Locally, it’s getting harder and harder for a farm to do business. In addition to the mountains of regulations rolling downhill from the EPA, local water control boards are making life difficult even for long-established farms. Oh well, more palms to be greased, I suppose. Of course, then you have the cities that now annex as much as the law allows every chance they get, and if they keep on at this pace, you will soon be able to remain with the boundaries of some municipality or other all the way from Oklahoma to Laredo.

Barack Obama goes to great pains to say that all of us are the beneficiary of some form of government help. That’s his implication, hidden behind a more acceptable-sounding notion that none of us get anywhere on our own, implying everything from the parents who brought us into this world to the teacher who may or may not have taught us the first thing in school. What my wife and I have experienced is something quite remarkably different, and it is that at every turn, it has been some governmental nonsense impeding us, obstructing us, or otherwise prohibiting us from making a go of it. You would think from listening to him that a brigade of his Obama-bots had accompanied us across the blazing hot pasture in July, driving t-posts into the scorched soil until the point of heat exhaustion, but I don’t remember any help. The wife and I, and our daughter a little bit, doing what Americans had always done: Building something where there had been nothing.

We never asked for any of this infernal “help,” and given its nature, we’d be just as happy if government stopped lending its “helping hands” and simply got the hell out of our way. We know how to choose good breeding stock, and we know all the important aspects of good animal husbandry, and I know my way around farm equipment and all the ordinary construction techniques we employ. I’m fairly certain that wasn’t Michelle Obama I lifted onto the skin of the barn’s roof to screw panels down as they were slid into place. I know for certain it wasn’t Barack who was running that welder. That was me. When we stretched thousands of feet of field fencing tight across all those newly planted posts, neither Secretary Clinton nor Sebelius were anywhere in sight, and neither was Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi, and not even a soul who had ever seen their offices.

Of course, when it came time to put up the mailbox, there was the guy from the Highway department to tell us how many feet it must be from the road’s edge, and what sort of super-duper break-away mount it must use, lest some weaving drunkard hit something much too firm alongside the road and do himself unnecessary harm. When we wanted to place our driveway, we were told what sort of culvert we must build, if we could build one at all, and so expensive was it that we simply opted to scatter a smattering of gravel across the ditch, and simply put some new gravel down each season. No culvert? No problem. There was the problem of bringing electricity to our homestead, and all of the government rules the electric company must follow, and how this all determined the siting of our home, rather than logic, and what we damn-well pleased. Yes, I am familiar with all the little helpers we’ve had along the way, and to be quite blunt about it, I hope they’ll all line up to help Barack Obama too. The problem is that it won’t bother him at all, because he doesn’t build anything, and he’s never accomplished anything on his own.

Obama’s Victim Strategy: The OJ Defense

Sunday, July 15th, 2012

Victim of Racism?

Barack Obama may be a terrible President, but like so many awful chief executives of the past, he’s a very skilled politician.  The word has gone out since the start of his Presidency that critics should be branded with the scorching iron of racism at every opportunity, but this is more than a mere smear aimed at his opponents.  It’s part of a strategy, and I believe that to some degree, it is working.  He may be presiding over the worst economic conditions in memory, and he may indeed be worsening the lot of every person in America whether they have the foresight to know it or not, but President Obama is counting on the African-American vote to deliver well into the ninetieth percentile at the polls.  Every rational person can read the statistics as well as you and I, and there is no denying that by all measures, African-Americans have been hit harder by the prevailing economic conditions, worsened by Obama’s policies, than any other group.  What is he counting on to deliver the vote of black Americans?  What is it he seeks to accomplish?  In order to prevent mass defections, Barack Obama is seeking to portray himself as the ultimate victim of racism, a regular latter-day Jesus on the way to his crucifixion at the hands of a legion of white racists.

It is not unusual for race-hustlers to try this approach, even when it has nothing to do with their situation.  In point of fact, this has become the standard tactic in the whole period following the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  What most don’t realize is that Obama’s ploy is made substantially worse by the fact that he’s relying on good old-fashioned identity politics played to the hilt.  All politicians do this to some extent, and it’s the reason a jerk like John Kerry buys a hunting license and wears a flannel hunting jacket: It’s an attempt to identify with those whose votes one wishes to secure.  Candidates spend bizarre sums of money in order to get their target audiences to identify personally with them.  After all, is this not the reason the proverbial wolf dons the clothing of sheep?   One can wear any clothing one likes, but what one cannot do is to change the color of one’s skin.  Part of Obama’s approach is to exploit this common characteristic with black Americans in a way no politician’s appearance at a NASCAR race ever could.

Of course, if beauty is only skin-deep, so too is the pageantry of politics, and if your policies have harmed one identifiable group of voters more than any other, it is inevitable that some will take note, wherever their visceral loyalties may lie.  One must concoct a way to strengthen that sense of identification among the group to withstand even the self-evident fact that the candidate is causing that very group of voters more harm even than he is causing others.  One of the most effective ways to make this connection is to demonstrate a kinship of battle, loss, or victimization.  Groups composed of crime victims assemble, as do former warriors, and survivors of family members lost to dread disease.  There is a deep-seated presumption of commonality in understanding among groups defined by these sorts of things, and few are more powerful than the claim of victimization on the basis of race.  Since every person is the member of one race or another, every person can imagine what it is like to be victimized solely on that basis.  Naturally, there are many who refuse to be seen as victims, no matter the monstrous ravages they’ve suffered, but also quite naturally, it is very easy for such victims to multiply out of all proportion on the slimmest conjecture of victimization.

Victimization becomes a sort of built-in, ready-made excuse for all sorts of people, not merely defined by race, sex, or other immutable characteristic, but also on the basis of anything imaginable.  Consider the “Occupiers” who see themselves as victims of “corporate greed,” and the like.  Too often, the notion of victimization becomes an excuse for the sorry choices one makes in life.  Sadly, no group in America has fallen prey to this thinking more than African-Americans.  We have whole departments at public universities coast-to-coast dedicated to the notion.  To my knowledge, the incidence of acts of racism perpetrated by whites against blacks has declined throughout the entirety of my life.  My generation was mostly raised without any particular animus on the basis of race, although I am certain there are always outliers.  It is stunning to read polls that most African-Americans consider themselves to be the victims of an inherently racist culture in America.  Rather than spend time debunking those thoroughly bankrupt notions, however, I would prefer to examine its consequence in the electorate.

Whether America is the racist hegemony some would have you believe is irrelevant, as we often recognize in politics that perceptions become reality, no matter their inherent absurdity.  Let us therefore stipulate that whatever the justification, or logical lack thereof, many African-Americans believe themselves to be victims of racism.  Whether it is true or not, the fact of the matter is that many believe it.  On this basis, Barack Obama is well-positioned to make the claim that he too is the victim of this alleged American racism.  More, he can make the astonishing claim, and sadly, it will stick with far too many people, that his entire presidency has been the victim of institutionalized racism aimed at his administration simply on the basis of his skin color.  Laugh if you like, for the preposterous allegation this constitutes on its face, but also understand that as maniacal as it may sound, it is not ineffective.  Why do you think that Bill Clinton suddenly became the “first black President,” being “lynched” by a Republican Congress over his perjury before a grand jury?  It was a coldly-calculated attempt (with some success) at cultivating the same sense of togetherness as victims.

This was made clear to me today when once again, some daft liberal commenter on this blog insisted that the only basis for criticisms of Obama must be due to his race.  Never mind the preposterous nature of the allegation, the poster didn’t stick around long enough to try to make the case.  It was only cast out there to lay like a land-mine to explode in the face of an unsuspecting passer-by.  Nobody who knows me, or who reads this blog could believe that race had the first thing to do with my criticisms of the Obama administration.  Not even a mad-cap leftist could be so foolish to think such a charge would stick, and yet there it was, with all its vitriolic implications.  Why then do it?  It is not that the writer had any honest expectation of making such a charge stick, but instead to cry out with the clarion call to intended members of the victimized group, in an effort to recall and strengthen the claim of victimization, thereby strengthening the bond to President Obama.  It’s a simple form of propaganda, but it is pernicious in its use.

This is why Barack Obama expects to retain the same percentage of African-Americans in the coming election, and his agents of propaganda are now coming out in the full bloom of the season.  If he is to retain the Oval Office, he must no lose any part of his support among African-Americans, and his campaign is fully aware that energizing his base may not be so easy in 2012.  The propaganda of victim-group identification is in play, but this tactic has been used before.  The man was guilty, everybody knew it, but the mostly African-American jurors had been predisposed to believe he had been a victim too.  Whether he was actually guilty of the crimes made no difference against the identity of victimization.  In the same way, President Obama hopes to side-step the charge that his has been a disastrous presidency, particularly for blacks.  When future analysts consider the tactic of this President’s campaign, the sharp ones will recognize his living example, but the irony is that as a child, I once cheered for that same man from the nose-bleed seats of Buffalo’s old War Memorial Stadium:

Orenthal James Simpson

 

 

 

The Curious Statements of Bill Clinton

Thursday, June 7th, 2012

Best Buddies?

Many of you will have noticed the oddity over the last week in which Bill Clinton both defended Mitt Romney, and seemed to disagree publicly with President Obama.  Dick Morris raced out to tell the world that he believes Clinton wants Obama to lose, but there are a few problems with that idea.  Clinton isn’t really the sort of guy on whom conservatives should hang their hopes.  If they cite him as an authority for the purposes of a tax cut argument, what will they do when the former President returns to previous positions(and he already has) arguing in favor of higher taxes?  There are conspiracy theories circulating on this subject, and nearly all of them end with Barack Obama losing to Mitt Romney because Bill Clinton will “spike the election.”  I believe Clinton would undercut Obama if it served his ends, but the question must be: Does it?  Perhaps worse, I think some Republicans are falling too easily into citing the impeached serial liar as some sort of authority on economic policy.

Let us remember who it is we’re referencing when we talk about Bill Clinton.  He’s the guy who tried to let his wife ram a healthcare plan down our throats.  He’s the guy who promised to feel our pain, but instead spent most of his two terms feeling-up interns and other “targets of opportunity.”  This is the guy who ignored Al-Qaeda, and who missed vital opportunities to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.  This is the wretched man who turned over the Department of Justice to Janet Reno, who in turn turned over much of the day to day operations to one Eric Holder, now serving as the Attorney General.  He has a history of cover-ups that began well in advance of Fast&Furious, stretching back to the Waco operation. Bill Clinton was also the guy who blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh, and who couldn’t wait to use the legislative impetus provided by the act of domestic terrorism to enact a nonsensical “assault weapons ban.”

Bill Clinton was the President who helped to created the Housing bubble from which we are still suffering, and he is the goon who lied endlessly, along with his willing accomplices in the lamestream media about the intentions and ultimate effects of the budget the Republicans tried to put through in 1995-6.  He lied endlessly about Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Congress, and he sent his favorite congressional hatchet-man, David Bonior(D-MI,) to do his dirty work.  He lied to a grand jury under oath, and only the malingering of a federal judge prevented him from facing a criminal rather than civil perjury charge.  These are merely some of the highlights of his “esteemed” career in the oval office, or the anteroom in which he caroused with interns, and he lied repeatedly to the American people, waggling a finger, and chastising the people who would even dare to ask him such questions.

I offer this brief refresher up because it seems that some Republicans are gleefully referencing the Slickster’s remarks on the basis that he speaks with some authority.  He has no credibility.  When Clinton pointed out that he had balanced four budgets, I only saw one Republican politician willing to point out that Newt Gingrich had a substantial role in all of that:  Sarah Palin.  Still, it was a bit bothersome to see so many Republican rush out to refer to a guy who they ought not use as a benchmark for anything, budgetary or otherwise.  The simple fact is that Clinton is and always has been out for Clinton, and while it’s true that his wife is the hardcore leftist ideologue in the family, it is also true that Clinton is himself a leftist, albeit a somewhat more malleable one.  It was Clinton who insisted on referring to taxes as “contributions” or “investments in America,” if you’ll recall, so I would just as soon cease the Clinton-worship now.  Still, his behavior seems curious to political observers, because it seems to clearly undermine Barack Obama.  Why would Clinton do that?

I suspect that if that were his true aim, it could only have one or two possible objectives, and both end with Hillary occupying the Oval office.  After all,  if Obama is damaged enough, maybe he follows Doug Schoen’s advice and steps aside, leaving the Democrat convention open to somebody else, or if Obama loses in November to Mitt Romney, perhaps there’s a shot for Hillary in 2016.  On the other hand, one could conclude that both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham are Soros-shills, and that this may be part of a plan to replace Obama on the ticket with his Secretary of State should Soros find it necessary to pull the plug on a weakened Obama.  Of course, these theories and all of the myriad permutations of them require that we assume that Clinton wants to undermine Obama, but is that the case, or are Republicans being sand-bagged by the Slickster[again?]

As of Wednesday, both Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell made statements referencing Bill Clinton’s remarks, and it leaves one to wonder if the pair aren’t being led down the garden path by the former cigar-aficionado-in-chief.  When one considers the possibilities, one must always remember that despite any differences among them, the Obamas and Clintons are leftists, and if there’s anything they can unite on, it’s defeating conservatives.  It’s probably true that the former president never quite got over Obama’s playing of the race card in 2008, and it’s probably true that Hillary views the Obama administration as a bunch of amateurs, but what of it?  After all, Hillary’s record both in the Senate and in her current job aren’t exactly glistening examples of effectiveness, and while her husband is often given credit for the economic conditions of the 1990s, it’s important to note that it was the conservative insurgence in Congress that actually had built the conditions to the degree we had some fairly prosperous years.

Whether Bill Clinton is actually out to undermine Barack Obama, or is merely playing a game of cat and mouse with Republicans, I don’t think conservatives should fall into the trap of believing that Clinton would be doing much better or much different if he were in office today.  Bill Clinton’s administration is not a model of good governance to which we should turn for reference.  On the other hand, the active and aggressive Congress led by Newt Gingrich that put the brakes on Clinton’s escapades, and restrained the growth of government for the first time in my life is something we should reference, and while Bill Clinton poses as the elder statesman in his party, the simple fact is that if he had gotten his way, unopposed, through 1994-96, he’d be remembered with every bit as much doubt as Barack Obama faces in the electorate now, and we conservatives would do right by history as well as the political debate in this country to remember it that way.

 

 

…and Another Thing…

Sunday, May 20th, 2012

Who Me?

While I’m busy declaring war on the GOP establishment, I ought to make mention of another thing that burns me up.  Some of you will have noticed throughout the primary campaign season that certain GOP candidates seemed unwilling to go after Mitt Romney on a number of issues, and always seemed to defer to him in various ways.  It’s true.  Some of them seemed more interested in blowing him kisses than in defeating him, and to be blunt, some of you along with me thought at times that they may have been conspiring with Mitt right along.  If to withhold one’s criticisms of one’s opponents is to evince some sort of collusion, I must now ask you what it must be if Mitt Romney does it with respect to Barack Obama.   This business of Mitt Romney repudiating the examination of Barack Obama’s relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright and other leftist radicals is disgusting.

Mark Levin commented on this subject last week, and he properly flogged Romney.  RightScoop provides the audio.

Levin is spot-on here.  Romney used every conceivable advertising gimmick and revisionist historical fraud to attack Newt Gingrich, and he and his surrogates left no stone un-turned in seeking to hammer the former House Speaker, but when it comes to Barack Obama, some things are simply off limits.   Ladies and gentlemen, I must ask you with a sense of grim foreboding:  If you believe that Ron Paul held fire on Mitt Romney in exchange for something, why do you suppose Mitt Romney is insisting on holding fire against Barack Obama?  Answer it.  If you believe there is a quid pro quo in the first instance, please tell me what you believe about the second instance?  Don’t tell me that Romney is “unwilling to go to the gutter,” or some such nonsense.  He was more than willing when his opponent was Newt Gingrich.  He was more than willing when any of the would-be non-Romneys rose, even momentarily.  Sure, he used surrogates, but what is this business about leaving the Rev. Wright issue alone?

Does he believe it will buy Obama’s silence on Romney’s religion?  It won’t, and the evidence is that it hasn’t.  Knowing this, why would Romney seek to repudiate all of those who raise the issue of Rev. Wright?   When it was about obtaining the nomination, Romney was a “no-holds-barred” and “hey, that’s politics” sort of guy, but now that it’s Barack Obama, whose defeat is the object of this entire campaign, he’s pulling his punches?

Don’t tell me that the GOP establishment wishes to defeat Barack Obama.  Don’t tell me they don’t constitute a “fifth column.”  Don’t pretend to me that Mitt Romney is anything but another statist placeholder who will lead us into defeat.  I have taken all I am inclined to take when it comes to the Republican establishment.  It’s not that they don’t know how to win, but that they don’t want us to win.  Holding back on Barack Obama’s associations with radicals isn’t a strategy to “keep clear of the gutter,” as some would suppose, but a strategy to let Barack Obama go un-vetted for a second consecutive election cycle, and the only reason somebody, anybody, could possibly want that is…

What?

You see, there are those who have already begun to argue that Romney, if he loses, will do so because of a lack of support.  The idea is to shift blame to conservatives, Tea Party folk, or anybody else who will not step up and vocally support or at least vote for Romney.  I reject that thesis as a scandalous lie.  Don’t tell me Romney wants to win but doesn’t want to talk about Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or Bill Ayers, or the whole rogues’ gallery of philosophical villainy that accompanies Barack Obama.  Then, after rejecting these obvious problems with Barack Obama, I’m to blame if Mitt Romney loses?

No way.

If Mitt Romney loses, it will be because he failed.  He failed to be a conservative.  He failed to insist on talking about Barack Obama’s radical associations.  He failed to rally the base of the Republican party.  He failed to motivate conservatives.  He failed. If you want to blame me for a Romney loss, have at it, but I won’t accept blame.  Here we have a candidate who saw no problem in hammering his Republican opponents in dishonest ways, but who now shrinks from talking about the truth of Barack Obama, and some wish to blame me?

If you will not call a monster by name in public, why would you be surprised if others will not view him in that light?  After all, we elect Presidents because we expect them to tell us the truth even when it’s unpleasant.  If we know the truth about Obama, but Romney won’t say it, what could be the justification?  At what point does somebody step up and ask Romney:  “Why won’t you talk about Obama’s radical associations?”  Why, after saying he cannot tell the superPACs that support him what to do, when it came to Newt Gingrich, is he now going out of his way to dissociate himself from any discussion of Obama on this subject by those superPACs?  What he’s done is to “call off the dogs” on this, something he refused to do when it came to Gingrich just a few months ago, laughing it off as the nature of politics.

I am beginning to think Mitt Romney will have a good deal for which to answer if/when he loses in November, because if he refuses to talk about Obama’s past, he’s helping Obama to win.  Every conservative in the country must know this, lest a parade of the “political analysts” tell us it’s our fault.

Again.

 

 

 

Oil Price Slippage Constitutes Warning

Sunday, May 6th, 2012

Producing Our Economic Life-blood

Over the life of this blog, one of the subjects that has arisen repeatedly is our energy problem, and the effects Obama’s policies are having on our nation’s economic condition.  I have offered you charts, graphs, economic theory, and an understanding of why we remain in the economic trouble we’re in, and much of our troubles originate with energy concerns.  Again validating what I’ve previously reported, global oil prices are now falling in response to the economic outlook in the US and in Europe.  The reason I again bring this to your attention is not to thump my chest, since there’s nothing revolutionary in what I’ve argued, but instead to reinforce the point, because in the broader media, there are too many sources interested in obfuscating and otherwise muddling the matter.  To have a growing, vital economy, the US has relied historically on inexpensive energy.

The American economy is a vehicle of vast capacity for growth, and the American people remain its vital engine, both as consumers and producers.  What the Obama policies have done is to choke down this engine, and the result is an economy that is bottom-bouncing at an idle, struggling for air that a reckless government policy forbids it to consume.  Every time the American people start to accelerate, the market effects of the regressive policies of our government govern the capacity of our economy like a vast engine choke. You could rightly call the policies of Barack Obama the “stuck choke” of American economics.

An engine makes a great analog for the state of our economy, because an engine must both consume energy, and convert it into motive power.  In a healthy state, that’s what the US economy does, and it’s why we must not ignore the grave costs of the current Obama policies.  Consider what happens when you step on the gas in your car:  The throttle opens up, allowing the engine to draw more of the air-fuel mixture, permitting the engine to accelerate, reciprocating more rapidly, and those converting the energy to the horsepower needed to make the vehicle go.  This is how our economy functions: It’s demand for consumption increases, and we have traditionally answered it by permitting more air-fuel mix(energy and capital) into the engine, and it accelerates(grows) providing output some of which is reintroduced back into the stream going in.  It’s a marvelous thing, and the prosperity of every American increases on average.

The situation we’ve been placed in by the Obama policies, combined with the inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve is that the air-fuel mix becomes prohibitively expensive.  Imagine driving down the road at 30mph in order to conserve fuel.  You could come up to speed, but because fuel is so expensive, you really can’t afford to put your foot in it, so instead, you patiently move along at a snail’s pace because you’re trying to do the minimum consumption you can manage and still get to your destination.  This is what happens each and every time the economic engine gets going these last several years:  The price of fuel begins to tick rapidly upward, we get a price spike, and everybody goes into conservation mode, and as a result, the economy slows down.  Naturally, as soon as the economy slows, the prices for fuel begin to fall again, and one can expect that at around the time they hit the bottom of the trough, people will begin to feel safe accelerating their cars back up to highway speeds, and the process begins once more.

The slippage in oil prices this week constitute a warning, because what it implies is that you’ve already hit that point of conservation.  Of course, it’s not merely consumers, but businesses and every form of productive endeavor that uses energy, which is of course all of them.  In that environment of rationing, what occurs is that people necessarily become more frugal, but so do businesses.  It’s unavoidable.  You can only afford to spend so much of your capital on energy, because you must still pay for all of the other necessities of living, and the United States has been operating very close to this line for several years.  A rational Federal policy would realize that this is a supply-side problem, and that to alleviate the problem, what we must do is increase the supply of energy available to the market, but our government has instead answered with tepid notions about conservation, and highly speculative and fanciful programs for “green energy” while it chokes off the supply of real energy to the market.

This is our situation, and the current drop in oil prices is a result of the fact that our economy is again on the downside, and that is further substantiated by the poor numbers of jobs being created.  At this point, it should be so obvious to every living person with two brain cells remaining to clack together that there ought to be a national movement to remove any politician who isn’t focused on this problem.  Instead, we have an administration that is dithering, and is actually making things substantially worse through its regulatory paradigm that insists America simply do more with less.  This insane, nearly maniacal policy is impossible to sustain, because it is driving us to the poor-house, and yet the radical left is fine with that outcome.  They want to make us poorer, and the reason is clear:  Poor people who must choose between groceries and gasoline are easily managed by a central authority, and they are only too willing to do the “managing.”

Let us place this in context:  Imagine that you have a home that is all electric.  Many Americans do.  Imagine that the power grid that supplies electricity to your home generates that power with coal, oil, and nuclear processes.  You might also have a little hydroelectric power, or a little wind and solar, but on average, those supply only a small fraction of our power generation.  Remembering that oil derivatives are one of the primary fuels used in power generation, what happens if we take away one of the others, like coal?  Coal currently provides half of our electric generation, nationwide.  What happens to the price of oil and all its derivatives, including the gasoline or diesel for your vehicle when coal is taken away from power generation?  The answer is obvious, and so is the result, because we’re living it.

Understanding the relationship between energy and our economic prospects is key to understanding our current economic malaise, and the impending disaster we face if our policy is not soon changed to promote more energy production, and to unshackle energy producers from the chains that prevent them from providing to the market the energy that a growing economy requires in order to sustain itself in that state.   This is why Newt Gingrich’s idea of $2.50/gallon gasoline was important, and it’s also one more reason so many of us had hoped that  we would see a Sarah Palin candidacy, because she understands, perhaps better than any other politician in the country, how thorough is our reliance upon energy, but also how to best develop the resources we already have at our disposal.  We desperately need an “energy President,” who understands that growth and prosperity are only possible with abundant and inexpensive energy, permitting the American people to do what they already know how to do, and want to do: Build, grow, and prosper.

The proof of this thesis is contained in our cycle of boom-spike-conserve-bottom. When energy prices fall, the economy (and the American people who drive it) respond with jobs, growth, and productivity.  The problem is that in our current environment of government regulation and governmentally-induced inflation, when the growth begins, the price of energy begins to immediately climb upward, eventually spiking to unsustainable costs.  This places the entire economy into conservation mode, and very rapidly, we slide to the bottom again.  It’s no longer a matter of proving the theory.  It’s proven, and the evidence is all around us, but until we make the conscious decision to end the misery, we’re stuck.

Really, This Guy Is Too Absurd to Be President

Sunday, April 29th, 2012

Even Tasteless Michelle...

Honest to goodness, one can’t make this up. Barack Obama’s attempt at humor is just abysmal, as he was neither funny, nor clever.  At the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, he took a swipe at Sarah Palin, and at those who focused on the story of him eating dog, all to concoct one of the most brutally stupid “jokes” I’ve ever heard, never mind from a President.  Is this guy really our President?  Even Michelle “Keep-on-walking” Obama seemed astonished.  His joke wasn’t funny, and while there was some nervous “we’ll laugh at anything this jack-ass says because he’s our guy” chortling from the crowd, I don’t think anybody appreciated it as much as he did.  Of course, that could be said for the entirety of his presidency.

Courtesy Breitbart:

I think Joe Biden is finally rubbing-off on this guy.  The last three-and-one-half years have been a non-stop bad joke on the American people.

 

Do You Fear Obama?

Sunday, April 29th, 2012

Do You Fear This Guy?

Listening to conservative commentators, one can witness a kind of fear of Barack Obama that I’ve never encountered in domestic politics before.  Sure, back in the 1990s, there were some conservatives who were fearful about the things Bill Clinton might do, given a chance, but the unmistakable terror some exhibit at the mere idea that Barack Obama would somehow be re-elected is astonishing to me.  Is he horrible?  Yes.  Is he actively undermining our nation?  Certainly.  Is he a demagogue?  You bet!  Nevertheless, I do not understand the fear that seems to grip so many on the right side of the political divide.  I don’t fear Barack Obama.  He doesn’t impress me that much, and if he takes the country all the way to and over the brink, patriotic Americans will stop him.  I’m not scared of Barack Obama.  I’m not threatened by a temporary political hack.  The thing that makes me fearful is the tendency among conservatives to imagine more power on the part of Obama than he actually possesses, but worse, the willingness on the part of establishment Republicans to cede to him such power.  The power of the presidency doesn’t belong to any man, but to the people, and all it takes to stop any President is their will.

Fear is an important tool used to herd us in the direction of the establishment’s favored candidates.  I am not driven by that sort of thing.  What makes me fear for my country is the endless parade of candidates who are put up by the Republican establishment every four years who leave us with a choice between the wholly unpalatable and the unconscionably unpalatable.  It’s like a perpetual taste test between excrement sandwiches where the only question is whether the prime course originated with a horse or a bull.  What drives me to something like real fear is when I see the uncritical thinking that pervades so much of our culture.  When I hear alleged conservatives saying that they think George W. Bush was a “real conservative,” I shake my head and walk away.  There’s no point to an argument over the matter.  He wasn’t a conservative, but for those who think he was, there’s no convincing them, no matter how many instances of his big-government statism his record provides as evidence.

I don’t fear Barack Obama because we already have an example of how to make a leftist President ineffective.  Newt Gingrich showed us through determined leadership in the middle 1990s, and except for betrayals from the establishment wing of his own party, he might well have accomplished more.  The problem is that the same people who destroyed his campaign this year by one act of dishonest infamy after the other are representatives of that same group that undercut him nearly two decades ago.  Even at this late date, with Gingrich effectively out of the running, still there are attacks by the Romney campaign on Gingrich.  Why fear Barack Obama?  With “friends” like this, who needs enemies?  Still, Gingrich showed us what we can do by his example in 1994.  To do it, we will need to change the face of the Senate.  That’s where Gingrich ran into the most trouble, and apart from our tepid House leadership today, I think this is where we must begin.

We need to eject RINOs like Dick Lugar from the Senate, and send in conservatives like his opponent Richard Mourdock, and just as Kay Bailey-Hutchison is departing the Senate, I will be happy to send Ted Cruz there rather than establishment tool David Dewhurst.  I was a bit astonished, after his appeal to Tea Party types, to see Rick Perry endorse Dewhurst.  Of course, Friday, he also endorsed Romney. I guess we know all we need to about that, but it’s another example of our problem:  We need to defeat not only Democrats who are holding Senate seats, but also a number of Republicans who shouldn’t be left in charge of anything.  You see, we don’t need the Presidency to run the country.  We merely need a large enough majority in both houses of Congress, but that will still only help us if they’re not a pack of establishment types.  While John McCain came out to endorse Dick Lugar, Sarah Palin instead endorsed Richard Mourdock, continuing to demonstrate that one needn’t have a title to be effective, and we need more of that kind of leadership from high profile conservatives.  From the Republicans’ presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney? Silence.

I don’t fear Obama, but if you want to see me afraid, observe my reaction to the wasted effort the GOP establishment has made of the Tea Party’s victories in 2010.  There was momentum and vigor, but by a long list of sorry surrenders, Boehner and McConnell have sapped the energy out of the movement.  I fear that the Tea Party waited and waited for a Presidential candidate to emerge who would carry their banner, and when one didn’t appear, or at least didn’t stick around, and while the establishment undermined conservative alternatives to Mitt Romney, the Tea Party seems as though much of its energy has been spent.  I hope I’m wrong, but with Romney emerging as the probable nominee, it’s hard to imagine the Tea Party getting very excited.  Who can blame them?  The establishment of the GOP is intent upon giving us a guy who lost to Ted Kennedy by double digits in 1994, a year Republicans made huge strides and took both houses of Congress.  Do we expect to defeat Barack Obama, and even if we do, to what end?

I don’t fear Obama because I know that he’s just one more step down a path our country and culture has been following all my life.  If it wasn’t Obama, it would be somebody like him.  If it wasn’t Romney, it would be somebody like him.  They fit their respective templates, and they fulfill their respective roles.  We’ve been railroaded into a notion of America that is top-down, and I simply don’t buy it.  There are three-hundred millions of us.  Do you really think Washington DC can impose anything on us that we(or some sizable number of us) refuse to do?  The problem I see is that the longer we let this fester, the more foot-soldiers for the cause they breed.  Do you really wonder why neither party is serious about controlling illegal immigration?  Do you really wonder why it is that our social safety nets are encouraging more of the same, now largely hammocks in which too many people recline endlessly, while you work like rented mules to carry their burdens?

Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t believe we need a third party.  I’d be happy with two.  Unfortunately, from my point of view, I’m finding it impossible to discern much difference at the upper echelons, apart from the much too rare sort best exemplified by Sarah Palin.  The establishment in DC plays both sides of the street, and neither side is composed of conservatives.  This whole system is full of corruption, and it’s not because the system was built to be corrupted, but because we the people, by our shameful inattention, and our general unwillingness to do our homework have left the store undefended, the till untended, and our alleged ‘public servants’ unaccountable.  When I say “we,” I don’t mean you and I, though we surely should do more, but I look around at the popular culture, and I note with dismay that there are hundreds of television channels available, and apart from C-Span, there are perhaps a dozen or so that cover public affairs, politics, and political news, and none of those garner as many viewers as the average prime-time sitcom.

If you want to know why America is in decline, you need only observe the priorities of most people.  The amount of time daily that most Americans devote to public affairs is minuscule.  Most of them can’t recite so much as the preamble to the constitution, and few can recite, verbatim, any of the amendments, even the first ten.  Don’t ask them to provide from memory some notion of the structure of the constitution, and don’t ask them to tell you anything about the enumerated powers of Congress, the President, or the courts.  As long as this remains true, there is no chance to reform the country. You and I can go to Tea Party rallies, and the GOP establishment will do its best to co-opt them.  The broad body of the American people remains unmoved, and nothing short of catastrophe is likely to move them, but as with most such things, the catastrophe will be evidence that they’ve been roused from their slumber too late.  We say we believe in citizen-legislators, and the form of self-governance our founders gave to us, but too few of us who are able step forward to take the risk.

On the other hand, I don’t fear Obama in part because I know that common sense will eventually trump him.  A good example of this is the proposed regulation out of the Department of Labor that would have made it illegal for anybody under 18 to perform certain chores or work in certain jobs in an agricultural setting.  The backlash was so strong, even among Democrats, that the Obama administration actually rescinded the proposed regulation, at least for the time being.   The administration and the Department of Labor were deluged with a huge number of tersely worded communications from across America telling them to back off or else.  One farmer I know locally, whose two sons routinely help him operate tractors and so on actually called and told some government stooge in Washington DC that he was free to come and impose his regulations if he thought he could. Ladies and gentlemen, there are three-hundred millions of us.  Even if fully half have “gone over to the dark side,” the government can’t impose anything on the rest of us if we refuse.  People wonder why I don’t quake in fear about Obama, or any other tin-pot dictator who might set up shop in DC, but this is the reason.

A government loses its legitimate claim to authority at some point, and small incidents like the backlash over farm labor rules is just one such instance.  Another bit of evidence comes in the form of gun and ammunition sales, still at record levels these last three years as people prepare for…come what may.  Sure, it’s only a small fraction of Americans who are preparing to any substantial degree, but that’s still a goodly number.  As they liquidate debt, pull assets out of markets, buy durable commodities and stored goods, and make ready for the possibility that this society may break down.  The core that keeps this country afloat is doing what it has always done: Through prudence, thrift, and industry, they are preparing to the best of their ability for the worst that the world may throw at them.  They don’t fear Obama either.  Like me, they’re more inclined to fear the legion of unprepared network television viewers who will be standing there with one hand out-stretched, gun in the other, issuing pleas for help in the form of demands, if and when things go even more badly for our country.

The thing we must all remember is that as bad as Obama is, he is temporary.  He may do this or that, and he may make a wreck of things for the nation, but he’s temporary, and there’s nothing he can inflict that we can’t undo.  The only thing that makes a guy like Obama dangerous are the people ostensibly on our side who seek to collaborate with him.  It’s the moderates who undo us each and every time.  I offer the debt ceiling debate of last July to any who doubt me.  No, I don’t fear Obama, bad as he may be, nearly so much as I live in terror at the prospects of the next surrender of the Republican establishment.  That’s what makes our situation seem hopeless.  Who among you harbors the delusion of John Boehner riding in to save us?  Mitch McConnell?   Mitt Romney?  That’s what demoralizes our conservative activism.  That’s what cuts the heart out of the resistance.  We won’t be delivered into communistic despotism by Barack Obama, but instead by some gutless cabal of establishment Republicans hurriedly cutting a deal to save their own necks, thereby damning the rest of us into servitude.  It is ever the betrayers, the surrendering class, clamoring to hold onto some vestige of what they see as their rightful place, or even merely to save their own hides.  I see this as the most pressing issue we face.  Barack Obama is only possible because of the sell-outs.

For all appearances, Mitt Romney seems to be part of that class of Republicans, and if you ask me what it is that I fear, it is that once again, we will be saddled with a nominee who is not one of us, doesn’t understand us, and doesn’t see the world from the point of view we mostly share, out here, where the country is made to work by the choices, the goals, and the devotion of millions of individual Americans, each working to better his or her own life, and the life of their families, but actions that also redound to the benefit of the nation at large.  When I listen to Romney, I am left with the unmistakable impression that I am hearing a man who wants to rule over me, the same as Obama, but with slightly different aims.  I hear a man who is speaking to collectivized notions of American greatness that defy 250 years of the history of individual achievements linked by the consent and volition of the achievers.  What I hear is: “New boss, same as the old boss.”  If you tell me you fear Obama more, I can’t help but wonder why.  Nothing is more terrifying to me than the thought that Mitt Romney is the best we could do in the face of Barack Obama’s four years of rampant destruction.  If true, it may mean we’ve already lost the country, and there is nothing about Barack Obama so frightening as that possibility.

 

I Don’t Believe Conservatives Are Finished Just Yet…

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

Credibility Problem Solved?

While tending to things in the aftermath of my father-in-law’s passing, word came to me that Rick Santorum had dropped out.  Conservatives have an opportunity, just one, to get this thing right.  Mitt Romney is a set-up candidate, and the fact that he’s now warning conservatives about Obama’s anti-gun agenda merely disguises his own.  I also heard a little about the Hilary Rosen flap, and I must tell you that conservatives fell for that one, hook, line and sinker.  The story was nothing if not a political set-up, and both Romney and Obama were happy for it.  For Obama, it gave him a chance to put Michelle Antoinette Obama “off limits,” and for Mitt Romney, it gave him a chance to rally the troops.  The speed of the Romney campaign response, along with the speed at which Obama and company threw Rosen under the bus was the dead giveaway.  Obama wanted a chance to put his wife’s conduct and any criticism of her “off limits,” but that’s not going to work any more than the Romney camp’s attempt to make some political hay out of it is going to help him here. I’m calling “BS” on all of it.

The throw-away remark by Rosen was just that, and another bit of political snark of the sort the Democrats will not restrain themselves from employing later.  If you’ve deluded yourself into the belief that the Obama campaign won’t go after Ann Romney in the general election campaign, let me assure you: They will be merciless.  What will happen is that nobody in the Romney campaign will go after Michelle Obama for her lavish vacations, her incessant meddling in nutrition policy, and otherwise interjecting her hypocritical views into the lives of we and our children.  Bank on the fact that a Romney campaign, as dirty as it is willing to fight against other Republicans, will show no such fervor against Barack Obama or his spouse.  What the Obamas hoped to purchase by throwing Rosen under the bus so quickly was a sort of temporary truce against spouses. They don’t want us looking too closely at Michelle’s expenditures and so on.  Why not?  Simply put, it’s scandalous how the current “first lady” has spent our money.  One need only examine how the Obamas have used their daughters as tax shelters by distributing income to them to understand why they don’t want to talk about the Obama family.  It’s a great racket they can make work so long as they have all the benefits attached to the presidency.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney needed the flap even more badly than Obama did, because he needed something to swing conservatives over in line behind him as a matter of defending his side of an argument.  Frankly, while Rosen’s remarks may well be offensive to some, to others, the ability to stay home to raise children in this day and age does smack of a certain “luxury” (the term Obama used to describe it multiple times) that most women do not enjoy.  Some women are bound to say “good for Mrs. Romney,” but there are many more for whom this plays directly into the notion of privilege and an inability to relate that has heretofore characterized Romney himself.  Fair?  Absolutely not.  Will it play a role?  Bet on it.  The emerging Obama campaign is one in which Romney will be painted as a born-to-wealth son of privilege who never served in the military, and whose five sons likewise never served.  The fact that Obama never served is immaterial to the argument they will make, and will largely succeed in advancing about the Romneys as out-of-touch and too wealthy to understand the concerns of ordinary Americans.

The “rally ’round Romney” strategy employed in response to Rosen’s remarks was not entirely unsuccessful, but it was also hardly earth-shaking.   The problem is that conservatives are more than a bit put off by the fact that one by one, they have watched the Romney machine destroy their favored candidates, only to now be thrust into the position of defending Ann Romney against the Obama machine.  Too many conservatives simply aren’t ready, but I expect there will be a number of such opportunistic appeals to rally ’round Romney in the weeks and months ahead.  Romney’s scorched Earth campaign against Gingrich and others prohibits me from feeling any sympathy, and I haven’t given up on Gingrich completely either.  Santorum’s withdrawal makes it harder if not impossible to stave off a Romney nomination, but it’s not impossible.

For my part, I have watched this from a place of detachment, caught up in my own personal issues of the moment, and it’s been easy to remain detached: I don’t like Mitt Romney’s negative attacks on Santorum, Gingrich, and the whole host of others inasmuch as they were dishonest attacks, and that’s part of why I don’t see much effective difference between he and Obama except the color of their respective jerseys, one red emblazoned with a big “R”, and the other blue and sporting a capital “D.”  If this is the best we conservatives can must in 2012, we will lose either way.  Romney isn’t likely to win, but even if he does manage victory, we’ll be confronted with an administration every bit as much composed of virulent statism as the Obama administration.  It’s hard to be enthusiastic about that, particularly as a conservative.  There’s still hope, slim and slimming as time goes on, but for now, and until further notice, I am on the Newt 2012 train.  Given the conduct of his campaign these last six-eight months, I’m not sure I can support the liberal governor from Massachusetts.  I think many other conservatives share my reservations, and that’s why some number of Santorum supporters are now shifting to Newt Gingrich.

Romney’s Stunning Hypocrisy

Thursday, April 5th, 2012

 

How Different Is He Really?

This is the second time in a week that Mitt Romney has said something on the campaign trail that I thought sounded suspiciously familiar.  Both remarks were in the context of Barack Obama’s “hot-mic” incident with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.  In both cases, Romney asserted that Barack Obama is hiding his true agenda from the American people, but the problem is that while he complains about Obama’s stealth agenda of radical leftism, and that Obama is just trying to fool Americans into voting for him by sounding more centrist, he’s merely holding off his real agenda until he can secure the election.  The problem is that with respect to conservatives in the GOP, Mitt Romney is doing precisely the same thing.  If he can secure the nomination, Romney will be moving a good deal to the left himself.

In describing Barack Obama on Wednesday, from the Reuters report, Romney said:

“He is intent on hiding. You and I will have to do the seeking,”

Many conservatives will read this and will wonder immediately why it is that he has been hiding from his true record as a liberal Republican from a deep blue state.   It’s not that Obama isn’t hiding, but that Romney is also in stealth mode during this primary season too.  Romney’s dishonesty about his own agenda will make it difficult for him to make these arguments about Barack Obama with anything like a sense of moral authority, because he’s guilty of the same thing.

We already know that Mitt Romney will abandon his positions that sound vaguely conservative, thanks in part to Pam Bondi and others, because he intends to re-reform health-care in his own image.  He will set up a very similar system to that which exists under Obamacare, and indeed exists in Massachusetts, probably minus the mandate.  If he manages to get the GOP nomination, he will begin to quickly separate himself from the so-called “hard right,” although in truth, there is no “hard right” politician in this race.  In fact, I dare say there are not many “hard-right” politicians in the country at the Federal level.

What this exemplifies is the art of “positioning.”  Romney has been using the image as a “Massachusetts Moderate” to attract votes in very blue states in which he has won, and while he occasionally remarks on being a conservative, as readers will have noted, it’s not been a very passionate sort of claim.  Even those tepid claims will be discarded when the general campaign arrives, should he happen to be the nominee.  Of course, we’ve known he wasn’t sincere since he described himself as “severely conservative,” because the negative connotations of the word “severe” in association with conservatism is a view held by the left and by liberal Republicans. Mainstream conservatives don’t consider themselves “severe” in any respect, and this phrase by Romney offers us a bit of insight into his real views.

For this reason, it’s a bit astonishing to see him make these claims about Obama.  It’s undoubtedly true that this President is attempting to hide the radical nature of his agenda, but that’s not exactly new.  What’s new in all of this is the disingenuous nature of Romney’s attack, because for all intents and purposes, he is doing precisely the same thing to conservatives at present that Barack Obama is doing to the broader electorate. Romney isn’t conservative, any more than Barack Obama is a moderate, and in point of fact, there are fewer points of separation between the records of the two men than either might wish to admit.

Romney is definitely misleading conservatives, whether mild or “severe” in their conservatism, because he needs votes from that segment to secure the nomination.  It is much the same as Barack Obama’s attempt to capture independents and moderates:  It’s a lie, and it will bear no resemblance to how he runs a general election campaign, or how he will govern.  Mitt Romney isn’t a “severe conservative,” but instead a severe fake.  April will be a month in which Romney gains many delegates in blue states, but he should not be permitted to get to 1144.  If Mitt Romney can call out Barack Obama’s intended deception in hiding his true agenda, I believe conservatives should waste no time in pointing out that Romney is engaged in a similarly disingenuous appeal.  Mitt’s no conservative, and if he secures the Republican nomination, the “Etch-a-Sketch” will be shaken, and conservatives who had been fooled by all of this will see how severe the deception had been.

And it will be too late to do a damned things about it.

________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Obama Sabotages Israelis: Can They Remain Our Ally?

Sunday, April 1st, 2012

Iranian Nuclear Sites

The most thoroughly disturbing story to appear last week was the information suggesting that the Obama administration is actively undermining Israel in its preparations to strike Iran, and disclosing its plans to the press in order to prevent them from being carried out.  This story appeared in YNet News on Thursday, and it offers details about what’s at stake, but more, the treachery of the Obama administration in seeking to undermine our ally Israel in its preparations to make strikes against nuclear facilities in Iran.  Apart from the fact that this is a serious leak that should result in firings, the problem is that this may be official US policy behind the scenes. My question is this:  If these leaks didn’t have the official sanction of the President, what is he doing to identify the leakers?

The information leaked suggests that Israel has formed some sort of alliance with Iran’s neighbor to the North, Azerbaijan.  The basic idea contained in the leaks is that Israel would launch strikes from airbases in that country, flying across the Caspian Sea in low-level sorties designed to fly under radar coverage.  The serious problem lies in the fact that all of this information has done serious damage to Israel, and even to the United States, as the article details in this summary of the damage inflicted:

  • Iran now has a decent picture of what Israel’s and America’s intelligence communities know about Tehran’s nuclear program and defense establishment, including its aerial defenses.
  • The Iranians now know about the indications that would be perceived by Washington and Jerusalem as a “nuclear breakthrough”. Hence, Iran can do a better job of concealment.
  • The reports make it more difficult to utilize certain operational options. These options, even if not considered thus far, could have been used by the US in the future, should Iran not thwart them via diplomatic and military means.

As you can well imagine, these leaks have created a serious problem for Israel, and it effectively takes this range of strike options off the table.  With the Obama administration undertaking such a program of intentional leaks, it’s hard to imagine relations could grow much cooler between the US and Israel.  One of the problems I foresee in this instance is wondering what happens when Israel, that increasingly views Iran as a potential existential threat to its people, comes to see us as taking on the role of effectively aiding that threat.

These are dangerous times, and the United States has a president who seems intent upon making them more volatile.  By making such information known to the press, it is likely to act to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, but the problem is that Iran may be making serious strides in the development of nuclear weapons.  So armed, they would pose a serious threat to the existence of Israel, particularly since they have a leader who has promised repeatedly to immolate Israel and her people.

If this administration is serious, what it will do is investigate the leaks and bring the sources to justice because these are classified documents and assessments, and any who have access to such material ought to be limited strictly, thus making it easier to discern who is doing all the leaking.  Failing even to attempt to identify the sources of the leaks is as good as an endorsement of them, and what that suggests about this administration is too terrible to contemplate.

The original story broke in Foreign Policy Magazine, and former Ambassador John Bolton was among those who responded with severe criticism of the Obama administration.  One unnamed intelligence officer quoted in the article said:

“We’re watching what Iran does closely,” one of the U.S. sources, an intelligence officer engaged in assessing the ramifications of a prospective Israeli attack confirmed. “But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”

To have American officials of any description making such remarks to the press is abominable, but to see that the Obama administration is doing nothing about it gives the appearance of official sanction. This makes one wonder what the Obama administration’s actual policy is toward Israel.  Whatever you may choose to call it, it doesn’t seem to fit the term “ally.”

 

Sarah Palin Tweets Hilarious Video as the Vetting of Obama Continues

Monday, March 26th, 2012

Different Dignitary, Same Schlock

This is video is both hilarious, and sad, but I think we should be able to get a laugh from this, while also realizing the more serious nature of what it implies about the character of this president, and what Governor Palin termed his “empty, recycled rhetoric” in a tweet just minutes ago.  It’s true.  Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have an original thought in his head, and his treatment of our allies in this video is a classic reminder.  Thanks to Governor Palin for reminding us of this scandalously poor commander-in-chief’s behavior, and the sort of national embarrassment his presidency has become.  One can imagine foreign leaders coming to our country, wondering if they’re going to be given the same old song and dance.  It’s cookie-cutter foreign policy, and it’s typical of Barack Obama’s pathetic leadership.

Classic Obama:

You can read more of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s tweets here: @SarahPalinUSA

Obama Will Have More Flexibility After the Election – As Will Romney After Nomination

Monday, March 26th, 2012

The Flexibility To Betray Us?

Much as Democrats can’t wait to point out the “Etch-a-Sketch” tendencies of Mitt Romney, Barack Obama has similar problems, and another example arose when he told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he(Obama) would have more flexibility after the election.   What he means is that it will be easier to get away with selling out American interests, since he’ll never be forced to answer to voters again.  Of course, as you can tell, Obama already thinks he has this election in the bag, and there’s really no getting around the fact that if he is re-elected, he will have free reins and many expect he will extend his executive authority to rule without reference to Congress.  It points out the reason that character matters, as politicians promise one thing in campaigns, and deliver another afterward, but it’s not only Obama about whom conservatives should worry on this basis.

It also tells us something important about the minds of politicians.  The positions he will take before the election will have no bearing on his actual policies afterward, translating the remark.  That’s an egregious instance of Obama bragging about effectively lying to the American people.  Republicans have a similar problem in their own party, where Mitt Romney’s Communications Director openly admits that the general campaign is like starting over, and he likened their flexibility to an “Etch-a-Sketch.”  This has precisely the same meaning as Barack Obama’s remark, leading me to wonder why any Republican would choose Mitt Romney over the others.  If they find this attitude and conduct disgusting in the behavior of the President, but not in the campaign of Mitt Romney, one must wonder why.

We all recognize that Barack Obama will try to hide his radical side through the coming election, but as bad as that is, our own nomination front-runner is currently doing the same thing to us.  I have no problem with those who wish to point to Obama’s duplicity based on this and other statements, but if we accept Mitt Romney as our nominee, aren’t we falling for the same thing we decry in Obama?

Trayvon Martin and the Politics of Division

Sunday, March 25th, 2012

Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

I had decided to avoid this case because I could see that it was headed for inflammatory realms in which race would become one of the central talking points, and I don’t wish to be part of such vicious spectacles, or in any way add to the situation, but this has gone too far.  Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old, was shot and killed after some sort of altercation with George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, on February 26th.  Martin, an African-American, was apparently armed only with Skittles candy and ice tea, and the presumption has been that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch participant or captain of some sort who has a concealed hand-gun carry license, must have overreacted in the moment and shot Martin.

Initially, it was reported that Zimmerman was white, but it was later amended to reflect the reality that he is Hispanic. The political impact locally was immediate:  There was outrage.  Since that time, various political figures and operatives have stuck their noses into this,  agitating for their own agenda, the list of agitators sadly including the President of the United States.

At the scene, police let Zimmerman go because according to witnesses, it appeared to be the case that during the final moments of the incident, Martin was atop Zimmerman, hammering away at him with punches.  Zimmerman was battered and bloodied, and he had grass stains on his clothing indicating he had been on his back, defensive, when the shooting occurred. Witnesses have confirmed much of this account.  That has not been enough to stem the tide of racially-charged agitating going on in Sanford, Florida, and increasingly, around the country, as the con-artists who use such incidents to try to sew chaos in the black community have continued to work their worst.  It’s abominable, but it’s also sadly telling, because rather than attempting to calm things, President Obama stirred them up further with his own ridiculous remarks before heading to South Korea.

We will likely never know with absolute certainty what transpired, or how this went down in the moments leading up to Trayvon Martin’s death.  We will have the words of the witnesses, the 9-1-1 call, and the testimony of George Zimmerman, along with any physical evidence collected at the scene.  All of this is important in reconstructing those moments, but the suspicion among many is that Zimmerman was an overzealous neighborhood watch participant who went too far, but it is also entirely possible within the framework of the evidence disclosed thus far that Zimmerman is entirely innocent of any wrong-doing. After all, the cops had a dead body, and a smoking gun, and a shooter.  They had everything they needed if they thought Zimmerman had committed a crime to arrest him on the spot.  This is the reason for the outrage, of course, because there are those who are suggesting that there’s no way this could be anything other than criminal malevolence on the part of Zimmerman.

One of the other reasons I haven’t written about this is because I know passions are running high, but information is thin. I am not about to condemn Zimmerman who may have done exactly nothing wrong, nor am I about to cast aspersions on 17-yo Martin, who may well have been the victim in this case, but in any event lost his life in the event.  What I am going to say is what the Mayor, the Governor, and the President should have said, but in various ways failed to do:

We are a nation of laws.  We have the system of justice that permits the investigation, the charging, the arresting, the trial and the punishment of wrong-doers.  We must trust in this system to sort through the physical evidence, the testimony of witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and the whole body of what is known about this case in order that justice be served.  What we do know is that in the hours afterward, the police saw fit to let Zimmerman go.  His story seemed to check out, and after interviewing Martin’s father, they verified that the screams for help heard on the 9-1-1 recordings were not those of Trayvon Martin, at least implying that at some point during the altercation, Zimmerman was on the receiving end of the worst of it.  Then there was a gun-shot, and that all changed.

Could the discharge of the weapon have been accidental?  Was it while prone on the shooters back, being pummeled by the other?  If this is the case, and that seems to be the story the police have accepted, then whatever led to that moment, you have the lanky teen in command of the situation in the moments just before the trigger was pulled.  I’ve read remarks from people who immediately criticize Zimmerman for using a gun on an unarmed assailant, but I would like to caution those who throw about such loose talk because fists can be deadly weapons too, and to assume that because we’re talking about punches is no reason to assume that Zimmerman was in any less danger.  If I had a dollar for every person who has been beaten to death, I’d be able to retire comfortably tomorrow.  In such a situation, it really comes down to whether the person being beaten believes his life is in danger.  Once that belief exists, his actions thereafter may be justified, however he arrived at the situation.

This is one of the real problems with these sorts of scenarios, and it’s really not conducive to the sort of hyper-emotional talk that accompanies such events.  The event must be deconstructed on a time-line, and that’s critical to understanding who is to blame for what, and where the points of demarcation along the chain of events may be. Knowing how the two came to blows will be one way-point, while there may come another at which Martin gained the upper hand, and yet another at which Zimmerman came to believe his life was in danger, and used the gun.  All of this is a complicated thing to put together, and it’s not made easier by the charges of racism, or charges of bias, or all of the rest of it that agitators and media add unnecessarily to the sad story.  I think every person outside direct involvement in this situation who has commented about this to the press is an irresponsible ass.

I except only the family of Martin, understandably stricken with grief and shock, and the local police who must make some statement, but they may be constrained by laws and regulations concerning the disclosure of all evidence and testimony until the case is closed.  The family can say what they want, and they should, but at some point, it’s also up to them to try to gather all the facts.  If Martin had a hand in his own demise, they need to know it.  What annoys me about the press is that they will talk to the family in such a case and do everything they can to build on any controversy.  This creates unnecessary hysteria in the community, and leads to the sorry spectacle with which we are now faced, but it also brings them around-the-clock ratings bonanzas and for the enterprising local journalist, if the story goes national, it may be the chance to move up to food chain.  Don’t kid yourself:  For every sad story in which there is any controversy, there is a legion of parasites trying to figure out how to exploit the situation to their personal advantage.

Now enter the circus of hucksters and hustlers, who have nothing much to lose, but everything to gain from turning a sad situation into a circus.  The New Black Panthers are on the scene, as are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and while not there in person, but in spirit and in words, Barack Obama, President of the United States.  I feel badly for the community there, because what should have been a sad story that resulted in an investigation that concluded one way or another is now a politicized three-ring circus with every hanger-on and vulture one can imagine.  It’s despicable.  Four weeks after the fact, this tragic tale has become a spectacle into which people who have no actual interest in the case have inserted themselves for their own nefarious purposes.  I can scarcely imagine that the grieving mother of Trayvon Martin is in any way relieved or heartened by the New Black Panthers issuing a $10,000 bounty for the “capture” of George Zimmerman.  It will not bring back her son, and it certainly won’t serve justice.

Sunday, Director Spike Lee tweeted George Zimmerman’s home address, exhorting followers to spread it.  To what end?  Is Spike Lee now engaged in trying to foment a lynch mob?  If anything befalls George Zimmerman as a result, or his family, or his neighbors, as a result of this ridiculous behavior by Spike Lee, I sincerely hope they sue this ridiculous character half out of existence.  His intent is clearly malevolent, and violent.  What Lee is effectively doing is calling for violence, though he’s careful not to say it directly.  Providing an address in this fashion is simply a form of hooliganism that all should abhor.  If we had a responsible President, he would have said something to put a stop to all of this, but his agenda is not served by stopping it.  He wants the chaos.  He wants the agitating.  This is what he did for a living before he was an elected politician.  This is all very much right up this President’s alley.

Of course, you would think that some responsible person seeking the Presidency would say something to condemn all of this loose talk, and somebody did:  Newt Gingrich pointed out the bad behavior of Barack Obama in the matter.  On the other hand, Jeb Bush, former Florida Governor, actually piled on with the anti-Zimmerman rants.  As the former Governor of that state, you would think that he would have exercised the prudence of keeping his mouth shut until all the facts are known, but he couldn’t stay quiet about it, trying to ingratiate himself with whatever interests he thinks will one day serve him should he seek higher office.

“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance,” Bush said after an education panel discussion at the University of Texas at Arlington. “Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

The problem with this remark is that Bush isn’t any more aware of the facts of the incident than the rest of us.  He doesn’t have any special insight to offer, but the last part of this remark could be said to be inciting.  We don’t know how those last moments of Martin’s life went down, and Bush really had no business injecting the biased statement about “somebody who’s turned their back.”  This reminds me of the “The Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” remark of Barack Obama.  It assumes and implies what may be all the wrong things about this case, and ignores some of the details that are now widely available. His next remark,  however, should have been his only remark on the case:

“Anytime an innocent life is taken it’s a tragedy,” Bush said. “You’ve got to let the process work.”

If Bush has said this only, and left it there, it would have been fine, and in fact, that’s the sort of thing all our politicians should say when asked about this case, or any like it.  Of course, for his part, Bush was a relatively minor player in the fiasco, because when you consider the outrageously prejudicial remarks of President Obama, it’s easy to see how this circus got out of hand very quickly:

“When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” Obama said in the Rose Garden. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together.”

“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”

“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened.”

This is absurd because it was going to be investigated, and indeed, the investigation was well under way when he opened his mouth on the issue. It’s also true that this case is not really a federal issue.  I don’t understand what the Federal government is doing in this case unless and until the State of Florida and the local jurisdiction put in a call for assistance, or until somebody makes a charge to the Department of Justice claiming that somebody’s rights have been violated under the existing legal system. To then bring his own kids into this, or to make the remark about “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” is simply a disgusting appeal to race as a motive.  It’s either that, or Obama is so fundamentally narcissistic that he must translate every issue and problem into a personal one in order to understand it.  Either way, Obama’s remarks are an outrage in and of themselves, and Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama’s behavior, was quick to denounce the remarks, again from Politico:

“It’s not a question of who that young man looked like. Any young American of any ethnic background should be safe, period. We should all be horrified no matter what the ethnic background,” Gingrich said. “Is the President suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be ok because it didn’t look like him?”

They also reported this on his remarks earlier the same day:

“That’s just nonsense dividing this country up. It is a tragedy this young man was shot,” Gingrich continued on Hannity’s show. “It would have been a tragedy if he had been Puerto Rican or Cuban or if he had been white or if he had been Asian-American of if he’d been a Native American. At some point we ought to talk about being Americans. When things go wrong to an American. It is sad for all Americans. Trying to turn it into a racial issue is fundamentally wrong. I really find it appalling.”

Here, the former House Speaker sounds the right basic theme, but I think it’s important for all of these folks to avoid over-politicizing the issue itself, and urge calm and remind Americans that we have a justice system to handle this, and that prejudging anything here absent all the evidence could lead to a tragic miscarriage of justice, one way or the other.  In the context of commenting on the comments, I see that as proper because this is to focus on the behaviors of those not even remotely connected to the issue who are clearly adding fuel to the fire.  On the other hand, those commenting on the situation directly absent the full results of the investigation, including all circumstantial and physical evidence, along with all available testimony are acting irresponsibly.

There are a number of people who can’t wait to jump in front of a camera or a microphone and do a good deal of indignant harrumphing about this case, but all they are adding to the situation is more emotional invective.  The correct  answer is:  Stop!  This situation cannot possibly improve by the  injection of comments from uninvolved parties.  That we now have the New Black Panthers offering a bounty and effectively calling for Zimmerman’s scalp, while Spike Lee tweets the guy’s address is a recipe for disaster.  The media shouldn’t give any of these jerks face-time, but they’re trying to push the story for the sake of ratings, but maybe also a political agenda.  Either way, the President, Governor, Mayor, Prosecutor, and anybody else connected with the administration of justice in any way with this case ought to restrain their remarks to the very basic: “No comment,” or “We need to let the system of justice work,” or “I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation,” and most importantly, “the system of justice cannot work when we have hooligans trying to incite violence or using violent rhetoric.”

The simple truth of this case may be that race had absolutely nothing to do with any of it.  The attempt by some to turn this into a racial issue is simply disgusting, as Newt Gingrich asserted.  This is an instance in which cool heads should prevail, but with a parade of hucksters, opportunists, and politicians with their own agenda in mind, the media has turned this into something it should never  have been while they overlook real cases in which outrage is warranted irrespective of the issue of race.  In the end, the evidence may show Zimmerman acted improperly, and if so, he will be punished, but if not, then there’s going to be a bad situation here because too many people are trying much too intently to make of this a spectacle for their own purposes.

The media reports in ways that simply boggle the mind, and as late as Sunday, I have seen one Reuters story in which the shooter was described as a “white hispanic.”  If this doesn’t demonstrate the lunacy of the media, and their firm commitment to getting the most controversial angle on every story, I don’t know what does. It is my sincere hope that justice is served for all involved, whatever that turns out to be once all the facts are known and all of the investigations are concluded, but not one moment sooner.  This sort of rush to judgment is dangerous, and it should be rejected by every American irrespective of race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or political affiliation. If we are to have a civilized society, it begins with the proposition that when something uncivil occurs, we must respond to it in an orderly fashion that permits rational examination of facts without bias.  Many of the agitators in this instance are trying to obtain the opposite result, but we must not permit it. It’s long past time for cooler heads to prevail. I expect our national leaders to reflect that sentiment.

 

 

Governor Palin on Hannity Discussing Vile Attacks (Video)

Saturday, March 24th, 2012

Governor Palin on Hannity

On Friday evening, former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared on Hannity on FoxNews to discuss a range of topics, relating to the vile attacks she and her family have endured over the last four years since John McCain chose her to be his running mate.  Hannity prefaced the segment with a number of disturbing video clips of various media personalities saying the most obscene and ridiculously insulting things about Gov. Palin and other members of her family, and given the nature of some of the things that have been said, I remain amazed at her poise and strength of resolve in confronting it all.  Bill Maher, and David Letterman, among others headline this bunch of shameless media vermin, but Governor Palin was most perturbed by the attacks on her children.

Perhaps the most shocking of attacks has been on her young son Trig who was born with Down Syndrome, and has been the focus of disgusting ridicule and ridiculous conspiracy theories.  As a parent, it’s horrible to witness attacks of any kind on your children, but the despicable attack on a child with special needs is particularly abominable. Frankly, I consider the purveyors of this alleged “comedy” aimed at defenseless children the signature of pure evil.  Here’s the video:

Naturally, there have been attacks on all her kids, and some of them stunningly vile.  The question of President Obama’s hypocrisy came up, since one of the SuperPACs supporting him accepted one million dollars from professional pig Bill Maher.  Hannity also highlighted Bristol Palin’s blog in which she asked President Obama directly:  Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?  The hypocrisy is evident, but that’s not particularly bothersome to leftists, who must adopt every manner of contradiction in logic and morality to hold their positions.  The Governor’s eldest daughter did an excellent job of demonstrating the clear hypocrisy through his remarks to the press on the Sandra Fluke story.

The left loves to profess their love and reverence for the rights and dignity of all women, but when it comes right down to it, what’s really important to leftists is ideology.  Women only qualify for their respect if they happen also to be leftists.

Suicide By Romneycare, or Why Etch-a-Sketch Matters

Friday, March 23rd, 2012

Etch-a-Sketch Repeal?

I’ve warned conservatives for nearly as long as I’ve been blogging that to nominate Mitt Romney is to commit an act of electoral suicide.  I’ve told you that when it comes time to run the general election campaign, Romney will abandon all of this talk about repealing Obamacare because he will be toast on this issue.   Barack Obama knows this too, and it’s the reason every Democrat in Washington wants to see a Romney candidacy.  For once, we got a little insight into the coming Romney betrayals, when his longtime Campaign adviser and Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom on Wednesday likened Mitt Romney to an etch-a-sketch in terms of their ability to re-shape the campaign once the general election campaign begins.  This was an admission of what would really happen to all of his talk about being a conservative should Mitt Romney secure the party’s nomination.

I’ve urged the other candidates to hammer Romney on this point, and to their credit, they have, but without debates lately, they’re not making much headway in the media that largely favors Mitt Romney, so the point isn’t being made.  Consider it another gift, because now we get a little help from an unlikely source, who made mention of this issue, although not by name.  The source?  Barack Obama.

You see, he was being interviewed by Kai Ryssdal, for the Marketplace Morning Report for Thursday, March 22, 2012, and he was asked about his health-care reform, and I want you to pay close attention to what Obama implies about a Republican candidate, and says of a particular state:

Alternative content

From CNN, referencing the same interview, with a few pull-quotes, and a few explanations of context for Obama’s remarks:

“We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different,” the president said.

The Massachusetts plan served as a model for the Affordable Care Act, signed two years ago Friday. Romney, the state’s former governor, has since said the legislation was the correct course for his state but not meant as a model for a national overhaul. But the plan has proved a focal point of criticism aimed at the GOP frontrunner.

In Thursday’s interview, Obama said Republican opposition to the plan, including the Supreme Court challenge, is politically motivated.

He said state governors will have a difficult time explaining resistance to the law to their constituents.

“When people see that in fact it works, it makes sense – as it’s, by the way, working in Massachusetts – then I think a whole bunch of folks will say ‘Why aren’t we trying it as well?'” Obama said.

It’s important to understand the meaning of this audio clip in context of the “Etch-a-sketch” comment. Twice, in less than two minutes, Obama goes out of his way to mention a unnamed candidate(Romney) and the state he governed (Massachusetts) as extensions of his healthcare law.  Let that soak in, and realize that the one issue on which more than 60% of Americans agree, that Obamacare must be repealed, Mitt Romney will be completely neutralized in a general campaign.

Therefore, I believe that the Etch-a-Sketch is all about dumping his promise to seek the repeal of Obama-care.  He can’t.  He will be absolutely wrecked by Barack Obama and his campaign if he even tries that approach.  Romney is the one candidate among all of the Republicans who is least able to make the case against Obamacare, and it is the one issue that has united the American people against Obama like no other.  I cannot see how the Republicans defeat Obama without this issue, and yet if Mitt Romney is the nominee, this is precisely what he will be forced to do.

That “Etch-a-Sketch?”  Yes, that got to be shaken as soon as Romney captures the nomination, and when it is, part of the picture that will be erased will be the promise to repeal Obamacare.  Mitt Romney is being dishonest in this respect.  It will ruin him if he tries, and without it, he cannot win.  I think most of the readers of this blog have understood this all along, but there’s a segment of the conservative base that doesn’t follow the inside politics, and may not yet understand this. There is no candidate who will fare more poorly against Barack Obama than Mitt Romney.  All of this talk about his electability is based on a very generic sense conveyed by the media, but does not represent what the voters will see in the last six to eight weeks of the campaign.  This is just a sample of how Romney will be neutered on the Obama-care issue, and it’s going to mean Romney will simply drop all of the repeal talk once he has your  nomination.  Let me be blunt:

Nominate the Etch-a-Sketch, and you get four more years of Barack Obama.

The End.

This is 1860, and Obama Isn’t Lincoln

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Who We Need

Our country is in crisis, but at present, we have no leader emerging to save the union, and it seems there will be no Abraham Lincoln to save the nation.  Barack Obama is more like his long-ago predecessor, James Buchanan, who was put in place by his party, the Democrats, to protect the institution of slavery.  Obama is in that position, as his job has been to protect and grow the welfare state, and in much the same way as Buchanan, it may be a case before the Supreme Court that defines his presidency.  If Barack Obama and the Democrats have their way, the Supreme Court will uphold the Affordable Care Act(Obama-care) thus defining the character and inevitable course of the nation, much as in 1857, Justice Taney’s ruling upholding slavery in the Dred Scott case set the nation on a course to civil war. The difference was that in 1857, the court held that federalism applied, and in 2012, Barack Obama’s justice department is demanding that the 10th Amendment and the entire notion of States’ rights be ignored. There may only be one way in which this issue is finally settled, and it may require war.

In 1860, the budding Republican party sought to set the question on slavery right, the abolitionists in the North propelling Abraham Lincoln to the presidency.  Lincoln had the distinction of overseeing the abolition of slavery, but to do so he would need to fight a war.  In much the same way, if Republicans are to begin abolishing the soft slavery of the welfare state, beginning with Obama-care, they will need to elect a leader prepared to wage war in defense of a principle.  After all, in 1860, the South was entrenched in the notion of keeping the institution of legal slavery, but the abolitionists knew that could not be permitted to stand.  In 2012, faced with a Supreme Court case that may well decide the future of the country, we wait to see if the court will act to save the country, or fail to defend the principles enshrined in the constitution as they did in the Dred Scott case one-hundred-fifty-five years ago.

People have falsely compared Obama to Lincoln, thinking his stance on the supremacy of the central government over the states is the most pressing comparison, but this simply isn’t the case.  What will save our republic now is not more government but less, and not fewer freedoms but more, and in this sense, Barack Obama has nothing in common with Abraham Lincoln.  Lincoln thought that it was impossible to better the lives of some men by subjecting other men to ruin:

“Property is the fruit of labor…property is desirable…is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, “Reply to New York Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association” (March 21, 1864), pp. 259-260.

Clearly, Lincoln was not interested in Obama’s updated form of enslavement, and yet that is the central crisis that will confront this nation in the 2012 elections, and for some years to come.  Nobody can say with certainty what will be the final tipping point, but if this nation continues apace, it will plunge into anarchy and civil war, but this time, the government is likely to be on the side of the slavers.

There is something fundamentally flawed in the thinking of those who argue that this is just the natural progression of nations, because what they argue is that Americans are neither wise enough, nor even capable of sufficient self-control to attempt to restrain intemperate desires for wealth derived from naked expropriation, but I submit this is not true, at least not yet, and that we must not permit it to become true.  Once we cross that invisible plane, the ramifications will be known with little delay, as the country you had known and loved and labored to propel disappears into the fog of a war from which only savagery may emerge.

Let us not pretend that we can’t imagine what will happen in such a scenario, but let us not delude ourselves into the beautiful lie that tells us it will somehow resolve by other, less painful means.  Von Clauswitz said that war is politics by another means, and I am here to tell you that politics is just the precursor to war  in such a context as the one in which our nation now persists.  All of the political rancor we now experience would be replaced by open warfare, at least for a time, in the scenario I am describing.  That our slate of Republican candidates might not see this is disturbing enough, but that our front-runner intentionally avoids seeing it is frankly inexcusable.  Of those now in the nomination fight, I think Gingrich is most apt to understand what’s at stake, because his knowledge of history may permit him to see the warning signs with a clarity the others are neither inclined nor perhaps able to see.

Gingrich has a fine understanding of the Civil War, and he certainly knows the history of the period, and how the nation arrived in that predicament.  I think Gingrich also understands that our current predicament is in some ways worse, because whereas in 1861, Lincoln put the government in service of the proposition that all men were created equal, we now have a government committed to the notion that it is the job of government to compel an equality of results.

This is the nature of the grave danger we now face, and it is every bit as dangerous as 1860, but perhaps with the added danger that we now have  a president who is part of the problem.  Put another way, imagine that in 1861, it had been a President from the South who instead caused t he Northern delegations to Congress to walk out, and had engaged in a brutal war to compel Northern states to the “peculiar institution” that had been slavery.  That’s what we now face, as Barack Obama seeks to impose his own form of slavery on the American people.

This is why I insist that this election year is not like 1980, or even 1932.  This election is most like 1860, and if we don’t find a candidate with the common sense and righteous aims of Lincoln, it may have been in vain that we exercised our vote.  If we are to preserve this republic, we will need leaders who are willing to wage even war in defense of individual liberty.  That certainly won’t be Barack Obama, and it surely won’t be Mitt Romney, leaving us to ponder whether it is even possible to save our union once more.

The Gumby Candidacy: Why I’m Ecstatic Over Fehrnstrom’s Remarks

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

How Plastic Can He Get?

When Romney Communications Director Eric Fehrnstrom placed both feet squarely in his mouth on Wednesday in an interview with CNN, I was thrilled.  Some may wonder why this would be, since all Fehrnstrom did was to confirm what most of you have known from the outset:  Mitt Romney is Gumby.  He is able and willing to flex and fold and spindle and mutilate all of his previous positions according to the political expediency of the moment.  Honestly, I am ecstatic not merely because it validates what I’ve been telling you about Romney all along, but that the voters in the GOP will now be armed with the reality about who this man is and how he operates.  Fehrnstrom, who’s worked with Mitt Romney since he was Governor of Massachusetts, is as good a source as any. Conservatives should consider this a gift, because it finally gives us the evidence we need to show Mitt Romney for what he really is:  A plastic, flexible, morally indecisive man who believes whatever the polls say he ought to believe to garner the most political support.

Let’s consider this carefully, together with the other news of the day, and recognize what Romney really is.  Consider what Mark Levin offered on his radio show Wednesday evening, when he pointed out that Fehrnstrom never even attempted to refute the assertion of the questioner.  Instead, it was accepted as fact that he is indeed tacking right for the primaries.  If he’s tacking right, where he must have originated is somewhere to the left.  That’s simple logic, and the fact that Fehrnstrom never challenged it tells us that it’s true.  I would love for one Romney supporter to offer a single refutation of that premise that makes any sense, but I don’t expect it now, or later.

Romney has also said he was in favor of TARP, and then that he wasn’t so sure, but now he’s clearly back on the TARP bandwagon, by saying today on the campaign trail that George W. Bush and Hank Paulson saved the economy.  He’s talking about TARP!  He said the following:

“I keep hearing the president say he’s responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression,” Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. “No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson.”

Consider this when you listen to him tell you how he is conservative, but that the other candidates are not.  Given what we’ve learned about his flexible ideology, how long will it before he tells us Obama-care wasn’t such a bad idea?  If you wonder why Republican turn-out is low in so many states, it’s because Romney’s negative campaigning has turned off conservatives.  He’s doing it intentionally because the record clearly demonstrates conservatives don’t like the negative campaigning, particularly Tea Party types.  Romney’s aim is to discourage them to keep them from polling for anybody else.

The Romney campaign is in bunker mode, and this slip-up by Fehrnstrom is likely to do Romney substantial damage.   Fehrnstrom likened Romney to an Etch-a-Sketch, but I think “Gumby” is more appropriate:  He’s easily molded and reshaped and he has the philosophical firmness of an un-fired clay pot.  The worst part of all of this is knowing that he’s trying to get away with it.  He is trying to slide by while never really having committed to much, and too many conservatives, in angst over Obama, are far too willing to surrender to Mitt Romney.  Some may appreciate the potential merits of a Gumby president, but I think what Fehrnstrom’s admission speaks to is a sort of dishonesty on the part of Mitt Romney that is the sort of duplicity that conservatives deplore.

Mold him, shape him, sculpt him and then start over with a squish.  Mitt Romney is no conservative, and we should never nominate him, much less elect him president. He rails against Gingrich and Santorum, but by any objective measure, both men have a record of governing as far more conservative than Mitt Romney as governor the state of Massachusetts.  A vote for Romney may begin as a vote against Barack Obama, but he’s not likely to maintain the most important distinctions beyond the convention.  For conservatives, it is time to get off your butts and be heard in these primaries, selecting anybody but Romney since he’s the leftists’ alternative to Barack Obama.  Time to get up and oppose this guy before he continues the wreckage of the conservatives in our party and conservatism in general.  You now know who this man really is, thanks to Eric Fehrnstrom, and it’s time we exploit this gift to knock out Romney, or at least tamp him down.  I’m not happy he is this way, but I’m thrilled that it’s finally been admitted by one of his own people, albeit inadvertently.

 

The Change We Need Looks Nothing Like the Change We’ve Gotten

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

Change in Which Leftists Believe

Our Republic is suffering a slow death at the hands of statists of the left, but also the moderate Republicans.  We have a fiscal situation that most would label a crisis by any definition, in which the Federal government expends money fifty percent faster than it collects it, and it collects plenty.  Three years of Barack Obama’s reckless spending, and the willingness of Republican leadership to make deals has left us in a situation in which we are accruing debt faster than at any time in history.  Even if Barack Obama is defeated and sent packing in 2012, as he surely should be, we may not make it that far before the consequences explode in our faces.  The House of Representatives should not pass another bill that appropriates one dollar.   Yes, we need a government shutdown, but Barack Obama has other plans.  He intends to take over, and to ignore the Congress, and he intends to do so well in advance of the elections.  Obama is a man who has planned all his life for overthrowing the United States Constitution, and now, armed with the power of the executive branch, and with a supporting Senate, he is likely to make his play now while he still can.

Barack Obama isn’t a garden variety socialist.  He’s steeped in the tactics of Saul Alinsky, but more, he has an abiding desire to see the United States become a slave state.  People have wondered why he’s doing the things he is, but for many, the answer is clear: We may be on the verge of a second bloody revolution, and the proponents of this one are already in charge, and already using the levers of power to make ready for their moment.  I know this sounds so thoroughly outlandish to some people, that it’s difficult to say it seriously, except for the fact that it’s happening.

Consider Occupy Wall Street.  Here is an organization that exists to create unrest and violence in the streets, and in typical leftist fashion, it will be used to give government and excuse to step in.  Of course, it’s being directed by Obama friends and co-conspirators, including a healthy dose of funding from George Soros and his various affiliate pass-through organizations, but what make it more stunning than this is that Obama is putting in place the foundations for declaring vast new emergencies and taking on new Federal powers under the aegis of just such an emergency.  On Thursday, he signed a new executive order, that while updating older statutes, effectively gives the government the power to seize whatever it wants under whatever conditions it wants in response to a vague national emergency.  The Executive Order, titled: NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS, provides for adjustments to procedures to be carried out under 50 USC.

This order provides for the organization of the executive branch under such an emergency, and likewise provides directions on what may be delegated, to whom, and for what purposes.  It references a number of other executives orders, along with various sections of 50 USC.  The Obama administration will claim it is merely updating policies, but this is a bit more than that. We mustn’t be fooled into thinking this is all business-as-usual.  Nothing about the Obama administration is business-as-usual except for the outward appearance they wish to project.

Consider the implications of a President being tied to a civil unrest movement the likes of OWS, and then also setting up the legal basis for a government response to the sort of crisis OWS could be expected to generate, particularly if there is substantial financial difficulty arising out of the reckless policies of this administration.  On the one hand, he has OWS to terrorize you, and on the other, he is preparing to deal with them in response to your demands.  The truly stunning part is that the Occupiers don’t quite seem to grasp the danger, or that they’re being set up to take a mighty fall.

Now comes news that Obama has been groomed for this role for a long time, perhaps as far back as the mid-1980s, when it seems that Bill Ayers’ parents may have sponsored Obama or otherwise helped him through school, as WND reports.  A former mail carrier explained his contacts with the Ayers family and young black man he met who he now believes was Barack Obama.  WND interviewed him, and here is that video:


Whatever you may make of this, what’s certain is that Obama certainly had ties to some very radical people, and the problem with this man’s testimony is that he remembers Mrs. Ayers(Bill Ayers’ mother) saying that this was a foreign student.  What is certain is that the postal carrier remembers Obama’s features, his voice and manner of speaking.  He also had an interesting discussion with Ayers’ father, Tom, who seems to have been an ardent Marxist too.

I bring this to your attention because it’s an interesting aside to the general conversation about who Barack Obama really is, and what his intentions for this country really are.   I don’t believe he’s anything but a radical leftist, and as many now contend, he is not undertaking these policies lightly.  As Mark Levin mentioned on Monday evening, the Executive Order issued by Obama last week is bad in any president’s hands, but in the hands of this President particularly, that offers a potential prescription for the end of America as we have known it.

It reminds me of a famous piece of literature, Atlas Shrugged, wherein Ayn Rand constructs the devolution of the  United States, and one of the instruments the statists use is an analog to this latest executive order, called “Directive 10-289.”  It basically offered a takeover under the guise of an emergency in much the same form as this latest executive order would do:  Take over the means of production,distribution, transportation, and any and every other critical part of the American economy.  The longer the Obama administration goes on, the more I get the impression that we are living out the last chapters of Atlas Shrugged.

I think Obama is a good deal more malevolent than the shrinking coward who was the head of the country in that book.  I don’t believe any of this is or can be accidental.  He’s clearly intent upon changing America to his vision, whether or not Americans consent.   Any president who can so easily disregard the opinion of more than sixty percent of Americans in enacting a health-care reform bill isn’t acting in the best interests of the country.  Slowly but surely, he’s picking our constitution apart, and if he gets his way, it will be altogether meaningless as a restraint upon government.  2012 may be our last chance to stop the overthrow of our Republic by peaceful means. The fox is in the hen-house, and establishment Republicans still look at him expectantly, as though he ought to lay an egg.  If we do oust him, our next job will be to clean out that sorry gaggle of spur-less roosters who have been so ineffective at keeping the fox in check, in part because they golf with him and see him as one of their own.  He’s not, and the sooner our Republican leadership learns that, the sooner we can take back this country.

Score Another Victory for Obama’s War on Americans

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

Record March Fill-ups

Gasoline prices at the pump are now officially higher than they have ever been in the month of March, at a nationwide average of $3.87 for regular unleaded gasoline, breaking last week’s new record by four cents, but more than double the price when Barack Obama took office thirty-eight months ago.  At my own regular filling station, it was $3.63 up from $1.46 on inauguration day at the same pump in 2008.  That’s another change we could have lived without.  Of course, diesel fuel for the tractor and the farm truck now stands well over $4.20/gallon locally, and with this jump in prices, I expect these “green shoots” the Obama economic team and its shills in the media keep talking about will now wither, though most have seen scarce evidence of recovery anyway.  Barack Obama and his Secretary of Energy Steven Chu are getting what they desired:  European energy prices levels and European economic stagnation.

There cannot be a sustained economic recovery until energy prices are brought down.  There’s simply no mitigating the matter otherwise.  Since this President isn’t interested in bolstering America’s economy, he continues to stubbornly wage war against the energy sector, but those who pay the real price are always American consumers.  No new drilling in the Gulf?  Prices go up.  No drilling in ANWR?  Prices go up.  No Keystone XL pipeline from Canada?  Prices go up.  Shutting down coal-fired electric plants?  Prices go up.  Delaying tactics on new nuclear power stations?  Prices go up.  Supporting unrest in the Middle East, and playing patty-cakes with OPEC tyrants?  Prices go up.  All of these things and more, the Obama administration has done to put a strain on the energy sector of the economy, and we consumers pay the prices.  Now he’s talking about another release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but with the possibility of aggression by Iran looming, is it smart policy to sell off part of a reserve that constitutes one day’s worth of oil consumed by the nation?

The fact is that we cannot sustain this course much longer.  Each time oil prices spike, it hollows out the economy, and it chokes off economic growth. Unless and until that pattern is broken, we’re not going to see a sustained recovery, and this means we’re not going to have unemployment fall appreciably.  This ought to be the season when new housing starts begin to accumulate, but the housing market is still on its heels because so many houses are still vacant.  We overbuilt during the housing bubble, and in a natural market, without government interference, we would have seen many fewer houses, but we also would have seen many fewer foreclosures.  This is the problem into which you run when government meddles in markets of any sort, but what makes this time worse is that we have a President who is bound by his ideology to pursue this course.

Barack Obama can stand at the podium and tell reporters it wouldn’t be smart for a President to want higher gasoline prices in an election year, but this is a man who campaigned for office promising higher energy prices across the board.  We now have them.  Barack Obama isn’t a failure, from his point of view, because he’s accomplished what he said he would do.  The problem is that far too many Americans were taken in by vague platitudes of “hope” and “change,” but few seemed to really understand what sort of change they had signed-on to impose.  Of course, it’s now too late to cry over that spilled milk.  Instead, we have a new opportunity to unseat this President before he can achieve another “victory” in his war against America.