About Me

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

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

THE STATE OF HOPE AND CHANGE: PART I

 
   In 2008 Barack Obama was swept into the presidency on a wave of optimism and
his message that promised "hope and change." Well into 2010 it is time for a frank
assessment of what changes have been made, and whether the hope was just hype.
   The election year found the nation weary of two wars, on the cusp of an economic
downturn and deeply divided over issues like immigration, energy policy, tactics in
the war on terror and how best to deal with rogue nations seeking nuclear weapons.
Obama promised swift and decisive action in each of these areas, laying out a wide
scope of proposed changes. He would end harsh interrogation and close Guantanamo
Bay, he said. He would restore America's lost credibility with the world and institute
"green energy" reforms. He would end the war in Iraq and win the one in Afghanistan,
and while he would "redistribute wealth," the middle class would not suffer at all. He
also promised that the dream of universal healthcare would become reality. The hope
that he could indeed deliver on these promises was a major factor in his election.
   In the cold light of 2010 reality, however, it seems that most of Obama's promises
stand unrealized. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) passed at the end of
the G. W. Bush administration, cost the nation billions, and the long-building home
mortgage crisis exploded when it became apparent that a combination of federal
policy and institutional greed had encouraged people to take out mortgages that their
real assets and incomes could not support. The wave of staggering job losses that
began under Bush accelerated to tsunami proportions under Obama.
   Desperate to stem the economic crash, Obama and the Democratic congress passed,
along mostly partisan lines, a near-trillion dollar stimulus package. As a caveat for public
support, Obama personally promised that if the package was passed, unemployment
would not pass 8%. Instead, the stimulus, adjudged in retrospect as a failure by 73%
of business economists, was passed, laden with "pork" and giveaways as unemployment
climbed past 10%. Administrative time that could have been spent solving problems
was, instead, squandered saving face, touting jobs created in districts that did not
exist, stalking the elusive numbers of "jobs saved" and arguing that had the package
not passed things would have been much worse.
   Before the ink was dry on the stimulus, Obama began to push his government run
universal healthcare package at the cost of yet another trillion dollars. Medicare
Advantage was deep-sixed and new taxes such as those on medical equipment (which
certainly do affect the middle class) were tacked on. All during this time, Obama
argued that his program would improve care, cut costs and cover the uninsured without
increasing the enormous fiscal deficit or leading to rationed care. We now know that
with the extras tacked on by congress the program will unquestionably increase the
deficit, that care will become scarcer and the cost of coverage will go up. The bill
was passed over the objections of 55% of Americans. Today 63% say they want it
repealed. Most of the benefits do not kick in for four years, but the tax burden to
pay for them has already begun.
   A cornerstone of Obama's energy package was a cap-and-trade bill that would have
placed a limit on carbon emissions and allow companies to trade unusued portions of
their "cap." By Obama's own pre-election admission, if enacted cap-and-trade would
cause energy costs to "skyrocket," hitting the poor, the middle class and small
businesses hardest, costing a floundering economy jobs, increasing gas prices at the
pump and simply forcing those without deep pockets to consume less while the
affluent paid more. Also key to this policy was the rapid development of wind, solar
and other "green" energy to take up the slack. The House of Representatives passed
a cap-and-trade bill that the senate declared "dead on arrival." Now the Senate is
working on its own bill which is not bipartisan and is no better than 50-50 to pass.
Realizing that the green energy sector was lagging, Obama pulled back on his
pledge to prohibit offshore drilling, only to reverse course in the wake of the BP
deepwater drilling catastrophe that is the worst in the nation's history.
   Americans are very much divided on the change ushered in by the Obama era
and real hope is a commodity hard to come by in a nation with 10% unemployment,
a record number of home foreclosures and jobless benefits rapidly running out. But
that's not the final chapter. In tomorrow's post we'll look at some other promised
areas of change, and how they're working out. Then in part III we'll do some analysis
about what has worked or not, and why.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

HERE'S SESTAKGATE!

   It's Friday afternoon on a holiday weekend when the president has skulked out of
town leaving his media shills to release a report explaining away the fact that the
administration offered Representative Joe Sestak a major advisory board appoint-
ment if he would pass on the Pennsylvania senatorial race. The tactic is predictably
cynical because it bets that the media focus will be on Obama's trip to the disaster-
ridden gulf, and that most people will focus on the upcoming holiday instead of the
scandalous news.
   Their story goes like this. Some White House official, probably Chief of Staff
Rahm Emanuel, asked former president Bill Clinton to approach Sestak about
staying in the House and accepting an appointment to the president's national
security advisory board. Sestak declined the offer, and both he and Obama would
love for us to believe that it ended there. The rationale was that (a) they didn't want
to risk losing Sestak's House seat, and (b) they were already committed to support
Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania as the quid pro quo for his notorious party
switch.
   But many questions linger. Who could have authorized Emanuel to make such an
offer if not Obama himself? And if the matter was truly confined to one late summer
phone call, why did Sestak wait until February to go public with it? And if it went
down as the White House and Sestak now say it did, were any laws broken or ethical
canons violated?
   First, it is obvious that Emanuel does not have the juice to unilaterally offer such a
position without having consulted with Obama. That means that however their actions
are eventually adjudged, both Emanuel and Obama are culpable. Second, it strains
credulity to assert that the matter was dropped after one phone call. If so, it wasn't
a very serious offer. Sestak appeared angry when he leveled the charge -- and it is
undeniable that it WAS an accusation -- in February. It's hard to believe he carried
a loaded gun around that long without firing. So what triggered his disclosure?
   Title 18, 600 SC, makes it very clear that any "job, offer of employment, position,
appointment or other consideration" made in conjunction with an election constitutes
the tender of a bribe. The White House tries to weasel out by saying the appointment
offered Sestak was an unpaid job. The legal question is was it "of value." If it was not,
then they are trying to convince Americans that they were offering something they
knew to we worthless in return for Sestak's cooperation in regard to the Pennsylvania
electoral process. It seems unavoidable that a crime was committed.
   Sestak's several iterations of the fiasco make it very clear that in his mind he was
"offered a job." If, as the White House now contends, he wasn't offered a job, then
Sestak is lying. If he's not lying, then the White House is compounding bribery and
electoral tampering with a cover-up. No matter what speed you play this record at
the dissonance is ear-splitting, and the administration's stonewalling instead of simply
telling it like it was in the first place suggests they know they've done something wrong.
   Then there's the matter of Bill Clinton, the disgraced preisdent who was impeached
for misleading (lying to) a grand jury. You will remember his pious words, "I did not
have sex with that woman." This reminds one of a philanderer caught with his pants
down offering the procurer as his character witness. Has the odor of all this begun
to reach you yet?
   However you spin the bottle, it seems indisputable that Obama and his people have
been caught trying to rig elections yet one more time. The irony of it is that they've
cast Joe Sestak who, his questionable choice of political parties aside, seems like an
honorable and decent man, in a lose-lose meat grinder. As this thing gets nastier, and
that is likely, what will you bet that Obama won't throw Sestak under the bus just as he
has other "friends" who were no longer useful to him? Hope and change, huh? I think
we might have both, come November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FOOLS, RULES AND PATRIOTISM

 
   For some time now it has been off-limits to question the patriotism of a candidate.
Those who always howl the loudest are those who have done something or taken a
position leading others to raise the issue. The theory is that it is fair game to question
actions or words, but never motives. However the shibboleth ignores the reality that
actions and words ARE motivated, and voters whose support is sought have a full
right to investigate just what those motives are.
   So, it's time to take the gloves off and say it: Barack Obama, the current president
of the United States is no patriot. He is an American-hating socialist whose motives
are made transparent through a concerted series of actions and words that consistently
denigrate the nation of which he is supposed to be the leader. His actions and words
are so blatant, in fact, that they permit open season on his motives.
   This is a man who, prior to his election, stood on foreign soil and accused America
of arrogance and derision, who joined his party in applauding a foreign head of state
as he berated Americans from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, who
bowed before the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Japan and China, who sat idly at the feet
of a racist preacher who was most famous for beseeching God to damn  America,
who counts among his friends a man who is proud of having gotten away with violent
attacks that claimed American lives and whose own wife says he considers Kenya to
be his "home country."
   It is his administration that now faces litigation against fourteen of the states he is
supposed to represent, and is threatening more of the same against a fifteenth. It is
Obama who has failed miserably to secure the nation's borders and protect its
sovereignty, responding only yesterday by sending one-third of the needed National
Guardsmen to the troubled boundary. It is Obama who has sought to redistribute
America's wealth, giving it to his favored constituents, taken over manufacturing,
banking, investment and insurance firms, sought government hegemony over the
internet and passed a socialist healthcare bill that 63% of Americans now want
repealed. It is truer of the Obama administration than it ever was of Pogo that
"we have met the enemy and he is US."
   No leader can long succeed who places himself constantly in an adversarial
relationship with those whom he would lead. The arbitrary, oppressive, coercive
style Barack Obama has brought to government is not simply a personal
preference. It is the only way that he can "fundamentally transform America" to
a system Americans do not want. Coercion and democracy are the mongoose
and the cobra of politics. It is only a matter of time until the "mongoose" of
democracy pounces on and dispatches the "cobra" of socialism embodied by
an Obama administration filled with self-avowed socialists, Marxists and admirers
of same.
   You say, Mr. President, that we can question your policies, but that we cannot
question your patriotism. Oh yes we can! And it is your own words and actions
that not only permit but obligate us to do so. You are clearly no lover of country,
and would remake it after your own Marxist image so that you CAN love it. The
problem is that millions of us WON'T! Real patriots don't act and talk like you do.
In the campaign to come, your record will be the iceberg that sinks your Titanic. It
will make what happened to Jimmy Carter look like a slap on the wrist. If you
really hate America, why not find a country you can love? Kenya, perhaps?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE FORMULA FOR NOVEMBER SUCCESS

 
   Political waters run exceedingly treacherous in these days of anti-incumbent
fervor. But a carefully calculated course avoiding the shoals and reefs of "gotcha"
politics upon which the mainstream media thrives can result in an epic shift in
power come November 2010.
   So what must Republicans, the Tea Party and the few moderate Democrats
left alive do to wrest the reins of power from left-wing Democrats and socialists
in the upcoming elections? There is no magic bullet, but some interesting trends
are emerging that bear watching.
   There are many who are warning Republicans against becoming the "party of
no," fearing that an obstructionist tag will result in a pro-incumbency backlash. The
concern is valid, but the advice is bad. Republicans, the Tea Party and moderate
Democrats should embrace "no." NO to more borrow, tax and spend, NO to
ever-growing all-encroaching government, NO to America bashing, NO to weak-
ness against terrorism, amnesty for illegal aliens and the economy-stifling overreach
of cap-and-trade. There ARE, in fact, a number of things Americans want to see
rejected or reversed, and the failure to say NO boldly and loudly to those ignoring
the public voice is a huge mistake.
   The "no" strategy, however, comes with a caveat. In most cases it must be "no,
but . . ." It is not enough just to say no if one doesn't have some alternative to offer.
So it must be NO to borrow, tax and spend, but YES to budget cutting, government
shrinking and belt-tightenening. NO to America bashing and YES to American
exceptionalism with its corollary historical rationale. NO to cap-and-trade, but yes
to "drill baby drill" and the accelerated quest for alternative energy sources. NO to
over-regulation and yes to capitalism and the entrepreneurial spirit. The "no" without
the "yes" won't cut it.
   Aspiring candidates must bear in mind the old adage that"all politics is local." And
it was never truer than today. If there is one thing the recent electoral campaigns have
borne out it is that it is a losing strategy to simply run a national campaign at the local
level. The way to tap into voter anger and frustration, and there's plenty of it, is to listen
 to the people whose votes you covet, and tailor common sense, plain English solutions
to the problems they pose, along with a strategy for bringing those problems to the
limelight of congressional consideration. Pelosi and Obama are unpopular, but they're
not running in your district this November.
   Finally, the strategy of contrast was never more crucial, or more favorable. Like
an effective attorney trying the big case, pose questions to which you already know
the answers. Do you like the healthcare reform law? Do you want cap-and-trade
and the skyrocketing electricity bills that come with it? Did you appreciate a president
and his party standing to applaud a foreign head of state as he verbally attacked
Arizonans in the nation's capital? Do you like a leader who blames everything on
America first, bows to foreign despots and bargains awayAmerican freedoms at the
United Nations? Do you want open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens? Do you
want the economy controlled by powerful labor unions? This is the Democratic
agenda and the polls show a clear majority of Americans decisively rejecting it.
Political change comes about only when voters are forced to acknowledge their
true values and make a choice between clear alternatives. If the polls have any
validity at all, people don't want what Obama and the Democrats are peddling.
There are those die hards who will vote Democrat anyway. But more 
middle-of-the-roaders  and independents who swing elections will come down
on the right side of the fence rather than the left. They just need to clearly see
the fence.
   Most important is to choose and support squeaky clean candidates. Philanderers,
liars, corruptocrats, union shills and others who might be perceived as special interest
minions will make especially weak candidates in a housecleaning climate. The public
believes there is already a preponderance of those types in Washington, so why would
they want to send more of the same? America is looking for clear, clean, cerebral,
bipartisn leadership that can focus on problems rather than politics. Those whom
they believe can offer that will, in the end, carry the day.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY OBAMA CAN'T KEEP HIS PROMISES

 
   It has taken only a year for Barack Obama to fall prey to the bane of elected
officers: the broken promise. An old co-worker of mine used to warn of those
whose "mouths overloaded their butts," and the pith clearly applies to those who
promise everything to get elected and deliver, for many reasons, nothing or even
the opposite of what they promised.
   Apart from the seemingly accepted maxim that "politicians lie," there are a
number of reaons why so many glittering guarantees end up on the scrap heap
of reality. One of these is the penchant for offering the impossible, i.e., a "free
lunch." Obama promised universal healthcare that would cut costs, provide better
care, reduce the deficit and cause no one to lose coverage. Only those who were
drinking too much believed it. Now, even at the new law's inception, it is apparent
that there are no cost savings, those on Medicare Advantage face loss of benefits
and, in some cases, complete loss of coverage, not all will be covered, doctors are
already closing up shop or refusing Medicare patients in record numbers and there
is a bill before congress which, if enacted, will wipe out the deficit reduction savings
of the original legislation. This was never realistic and either Obama was too naive
to know it or too dumb to admit it.
   Another reason why politicians break promises is their own misrepresentations of
their true position on issue during campaigns. Obama promised that immigration reform
would be among his top priorities. Yet he has done nothing to create new laws or enforce
existing ones, forcing states to take matters into their own hands and create a legal
civil war with the federal government. What voters understood him to be promising
was a sensible solution to deal with the 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country
and  closure of our leaking borders. What he intended, but did not specify, was a
blanket amnesty to create millions of new Democratic voters and perpetual open
borders. If congress passed such a measure, which it won't, there would be an open
rebellion of the populace, huge majorities of which favor the new Arizona law that
mirrors the unenforced federal one and do not believe it right to simply give people
something they've already stolen. Since Obama can't get the reform he wants, he just
breaks his promise and does nothing while states are awash in red ink from dealing
with the black hole of illegal immigrant costs.
   Some political promises are broken because they were an overreach in the first
place. Obama promised that if people got on board with the eight billion dollar
stimulus package, unemployment would not pass 8%. Today it is nearly 10% and
has been so for many months. While there is some economic recovery it is none-
theless a jobless recovery, and 73% of polled business economists adjudged the
stimulus a dismal failure. What happened? Obama's mouth overloaded his butt.
There was absolutely no way he could have known what he claimed to know,
i.e., that if congress passed the stimulus unemployment would remain at or under
8%. He made a promise that was entirely beyond his ability to keep, and party
sycophants and other silly Americans followed this pied piper of prevarication
right down the primrose path.
   Promises often get broken when they depend upon the cooperation of others.
Obama assured Americans that if we approached the world with contrition for
our alleged sins and held out the open hand of diplomacy surely other nations
would respond in kind. Of course we now know that Iran, North Korea, Russia
and Venezuela have done the very opposite, discrediting his belief. When one
makes ridiculous guarantees not based in reason, history or reality, and badly
miscalculates the intent and capacity of peer nations, all that can happen is
failure.
   Finally, promises get broken when they mask hidden agendas. In Obama's
case the smiling face of hope and change quickly morphed into the snarling
invasiveness of socialism. Everyone knows what hope and change are. They
aren't government takeovers of banks, automakers, insurance companies,
healthcare, the internet and student loans. They don't spring from suppression
of dissent, or disregard for individual liberties guaranteed by the constitution.
Go out on the street today and ask ten people if they are hopeful about the
changes instituted by Barack Obama. Or, just look at the polls. If he had
been blatantly honest about his agenda he would not, of course, have been
elected. Instead, he simply said what people wanted to hear, intending all the
while to go his own way. Now the piper has to be paid.
   While understanding the reasons why politicians break promises, the way
back from the precipice for America depends on our willingness to start demanding
honesty in government, to reject the premise that politicians just have to lie and
to raise our voices to question unrealistic, ambiguous, undeliverable promises no
matter who makes them. When you buy your house you sign a mortgage note
which is a promise to pay. When you don't pay, you lose your house. That's
an easy principle to understand, even when the House is White.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TWEEDLE DUM AND TWEEDLE DEE

 
   Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee is an old nursery rhyme about two dimbulbs
arguing ridiculous points of view about irrelevant issues. For some strange reason
it popped into my head when I saw Barack Obama and his White House Mafia
standing to applaud Mexico's idiot president Felipe Calderon as he presumed to
tell America what laws to pass and how to enforce them.
   What was wrong with this picture is that Obama and Calderon are eloquently
discussing a problem neither of them is doing anything to fix. We are talking, of
course, about the unending flood of Mexican citizens illegally crossing the U.S.
borders, living here in violation of the law, committing additional and ongoing
criminal acts to perpetuate their fraud and costing U.S. taxpayers billions in
education, healthcare and law enforcement dollars to meet their inexhaustible
needs.
   Calderon, if he really had U.S. interests at heart, should be discouraging his
citizens from violating our borders. Instead, he encourages them, arguing for
the mythical "right of migration" as though the violation of American national
sovereignty was a Mexican birthright. Obama, on the other hand, should do
the job to which he was elected and "provide for the national defense" by
securing the borders against illegal invaders, however passionate their self-
justification. Instead he steadfastly refuses to deploy the national guard to the
border, passes the buck to congress (which he has already admitted doesn't
have the stomach for it) and leads the cheering section for the king of the
narco-sewers while he castigates Americans. (By the way, if anyone wants
to know what Democrats stand for, watch clips of Calderon's speech to
congress and you'll see them all standing and applauding Calderon).
   Obama apparently thinks that if he ignores the problem long enough, congress
will be forced to pass an amesty for illegals already in the country, something
he is already on the record saying he wants. (He's already counting their votes).
Now Arizona has upset his applecart with their new law, and his choices are
(a) to challenge it in court, which will make him more unpopular and embarrass
him when he loses; (b) order Homeland Security to stop cooperating with Arizona,
which could lead to calls for his impeachment, or (c) give in and send troops to
the border with orders to clean latrines and count illegals as they cross. Any of
those outcomes would be fine with Calderon, whom he is much more eager to
please than Americans who voted for him.
   The Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee in the nursery rhyme proposed to fight a
battle with one another over a spoiled new rattle. The current two dimbulbs
propose to wage war around illegal immigration on American taxpayers and
an American state. How much more would it take to lock Obama away 
as an enemy combatant? And how much would it cost to hire a "coyote" to
smuggle Calderon back to Mexico crammed in the back of a U-Haul?
Tags: immigration  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CONNECTICUT GIVES US A CHANCE

 
   America is gut sick of lying, self-serving politicans. It's becoming more obvious
by the day. But if history teaches anything, it teaches that our revulsion doesn't
mean we'll seriously do anything about it. No, instead we just cluck our tongues
and say, "Well, politicians just lie, that's how it is," and keep on re-electing these
reprobates to exercise more corruption, make more bad laws and bicker over
policies that won't work.
   But it may just be that America stands on the cusp of it's last and best chance
to sweep the garbage right out of Washington. And in the same way that the
first American revolution began in the original colonies by the Atlantic, it looks
like America's new deal could begin with Connecticut.
   When it became obvious that corrupt and disgraced Senator Chris Dodd could
not win re-election, he announced his "retirement." In a heavily Democratic state,
first in line to step up and claim his seat was Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.
It seemed that Blumenthal was the new king just awaiting coronation, until a New
York Times article pointed out that (a) he repeatedly referred in public speeches
to the time that he "served in Viet Nam," (b) except that he never served in Viet Nam
and (c) went well out of his way to secure a series of deferments, finally joining
an elite Marine reserve unit that had no chance of going to Viet Nam. Oops!
   Since the NYT article more instances have been reported of Blumenthal making
the same specious claim. His bristling defense? "I misspoke." Now, it's entirely possible
for one to misspeak about a lot of things. In fact, misspeaking seems to be one of
the chief characteristics of the current Democratic administration. But claiming one
fought in a war he studiously sought to avoid and that was being waged some 6,000
miles from where he was located is not s slip of the tongue. It is a lie, and Richard
Blumenthal told it!
   Now Connecticut has an interesting choice. Do they vote for this lying Democrat,
or do they put a Republican (heaven forbid) with a history as a wrestling mogul in
the senate? I don't live in Connecticut, and it's not my business to tell them what to
do. But it is clear that Connecticut has a real chance here to lead America, to stand
up and be party-blind and shout, NO MORE LIES!" And if Connecticut has the
character and the fortitude to do that, they may well trigger a tsunami that will
sweep all the liars, the grifters, the philanderers and the career politicians whose
only true value is getting re-elected right out of Washington with the rest of the
garbage.
   There is a biblical parable attributed to Jesus about a man whose house was
plagued by demons. Once the house was cleansed, the man resumed business as
usual. But since he put nothing pure and wholesome in their place, the demons
soon returned bringing all their friends. America's last best chance at re-claiming
its dream, of becoming that shining beacon on a hill, is to get rid of the same old
same old in Washington, and then replace it with tough honesty, consistent
courage and genuinely participatory democracy.
   In the days when I taught in college, we used to sit around at the summer faculty
retreat and laughingly talk about what a placid year it could be if the students just
didn't come back in the fall. Think about Washington as it is now, and then think
about what it could be if this congress just didn't come back next term. Unless
places like Connecticut stand up and put a premium on honesty, we'll never know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THANKS, ARIZONA!

 
   With big city liberal governments all over the country boycotting Arizona for its
tough new immigration law, the rest of us need to step up and say a big "Thanks"
to Governor Jan Brewer and courageous Arizona legislators who finally had a
belly full of incompetent and impotent federal government border security.We should
thank them, too, for calling out the tinhorn phonies in the Obama administration
for their hypocrisy, cowardice and trashing of Americans while they placate, pacify
and praise America's enemies.
   It is not difficult to read between the lines of Tuesday's primaries, where big
names supported by Obama and his machine struggled and/or were defeated. Ours
is a proud nation, and justifiably so, and people are sick to death of the patronizing,
tax-and-spend America bashing that have quickly become hallmarks of this
president and his cronies. But it hasn't gone unnoticed.
   Obama's attorney general and secretary of homeland security have gone on national
television condeming the Arizona law, only to be humiliated when forced to admit they
hadn't even read it. It is abundantly clear from Obama's own ignorant caricatures of
the law that he hasn't read it either. Why not? Because leftists like the president and the
group of incompetent fools he calls a "cabinet" always have their minds made up and
have no intention of being confused by facts. The law doesn't say what they claim it
does, and the so-called "dangers" inherent in it are no greater than those in the federal
law it emulates. (Oh, I forgot, they don't enforce that law either). All of America will
be in stitches when the courts ultimately uphold the law and Obama, Holder and
Napolitano are left sucking eggs.
   To add insult to injury, in the human rights talks with China, one of the biggest human
rights offending countries in the world, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner
repeatedly raised the Arizona law as an example of "prejudice" that exists in America.
I guess the new definition of prejudice is that if you want the laws of the land actually
enforced, then you are a bigot. Posner has a history of America-bashing, has allied
himself or served in official capacities with international organizations that trade on
dengrating the USA and is on record as believing that international law trumps the
constitution. He has about as much business representing this country in human
rights talks as a chimpanzee does writing a sonnet. If you wonder how such a moron
got appointed to such a post, look no further than the moron who appointed him.
   But the creme de la creme was saved for this morning, when Obama afforded
Mexican President Felipe Calderon the prestigious forum of the White House to
decry Arizona as racist and reassert the Mexican "right to migration." And I
thought it was birds of a feather rather than imbeciles that flocked together. The
absurdities of this scenario are simply stunning. There, standing beside the "leader
of the free world," in the quintessential seat of American power, was this weakling
banana republic politician who represents one of the three biggest narco-trafficking
sewers in the world, berating an American state about its legally enacted statute.
Never mind that Mexico's own policy toward illegal aliens was written by Torquemada,
that the supposed "right of migration" exists only in some Mexican's feeble mind,
that Calderon himself has encouraged people to cross the border illegally, even providing
comic books with step-by-step instructions on how to do so, that he and his government
want America's money, America's jobs and, ultimately, all of the territory back that
Mexico's joke of an army lost in the Mexican-American war. (Yes, there was such a war).
   We should expect no less from a nitwit like Calderon. But we have a right to expect
a whole lot more from Obama, Holder, Napolitano and Posner, who cannot seem to grease
the skids fast enough to send America sliding down into the status of a have-not, second
rate, debtor nation. We should be chastened. It's no less than we deserve for electing
the village idiot to the highest office in the land. But in the tradition of American
governance "of the people, for the people and by the people," it should come as no
surprise to them when we come to take our government back. Yesterday was just the
downpayment. Thanks, Arizona! And by the way, I was planning to vacation elsewhere,
but I think I'll go to Scottsdale this year.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SHOULD KAGAN GET BORKED?

 
   When, in 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated conservative legal scholar Robert Bork
to be an associate justice of the United States Supreme Course, the usually civil and
agreeable process of confirmation turned ugly, with liberal Democrats led by the
late Senator Ted Kennedy tearing, slashing and burning him because he had the
temerity to answer their questions truthfully. Those answers reflected a strict
constructionist conservatism that threatened the Dems master social agenda, and
so they assailed the poor man until finally he withdrew his name from consideration.
   Now, Barack Obama has nominated a second left-leaning judge in Elena Kagan.
If turnabout is fair play, should Republicans now "bork" her? That depends on
whether they can show that she, as Kennedy accused Bork of being, is "out of the
mainstream," and whether she can show cause why one with zero experience on
the judicial bench and a minimal catalog of legal scholarship is qualified for such
a prestigious nomination.
   Since the Bork debacle, nominees to the court have waxed very cagey in answering
senatorial questions, often declining comment on grounds that issues surrounding
the issue at hand are already in train to come before the court, and a nominee dare
not appear to be pre-judging such cases. The tactic has worked like a charm, and
anyone who doubts Kagan will hide behind it is very naive indeed.
   In light of her almost non-existent paper trail, Obama's contention that she is one
of America's "leading legal minds" is false on its face. Where are the extensive legal
opinions shedding light on the constitution? Where are the major cases argued before
high courts? Where is her bench experience, or her life outside the cloisters of
academia and the beltway that would enable her, as Obama required, to understand
how laws affect the common man? The reason it matters is because being legally
anonymous is decidedly not a qualification for a lifetime appointment to the highest
court in the land.
   In those instances when she has ventured out of the academic closet, the results
have raised more questions than they have answered. In a 1996 paper she argued
that freedom of speech was dependent on societal value, and could, in some cases,
be set aside if either "society" or the government, acting on pure motives, deemed
it in the public interest. In other words, you're welcome to say what we want you to
say. Otherwise, we can tell you to shut up.
   When she was the dean of Harvard's law school she banned military recruiters
from campus because she considered "don't ask, don't tell" both immoral and wrong.
When congress passed the Solomon Amendment allowing the government to deprive
schools banning military recruiters of public funding, Kagan joined a suit to have
it overturned. The matter was eventually heard by the supremes, who ruled against
Kagan and her co-complainants 8-0. She seemed flawed in both form and substance.
It is worth notng that what Kagan flaunted was not, as she argued, "the military's
policy," but the law of the land, passed by a Democratic congress and signed into
law by a Democratic president.
   While she was an official in the Clinton government, another official leaked sensitive
information to an environmental group that used it to bludgeon the president and his
policies. It was Kagan's responsibility to investigate and prosecute the leaker, which
she failed to do. Could it have been because she was sympathetic to the violation
of the law -- again?
   What is apparent here is that Elena Kagan is a liberal judicial activist who decides
that the constitution is whatever she and her leftist cronies want it to be. That does
nothing to advance justice, and much to undermine the legal foundation upon which
our democracy is built.
   So should Elena Kagan be "borked?" The only way to stop her nomination from
going forward is the filibuster, and since three GOP senators have already said they
see no problem with her, that seems like the impossible dream. But Kagan herself
once argued publicly that nominees to the court should be stringently examined. Let
the stringency begin.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WE'RE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION

 
   Ours is a society dominated by the "scientific method," a presumably reliable way of
getting at truth. But even the lowliest of researchers will tell you that one can't get the
right answer when one asks the wrong questions. Scientific experiments, opinion polls,
court proceedings and marketing schemes all have experienced this truism when, over
time, it turns out that they were asking questions not designed to accurately discern the
facts they were seeking.
   So it is with the current debate over which is worse (or better), to mock Islam's
prophet Muhammad, or to mock Jesus Christ. The depiction of the two figures, each
revered by millions, in humiliating caricatures, poses or costumes has lately become
a worldwide fad among so-called artists. From a Danish cartoonist, to a miscreant who
painted a picture of Christ being urinated on, to Comedy Central, it is open season on
religious figures.
   But on the way to mockery central, a funny thing happened. Irate Muslims, outraged
at the sacrilege aimed at their holy prophet, started threatening to blow up businesses
and kill artists. The response which no doubt seems barbaric to some, has thrown a
distinct chill over Muhammad-trashing, with Hollywood and New York alike declaring
the prophet off-limits because "we don't want to put our artists and employees in any
danger."
   Now, the trashmeisters are free to vent their spleens on Jesus alone. Indeed Comedy
Central is preparing a series of sacrilegious parodies and cartoons mocking one whom
many hail as the Son of God. They do it because they believe Christians will not bomb
their studios and assasinate their employees. They do it because in a permissive society
where one CAN do it, someone inevitably WILL, notwithstanding the hurt and outrage
it causes to others. The new political correctness counsels that Muslims are off limits,
but Christians are fair game.
   The problem with this is that the debate has boiled down to the establishment of a
double standard. Which is worse, pundits ask, to ridicule Muhammad, or to ridicule
Jesus? That is decisively the wrong question, posing a false choice and, inevitably
yielding the wrong answer.
   What the debate should hinge around is whether it is fundamentallyindecent to
ridicule ANY person, religion or belief that millions devoutlyworship and treasure.
The phenomenon of bullying has become so tragic in our schools that children have
died because of it, and now state laws are being drawn in some places that make
bullying a crime. Bullying is abuse perpetrated on those who are weaker by those
who are stronger. Bullies do it because they can. The same is true of those who seek
 to prey on the faith of others. Faith is the ultimate sanctuary of the human spirit, and
is held by the constitution to be inviolable. Those who would denigrate the religious
have chosen to violate that sanctuary through the back door, under the thin disguises
of "art" and "humor."
   What speaks loudest in the matter is the hasty retreat they have beaten when
confronted with the truth that Muslims, at least, are prepared to kill for the sanctity
of their faith and, by extension, to die for it. While I'm not much of a Muslim
sympathizer, I understand how they feel. How do you suppose the sewer dwellers
in Hollywood and the profit-motivated scum peddlers in New York would react if
a bunch of Christians showed up with Molotiv cocktails and AK-47s? It would
seem that, in the last analysis, the "artists" don't believe in their "freedom" as much
when they fear for their lives. Like most bullies they are cowards to the last.
   But here's the bottom line, and it is that the artists and publishers have crossed
the line. Those who have to get their laughs by denigrating and humiliating others
are thinly closeted sociopaths, bullies hiding behind the first amendment. Perhaps
it is symptomatic of a societal sickness, or a phase we will outgrow. But in a society
where nothing and no one is held sacred, bullying thrives, and what goes around
eventually comes around.
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GODS WOULD BE LAUGHING

 
   At Denver's Democratic National Convention, the stage was set for Barack Obama's
coronation with a theater prop rendition of the Acropolis, complete with phony white
pillars and dais. The unsubtle message was that the Chosen One was about to ascend
to his rightful place in the pantheon of gods.
   In the most delicious of ironies it is Greece, the paradigm socialist democracy that
is crashing and burning in the Aegean due to runaway entitlements, union controls,
profligate spending and national sloth that has produced an economy in complete
ruin. Lost in the fantasy that government can pay for everything, one can retire
before fifty and there is some kind of free lunch, Greeks are currently immersed in
the anarchy that always ensues when socialist governments inevitably run out of
other people's money. With the government's imminent financial collapse, and vast
losses of personal wealth, Greek loafers may have to forego their ouzo and go
back to work. Only they have few viable industries to offer them jobs. Their likely
future is widespread personal poverty, Draconian taxation and status as a permanent
debtor nation to the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
   America's modern Democratic Party has warmly embraced the socialism of its
leader, Barack Obama. Long enamored of the philosopy, polls show that they have
even warmed up (or is it "owned up") to the term, with recent polling showing 71%
of Democrats comfortable with it. They stand on the cusp of creating their dream,
the ultimate entitlement society, with its tax-and-spend, government ownership
mentality and practices. While they bemoan the deficit and the national debt, they
continue contributing to it, touting just one more entitlement as a "human right" and
justifying just one more bailout because it is "an emergency." But even the densest
of them seems to realize that they are going to run out of other people's money
sooner rather than later. So Obama has created a so-called "Deficit Commission"
to consider a (No) Value Added Tax not INSTEAD of the current income and other
taxes, but IN ADDITION to them. Such lunacy is a mere poultice that will delay
the crash, but not avert it. You see, even the rich eventually run out of money.
   Democrats have never been students of history. Where, in history, is there an
example of a truly successful socialist state? And please don't be so naive as to
point to Sweden, Norway and the like. As the price of their giveaway government
they have accepted an impotent national defense aparatus which, without the
protection of NATO and the U.S. would render them easy pickings for a determined
invader. Dependency always invites the loss of freedom. There is always China,
a totalitarian state where having more than one child is punishable by imprisonment.
Or there is Cuba, an isolated island without a free press or political liberty. Or
perhaps one would prefer North Korea, a hellhole where breathing places one
under suspicion of treason and the world's first Chia dictator pours all of the
country's wealth into more and more deadly weapons. Then there's Russia, and
it is simply redundant to go into what a failed experiment that was.
   The point is that socialism is an illusion that does not work. In the same way that
one cannot be "a little bit pregnant," societies find that one small concession to the
socialists leads to another, and then another, until the government is totally in
charge of banks, companies, schools, media, wealth is channeled from those who
have earned it to favored political consituencies, fiscal discipline is thrown to the
winds and the downhill slide to financial oblivion and political anarchy is inevitable.
   Zeus, Artemis, Aphrodite, Athene, Apollo, Hermes and the lot, were they not
mythical figments of the imagination, would no doubt have been mildly amused
at the Democrats' nominating charade in Denver. But they would be belly laughing
up the sleeves of their togas to watch the one so newly nominated to their ranks
leading the most powerful nation in the world like a lamb to slaughter down the
same path pursued by the utterly failed leadership of the nation that gave them
birth. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DO YOU REALLY, REALLY WANT TO GET RID OF TERRORISM?

 
   After yet another attempt at mass murder by a real terrorist, the war of words is
raging about what should have been done and what can be done to prevent more
attacks targeting Americans on their own soil. Task forces, think tanks, counter-
terror professionals and politicians all want to weigh in. You'd think it was rocket
science. It isn't!
   Neither is weight loss, If you want to lose weight just about everyone knows that
you need to stop gobbling the tasty goodies you love, eat generous portions of dirt
for awhile, get off your fat butt and exercise until the flab melts. In other words,
we're not fat because we want to be fat. We're fat because we're not willing to pay
the price for not being fat. No pain, no gain.
   It's the same with terrorism, and I'm about to suggest the magic equation. But, like
diet and exercise, it's going to hurt and Americans, particularly those in political
power, probably would rather continue placing lives in jeopardy than pay the price.
   1. We have to be honest about who and where the enemy is. No, the enemy is not
Joe Rightwing Nut, the little old lady from Pasadena or even little Mikey from New
Jersey. And he/she is not in Ireland, Latvia or the Barbados. The enemy is a radicalized
Muslim extremist who cherishes a fantasy about a world dominated by sharia law, and
is willing to do mass murder to bring that about. He/she lives, for the most part, in a
few Middle Eastern countries where a majority of people hate Americans. Until we
face that, say it out loud and accept it as fact we will NEVER stop terrorism.
   2. We have to secure our borders -- ALL of our borders. No, I don't subscribe to
the theory that Mexicans are dangerous terrorists. But they have managed to figure
out that we're not serious about keeping them out, and if they've figured it out it's only
a matter of time before others join them at the sieve we jokingly call a border. If
anyone can get in any time, some percenatge of them will be criminals, as we've
already discovered. And some of them will be worse. Until we get really serious
about securing our borders, everything else is window dressing.
   3. We have to take the handcuffs and kid gloves off our enforcement community.
That means we must admit that those planning or attempting to do us harm ARE
enemy combatants requiring military custody and interrogation WITHOUT Miranda
rights until they have told us everything we need to know in order to stop the others
like them. It means we must reinstate "provisional profiling" and stop wasting the
time and manpower to screen aged grandmothers and infants incapable of
comprehending, let alone waging jihad. If it walks and quacks like a duck, why
spend time and money trying to pretend it's a swan?
   4. We have to identify and find every person from a country posing a jihadist threat
who has overstayed his/her visa (including student visa), and immediately detain and
deport them. The appalling ineptitude of immigration authorities puts all Americans at risk.
   5. We have to declare a wartime moratorium on emigration from those same countries.
Yeah, that's right. We are at war. When their citizens stop trying to kill us, then perhaps
we can go back to letting some of them in. Until then, not. This means no more student
visas or guest worker permits for those folks, no more grandparents coming to check up
on little Najibullah, nada.
   6. We should mandate that with the exception of valid, registered humanitarian missions,
military and intelligence functions and diplomatic initiatives, all travel to those countries
is one way only, with exceptions on a case-by-case basis. (No one teaches people how
to build bombs in Wyoming, but they do it every day in Pakistan).
   7. A real, foolproof, ironclad no-fly list must be developed and disseminated, and
countries refusing to enforce it economically punished by tariffs and sanctions. Airlines
failing to enfore it should be banned from landing in American cities. If the way to stop
illegal immigration is Draconian punishment of those who employ illegals, then the way
to stop terrorists is by making those who support and enable them pay through the nose.
That goes for governments too.
   Now that is a common sense program to reduce terrorism. It is not politically correct,
but it is the truth (not that the two are ever confused by those with the capaciy for
discursive thought). Is our government likely to do ANY of these things? Probably
not. After all, making some in the world feel better about us is worth a few hundred
(or even a few thousand) dead Americans.
   But one thing is certain. If this president and his dopey administration don't stop
making terrorist incompetence the first line of defense, a lot of us are going to die
for their gross stupidity and incompetence. It's not like they don't know how to stop
the terror. It's that they're not willing to pay the price.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JUST SOME WORDS ON A PAGE?

 
   Yesterday I was perusing a really old document written by some guys who sounded
like real rabble rousers. They lived in some country that apparently wasn't getting a
fair shake, and they were real mad about it. They used strong rhetoric that some would
call "over the top."
   Among the things they accused the head of their government of were: (1) refusing to
agree to established laws; (2) forbidding government officials to enforce laws; (3) calling
together legislators in places unusual, uncomfortable and distant for the sole purpose
of fatiguing them into compliance; (4) exposing people at large to the dangers of invasion
from without and convulsions within; (5) making judges dependent on his will alone;
(6) erecting a multitude of new offices and sending "hither swarms of officers to harass
people and eat out their substance;" (6) combining with others to "subject us to a jurisdiction
foreign to our constitution;" (7) imposing taxes "without our consent;" (8) abolishing our
most valuable laws and altering the fundamental form of our government; and 
(9) abdicating government by "declaring us out of his protection." There's more, but you
get the drift.
   Now why, I wondered, would these guys level such incendiary accusations? Interested,
I looked at the introduction to the piece for some clue. All I saw there was some blather
about self-evident truths, and all people being created equal and with inalienable rights and governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. What shocking
notions! It all sounded really seditionist to me.
   And I saw fireworks coming when they got to the part that said that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or
abolish it and institute new government. Wow, I thought. If the guy in the White House
thinks today's political rhetoric is over the top he'd wet his pants if he read this.
   But, of course, I jest! The document is the American Declaration of Independence that
was published on July 4, 1776, and the tyrant government John Hancock and the other
signees were talking about was Great Britain under King George. I could not help but
wonder as I read what Hancock, Jefferson, the Adamses and Ben Franklin would think
about the government of Barack Obama and how they would categorize him and his
policies. Further, I wonder what they would have counseled an increasingly resentful,
angry and oppressed populace to do. History is crystal clear about what they did!
   The successor document, the United States Constitution, speaks of a government "of
the people, by the people and for the people." I wonder what it's framers would have
thought about an American government that listens only to itself, acts only to magnify
itself and refuses to listen to the people? Hmmm. Maybe the liberal modern educators
are right in suggesting that we should stop studying about these old guys and what they
thought. I know it messes with my mind. We wouldn't want to shape modern minds by
time-honored principles, or confuse political prejudices with historical facts. After all,
these old guys sound like Che Guevara. Are the values they (and we) espouse really
worth mutually pledging to each other our fortunes, and our sacred honor? Well, are
they?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

TERROR AND OBAMA'S LEARNING DISABILITY

 
   In the ultimate identity politics achievement it seems that America has elected a learning
impaired president. Nowhere is this clearer than in his administration's comments about
the terror threat facing the nation today, or in his administration's belated responses to it.
   Let's be clear about one thing: the Obama administration has not protected anyone from
anything. Military recruiters in Arkansas were gunned down by a self-admitted jihadist,
yet Obama persisted in referring to him as an "isolated extremist," and paid more attention
to a black professor/friend's run in with local cops. A Muslim army officer, promoted on
the basis of political correctness instead of competence and common sense murdered
13 in cold blood and wounded 32 others on a Texas military base. Obama's response?
"Let's don't jump to conclusions." Farouk Abdulmutallab's jockey shorts failed to detonate
on a Detroit bound aircraft and after lawyering him up and Mirandizing him, Obama
leaped to the conclusion that he was an "individual acting alone," while his Secretary of
Homeland Security prattled that "the system worked." It later became clear that the
would-be bomber was trained in Yemen as part of a terror organization and then sent
on his deadly mission, Oops! Fast forward to May and Times Square, where Faisal Shazad
drove a vehicle packed with explosives into the middle of the crowded theater district
and attempted a detonation that failed. Once again early denials that Shazad was part
of a larger conspiracy faded in the light of facts.
   What are the larger implications Americans should draw from this sequence of repeated
missteps, gaffes and misdirections? Most obvious is that the "system" didn't "work," that
the attacks were not "thwarted," as Attorney General Eric Holder claimed but, in the case
of the two bombers, failed because of their own incompetence in building and triggering
the devices. Major Nidal Hasan and the Arkansas shooter were far less "thwarted," and
succeeded in taking American lives. America is not ahead of the intelligence curve, missed
telltale signs that these attacks were coming and only by the grace of God (not "the system")
averted truly massive casualties.
   Another reason why the system doesn't "work" is because the criteria for enemy
identification have been manpulated so as to virtually guarantee that it can't. Eschewing
words like "terror" and "Islamic extremist" as pretexts for profiling, Obama and his
people have simply laid down the welcome mat for those espousing a totalitarian
and fanatical religious extremism that is prepared to murder an infinite number of
helpless civilians until their deranged goal of world domination is realized. Worse,
Obama's supporters have engaged in a despicable political misdirection by suggesting
that the greater danger of terrorist violence comes from within via Tea Party supporters
or militia groups. Bob Beckel, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter speaking
on Fox News right after the Times Square incident emphatically bet that it was a
right-wing militia attack. This is not mere stupidity. It is purposeful and malicious
misdirection pointing people away from the real enemy so Obama can continue his
love-in with an Islamic world that hates Americans.
   Equally disturbing is the fact that Faisal Shazad, a naturalized American citizen who
just spent five months in Pakistan (red flag, anyone?) learning to build bombs, and one
who was on the supposed "no fly" list, had already boarded a plane for Dubai to make
his escape when an alert Border Patrol agent woke up and turned the plane around.
This is the third terrorist on the no fly list to succeed in boarding an international flight
in a month. Does anyone else think there's something wrong with this picture?
   Open borders, lax air security, poltical correctness, bogus claims about the nation's
true vulnerability and empty boasts about a system that clearly doesn't "work" equals
a whole lot of dead Americans. How many would have died if those bombs had gone
off? Hundreds? Thousands? And when you add that to the fourteen who did die, at
the hands of Islamic extremists on American soil, and you still don't see not only
that we HAVE a problem, but what that problem is, then you are truly learning
impaired.
   Barack Obama lives in a make-believe world of one-world socialist idealism. He
cannot protect us because he will not be honest about the source and degree of danger,
nor will he take the painful steps necessary to rid us of it. Those who will not learn
from history are doomed to repeat it. That is a self-chosen learning disability. Remember
that next time, when the bomb actually detonates.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MEN OF STRAW

 
   One of the oldest ploys in political discourse is the old straw man gambit. The straw
man is generally an argument no one is making or a position no one actually holds. The
speaker then proceeds to dismantle the idea or position, tear it limb from linb, and then
declare victory over those who never believed or argued that particular point in the first
place. When artfully done, it can be an impressive tool to persuade the feeble-minded,
whip up the partisan base or try to embarrass the opposition. And there is no one better
or more practiced at using the device than Barack Obama.
   A recent case in point was his off-the-cuff coment about Arizona's tough new immigration
enforcement law. "If you don't have your papers, and you take your kid to the ice cream
store, you can be harassed," he pontificates. The problem? The law doesn't say that, and
if a police officer were to do that it would be he who was breaking the law. But you see
how it works. Make your audience think the law says something it doesn't, discredit that
nonsense and then brag about how you "proved" the law was bad.
   During a recent speech in Michigan Obama allowed as how he was "troubled by those
who are saying we don't need any government." Now that would be troubling. The problem
is that no one, including the Tea Parties he meant to implicate, has said that American does
not need a government. There are plenty who say America doesn't need "big" government,
or that Obama's concept of government violates what the constitution allows. But not a single
one of them has said that America doesn't need government. Again, you fabricate a position
that is ludicrous on its face, attribute that position to those whom you perceive to be your
enemies, and then destroy it, and hopefully them in the process.
   He did something similar when his friend Professor Louis Gates was arrested for trying to
break into his own home. Before the ink had dried on the police report, and before Obama
had read it, he was in front of television cameras babbling about racial prejudice, profiling
and how police "acted stupidly." When the subsequent investigation concluded that police
on the scene acted entirely within procedure, that it was Gates who overreacted, and that the
sergeant in question actually taught classes on how to avoid racial profiling, it became
abundantly clear that Obama had once again concocted a straw man in order to play the
race card and ride a personal hobby horse. Tsk, tsk.
   While problems abound with playing the straw man game, the first is that it is
intellectually dishonest, which is to say that the perpetrator knows very well no
one is saying or doing that of which he wants to accuse them. Second, it reflects a kind
of cowardice or lack of confidence about engaging the real issue or idea in a fair and
open debate. Third, it seeks to tar opponents with a bogus brush, suggesting that they
espouse and believe something they clearly don't. Your partisans will cheer, a few bozos
will be awed at your verbal legerdemain, but most average, ordinary people will know
you're just a big, dishonest windbag. In this case the shoe fits, and the president has one
on each foot. We deserve better!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive