About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

WHY LIBERALS HAVE TO EAT THEIR TALKING POINTS

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, March 13, 2011 6:54:44 PM
 
   Largely unreported in the mainstream media is the frequency with which liberal spokesmen
have to eat their own talking points. Most recent on the casualty list is State Department
mouthpiece P.J. Crowley, who commented on the record that the Pentagon's treatment of
Private Bradley Manning, the accused Wikileaker, was "unneccessary, counterproductive
and stupid." His resignation, undoubtedly forced, followed within hours. He apparently
forgot that he and the Pentagon represent the same administration.
   Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went into a long whine about the "mean-
spirited" Republican budget cuts that could endanger Nevada's Cowboy Poetry Festival.
Apparently lost on Reid was the sheer trivliality of a local arts event against the backdrop
of an ever-escalating fourteen trillion dollar national debt and the two-billion dollar monthly
deficits being racked up by the administration controlled by his party. If there was an award
for monumental inappropriateness, Reid would be a hands-down winner, and Republicans
wasted little time pouncing on his idiocy to score political points.
   Then there was Director of National Intelligence (?) James Clapper telling the Senate
Armed Services Committee that Russia and China are the biggest threats to the U.S. today.
Even Democratic Committee Chair Carl Levin laughed in his face over that remark. It
became clear that Clapper had prioritized capacity without regard for intent, sandbagging
the Obama administration claims that the Russians and Chines were "our allies."
   But the most blatant examples of edible garbage still spew from the White House, where
the senior Democrat in charge continues to make idiotic statements like his classic "the
police acted stupidly" attempt to justify the actions of his Harvard buddy. Never mind that\
at the time he said it (a) he didn't know the full facts of the case (b) his friend had become
combative both before and after properly identifying himself, and (c) it was discovered
that standard police procedures were followed with regard to unidentified persons at the
scene of felony investigations. Some say that faux pas only cost Obama a couple of
beers. Most realized it made him look like a hot-headed, knee-jerk fool. Throw in the
ACORN prostitution advice, taped NPR conservative-bashing and Nancy Pelosi's "we have
to pass it so we can find out what's in it," and you have a nearly inexplicable series of
liberal foot-in-mouth episodes that have had serious repercussions for them and their
party.
   Why liberals so often have to eat their words is self-evident from the foregoing examples.
The real question is why are they given to say such things? Several reasons come to mind.
First, they think they are somehow above the rest of us, can say whatever they want with
impunity and are immune to the consequences of verbalized stupidity. NPR's Ron
Schiller was caught on videotape spelling it out, as he explained how we "uneducated
masses" were incapable of grasping the enlightened liberal genius. By counterpoint, a
recent Rasmussen poll revealed that only 3% of respondents believe that Ivy Leaguers
are better qualified to govern than the rest of the populace. One way of verifying that
is to look at the enormous preponderance of Ivy Leaguers in the government bureaucracy
from JFK forward, vis-a-vis the absolute mess our nation is in today. If this is genius
leadership, America should be recruiting successors from junior colleges an trade
schools. How much worse can they do. Yet liberals prattle and pontificate, raining down
their "wisdom" from on high and pretending that their dung doesn't stink.
   Yet another reason for irresponsible liberal babble is the lack of coherent, cohesive
policy. When most of these nitwits spout off, they do so in a policy vacuum, seemingly
ignorant of what others in government are doing or saying and adrift from any kind of
compass-driven direction. The government's reaction to the recent tensions in the Middle
East set the issue in stark relief. Yesterday, the president's contention that he was
"tightening the noose" around Qaddafi was followed immediately by reports that the
rebels were on the run and that Qaddafi's army was turning the conflict into a rout, a
development predicted in the committee hearing by the president's own intelligence
director a day prior. Then you have Hillary Clinton promisng support for the rebels that
never materializes, all the dithering about a no-fly zone and the fact that while Obama
contends that Qaddafi must go because of his tyranny, he is mute about the suppression
of human rights and brutality against protestors in Yemen, Bahrain and elsewhere. It
would seem that in the eyes of this weakling administration, identical tactics are justified
(or not) based on whether we like those employing them (and hope to continue being
able to manipulate them). If consistency is the bugaboo of small minds, then the lack of
it is the mother of contradictory and embarrassing remarks
    But the third cause of liberal verbal turpitude is the tar pit of political expediency. P.J.
Crowley was grandstanding for his leftist buddies, Reid pandering to his state's voters,
Obama playing the race card and all trying to shore up a government adrift and increasingly
under fire from an irate public demanding justification for the unjustifiable. They have
apparently forgotten the old maxim that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Crowley, Ron and Viv Schiller and ACORN
have paid the price. Obama's ratings, after a strong recovery, are beginning to tank again.
Reid, long the prince of fools, is so ineffective he has broken openly with the president
and is slowly losing control of his own caucus. Liberals have simply let too many "genies"
out of the bottle, and they can never stuff them back in. Maybe the "intelligentsia" aren't
so intelligent after all. Eating crow, feathers and all, can be a humbling experience.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

EMANCIPATION . . . OR NOT

Posted by Patrick Henry on Saturday, November 13, 2010 12:41:03 PM
 
   When we graduate from school, whether high school, college or grad school, we 
enter upon a new phase of life. While teachers and administrators we have known
may never be forgotten, they no longer control us. Now we are free to do, say, think
and act as we determine best, for better or worse.
   Sometimes, such emancipation even happens to presidents. While they engage
in the nomination and election process, they are indentured to their political parties
by ideology, funding considerations and national party machinery. But once in
office, they belong not only to their own party, but to all Americans, and their
policies and the results of those policies stand solely at the bar of no party, but at
one set by the total electorate. Sometimes history makes such opportunities clear.
   In 1992, Bill Clinton was a president whose policies were popular only narrowly
and within his own party. Correctly perceiving that the mid-term elections in which
the opposing party came to power were a direct repudiation of those policies, Clinton
stood at a political watershed. Either he could moderate his course, risking the
animosity of the liberal base, or stand his ideological ground and lose the majority of
the electorate in a country that was (and still remains) center right. Clinton correctly
predicted that what was to be lost on the liberal fringe would more than be compensated
for by the moderate voters he would placate by meeting the opposition halfway. He
moved from left to center and was handily re-elected. What he gained, however, was
far more than a second term. It was a freedom from domination by either his own
party or the opposition -- an emancipation that liberated him to be the people's
president, to cut out the middlemen and deal more directly with those who elected
him. One can certainly argue that he squandered the opportunity through personal
moral turpitude. But that does not change the reality of the opportunity he was
afforded or the historic political genius that enabled it.
   Fast forwarding to 2010, we find President Barack Hussein Obama in a similar
position, unloved by either the left or the right, beset with seemingly insoluble
problems and almost certainly headed toward a one-term calamity of a presidency.
Then come the November mid-terms, flushing Democrats from power in a virtual
Republican tsunami and serving as an unsubtle repudiation of Obama's extreme
leftist agenda. The left is furious with him over the wars, failure to close
Guantanamo Bay, failure to push through pro-gay and pro-union, pro-immigration 
and pro-environmental legislation. The right is equally critical over government
invasion of the free market and personal privacy, as well as the takeover of banks,
automakers, student loans and healthcare. No one loves Barack Obama, but
therein lies his opportunity.
   Elections are not won on the extremes, but in the middle. Whichever candidate
succeeds in wooing significant numbers of independent voters usually wins. But
independents who once voted for Obama, voted heavily against him in the recent
mid-terms. The secret to his re-election is winning them back, but the only way
to achieve that entails the risky gambit of throwing his liberal base under the bus.
It is oxymoronic to say that what staunch liberals want is the opposite of what
conservatives want. But with the ascendancy of progressivism (liberalism on
steroids), it is also opposite of what a majority of (centrist) independents want.
In other words, by deserting the left-wing of his party and moderating toward the
center, Obama may be able to rehabilitate his independent support and at least
disarm the more moderate conservatives. In so doing, he frees himself from the
shackles of liberal orthodoxy and flees the Democratic "plantation" to become
"the people's president." This was Clinton's gamble, and it paid the dividend of
a second chance.
   Americans are now watching to see whether Obama has the intelligence and
fortitude to forge his own course, or whether he remains determined to be right
(ideologically speaking) rather than remaining president. It is clear that at this
writing a majority of voters believe not only that Obama is wrong, but that he
is dangerously so. He cannot stay his current course and win re-election.
   Whether one is able to change course depends on honest assessment of the
facts, the ability to accept personal fallibility without becoming consumed and
debilitated by guilt and the courage to take destiny in one's own hands. It is
safe to say that no unabashed socialst can be electd president in America today.
Only after his election did it become clear to voters that his good-natured "spread
the wealth around" song and dance really implied an iron-fisted confiscatory
scheme in which government takes everything and doles it out to favored
constituencies first, leaving crumbs for the rest. Now they think differently, and
both the president and his party are being regularly painted with the "socialist"
brush. Unless that perception can be changed, the Democratic party alone
can simply not re-elect Obama to the presidency.
   So far, there is no concession from the president that he blew it, that his policies
are ineffective or that he needs a new direction. Instead, we hear that the problem
is poor communication, that voters don't perceive his brilliance, that voters are
ignorant or scared or led astray by his opponents and that no substantive change
is in order. If he truly believes that, he is delusional and term-limited.
   Plato explained knowledge and ignorance in his allegory of the cave. In it, men
were chained in a cave. Between them and the entrance to the cave was a brightly
burning fire. Between the fire and the men walked others carrying various objects.
But since the slaves were chained facing the wall, and gazing into semi-darkness,
all they could do is see the shadows on the wall of the walkers and the objects they
were carrying. To break the boredom, they began naming the shadows. One day,
one of the slaves escaped the cave, and running out into the light of day was
utrely amazed because for the first time he was not seeing shaodows, but reality.
Elated by his discovery, he felt obligated to sneak back into the cave and share
his newfound knowledge with his old friends. But when he did so they laughed
at him, mocked him and even accused him of lying, because he suggested that
the shadows that constituted their reality were only poor and vague images of
what was really out there.
   Barack Obama needs to read Plato, and learn. While the mid-terms were a
strong dose of reality (what's really out there), profressives will only ridicule him
if he suggests that they are chasing shadows. So he has a choice. Does he want
to remain in the cave, go down to ignominious defeat and see his presidency
relegated to the hostorical scrap heap of failure? Or does he want to acknowldge
reality, quit chasing the shadows of utopian socialism and free himself from
allegiance to those who embrace those chains? Does he want to be the
Progressives' president, or does he want to be the people's president? And is
the man who is allegedly so smart, really smart enough to understand that he
can't have it both ways?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

POST MORTEM

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:07:16 PM
 
   Last night the Democratic congressional supermajority died swiftly, painfully and in
agony. With it perished cap-and-trade legislation, blanket amnesty and a dozen other
top Obama agenda priorities. Today, Democrats begin the blame game. Voters were
scared and not smart enough to understand the issues, while the GOP won in a landslide
it was all about the economy and does not constitute a repudiation of Obama's policies,
the incumbent party always loses seats in a mid-term, yada, yada, yada.
   But when we sort the facts from the "politicospeak," what lessons really emerge from
this historic election? The most obvious is that Americans are sick of being patronized,
condescended to, lied to, being called stupid, racist, reactionary and the like. What
happened last night was far less an affirmation of Republicans, who are still not trusted
by many, than it was an expression of anger against the arrogance of Barack Obama,
his elitist party and their radical agenda. A clear majority believe Obama and his minions
are hastening America down the road to ruin, and their mid-term message was a clear
and unambiguous "STOP."
   Another message is that Americans have had it with one-party rule. The opportunity
for abuse of power is simply too great, and the Democrats' performance over the last
two years is proof of it. It is noteworthy that while Republicans made significant gains,
they did not succeed in flipping the Senate. This is likely because Americans are more
comfortable with congressional gridlock than they are with either party in complete
control.
   What Republicans are loth to admit, is that for many centrist Americans the jury is
still out on Barack Obama. Majorities hate healthcare reform, his signature initiative,
and see his agenda as well left of the mainstream. But many still like him personally.
Both Presidents Reagan and Clinton also suffered low popularity ratings midway
through their first terms, yet went on to solid re-elections later. Whether Obama
survives, or continues to tank in the polls, depends upon several things. First, will he
come to meet Republicans halfway? If he does, public sympathy may well swing
back toward him, assuring him a second term. If not, voters will consider it a
confirmation of the decision that led to last night's election debacle, and sweep him
out in 2012 with the rest of the riff-raff. Second, is he more committed to ideology
(his "agenda") or to getting things done that Americans want and expect to see done
(governing)? If it is the former, he can kiss a second term goodbye. If the latter, he
still has a shot at redemption. Many have referred to him as a narcissist. If he is, he
won't budge, and that will be the end for him. He cannot win re-election on his
platform as it has heretofore ben rolled out.
   What about the Tea Party, its effectiveness and its future? There are those who
consider the failure of Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell in
Delaware, along with the pending failures of Joe Miller in Alaska and Ken Buck
in Colorado as signs of a fatal defect in the Tea Party. While it is true that these
candidates were rough around the edges, gaffe-prone and not very well vetted,
the fact remains that Marco Rubio in Florida, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Pat
Toomey in Pennsylvania won solid electoral victories in their states. In fact, of
the 129 total candidates the Tea Party formally endorsed, 113 won. The
contribution of the Tea Party, however, goes well beyond individual races. It
was the anger and energy of the Tea Party that gave average Americans, both
Republicans and Independents ventilation, a voice and a determination to reclaim
America from the liberal drive toward socialism. That contribution simply cannot
be over-valued.
   Republicans have already won over 60 seats in the House of Representatives,
with more races still too close to call. That is, by any criterion, an epic landslide.
What is its practical importance? It means that Nancy Pelosi is no longer Speaker,
Steny Hoyer is no longer Majority Leader, the GOP gains the chairmanships and
majorities in every House committee, and they are in complete control of budget
and taxation legislation. Complete miracles cannot be expected, since Obama
retains the prerogative of veto. But the GOP can nibble away at the edges of
bloated government, de-fund initiatives or even whole departments and reign in
Democratic big spending. If they succeed, they may get the tools they need in
2012 to completely reverse the damage many believe Obama and his administration
have done to the country.
   Today, the President will hold a news conference. It may provide a window
into whether he was instructed by the election's outcome, or intends to proceed
in his merry effort to replicate Europe in America. That will also tell us if he's
really as smart as Democrats keep telling us he is. If he doesn't open the door to
very significant compromises, then he isn't. Stay tuned.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DESPERATION AND THE DEMOCRATS' DESCENT INTO HELL

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, October 17, 2010 11:22:38 PM
 
   Politics is a nasty business. It is about the ebb and flow of power, about achieving
maximum leverage and often, about vast sums of money. Like all things having to
do with power and money, politics can be the ultimate corrupter of the human soul.
Except that the clandestine erosion of moral scruples seldom remains secret, erupting
instead like a gangrenous wound and showering the rest of us with its bilious filth.
If you've been watching the political ads on TV lately, you know exactly what I'm
talking about.
   What motivates public figures to cast aspersions on their rivals, buttressing them
with half-truths, innuendoes, gossip and plain lies? It is the game, in which winning
and losing is everything, and acquiring a winning hand (the end) justifies any means.
In politics the winner gets the title, the office and the spoils, and the loser simply
slinks back into relative anonymity to run again another day -- or not.
   When sourcing the stench of such chicanery, look first at those who have sunk into
abject desperation. In another reality, it could be any political party or politician (and
has been). But in the 2010 mid-term election milieu it is the Democratic party, hope-
lessly down in the polls, watching the reins of legislative power slip through greedy
fingers like so many grains of sand on a windswept beach, and retching from the
depths of their hopelessness a seemingly unending stream of vileness directed toward
their opponents. Whether we understand it or not, it to some degree denigrates,
sullies and demeans us all.
   Consider but a few examples. Facing massive public disapproval and performance
ratings plummeting faster than the Hindenburg, President Barack Obama and his
team have flailed for a stategy to turn the tide. Unable to run on their record, since
a clear majority disapprove of what they have done, they correctly perceived that
their only hope was painting their opponents an even uglier color. Appeal to public
animosity toward George W. Bush, a pointless attack on House Minority Leader
John Boehner with whom many in the non-political class are not even familiar,
and the attempt to persuade that Republicans stood only for obstruction and failed
policies of the past have not succeeded in convincing many prospective voters to
forgive and forget. Desperation turned to panic.
   Most recently, Obama and his minions have launched an attack on the Chamber
of Commerce which is airing millions of political ads attacking business unfriendly
Democrats. The perverse logic of the Obama attack on the Chamber runs as follows:
the Chamber has foreign chapters and, therefore, collects foreign dues. It is against
the law to use foreign money to impact a domestic political campaign. We do not
know how much foreign money the Chamber gets, so unless the Chamber opens
its books to prove that they are not commingling funds to buy political advertisements,
they may be guilty of buying election for Republicans. All speculation, zero proof,
assumption of guilt and responsibility on the accused to prove innocence. A more
dishonest, contemptible, un-American, morally bankrupt charge has never been
leveled in a mid-term election. It is as syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer
says, "positively reptilian." Desperate people do and say desperate things.
   In another sterling example, Kentucky Democratic senatorial candidate Jack
Conway this week released an attack ad against his opponent, Republican Rand
Paul, citing charges by an anonymous woman that while in college, Paul tied
her up and forced her to kneel before an idol called Aqua Buddha. Conway
further inferred that Paul was a member of some sinister secret society while
in college that was associated with this incident. To even the most unschooled,
many questions come to mind. Who is this mystery woman, and why has she
waited until this most crucial time of a hotly contested race to come forward?
Is their any corroborating evidence beyond her so-called testimony to confirm
that such an event ever occurred? Why won't she identify herself? Will she
take a polygraph? Again, gossip, no hard proof, innuendo, character assassination.
And in fairness, how many of us didn't do a stupid thing or two while in college?
But according to Conway, something a man is alleged to have done by someone
lacking the courage to identify herself or proof to corroborate her claims, not
meeting the criteria for an indictable crime and lying twenty-some years in the
past is supposed to be a good reason not to vote for him today. Hmmm. Desperate
people do and say desperate things, and Jack Conway must REALLY be quite
desperate.
   Then we have the case of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez in California, going
racial by publicly complaining that her Vietnamese constituents are going to take
away "her seat" and give it to Republican rival Van Tran. Imagine? Were the two
candidates' parties and/or sexes reversed, Tran would likely be hanging on a cross
somewhere outside Los Angeles, the nails hammered in by media gossip hounds.
I would guess Rep. Sanchez is quite attached to "her seat." Desperate people. If
space permitted we could include the illegal alien housekeeper smear job done on
Meg Whitman in the California gubernatorial race, the recent public assertion by
a Democratic political strategist that if Republicans were elected "a bunch of
nutcases would be running the place," and so forth and so on.
   People who do and say these kinds of things not only fail to respect others, they
raise serious doubts about their own self-respect. How low would they go to win?
What if a man (or woman) gains the whole world and loses their own soul? Perhaps
not a question we can or should definitively answer. But we do have a legitimate
stake in what all of this dishonest, unethical, race-baiting, fear-mongering, gutter-
level rhetoric does to our collective soul as a nation. What does it say that after
watching fifteen minutes of election news or a serial barrage of political ads one
feels the urgent need of a long, hot shower?
   Democrats and Republicans as well ignore this lesson at their own peril. Democrats
passed, along straight party lines, utilizing financial bribes, private arm-twisting and
clandestine midnight meetings, a healthcare reform bill which, according to non-
partisan polls, a majority of Americans detests, disagrees with and wants repealed.
Though Democrats are loth to believe it, the wrath of America is comprised of equal
parts disdain for elements of the bill and outrage in the way it was passed. So while
any given candidate may successfully slander their way through an election, the end
can be permanently damaged by the means. America's reaction to Obamacare proves
it. I don't live in Kentucky or California, or belong to the Chamber of Commerce. But
if I did, I would greatly prefer an (alleged) Aqua Buddha Rand Paul to a slithering,
ethically challenged sleazer like Conway, a Van Tran over someone who claimed
"ownership" of a seat that belongs to the people, or an organization that was
strengthening the very businesses this power-crazed president is killing for years
before he ever thought about running for office. Desperate people do desperate
things. If the politicians won't clean up their filthy mess, then the rest of us will
just have to be sure they pay the price. But how do Democrats EVER get back
from what they have become?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY LIBERALS DON'T "GET" THE TEA PARTY

Posted by Patrick Henry on Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:14:03 AM
 
   A recent poll suggests that more than 70% of liberals think the Tea Party is racist.
In a smattering of televised interviews noted Democrats have said that the Tea Party
is just about "cutting government and lowering taxes." These opinions pitifully miss
the mark, and reflect the fact that the left simply does not understand where the
Tea Party came from or what it is after.
    It is no accident of fate that the Tea Party is named after a famed incident in Boston
harbor in which angry colonists hurled large quantities of British tea into the water to
protest soldiers being arbitrarily quartered among them and King George's taxation
without representation. The colonists were offended because they came to America
to escape the rule of the elite class and the trappings of European society. They came
here to be free. And when they concluded that they were not, they rebelled in order
to get that for which they had already sacrificed.
   Freedom, more than anything else, is what the Tea Party is about. Over taxation, debt,
regulation, confiscation and redistribution of wealth and the dominance of a supposed
"elite" who treat the commoners like dirt are, in the minds of those who populate the
Tea Party, grounds for rebellion, and they well describe the situation as they perceive
it in America today.
   Progressives believe that government should do everything, and that means government
must grow to gargantuan size. Such growth can only be fueled by ever-increasing streams
of revenue, and the government's only consistent source of revenue is taxes. Obama, for
example, shoveled 17 new taxes into Obamacare, in addition to mandating that every
American buy health insurance, a private product. Now, he wants to shore up his
tottering popularity by restoring tax cuts for the middle class, while raising taxes
dramatically for the "rich." He and his inner circle are still talking about a Value Added
Tax over and above income tax. As long as government continues to grow, citizens will
be slaves to the taxes to pay for it. The Tea Party doesn't hate taxes. They hate over-
taxation to support big government that takes away a measure of their wealth and
freedom and which is not, in their opinion, warranted.
   Democrats, of course, play right into this by talking down their noses to Americans,
acting as though they are ignoramuses and simply unable to fathom the extent of liberal
"genius." In that matter, they are no different from British royalty whose haughty and
discriminatory attitudes drove the original settlers to leave England and come here. The
Tea Party "damns all gentlemen," and is disinclined to concede liberals' inflated
estimate of their own omniscience.
   One of the things early Americans sought was the freedom to strike out and forge
their own destiny, for better or for worse. King George's taxation and interference in
their commerce temporarily interrupted the dream and was, in no small part, a
reason why the colonists took up arms against him. Part of the socialist agenda, the
so-called "just society," is that no one should have more, or less, than anyone else.
That means those who don't work and succeed should prosper off the largesse of
those who do. "Socialism works," Margaret Thatcher used to say, "until you run
out of other people's money."
   Welfare is, at its base, other people's money. Very few would deny the poor
assistance to survive. But those who have worked hard for what they have balk
at guaranteeing economic equality to trans-generational laggards. The Tea Party
is seeking to draw a line in the sand. If you want to call that "racist" because so
many of the poor are persons of color, or argue that the Tea Party is criticizing the
president because he is back, then you open yourself to the counter-argument
that blacks who criticize, vilify and mischaracterize theTea Party are also racists
who base their conclusions about others on wild suppositions about their motives
and the fact that their skin is a different color. What liberals want is to have their
cake and eat it to, i.e., to take unlimited free shots at the Tea Party while
insulating their president from all criticism simply because he is black. Well, the
Tea Party just stepped on that cake.
   It is the view of many, including those outside the Tea Party, that because of his
neo-socialist redistributionist agenda, Barack Obama is anti-business. Indeed his
tax and regulatory policies, and his dilly-dallying on declaring taxes and regulations
for the coming year are actually causing businesses not to hire, thereby helping to
sustain the obscene jobless rate. In a free society the objective of business is to
work hard, compete and outstrip the competition. But in Obama's socialist utopia
such successes are contrary to social and wealth leveling, so policy must inhibit
unbridled growth and success. In other words business people are not free, their
options reined in by an oppressive and spreading government.
   Progressives, including Obama, argue that a society that allows the bright, the
industrious and the thoughtful to succeed beyond the level of the lazy, the
uneducated and the chronic underachievers is "unjust." Therefore, it is the duty
of government to level the playing field by stripping the former of their earned
advantage and gratuitously handing it over to the disadvantaged, just as in
England nobility owned everything and decided which crumbs to dole out and
to whom. In a society where ultimate success is posssible, ultimate failure must
be possible as well. Under Obama, liberals have taken their best shot at turning
modern America into 18th century England. Now the people, many of them
waving the flag of the Tea Party, are storming back to recreate what the founding
fathers intended. That is what the battle for the constitution is about.
   If you are of the liberal/socialist persuasion and don't like that, you'll have two
options after November 2. Either move to a country more to your liking, and
take your chances with their notions of "social justice," or wait for your next
opportunity to try "fundamentally transforming America." The latter will likely
be a long, long, time in coming. Every American should thank the Tea Party!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HOLDER MUST GO: AN OPEN LETTER

Posted by Patrick Henry on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:18:08 PM
 
   Eric Holder must resign as United States Attorney General, and the sooner he
does so, the sooner investigating authorities can clean out the racist rat's nest he
has festered in the civil rights section of that agency. Since the buck stops with
him as the senior official in the DOJ, one must assume that Holder is responsible
for the illegal and unethical conduct of the attorneys under his charge, and for
the stonewalling refusal to honor lawfully issued subpoenas and release court-
ordered documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to those
investigating it.
   When news broke that the civil rights division of the DOJ essentially vacated an
already won conviction against members of the New Black Panther Party for
voter intimidation, the mainstream media sought to bury the story. But, as is
true most of the time, loose lips sink ships, and insider testimony soon torpedoed
Holder's corrupt rowboat. Disobeying department (Holder's?) orders, J. Christian
Adams and Christopher Coates, both respected career attorneys who worked in
the civil rights division during the Black Panther release and cover-up, came
forward with stories of "deep-seated hostility" in the division toward prosecuting
any cases in which racial minorities were the defendants. Coates told how his
direct superior, Loretta King, ordered him to stop asking prospective division
attorneys if they could pursue such cases.
   Under oath, division head Thomas Perez, long a racial minority activist, swore
that no "political operative" or White House figure participated in the decision to
drop the Panther case. Then no fewer than eight e-mails between White House
political appointee Samuel Hirsch and division attorneys surfaced, demonstrating
that racial politics was clearly in play prior to the decision being made, and that
Perez blatantly lied to the Civil Rights Commission investigating the matter.
   More recently, Judicial Watch, through a discovery lawsuit filed under FOIA,
won their case to see records and e-mails pertaining to the case. Despite the
court's order, while relasing a few peripheral documents, the DOJ is in substantial
non-compliance.
   Coates' testimony under oath was devastating to the department and to the
administration, depicting a culture of racially-based and discriminatory selective
prosecution, and suggesting  an in-progress cover-up of massive proportions. He
more than corroborated the earlier testimony of Adams. Now, three more insider
witnesses have confirmed the charges to the Civil Rights Commission, and the
Investigator General has launched an investigation into the civil rights division of
the DOJ.
   President Obama, this comes to roost at YOUR door. Either Holder knew about
this malfeasance, and willfully violated his oath to uphold the constitution, or
almost as bad, he didn't see what was going on right under his nose, and is thus a
hopeless incompetent. Various intemperate public remarks he has made on the
subject of race relations, combined with his zeal for prosecuting a state that is
only trying to enforce laws an apparently racially biased administation won't,
makes the malice implication more likely than the stupidity one. It is YOUR
duty, Mr. President, to demand Holder's immediate resignation. And it is the
ONLY course that will restore America's flagging confidence in YOUR honor.
   Thomas Perez should be charged with perjury, terminated from further service
with the government and stripped of his license to practice law. Loretta King
should likewise be terminated from her position, and EVERY lawyer in the civil
rights division investigated to determine whether this racial malevolence is present
and to what degree. It is high time to clean out this disgusting den of vipers, Mr.
President, and time for YOU to stop sitting on your hands.
   Eric Holder may never be found in contempt of any court but that of public
opinion, but having him as even titular head of the nation's top law enforcment
agency strikes at the integrity of not only this administration, but the entire
government. Apparently Holder never got the memo saying the phrase "and
justice for all" is still in the pledge of allegiance. Maybe he thought it meant
"for all who are non-white." But YOU know that pledge, don't you Mr. President?
And you know what needs to be done. America will watch to see whether you
possess the integrity and the fortitude to do it. If you do not, you will confirm
their worst fears, and come 2012 YOU will pay the price.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOUNDS OF PANIC

Posted by Patrick Henry on Friday, September 24, 2010 5:28:17 PM
 
   With elections coming on like judgment day, the blather coming from the White
House and congressional Democrats more closely by the day resembles the cries
of those in the streets of Pamplona as the bulls are being released. In what they
are trying to pass off as a campaign, those on the left are simply confirming what
most Americans believe: they haven't a clue.
   Their first ploy is best characterized as "rats off the sinking ship." From early
on in the campaign Democrats seeking re-election have sought to distance them-
selves from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the least popular politician in America,
and Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. Some have even told President Obama
to stay away from their campaigning, or have refused to appear with him. Many
have purchased campaign advertising spots saying that they voted against the so-
called "Affordable Healthcare Act," the gigantic stimulus or TARP. Mind you
these are Democrats shunning their leadership and the centerpieces of Democratic
"accomplishment." They don't want to go down with the ship.
   Another gambit has been "attack the straw man." Obama has used the tactic
to his advantage ever since his 2008 election campaign. This time, however, it
has colossally backfired. The straw man Obama went after was John Boehner,
House of Representatives Minority Leader. Boehner had challenged Obama on
taxation and spending, so Obama chose him as the whipping boy for his policy
speech in Cleveland, Ohio. The attack failed because very few know who Boehner
is. It's like Alex Rodriguez bad-mouthing a batting practice pitcher. It is difficult
not to wonder what someone is hiding when he chooses as an opponent someone
so far below his political pay grade to pick on. Voter response? Say what?
   Next came yet another campaign to convince America to like the unpopular
healthcare bill. Americans don't understand the bill. Democrats moaned. It's just
that Obama is so smart and Americans aren;t smart enough to understand him,
they said. America's response? ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
   A later tactic is to attack the Tea Party as radical and insane, and to paint
Republicans as Tea Party sympathizers (and thus al radical and insane). The
fundamental flaw in this diversion is that the Tea Party, in its own way, is
simply giving voice to what many Americans of all parties and no party at
all are feeling. Arguing that the Tea Party is insane is like teller voters they're
insane too. Not a very good idea if you want to court votes.
   Most recently comes a transparent attempt to redirect Americans' anger
toward Wll Street and the big bad coroporate bogey men. It is surely they who
must be responsible for the 9.6% unemployment, tight credit and home fore-
closures, yada, yada, yada. Sme boring song, another boring verse.
   Desperation is born of Democrats waiting too long to realize how much 
trouble they're in. America said, "Don't pass the health bill." They did.
America said, "Think twice about the stimulus spending." They didn't. Most
favor a strict approach to immigration law enforcement and support Arizona
1070. Obama, instead, sued Arizona while his Department of Homeland
Security continues to plot how to release illegals already detained. America
wanted Obama concerned about and immediately involved in the Gulf oil
spill disaster. His response? Detachment, government interference with state
clean-up efforts and a job-crushing moratorium on offshore drilling that was,
in both of its iterations, rejected by the court. One would think that if a
government had set out intentionally to anger voters, they couldn't possibly
have done a better job. Now they know they've really stepped in it, and the
full-scale panic is reflected in their amateurish strategy and tactics.
   Polls show Democrats doing poorly against Republican and Tea Party
opponents with just 40 days left until the election. No one can say what their
next ruse or misdirection will be. But I, for one, am learning to love the
sounds of pure panic.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DE-MYTHOLOGIZING THE DEFICIT

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 11:00:13 PM
 
   During this election season the national deficit is very much in the news. Yet a few
conversations with friends will quickly convince you that people do not really under-
stand deficits or where they come from. Each of the major parties has acccused the
other of being primarily responsible for the current economic downturn and deficit
growth. Each is right. And each is wrong.
   What is a "deficit?" A deficit occurs when one spends more than one earns. If you
make $60,000 this year, but spend $70,000, your annual deficit is $10,000. Keep
doing that, and you will soon be so deep in debt that you cannot earn enough to
repay what you owe, and bankruptcy will follow. It is not different at the national
level. When a country habitually spends more than it takes in, its deficit continues
to grow, pushing it toward a fiscal doomsday.
   President Barack Obama and the Democratic party are facing a particularly
difficult election in November. The economy is in a terrible and prolonged slump,
unemployment remains high, credit markets are tight and home foreclosures keep
rising. People concerned about the economy tend to blame the party in power
when there is no relief in sight, and that means a lot of angry voters are blaming
Democrats. Obama and his party argue in response, that for eight years George
W. Bush and Republicans spent so much and took in so little in revenue that they
dug such a deep hole that Democrats need longer to dig out. In particular they
blame across-the-board tax cuts instituted to keep a Bush campaign promise. So
are Democrats right? The answer is no -- and yes -- and no again.
   It is spending, not tax cuts per se that brings about deficit. When a government
cuts taxes, they don't give taxpayers anything except the right to hold onto more
of what is theirs. Cutting taxes is not paying out money, and on that point the
Democrats' argument is far too facile and mostly disingenuous. However, if
government cuts taxes and then continues to spend beyond the revenues it does
collect, a deficit is created. This is what happened over the last eight years.
   Republicans certainly bear some responsibility for this. They chose to fight
wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously. To do this, they relied heavily
on so-called "emergency spending" bills that did not require a plan to pay for
them at the time they were enacted. Democrats, many of whom opposed one
or both wars, would only agree to funds for the troops if Republicans, in turn,
allowed them to spend for social programs and pork-barrel special projects. By
making this deal with the devil, Republicans abandoned their principles of small
government and fiscal conservatism, deeming the winning of the wars sufficient
reason for doing so. However, Democrats controlled the legislature for the last
two years of Bush's term in office, and were happy to go along for the ride.
   While this "drunken sailor" spending binge continued, the wars went on,
creating a constant cash need to fund the military machine. And meanwhile a
silent bomb was ticking. Under President Bill Clinton, legislation was signed
into law making it easier for many families to own a home. Clinton's attorney
general, Janet Reno, threatened to sue mortgage lenders who did not lend to
minorities seeking home ownership. Insured by federal mortgage giants FNMA
and FDMC, lenders were encouraged to relax income and credit qualifications,
and accept lower downpayments. Bush also signed a successor bill that urged
even more such lending. Then he realized that FNMA and FDMC were seriously
over-extended, backing far too many high risk loans. To make matters worse,
Wall Street bankers and financiers had purchased blocks of these high-risk notes
and pooled them into real-estate based securities that many invstors purchased.
Seventeen times Bush implored congress to investigate FNMA and FDMC to
right the ship before disaster struck. Democrats, with a huge political stake in
the minority community resisted, and repeatedly thwarted efforts at reform.
When the real estate bubble burst, and it became obvious that the "liar loans"
(so-called because they were made without documentation of income or credit)
were worthless, the dominoes started tumbling precipitating a near-fatal bankng
crisis in which the government, through the Troubled Assets Relief Program
(TARP) were forced to bail out the big banks using borrowed money. That
money was supposed to be repaid by the banks, but has only been partially
recovered to date. Lax securities regulation was the fault of both the Clinton
and Bush administrations, just as both political parties bore the blame for
overspending and rampant borrowing. All the Bush tax cuts did is deprive the
government of a portion of taxpayer funds it could have used to pay down
deficit, though there is no guarantee it would have done so.
   When Barack Obama took office, he doubled down on the spending binge,
insisting on huge new entitlements, a bloated three-trillion-dollar annual
budget and more borrowing to support it. His plan was to allow the Bush tax
cuts to expire at the end of 2010, to create a fresh stream of revenue to pay
for all of his spending. Now, with families hurting, people out of work and
the whole economy in the doldrums, even Obama has reluctantly agreed that
the tax cuts must be temporarily extended, albeit not for those earning over
$250,000 per year.
   Emerging from the financial chaos has been the Tea Party movement, whose
principles include dramatically shrinking government in order to require less
revenue to operate, and maintaining low tax rates. Initially pooh-poohed by
the political class, the Tea Party (named for the colonial uprising against the
British in Boston harbor) has galvanized a country weary of out-of-control
government and the threat of higher taxation, into a formidable political force
that has ousted some of the politically entrenched elite and called out others
as RINOs (Republicans in name only) because they have betrayed their
party's principles by compromising with Democrats in what seems a suicide
spending pact. The Tea Party has become a powerful populist movement
that is pulling the Republican party in a significantly more conservative direction
as a price of voter loyalty, and infused enough viable candidates of its own to
assure that their feet will be held to the fire once the election is over.
   So who is ultimately responsible for the deficit? The government, present and
immediate past, which means Democrats AND Republicans. Did the Bush tax
cuts cause it? No, government overspending did. Will things change between
now and 2013? If they don't we're all in deep trouble.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE WHAT AND WHY OF OBAMANOMICS

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, September 20, 2010 1:25:19 PM
 
   At this election season the stalled economy is on everyone's mind. What is the
federal government doing to fix the deteriorating situation and why? More important,
is it working? You may be surprised by the answers.
   Dian L. Chu, in a piece entitled Economic Forecasts and Opinions, published in
the September 11 edition of NASDAQ, says that "the Obama administraion has
shown very little understanding of the economy, markets and business," and that
legislatin and policy they have put in place seems "anti-business." She further
concludes that this is due to fundamental economic ignorance and inexperience.
If she is right, then it would follow that the current "reality therapy" regimen the
adminsitration and the nation are undergoing will, at some point, correct to a more
enlightened and therfore more successful direction. Unfortunately, Chu's overly
generous premise misses the mark.
   Barack Obama does not misunderstand the economy, business and the markets.
He has surrounded himself with the finest academic minds to bring and keep him
up to speed. The disciplined consistency of his actions belies the notion that he is
wandering aimlessly. He is doing exactly what he always intended to do: mortally
wound American capitalism, impose government control over vast sectors of the
economy and redistribute the sum of corporate and business-generated personal
wealth according to his philosophic priorities.
   Stating it more plainly, Obama does not want privately owned businesses to
thrive. The consequences of allowing that include greater accruals of private
wealth, prohibitive strengthening of market share and the creation of alternatives
to businesses which are, increasingly, government owned. To accomplish his goal,
Obama has sought to impose Draconian regulations and higher taxation on small
businesses, this guaranteeing that (a) they will not become large businesses, and
(b) their owners will not become unduly wealthy. By sustaining an environment
that is averse to hiring and investment, he has gone a long way toward assuring
that such businesses will not grow, unemployment will remain high and wealth
will continue to flow predominantly to the government for redistribution.
   In this respect, Obama is in bed with the big labor unions who, through
contentious government-sponsored bargaining with business management demand
and ever increasing allottment of profit to employee salaries and benefits (i.e.,
wealth redistribution) and whose political contributions in turn prop up Obama
and his allies to foment policies and laws that are union friendly. In a very real
sense, Obama and the unions have the same mission.
   But why doesn't Obama want businesses to grow? To understand that, you have
to understand his worldview, and it is that of a community organizer. In it, the
most basic premise is that the weak, poor and needy are, and will always be
oppressed by the powerful, the rich those of capacity. Thus, the only way to
achieve "justice," is to take from the advantaged and give to the disadvantaged,
thereby weakening the former and empowering the latter. Minorities are good,
whites are bad. Unions are good, management is bad. The poor are virtuous and
deserving, the wealthy are bigoted, selfish and uncaring. Obama justifies his
discriminatory policies with phrases like "at some point you've made enough," or
"fat cat bankers" or "we're gonna spread the wealth around a little." Such state-
ments are windows into the man's soul.
   What's wrong with Obama's point of view? Three things. First, when you
encourage, through egregious policy or neglect, economic stagnation and high
unemployment, EVERYONE loses. There is less wealth to "spread around," and
an entirely new class of the needy is created. Those least damaged are the wealthy
and successful business owners who, seeing the lay of the land, simply tighten
their belts and sit on their reserves. And why would they do anything else?
   Second, it is the classical Marxist point of view that has ultimately failed in every
country and government that has tried to implement it. It often has the effect of
permanently stifling the capacity for productivity and growth, thereby assuring that
an economically ascendant nation will fall in the world's unforgiving economic
taxonomy, to a place suited by its permanent stagnation. By the time populations
rebel against Marxist governments and ideologies they are frequently so damaged,
economically and culturally adrift that the road to recovery is tortuously long and
painful (e.g., Russia).
   Third, the notion of "raising the masses" is a utopian myth. Since the days of the
New Deal and the Great Society, the policy of the Democratic party has been to
pour billions of "gift" dollars into the high-need population while, at the same time,
creating laws and policies designed to "level the playing field." Yet the poor class
remains, with poverty higher now, under Obama, than it has been since the days
of LBJ. While some inroads have been made in equality of hiring and college
admissions, unemployment and failure to complete high school among entitlement
populations remains at unacceptably high levels. The evidence is that while the
"spreading around" of opportunity has helped many at the individual level, the
masses remain somehow unable to access it, and thus untouched by it. Spreading
the wealth around has proven the same. If people lack the industry or the wisdom
to use such "spread around" wealth as a springboard to access the enhanced
opportunities, as statistics massively suggest they do, then they are no better off
than they were before and the escalating demand for further entitlement imposes
a prohibitive drain on the remainder of society. Largesse without accountability
and responsibility equals failed policy and subsidized social failure.
   Barack Obama wants a slow, painful "recovery," but only to a much lower level
of productivity than before the recession. That way he can control business and its
wealth, insure that business follows only a course he considers "environmentally
friendly," and channels a lion's share of profits to government where it can be
consumed in the charnel ovens of entitlement redistribution. His policies are as
intentional and as devious as they are devastating, and will never lead to meaningful
economic recovery. He is not an ignoramus, blindly bungling through a job and a
situation that has him overmatched. He is a Machiavellian manipulator who knows
what he wants and how to get it.
Tags: the economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ON KICKING THE CAT

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, September 12, 2010 4:41:31 PM
 
   It's a familiar, if troubling scenario. He comes home weary from a long, frustrating
day at the office, only to be greeted by her with a list of urgent chores. He can't find
his favorite jeans, and that comfortable sweatshirt has gone mysteriously missing.
Hastily exiting the bedroom, he slams the door on his finger, curses, then turns and
kicks the cat who goes flying under (or over) the sofa. Sound familiar?
   A knockdown analysis of this familiar behavior suggests it is a malicious act
not caused by any action of the cat and reflecting both impotence and loss of
self-control by the iniatiator. It tells us nothing about the cat beyond what we
could have deduced from his offended yowl. But it tells us loads about the kicker.
   Barack Obama and the Democratic party have embarked, this week, upon a
veritable frenzy of "cat-kicking." Belaguered by polls which show their public
approval tanking, policies that voters are convinced aren't working, an economy
that would lose races with molasses in January and the nuisance of mid-term
elections, they have lashed out at "the cat." His name is John Boehner.
   What? Never heard of him? He is the ten term representative from Ohio's
8th district, elected by his peers as minority leader in the House of Representatives.
He seldom speaks publicly unless provoked, shows no inclination to run for
higher political office and is, in short, somewhat boring. A graduate of Xavier
University, Boehner took a job as a salesman and eventually became the president
of his company. This suggests that he has a grasp of the business community and 
some personal "snap." Some believe that should the Republicans gain control
of the House in the upcoming elections, Boehner will be Speaker, although that
is by no means a foregone conclusion. So why the attacks on Boehner?
   It is from the oldest page in the Democrats' playbook. Isolate, personalize,
polarize and demonize. If the Democrats can take all of their own frustrations
and failures, combine them with every bad thing they believe Republicans ever
did, impute them all to some poor individual who makes a ripe target then, they
think, they can run a campaign. When you can't campaign on your own
accomplishments -- and 2010 Democrats certainly can't -- then all you're left
with is desperate-sounding rants and personal attacks designed to vilify someone
identified with your opponent. Boehner is the poor volunteer sitting on the trigger
board above the dunk tank.
   Unfortunately for Obama and the Democrats, they have made three fatal
miscalculations. First, Boehner makes a lousy punching bag. What Dems need
is someone who fits the truly evil caricature (in their eyes), someone like George
W. Bush. In Obama's Cleveland speech he made one clumsy attempt after the
other to identify Boehner with Bush, until by the end of the partisan rabble-
rousing that sought to pass itself off as a speech on the economy, many were
convinced that Obama himself actually thought Boehner was Bush. But Boehner
has the wrong profile, the typical American profile, no record of corruption or
going against the will of the people, no obvious public gaffes, nothing beyond
Obama's politically motivated accusations that would cause voters to identify
him as a villain or as in any way responsible for the country's current plight.
This strategy is even a step less effective than continually blaming Bush for every
problem, which polls already show has worn out its welcome.
   Second, Boehner isn't Obama's enemy. The truth is. The economy is stalled,
the Porkulus did not work, unemployment remains well above where Obama
himself promised it would peak with little hope in sight, credit is tight, mortgages
are failing, businesses won't invest amid tax uncertainties and regulatory night-
mares, his vaunted healthcare reform is widely hated, and he is responsible.
He can kick Boehner all he wants, and there may be a dimwit or two who will
bite, but most people know intuitively that this arrogant, academic pretender of
a president has no answers to the problems plaguing the nation.
   Finally, Obama and Democrats run the risk that going negative against a virtual
non-entity will backfire, causing the public to think through where fault and
responsibility really lie, and become even more entrenched in rejection and
anti-incumbency. They also run the risk of angering Boehner and the rest of the
Republican leadership, in which case they will be stone throwers who live in
glass houses. It is Obama and the Democrats who rammed through the health-
care overhaul disregarding public opinion and without a single Republican vote.
It is they who blew a trillion dollars on a worthless stimulus package to drive
an already sinking nation deeper into debt. And it is they who continue unabated
on binge spending and out-of-control taxation. Who do they think they're fooling?
   For politicians who pride themselves in being the "intellectual elite," the Boehner
bashing is a flawed strategy that can only be seen as desperate, delusional and utterly
impotent. They already stood to get some serious cracks in their crystal palace of
absolute power. They may repulse voters, paricularly Independents, enough that
they end up standing in the shards of its rubble. Kicking the cat is really, really
dumb!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UNPACKING OBAMA'S NEW PLAN - PART II

Posted by Patrick Henry on Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:08:25 PM
 
   Obama's latest "recovery" proposals contain enough supply side ideas (tax credits
and small business loans) to nearly make one believe he was ready to abandon his
failed demand side economic policies. But wait! In the same speech, Obama dug in
his heels to oppose tax cuts for the "wealthy." In other words, if Republicans would
only go along, he would grudgingly extend the (Bush) tax cuts for the middle class
(for an unspecified time). It takes no genius to see the politics involved.
   For any doubters, Obama made it clear by accusing the GOP of "holding middle
class tax cuts hostage," thus casting them as defenders of the rich, a favorite
Democratic caricature of Republicans, and himself as a man of the people. In
evaluating this claim, one must first understand why Republicans want the cuts
for ALL Anericans. The "middle class" doesn't make large investments in business
as a general rule, doesn't hire or spend as much as the "rich." So if the "rich" sit
on their money because they know they have a tax bill 10% larger than their last
one coming, who is going to invest in the economy?
   Let's say I own two restaurants. I employ fifty people, including myself. I pay
myself $90K per year, and everyone else gets market wage plus benefits. When
the fiscal year is done, I clear $165K over expenses. I've already paid payroll taxes,
my part of social security and healthcare for my workers. Now, Obama is going to
take my $90K salary, add it to my $165K profit and tax me at the highest level
(39.5%). So am I likely to refurbish my kitchens, buy new silverware and drapes
for my places, or run out and hire extra busboys? With what? If anything, I'm likely
to lay a couple of people off to drop my business below the minimum for having
to provide certain benefits.
   So Obama's "package" includes more Porkulus spending for infrastructure, much
of which is earmarked for unions, a couple of supply side "bones" for Republicans
and an extension of the Bush tax cuts which OBAMA threatens to hold hostage
unless Republicans agree to stick it to the "rich." Obama's statement that people
making $250,000 a year are already millionaires is a flat lie. As any dummy knows,
making money is one thing, accumulating it (especially under Obama socialism) is
quite another. A family making $250,000 annually and rearing four children is
probably doing nicely. But they're likely NOT millionaires, nor are they rich. But
it's a nice lie with which to fan the flames of class warfare, at which Obama is a
master.
   Obama wishes to put Republicans in a position where, in order to reject his out-
of-control spending, they must also reject partial extension of the tax cuts. Then he
can point the finger some more and talk about how Republicans hate the middle
class. Republicans, on the other hand, would like to get the full tax cuts to a stand
alone vote, forcing Obama to veto it so they can show him up as the inflexible
ideologue without human concern. So what will likely happen?
   Democrats are deserting Obama daily on his tax cut position. Teaming with
Republicans they have nearly enough votes now to approve them. Democrats want
to be re-elected, even though their leader acts as though he wants to see them fired.
The rebellion may well reach critical mass before the November elections so they
can go home and argue that at least they did SOMETHING right.
   Republicans will not agree to Obama's new spending demands because the ones
he already rammed through didn't work, and they have him right where they want
him. They won't go along because they don't want to, and don't have to, and Obama
will be left to stew in his own noxious Keynesian juice until after the midterms. I
hope all those predictions come true. It is the best case scenario for an economically
troubled nation.
 
Tags: the economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

UNPACKING OBAMA'S NEW PLAN - PART I

Posted by Patrick Henry on Wednesday, September 08, 2010 10:19:07 PM
 
   Today, in Cleveland, Ohio, Barack Obama came out swinging at Republicans and
offering a new plan for economic recovery. With the exception of the fact that he
clearly doesn't know that John Boehner is not George W. Bush, and that his droll
poor-boy hometown imagery has grown threadbare, he gave a good speech. Never
mind that he couldn't fill all the seats and had to go out and recruit students to make
it look as though anyone wanted to hear what he had to say.
   But before you play taps for the stubborn recession, take a minute to understand
that what Obama rolled out is basically "Porkulus, Jr." His package is worth about
$200 billion, most of which he claims "is paid for" and just about all of which we've
heard before.
   He wants another $50 billion for "infrastructure." Now remember, he put almost
$230 million for "infrastructure" in the original $862 trillion Porkulus. This was
supposed to be for "shovel ready" projects and instant job creation. Yet today, the
bulk of that "infrastructure" money lies unspent, with few of the "shovel ready"
projects actually shoveling anything but paper. Republicans, if they have half a
brain, will refuse to even discuss the idea until and unless that original $230 billion
is exhausted and dirt is being cut. This is nothing more than doubling down on a
strategy that has already failed. It's DOA!
   Then Obama wants $8 billion to create an "infrastructure bank," which is nothing
but Demo-code for "union slush fund." Thanks to Obama and Democrats, the
original Porkulus infrastructure money was restricted to projects that required
laborers to join a union in order to get a job, thereby shutting out the majority of
the workforce and all non-union contractors. Republicans should tell Obama to
stick his union slush fund infrastructure bank where the sun doesn't shine.
   The rest of this appalling boondoggle amounts to almost $100 billion in tax
credits and small business loans to "stimulate" hiring. Sounds good, right? But
wait til you read the fine print. These credits are only for the kinds of businesses
favored by the Obama administration, and can only be spent for a narrow set of
items that administration specifies. For example, the credit can be obtained if a
farmer builds a single building. But if that building is used for more than one purpose,
it doesn't qualify. So to get the full credit, the farmer has to build two buildings, one
of which is unneccessary. The proposal also specifies that funds may be used for
"off-the-shelf software." With more and more businesses using custom software to
enhance speed, ease of application and security, the rule is plain foolish. The point
is not simply to pick at legalese idiocy, but that Obama wants to micromanage even
small businesses, making certain that they do what he wants, buy what he wants
them to buy and invest as he wants them to.
   Then there's the $30 billion for distribution to "community banks" to make loans
to small businesses. But Obama will have total control over which banks get the
money (can you smell cronyism and political payoff yet?) and how businesses may
spend it. This will be paid for by closing "tax loopholes" for the energy industry.
In other words, this is wealth redistribution, taking from companies out of current
favor and giving money collected from them as extra taxes to others hand-picked
by Obama and his administration.
   The upshot is that Porkulus, Jr. reeks as bad as its mother, the original Porkulus. It
is riddled with union payoffs and opportunities for Obama to reward his faithful
unchecked. It stinks to high heaven, and Republicans should say "no," going to
filibuster in the Senate if need be. Tomorrow we'll look at the politics of Porkulus,
Jr.
Tags: the economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY THE ECONOMY IS STALLED

Posted by Patrick Henry on Sunday, September 05, 2010 12:34:29 PM
 
   America is facing its worst economy since the Great Depression. Last quarter's
GDP tanked to 1.6%, unemployment stands a 9.6%, but if you factor in those
who have been forced from full-time to part-time and those who have simply
given up looking, the real number is closer to 20%. Mortgage foreclosures continue
at historic highs as property values continue to plunge, and more homeoweners
find themselves "underwater" on their house notes.
   Vice-President Joe Biden spent the summer touting the "Summer Recovery" that
wasn't, and Barack Obama in four consecutive speeches has explained, using some of
the most "creative" math in political history, that the economy is actually recovering
nicely, just not fast enough. Regular Americans, however, recognize this for the
politically motivated bullpuckey that it is, and seem bent on a November change of
management.
   Everyone not drinking the Kool-Aid knows that the economy is stuck in the mud,
and that for some reason the forces that have always led it to rebound have been
muted and shackled. Obama and his people keep mumbling about more "stimulus"
and more government intervention. Few are reassured. Why?
   Ed Morrissey, in his excellent blog Hot Air  (which you can and should read on TH),
reported on an article published this week in Der Spiegel by  Hamburg (Germany)
professor of economics, Thomas Straubhaar. In it, Straubhaar argued that the American
economy is not recovering because America has become too much like Europe. He
writes:
      "Both the behavior of the American givernment and the Federal Reserve
      makes one thing clear: they do not see the solution to the U.S.'s economic
      woes in a return to traditional American virtues. Obama is not calling for
      the unleashing of market forces, as Ronald Reagan once did during an
      equally critical period in the early 1980's. On the contrary, Obama, driven
      by his own convictions and advised by economists who believe in government
      intervention has taken a path that leads far away from those things that
      catapulted America to the top of the world in the past century . . . The
      Obama administration's current policies rely on more government rather
      than personal responsibility and self-determination. They are administering
      to the patient more, not less of exactly those things that led to the crisis."
 
Straubhaar goes on to argue that those who settled America came here for one thing
above all else: freedom from government control over belief, speech and destiny. Their
creation of a constitutionally limited government was seen as a way of facilitating this
goal and was never intended to intrude into people's lives. The state was for securing
freedom, peace and security while economic prosperity was left to the individual. Once
that belief system is stripped from America's heterogeneous society, conflict between
various segments of that society is inevitable.
   He further argues that European societies are more historically homogeneous, and
therefore government interventions work better there. (But he quickly adds that whether
they actually "work" is debatable). Using modern Germany as an example, he reminds
that Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel publicly disagreed over how much
government intervention was appropriate. Then Germany crafted a far less ambitious
intervention than Obama's, and while their GDP ballooned to a robust 9%, ours was
tanking to 1.6%.
   Funny how it takes a foreigner to remind Americans just how good what they once
had really was, and how straying from it is a shortcut to mediocrity. But the bottom
line is this: Barack Obama is a Marxist. As a Marxist he believes that the only way to
create a "just" society is for government to tightly control (regulate) the means and
profits of production. In other words, to make a homogeneous American culture into
a heterogeneous European one. To do that, he continues to spin the wheel of economy
lotto, and keeps coming up snake eyes. Until he is stopped cold, his tax and spend
policies reversed and his stranglehold on American businesses released, the economy
will not enjoy meaningful recovery. Even after November, Obama will control the
power of executive order by which he has repeatedly sought to  bypass congress and
implement damaging socialist policies. What may be in our future is an epic confront-
ation between a Republican congress and a recalcitrant ideologue bent on re-shaping
an unwilling nation after European mediocrity. Who wins will determine our national
destiny. Let freedom ring!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE TRUTH ABOUT TODAY'S HATERS

Posted by Patrick Henry on Thursday, September 02, 2010 6:46:15 PM
 
   The mainstream media and liberal Democrats have doubled down on their random
accusations of hate speech, racism and violence-baiting against conservatives. Their
favorite target at the moment is Glenn Beck, whom former DNC Chairman Howard
Dean recently called a "racist" and "hatemonger." But a telescopic view of media
and political speech these days lays bare the real source of vitriol poisoning modern
discourse, and some dreadful consequences of it.
   If you took in Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally, you heard little, if any, political
discourse, per se. Instead, there was a lot of praise for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
and various exhortations to personal spirituality and honesty. There was zero hate
speech, no threats, no  obvious anger, no fingers pointed at any political party and
no signs whatever of racism except for the little black boys paid by the New Black
Panthers to parade through the rally carrying a sign saying, "All White People Are
Racists."
   As a result Beck was pilloried by the Washington Post for saying things that were
so unpolitical they were political (whatever that doubletalk means), slandered by the
New York Times, MSNBC and Time as a racially motivated hate leader, labeled as
previously mentioned by Dean who also suggested there was something amiss in
Beck's head, and viciously smeared by the NAACP for trying to "hijack" the
message of Martin Luther King. Liberal scribe Bill Press lamented the mention of
God at the sacred Lincoln Memorial, although Lincoln mentioned God repeatedly
in his speeches as did King at the very place from which Beck and the others spoke.
Beck and the Tea Party have drawn incredible over-the-top fang and dagger attacks,
and ALL of them have come from Democrats and the mainstream media.
   As if that were not enough, Obama Labor Secretray Hilda Solis sponsored Delores
Huerta, honorary head of the National Democratic Socialist Party, to make tapes
and presentations to illegal aliens about their rights to fair wages. In such a speech
made recently to a Phoenix area magnet high school, Huerta praised Hugo Chavez
and Venezuela, and led the young people in repeating the "phrase of the day." The
phrase was, "Republicans hate Latinos." This is hate speech and race-baiting of the
vilest kind, and it's paid for with your tax dollars and mine. Between this incident,
"the police acted stupidly" knee jerk and the words and actions of DOJ offcials
Eric Holder and Thomas Perez, Obama and his administration are caught naked
in racial demagoguery and incitement to hatred. In so doing they have lost any
claim to moral high ground when addressing either hate or race, and no one should
pay even the slightest heed to their pompous babble. They have shamed themselves
as both racists and haters, and severely damaged, rather than encouraged racial
reconciliation and understanding.
   But so what? It's all just words, right? Wrong! When Tea Party protestors went
to Washington to protest congressional tax and spending policies, numerous
Democrats and two former Democratic presidents warned and even predicted
that their anger would lead to violence. Yet in this age of camera phones, streaming
24/7 media and close political scrutiny, not one single instance of violence traceable
to the Tea Party or Glenn Beck has been proven. Not one! The people at the rally
on Saturday were amiable and well-behaved and, for the most part, even picked
up after themselves. There was no violence.
   So where do we see the violence? I recount three very recent instances, though
there are dozens more. At a Tea Party rally in St. Louis, a young black man named
Kenny Gladney was passing out American flags, a Tea Party habit. For his trouble
he was called by a racial slur and physically attacked by labor union thugs wearing
SEIU tee shirts. The only violence at the rally was liberal shills assaulting a conservative
who was also black. Last Sunday night, left-wing activist and Hollywood actor John
Cusack let fly on twitter a rant against conservatives, calling for "satanic death cults"
at the offices of former House Majority Leader Armey, former House Speaker
Newt Gingrich and FOX News. Many non-partisan psychological professionals
reacted with alarm, concerned that Cusack's celebrity might lead some of his fans
to actually carry out acts of violence against the targets of his hate tirade. Finally,
yesterday, James Lee, a radical environmentalist angered at the Discovery Channel
for not advocating against the "polluting births" of "filthy human babies," armed
himself with a handgun and an assortment of pipe bombs and stormed the network's
headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, taking four hostages. Shot and killed by
police sharpshooters, Lee became a martyr for the radical leftist environmental
movement. His source of inspiration? Al Gore's pseudo-documentary, "An
Inconvenient Truth." So by this mini-count Al Gore, John Cusack and the SEIU
have together, spewed more hate and caused more actual violence than Glenn Beck
and the Tea Party put together.
   The majority and the nastiest of the hate speech is coming from the left. And
they clearly have more than enough nut jobs to act on it. It happens when people
see power ebbing away like so much sand slipping through their fingers. But that
doesn't justify or make it less than the hate-mongering trash talk it is.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY GREATNESS ELUDES OBAMA

Posted by Patrick Henry on Monday, August 30, 2010 11:04:35 PM
 
   Many people are disappointed in the presidency of Barack Obama, including some in
his own party. His approval ratings have sagged to an all-time low, and his party is
steeling itself for major defeats in the mid-term elections. Watching him speak today,
it was difficult to shed the impression that he looked and sounded lonely, frustrated,
angry and rebellious, not particularly winning traits.
   As the nation's first black president he held the high hopes of a weary nation in the
palm of his hand. He has pulled way too many boneheads for one to argue that he
is the smartest president the country has ever had. But he's certainly not the dumbest
either. He has enjoyed overwhelming legislative majorities in both houses of congress
seen a number of his agenda items passed, yet his policies, in the main, have not met
with popular approval and his signature initiative, the healthcare bill, is the target of
calls for repeal by nearly 60% of the electorate. The economy, which has done in
more than one president is in deep trouble, the nation deeply in debt and unemploy-
remains stubbornly high in spite of a near trillion dollar stimulus package he wanted,
argued for and finally got. Now he and his party are in deep, deep trouble, and
unless the turnaround comes with a vengeance Obama may be a one-term president.
   So why does greatness elude him? One need only look as far as Bill Clinton and
Ronald Reagan to see one reason. Each of them faced similar public disapproval
and found themselves at mid-term with unfavorable congressional power shifts. Both
were able to pivot toward the center, reach across the aisle and get enough done to
convince America they were worth re-electing. It is improbable that Obama can or
will do the same. He is arguably the most liberal president ever to sit in the White
House, and the ground he has staked out with his agenda is so far to the left that
any centrist movement will force him to virtually abandon it. If he did, he would
lose the entire leftist base of the Democratic party. And if Republicans effect a true
change in the balance of power, they will demand significant movement on his part
in order to work with him. He is simply too much of an ideologue to compromise,
and that is likely to cost him both the presidency in 2012 and the legacy he hoped
for.
   Obama has fallen carelessly into the "angry black man" caricature his campaign
staff warned him to avoid. One could see it this morning as he demagogued away
at Republicans who will not yield to more emergency spending to pass a band-aid
small business loan bill he badly wants. He seems confused by America's rejection
of his vision, angry at all who oppose him and locked into an ever-deepening bunker
mentality. He would apparently rather be right (in his own eyes) than continue to
be president, and if he stays the present course he will surely get his wish.
   But his biggest current liability is an undeniable detachment from the real
people who comprise the electorate. A recent poll showed the public favoring
Republicans versus Democrats (Obama) on every major issue. Obama wants to
spend the country out of debt, the people want conservation, thrift and responsibility.
He wants to pacify the Muslim world while the country wants him to confront
radical Islam and protect his own nation from their terrorist designs. The people
want the borders controlled and illegal invaders sent home, but Obama wants open
borders and refuses even to enforce immigration laws on the books. A majority
favor the Arizona immigration law, while Obama is suing Arizona to invalidate it.
Few (including the courts) thought a drilling moratorium was warranted after the
BP spill, but Obama did it anyway. The people opposed the healthcare bill, but he
blathered, bribed and bullied to pass it over their objections. The people don't want
Guantanamo Bay closed, but Obama is hell bent on doing it. Americans don't
want Khalid Sheik Mohammed tried in New York, but Obama still does, and
apparently won't allow military courts in Guantanamo to proceed until he gets at
least one of the defendants incarcerated there in civil court. The list goes on and
on and on. America is telling Obama he is drunk, and he stubbornly refuses to
lie down.
   Many questions of deceit, misrepresentation, misdirection and broken promises
also dog Obama. And all of the foregoing comprise the stuff of which failed
presidencies are made. Could he still turn it around? Certainly! He is charming,
witty, attractive and hip, and he is a fine public speaker. But he can only be a
Great Communicator (Reagan fans please pardon the analogy) when he is on the
same wavelength as those with whom he must communicate. The prospect of that
seems highly unlikely. If he stays his current course, he will leave a divided,
bankrupt and resentful nation in his wake, and what could have been Camelot
may well end up being Gomorrah.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678910…1920Next »