About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

OBAMA'S ACHILLES HEEL

 
   While an astonishingly loyal cult of personality has grown up around President
 
Barack Obama, there is a growing disconnect between Obama's personal popularity
 
and the festering dissatisfaction in mainstream America with many of his policies.
 
This would suggest that a winning Republican electoral strategy should target the
 
unpopular policies first, rather than attacking the man directly.
 
   Politically, the syllogism is a simple one: (a) here is the objectionable policy;
 
(b) here's where (and who) it came from, and (c) here's how to change it. Resisting
 
the temptation to attack a wide swath of policies with a broadsword, Republicans
 
should select the half-dozen or so most unpopular policies and puncture them
 
with a well-aimed rapier, forcing Obama and his party to defend and thereby "wear"
 
them. Such a strategy will inevitably have electoral consequences for Obama and
 
the Democrats, however otherwise likable America may find him.
 
   The present fact is that while Obama's personal popularity hovers near the 60th
 
percentile, a number of his policies and administrative decisions are approved by
 
less than half of the electorate. Obama has pollsters too, and thus one may only
 
conclude that while he knows Americans desire one course of action, he chooses
 
to substitute his judgment for theirs and take an opposite course. Presidents who
 
habitually do that eventually see plummeting job approval ratings and ultimately
 
don't get re-elected.
 
   One area of vulnerability may be the knotty energy issue. During the election
 
cycle 70% of Americans supported "drill, baby, drill," desiring to see America
 
maximize its own resources. Since his election Obama, who seemed open to
 
limited offshore exploration as a candidate, has done everything in his power
 
to block such development as president. He should be held accountable for that.
 
   Prior to his trip to the Middle East. a huge preponderance of representatives
 
and senators signed a cautionary letter to Obama asking him to tone down his
 
criticism of the current Israeli government's policy. They did this because of the
 
strategic importance of the Israeli alliance, the powerful pro-Israeli lobby and
 
the number of increasingly vocal Jews in their constituencies who see Obama
 
tilting into the pro-Palestinian posture many feared he would take prior to
 
voting for him. There are many Jews, and even more who favor pro-Isreali
 
policies for historic and strategic reasons. They are now very much in play, and
 
should be regularly faced with Obama's repeated attempts to dictate to Israel
 
while appeasing the Muslim world.
 
   Bloggers, talk show hosts and pollsters report a deep and widespread growing
 
resentment of the government takeovers of the private sector under Obama. The
 
government now controls two of America's three remaining automakers, its
 
largest insurance company (AIG), about 500 banks and the two biggest mortgage
 
holders. Obama is presuming to set salaries, dismiss executives and dictate policy
 
to whole industries. He has announced plans to expand his domain to include control
 
over healthcare and energy production. American sentiment is rapidly evolving from
 
deep unease to outright anger. Since all of these sectors are now being essentially
 
run by politicians who know nothing about business, some will undoubtedly do
 
much worse, even, than before the takeovers. It is imperative to help mainstream
 
Ameriacana ro realize that it is not just government policy they resent. It is OBAMA's
 
policy.
 
   New polls reveal that a majority of Americans disapprove of abortion (which
 
Obama's policies seek to facilitate), oppose the closing of Guanatamo Bay (which
 
Obama continues to promise to do) and overwhelmingly oppose bringing Gitmo
 
detainees to American soil (which both Obama and his puppet attorney general
 
favor). In other words, the only time Obama gives a flying flip about what Americans
 
want is when he needs their votes.
 
   As voters' electric bills skyrocket, private health insurance is lost and taxes rise to
 
support irresponsible and unsustainable government spending and debt, voters must
 
understand that it is this icon to whom they have sold their souls who has led them
 
down a primrose path to an America that is a mere shadow of its' former self. Abe
 
Lincoln's old maxim that "you can't fool all the people all the time" is all too true,
 
and it can be brought front and center by intelligent, well-considered arguments of
 
cause and effect. The GOP must. however, resist the inclination to go after the
 
policies THEY don't like, and focus exclusively on those the VOTERS don't like.
 
That is the best way to bring this egotistical president with his phony Greek temples,
 
international apology tours and umbilically attached teleprompter crashing back to
 
earth. It's time to start that process now!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

REVOLUTION!

 
   As vehemently as I despise what Saul Alinsky stood for, and the ugly tactics he used and taught, there is something about the man one can't help but grudgingly admire. He and his ilk have completely co-opted the Democratic party, orchestrated their playbook and put two Alinsky mentees into power as president and secretary of state. Obama and his wife freely quote Alinsky and Hillary Rodham Clinton was his star pupil and wrote her graduate thesis on his works. Not a mean legacy for a guy who's been dead almost forty years.
   Alinsky was a self-admitted communist who organized in the poor district of Chicago with complete disregard for existing ethical codes. His hero was Lucifer (the Devil) who, he enthused, challenged authority and got his own kingdom (Hell). His vision was social revolution leading to socialism, and ultimately the "paradise of communism" (his words). He wrote a book called Rules For Radicals, in which he outlined the tactics necessary to the overthrow of the establishment and giving "power to the people." Every conservative, moderate and Republican should read the book. Then you'll know exactly what you're up against. It WILL scare you!
   It is time for conservatives to unite and pull their heads out of the sand. It is time to look at the bigger picture and see just how the tide has turned. Democrats have ridden Barack Obama's rock star coattails into power, with commanding majorities in both the House and the Senate. In one fell swoop they have transformed America into a permanent debtor nation, rolling back, in the process, the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and laying the groundwork for socialized medicine and care rationing. Through card check legislation they are preparing to empower the unions to force their way into non-union shops by strongarm methods and intimidation,  reducing profitability and undermining capitalism. Many favor the reinstitution of the Fairness Doctrine to stifle popular conservative radio talk shows. The anti-gun fanatics have already begin their ominous drumbeat, the president has reinstated public funding for abortion and gay marriage, or something like it, will soon be officially sanctioned. This is the liberal full-court press, folks. Is anyone awake out there?
   How did this come about? Saul Alinsky's dictum was that radicals should gain political power by any means, including lying, cheating and stealing, if necessary. (He practiced all three liberally). The fact is that the Democrats have lied (most of Obama's campaign promises and about whose actions really caused the collapse of the housing market), they have cheated (ACORN, enough said) and they have stolen (the election in Minnesota, probably, and a trillion dollars from U.S. taxpayers). And they've only just begun, because blanket amnesty for illegals waits in the wings. 
   To reverse the balance of power, conservatives must act, beginning immediately. The notion that we can all play by the old rules when our opponents have legitimized theft, dishonesty and lawbreaking is an illusion. There is no genuine contest if the rules apply to only one team. We have a choice. We can either be "decent," and play by the old rules, and watch the two-party system become a one-party system (the Democrats' goal). Or, we can take the gloves off and fight back. Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals were proposed to help the minority bamboozle the majority, and they have worked. Now we are the have-nots. So why can't Alinsky's rules now be used against those who are in power, the Democrats? They can!
   Over the next several weeks I'll be reviewing Alinsky's rules, one by one, and suggesting how conservatives can use them to unseat Democratic incumbents, embarrass Democratic leadership and discredit Democratic socialist public policies. I hope you'll tune in and contribute.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SURPRISED?

 
 
   American voters are odd birds. They vote for a guy with no experience because they're mad at a guy who can't run again. They cling to the promises they want to hear, and then carp when the guy they put in office does the very things he promised to do. Go figure.
   Yesterday, I watched three couples being interviewed. They now owed more on their houses than the houses were worth, were middle income families, had struggled to keep their mortgages current and were expressing outrage that their neighbors, whose circumstances were similar except that they had not paid their mortgages, were now in line to get government help, while they were on the outside looking in. In each case, both husband and wife had voted for Barack Obama.
   A Democrat who is a friend of mine was complaining the other day that his piece of the stimulus was going to amount to about $13 dollars a week, and people who paid no taxes at all were also getting "rebates," a euphemism for "welfare check" since one can't be "rebated" what they never paid.. Another, a big-time former Clinton backer, was griping that in one sweeping move Obama had rolled back the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 and that America was back to supporting illegitimacy and indolence once again.
   Another friend, a Catholic who voted for Obama, was wringing her hands over Obama's decision to reinstate federal funding for organizations that perform abortions overseas, noted the papal and American bishops' condemnation of Obama's stand on abortion and seemed alarmed that the Democratic congress might strip away existing prohibitions against domestic abortion. Buyer's remorse?
   Where were all these whiners when the Messiah was promising to "spread the wealth around," "help out" those who needed it, practice some "redistribution" and proudly sign the "Freedom of Choice Act?" How could they be so dumb as not to understand that the "wealth" he planned to "spread around." was theirs, that the "help" he promised the needy was welfare all over again, or that the "it's above my pay gade" cop-out was code for the fact that the man is an all-out, no holds barred abortionist? Somebody must have been sprinkling dumb powder in the drinking water!
   Are we so ill-educated that we can't grasp the notion that a trillion dollar stimulus package, by the time it trickles down to all the millions of us, doesn't amount to hill of beans, but that where it does make an inter-generational impact is at the governmental level where the runaway borrowing necessary to support it mortgages the entire nation's future? Are we so naive that we thought the "stimulus package" hyped to save us from impending crisis, didn't include payoffs for the unions, the environmentalists, the healthcare socialists, ACORN and the others who helped sweep Obama into power? Were we so foolish that we blindly believed Obama's stern pronouncement, later branded as absolutely false by at least two fact-checking organizations, that "there are no earmarks in this bill?" Maybe I.Q.s have dropped sharply in the last several years, or maybe it's just that a war weary nation teetering on the verge of economic collapse is like the thirsty pilgrims in the desert lining up to drink the sands.
   Barack Obama has opportunistically seized upon the economic crisis to enact the first stage of his socialist agenda at taxpayer expense, and you haven't seen anything yet. In addition, he's doing what Democrats always do by weakening the national defense. He's already waffling on his much ballyhooed commitment to the war in Afghanistan, slashed the Defense Department's budget by 10%, ordered the closing of Guantanamo Bay WITHOUT a plan in place to deal with the murderous detainees there, and dropped charges agains the U.S.S. Cole bomber? So, acting like a true politician, he keeps the promises he made, except now they're on steroids, while breaking the promises to Americans (a strong national defense) that his party has always made and NEVER kept.
   If you are surprised by any of this, you've probably been smoking dope. Oh yeah, I forgot, some of Obama's people are making noises about legalizing that, too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA CANNOT CHANGE WASHINGTON

 
 
    President Barack Obama was elected on a platform of change. Arguing that "Washington
is broken," he promised a government of transparency, rejection of pork-barreling and a
curb on the powerful lobbies. The campaign began around a drumbeat of "change we can
believe in," and ended on the note of "change we need."
 
   Observers have already begun to note the distinctions between the noble promises and
the "realities on the ground." Promises to eschew "Washington insiders" have evaporated
into a flood of cabinet nominees who are nothing but. "I will end this war," has now turned into perhaps in 23 months, with the only troop withdrawals being those authorized by Obama's unpopular predecessor. "Spendulus," or "Porkulus," depending on which commentator's jargon you prefer, is the mother of all big government spending boondoggles that even Obama's vice president admits has at least a 30% chance of failing to help the struggling economy. The nominee vetting process is in a shambles, with one nominee after another belatedly confessing failures to pay taxes due. The close of Guantanamo has been announced, with no firm plan as to where to put the detainees there, and evidence mounting that previous occupants now at liberty have already resumed killing Americans. And now the government wants to borrow more money -- over eight billion dollars -- than the country has borrowed in total between the Civil War and the the Carter administration. None of this is even remotely "change we can believe in," let alone "change we need." Barack Obama cannot change Washington, and there are good reasons why.
   First, it is impossible to change a pervasive culture of falsehood by simply telling bigger and bolder lies. This is as much an indictment of politics as usual as it is of Obama. Americans seem to meekly accept the fact that their politicians routinely lie to them, and it further seems that the more brazen the falsehoods, the larger the winner's electoral plurality. During the campaign, Obama promised with a straight face that he would (a) reduce taxes, (b) increase targeted government spending, and (c) balance the budget. Historians, economists and most rational people know that doing all three simultaneously is a fiscal impossibility. Developments since Obama's election have made that reality even clearer. Obama promised the impossible, something he had to know that he could not deliver. As long as whoppers like this one comprise the information voters believe, politicians will continue to outdo one another at telling bald-faced lies. And Washington will never change.
   Washington will never change as long as those who made it what it is keep being recycled into positions of power. Obama's list of cabinet nominees looks like a who's who of Bill Clinton's leftovers, with a smattering of environmental and energy extremists thrown in for good measure. They are mostly just politicians, not people who have ever actually earned a living in the discrete areas of commerce, energy, agriculture and the like. What they share in common is a leftist agenda and a seeming reluctance to pay their taxes on time. Washington will never be changed by the same people who contributed to what it has become.
   And Obama can't change Washington because of partisan politics. The sad fact is that people on both sides of the aisle have become radicalized in their philosophies and agendas. They like to fight, attack and, when in power, ram things down the other party's throat. Bipartisanship is a myth, and Obama's succesful stimulus courtship of three moderate Republican senators doesn't change that fact. Washington isn't about cooperation, it's about power. And until someone finds a formula to expose that for what it is, Washington will never change.
   Barack Obama has no real motivation to change Washington. His party has the majority across the board, and they will give him anything he wants. At the end of the day Obama is still a flaming liberal with socialist ambitions, and it is to that ideology and structure that he wants to change the country. So long as Washington, as is, helps him along that road, he'll make no move toward real change.
   So, you suckers who voted for him hoping for real change got hosed. And there are more whoppers yet to come. If the "Pinochhio Principle" applied, by summer Air Force One won't be big anough to accomodate Obama's nose.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AFTER THE PARTY'S OVER

 
 
   It's done! Barack Hussein Obama has been sworn in as the 44th president of the
 
United States of America. He has reveled in his $150M self-congratulatory party
 
and mingled with his celebrity pals. But this morning reality sets in.
 
   The country faces the worst recession in 50 years and is engaged in two wars. It's
 
time to go to work. We will all have to sacrifice, the president tells us. Times ahead
 
will be hard, he promises. And most amazing of all is the host of conservative
 
commentary urging us to get behind this president and assuring us that there is much
 
good that can come out of the landslide Democratic electoral victories. On inauguration
 
day, the media sycophants must have repeated Obama's name 100,000 times. Barack
 
Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama, droned on every major network channel as
 
though it were some kind of magic incantation that would wipe away the dangers
 
and pitfalls facing us all.
 
   Most striking of all, was Obama's own repeated claim that "we are one." That
 
sounds really good, and coupled with the few bones he threw conservatives among
 
his cabinet appointments almost leads one to believe that he WILL, in fact, govern
 
from the center. Don't get too excited about the prospect, though.
 
   He has alreay announced the closing of Guantanamo Bay (without saying what
 
will become of the murderous scum jailed there). He and his congressional cronies
 
have already promised to repeal portions of the Patriot Act. He has promised to do
 
away with "don't ask, don't tell" thereby allowing open gays to serve in the military
 
(against the advice of most senior officers). He has promised to suspend the prohibition
 
against the use of federal funds for abortion, endorse the card check bill that will allow
 
unions to strongarm their way into businesses without a secret ballot, pass a sweeping
 
amnesty for illegal aliens and dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in "stimulus"
 
funding.  PRECIOUS FEW OF THESE ITEMS WOULD PASS A NATIONAL 
 
REFERENDUM, suggesting that he will use his status as "the anointed one" to
 
enact laws contrary to the wishes of a majority of the people.
 
   Worse, he has appointed Carol Browner, recently a commissioner in the
 
Interbational Socialist Party as his climate/energy advisor. You may remember
 
her. She left after Bill Clinton's presidency under a cloud for destroying e-mails
 
that she had expressly been prohibited from deleting by a court order. Browner
 
is an open champion of Marxist ideology and her favortie hobby horse is decoupling.
 
Decoupling is what happens when the government guarantees the electric company's
 
profits without regard to how much electricity they sell. Therefore they produce
 
less and the rate payer/taxpayer foots the bill, paying more for less energy. Get ready
 
for it, because it IS coming.
 
   According to a recent poll, a majority of Americans no ,longer believe that climate
 
change is primarily linked to human actvitiy, but rather is a product of planetary
 
factors such as the oceans. In fact, many scientists have noted that for the past nine
 
years the earth has actually been cooling. Yet every speech Obama gives and every
 
policy he formulates seems to be based on a premise that American do not believe
 
or support. So tell me, in view of all these contradictions, how are we one?
 
   The media has already made their choice to be sheep, a choice that will become
 
more and more bitter as the realities begin to separate from the myth. But the rest
 
of us have a choice. We don't have to be sheep! And we had best begin now reminding
 
Obama and his gang, as well as our elected legislative representatives, that in America
 
the only long-term governance is "by the consent of the governed."  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LEFTIES LEARNING TO LIVE WITH DISAPPOINTMENT

 
 
   The wimpy whining and flatulant bleating from the far left has been almost incessant
 
since the president-elect began assembling his cabinet. Lefty blogger Chris Bowers
 
pouts that Obama's retention of Republican Gates as Defense Secretary shows that
 
"even Democrats don't think Democrats can run the military." (DUH!) The wailing
 
chorus swelled as Obama tabbed anti-gay marriage evangelical pastor Rick Warren
 
for the inaugural invocation and another Republican, Representative LaHood for
 
Secretary of Transportation.
 
   Such a baleful cacophany reveals a number of personality disorders within the
 
far left of the Democratic party. First, they are obviously hearing challenged. Obama
 
said with some regularity that if elected he planned to "govern from the center." His
 
chief of staff designate, Represntative Rahm Emanuel reiterated as much during the
 
intial phase of cabinet selection. Did the lefties think Obama was lying, or that once
 
in power he would revert to his true liberal inclinations?
 
   Second, they seemed to believe the fantasy that in a Democracy the winners really
 
do get to take all -- that with Obama elected the liberals can enact their full agenda
 
immediately and without obstruction. They are celebrating for themselves the very
 
same trait they most hated in the Bush administration. It seems that Barack Obama
 
is smarter than his party. He also knows he has to run again in four years. So the
 
bald-faced socialists, gay activists, labor unions, etc. may NOT get everything they
 
hoped for -- at least not anytime soon. And if Obama's sage centrism isn't enough,
 
Democrats failed to achieve their coveted supermajority in the Senate when Saxby
 
Chambliss thrashed Jim Martin in the Georgia runoff. Too bad, how sad. I find
 
myself getting all choked up for them.
 
   Finally, and most revealing of all, the left betrays its disdain for democracy and
 
bares its raw lust for the power of an oligarcy. In addition to being repulsive, such
 
an attitude is both naive and stupid. In the last analysis, Americans are their own
 
leaders. They have temporarily bestowed the mantle of their trust on Barack Obama,
 
and so far he looks as though he is respecting that trust. But no one voted for the
 
left wing blog, the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post or Moveon.org, and the quickest
 
way for Barack Obama to squander that trust is to cater exclusively to those left-
 
wing nut cases. His early actions, though sorely disappointing to them, shows good
 
faith with the entire electorate and the promise of a temperate, balanced administration.
 
I wonder what the country would be like today if George W. Bush had taken that

approach?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »