Friday, December 11, 2009
Our work schedule has kept us from posting our Weekend Reading posts in recent weeks. It'll still be off-n-on for a while. Please excuse the inconsistency.
We HAVE to start this post with WSJ's Bret Stephens' piece, The Totalities of Copenhagen. He uses the term "totalitarian impulse" much like we use the term "communist-inspirations" when describing theliberals progressives communists that are now running our country. He wears a tie to work where we're typing away in our jammies, but the message is the same. The impulses/inspirations he outlines include: "Revolutionary fervor, Utopianism, Anti-humanism, Intolerance, Monocasalism, Indifference to evidence and Grandiosity. He concludes:
The more enlightened among us would say Bret's unspoken connection to communism suggests he has a screw loose. But Charles Krauthammer makes a call to action for Congress in today's Townhall, The New Socialism. That makes 2! Pretty soon right wingers are going to be launching blogs with hammers and sickles in the title bar - unless we put a stop to this nonsense!
More comments on our Ditherer in DC. Charles Krauthammer reviews the West Point speech in his Townhall article from last week, Uncertain Trumpet. "...so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive".
Victor Davis Hanson chimes in at NRO, Has War Really Changed?
posted by Karl @ 3:40 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
We HAVE to start this post with WSJ's Bret Stephens' piece, The Totalities of Copenhagen. He uses the term "totalitarian impulse" much like we use the term "communist-inspirations" when describing the
Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play—and that, comrades, is no accident.
The more enlightened among us would say Bret's unspoken connection to communism suggests he has a screw loose. But Charles Krauthammer makes a call to action for Congress in today's Townhall, The New Socialism. That makes 2! Pretty soon right wingers are going to be launching blogs with hammers and sickles in the title bar - unless we put a stop to this nonsense!
Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.
---
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.
Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
---
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.
Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
More comments on our Ditherer in DC. Charles Krauthammer reviews the West Point speech in his Townhall article from last week, Uncertain Trumpet. "...so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive".
Words matter because will matters. Success in war depends on three things: a brave and highly skilled soldiery, such as the U.S. military 2009, the finest counterinsurgency force in history; brilliant, battle-tested commanders such as Gens. David Petraeus and McChrystal, fresh from the success of the surge in Iraq; and the will to prevail as personified by the commander in chief.
There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
---
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
There's the rub. And that is why at such crucial moments, presidents don't issue a policy paper. They give a speech. It gives tone and texture. It allows their policy to be imbued with purpose and feeling. This one was festooned with hedges, caveats and one giant exit ramp.
No one expected Obama to do a Henry V or a Churchill. But Obama could not even manage a George W. Bush, who, at an infinitely lower ebb in power and popularity, opposed by the political and foreign policy establishments and dealing with a war effort in far more dire straits, announced his surge -- Iraq 2007 -- with outright rejection of withdrawal or retreat. His implacability was widely decried at home as stubbornness, but heard loudly in Iraq by those fighting for and against us as unflinching -- and salutary -- determination.
---
Remarkable. Go and fight, he tells his cadets -- some of whom may not return alive -- but I may have to cut your mission short because my real priorities are domestic.
Has there ever been a call to arms more dispiriting, a trumpet more uncertain?
Victor Davis Hanson chimes in at NRO, Has War Really Changed?
If our leaders today could consult great generals like the Roman Scipio Africanus or William Tecumseh Sherman — who won what were once near-hopeless wars — they might receive the following advice:
Prepare the public to shoulder human and financial costs.
Be candid about why enduring the horrors of war now is preferable to risking even costlier violence later.
Talk always of winning, never leaving or quitting a war.
Have no apologies for crushing the enemy. The quicker the enemy loses, the fewer get killed on both sides.
Inform the public of the other side’s losses just as you do your own.
And be magnanimous to the defeated — after the war, not during the fighting.
---
President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words “victory” and “win.” All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.
Prepare the public to shoulder human and financial costs.
Be candid about why enduring the horrors of war now is preferable to risking even costlier violence later.
Talk always of winning, never leaving or quitting a war.
Have no apologies for crushing the enemy. The quicker the enemy loses, the fewer get killed on both sides.
Inform the public of the other side’s losses just as you do your own.
And be magnanimous to the defeated — after the war, not during the fighting.
---
President Obama talked of many things in his recent Afghanistan speech. But he never once mentioned the words “victory” and “win.” All that may seem like an out-of-date idea to postmodern Americans. But it is still a very real one to the premodern Taliban, who seem to understand the ageless nature of war far better than we do.
Labels: Losing a War, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 3:40 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, October 23, 2009
Oodles of reading for this weekend! The big story this week, FOX Sucks!
From ContraObama:
Krauthammer, Fox Wars, Townhall:
Ann Coulter, The Grating Communicator, Townhall:
Kim Strassel of the WSJ writes of the Obama team's tactics in her opinion piece, The Chicago Way: The Chamber of Commerce is only the latest target of the Chicago Gang in the White House.
James Taranto, Gelt Trip, WSJ:
Speaking of The War on Terror:
Taranto again - Karn Evil, lead paragraph:
American Thinker author Andrew Thomas explores the hatred of the left in his article, The End Game of the Left. A great write-up that (purposely?) leaves out the words "envy" and "communism". Despite these omissions, you may detect a pattern...
And in a related American Thinker article, Joseph Ashby exposes the "permanency of decline" in When Tyranny Calls.
posted by Karl @ 5:22 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
From ContraObama:
Krauthammer, Fox Wars, Townhall:
Fox News is no monopoly. It is a singular minority in a sea of liberal media. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC vs. Fox. The lineup is so unbalanced as to be comical -- and that doesn't even include the other commanding heights of the culture that are firmly, flagrantly liberal: Hollywood, the foundations, the universities, the elite newspapers.
Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?
Fox and its viewers (numbering more than CNN's and MSNBC's combined) need no defense. Defend Fox compared to whom? To CNN -- which recently unleashed its fact-checkers on a "Saturday Night Live" skit mildly critical of President Obama, but did no checking of a grotesquely racist remark CNN falsely attributed to Rush Limbaugh?
Ann Coulter, The Grating Communicator, Townhall:
The strangest thing about all the invective against Fox is that it is happening in a world that contains MSNBC. At least Fox News primetime hosts, and many of their guests, know something about politics. MSNBC's primetime lineup presents an array of people who sound like earnest college kids who just walked up to a Common Cause table, and the sum-total of what they know about politics is what they read in the brochures.
Kim Strassel of the WSJ writes of the Obama team's tactics in her opinion piece, The Chicago Way: The Chamber of Commerce is only the latest target of the Chicago Gang in the White House.
Fox, like MSNBC, has its share of commentators. But according to Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the entire network is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Many previous White House press officers, when faced with criticism, try this thing called outreach. The Chicago crowd has boycotted Fox altogether.
What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.
What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.
James Taranto, Gelt Trip, WSJ:
Of course it delights us to see the president and his most unsavory supporters promote Fox as the only TV news network that isn't in the tank for the administration. Although this isn't entirely fair to the other networks--in particular, ABC News's Jake Tapper has shown a strong independent streak--it is well-deserved recognition for the work Fox has done in bringing to the fore such stories as the Van Jones and Acorn scandals, which many other news organizations ignored for as long as they could.
On the other hand, we are an American, and Barack Obama is our president too. It cracks us up when MoveOn.org cheers on the president for "fighting back" by "not appearing" and "staying off." "Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and gallantly he chickened out."
But it scares the hell out of us to think that this also seems to be Obama's approach to dealing with America's enemies.
On the other hand, we are an American, and Barack Obama is our president too. It cracks us up when MoveOn.org cheers on the president for "fighting back" by "not appearing" and "staying off." "Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and gallantly he chickened out."
But it scares the hell out of us to think that this also seems to be Obama's approach to dealing with America's enemies.
Speaking of The War on Terror:
Taranto again - Karn Evil, lead paragraph:
President Obama's promise to empty the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay has run into a little obstacle: It turns out the place is full of terrorists! Like everything else, this is not Obama's fault. The terrorists are there because George W. Bush put them there, leaving poor Obama once again stuck cleaning up someone else's mess.
American Thinker author Andrew Thomas explores the hatred of the left in his article, The End Game of the Left. A great write-up that (purposely?) leaves out the words "envy" and "communism". Despite these omissions, you may detect a pattern...
In the leftist utopia of social justice, wealth is no longer created. The capitalist goose that laid the golden eggs is spread like pâté. Income and property are confiscated, housing and employment are assigned, as in Cuba and Venezuela. Scientific advancement and medical breakthroughs are ground to a halt, as in the old Soviet Union where technology was frozen in the 1950s. Entrepreneurship, personal advancement, and wealth creation are violently quashed, as in the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao Tse Tung. Hunger, disease, and death become familiar houseguests, as in all repressive regimes.
The end game of the leftist poweratti is to rule the nation and eventually the world by bringing us down to the lowest social common denominator through the manipulation of those who obsessively despise wealth.
The end game of the leftist poweratti is to rule the nation and eventually the world by bringing us down to the lowest social common denominator through the manipulation of those who obsessively despise wealth.
And in a related American Thinker article, Joseph Ashby exposes the "permanency of decline" in When Tyranny Calls.
It's not that socialism is in decline in Europe; it's that socialism no longer has any opposition.
---
The catalyst to this permanent leftist political climate is health care.
---
If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism.
American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point.
---
The catalyst to this permanent leftist political climate is health care.
---
If health care passes, it will not represent the beginning of the end -- the beginning took place long ago. But it may signal the end of the beginning, the end of the period in which liberty has its chance to beat back statism.
American freedom has been bent, and bent, and bent for nearly 100 hundred years. Like post World War II socialization of England, health care may prove to be America's breaking point.
Labels: MSM, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 5:22 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Today's American Thinker has an incredible 3.5 page piece on the origins and aspects of Marxism. Kelly O'Connell writes, If Obama were a Marxist, what would he believe? Not a hit piece, as the title may suggest. And, differing from the 'He's Not a Socialist' articles of late, O'Connell actually starts with definitions of Marxism, Communism and Socialism, and a term new to us, Neo-Marxism. Refreshing, in a dark way.
Charles Krauthammer writes about Obama's foreign policy mishaps - "amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity" - at Townhall, Debacle in Moscow.
Rush Limbaugh warned David Checketts that if he joined the other investors interested in buying the Rams, some of those soulless leftyliberals progressives communists would attempt to derail the acquisition. Checketts said he's stand by Limbaugh. The efforts to paint Limbaugh a racist were echoed by Washington Post's Michael Wilbon, CNN's Rich Sanchez and NFL's union leader DeMaurice Smith. Limbaugh responds in today's WSJ, The Race Card, Football and Me:
James Taranto has a 4-page behind-the-scenes summary on the ACORN-Pimp story. How two 20-somethings not only brought down a nationwide corrupt organization, but who they went to for help and how they chose to release the story in 5 videos to expose and exacerbate the MSM bias. Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex'.
posted by Karl @ 3:20 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Critics warn reborn Marxism is exceedingly dangerous since it is delivered below the radar, and represents a devious bloodless communist assault, a polar-opposite of the violently murderous Bolshevik and Mao uprisings.
---
Marxism is a violently revolutionary doctrine. Marx claimed capitalism's Armageddon was inevitable, but followers should bear arms to hasten change. Since the rich will never give up their capital voluntarily, it must be taken by force. After this, the arduous task of rebuilding society begins. Lenin's "New Man" is created by education. Those who don't adapt can be eliminated to purify the whole. But capitalism must be destroyed before healing can occur.
---
Marxism is a violently revolutionary doctrine. Marx claimed capitalism's Armageddon was inevitable, but followers should bear arms to hasten change. Since the rich will never give up their capital voluntarily, it must be taken by force. After this, the arduous task of rebuilding society begins. Lenin's "New Man" is created by education. Those who don't adapt can be eliminated to purify the whole. But capitalism must be destroyed before healing can occur.
Charles Krauthammer writes about Obama's foreign policy mishaps - "amateurishness, wrapped in naivete, inside credulity" - at Townhall, Debacle in Moscow.
Having failed to get any movement from the Russians, Clinton herself moved -- to accommodate the Russian position! Sanctions? What sanctions? "We are not at that point yet," she averred. "That is not a conclusion we have reached ... it is our preference that Iran work with the international community."
But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?
Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.
But wait a minute. Didn't Obama say in July that Iran had to show compliance by the G-20 summit in late September? And when that deadline passed, did he not then warn Iran that it would face "sanctions that have bite" and that it would have to take "a new course or face consequences"?
Gone with the wind. It's the U.S. that's now retreating from its already flimsy position of just three weeks ago. We're not doing sanctions now, you see. We're back to engagement. Just as the Russians suggest.
Rush Limbaugh warned David Checketts that if he joined the other investors interested in buying the Rams, some of those soulless lefty
My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
---
Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.
---
Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.
James Taranto has a 4-page behind-the-scenes summary on the ACORN-Pimp story. How two 20-somethings not only brought down a nationwide corrupt organization, but who they went to for help and how they chose to release the story in 5 videos to expose and exacerbate the MSM bias. Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex'.
Labels: Not a Socialist, Russia, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 3:20 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The WSJ's Daniel Henninger reviews Michael Moore's latest movie, Capitalism: A Love Story, in his opinion article, Michael Moore's 'Socialist' President.
For those not born, too young or who weren't paying attention in the 60's, you no longer have to wonder what it looks like when a US president loses a war that could otherwise easily be won. Obama's behavior since Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to fulfill the mission Obama hired him to do several months ago is disgraceful. It is, in our opinion, and we've never said this before... impeachable. McChrystal's critics say he is trying to dictate policy through his public statements. One such public statement was the fact that his commander in chief spoke with him exactly once in his first 70 days as the war commander. WSJ Opinion Page: Obama and the General:
It is the General's public image that has gotten Obama off his **s on this issue. There are four scenarios: 1) Obama steps up and we win this war - real victory, 2) Obama is shamed into giving McChrystal some of the requested troops and resources and we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or 3) Obama surrenders but keeps troops there to die, or 4) Obama surrenders and pulls out of Afghanistan.
An AP story reported on Drudge today: US forces leave isolated Afghan base after attack.
Obama's hesitation is sending a very clear signal. Even if he gives McChrystal the requested troops, McChrystal's job will be harder now than it would have been. In short, more great American soldiers will suffer.
posted by Karl @ 8:17 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Of all the issues raised in the two-year campaign, Mr. Moore picks one, the famous charge that will not die: "Obama is a socialist."
Unlike the president, Mr. Moore doesn't duck. "The more they called Obama a socialist," he says, "the more he rose in the polls."
---
We live in an age of ideologically transgendered leaders.
---
The most immediate problem facing the U.S. is not that we have too much capitalism, but that we don't have enough of it.
---
The important difference between the "socialist" Barack Obama and the Republicans is he'd settle for 2% annual growth (gotta pay for the green dreams) and they might get 3%. In a world of China, India and Brazil, growing at rates between 5% and 9%, we need more. A future president who puts the U.S. back in the race with these fast runners could call himself a communist for all I care.
Unlike the president, Mr. Moore doesn't duck. "The more they called Obama a socialist," he says, "the more he rose in the polls."
---
We live in an age of ideologically transgendered leaders.
---
The most immediate problem facing the U.S. is not that we have too much capitalism, but that we don't have enough of it.
---
The important difference between the "socialist" Barack Obama and the Republicans is he'd settle for 2% annual growth (gotta pay for the green dreams) and they might get 3%. In a world of China, India and Brazil, growing at rates between 5% and 9%, we need more. A future president who puts the U.S. back in the race with these fast runners could call himself a communist for all I care.
For those not born, too young or who weren't paying attention in the 60's, you no longer have to wonder what it looks like when a US president loses a war that could otherwise easily be won. Obama's behavior since Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops to fulfill the mission Obama hired him to do several months ago is disgraceful. It is, in our opinion, and we've never said this before... impeachable. McChrystal's critics say he is trying to dictate policy through his public statements. One such public statement was the fact that his commander in chief spoke with him exactly once in his first 70 days as the war commander. WSJ Opinion Page: Obama and the General:
Recall that in March Mr. Obama unveiled his "comprehensive new strategy . . . to reverse the Taliban's gains and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government." The Commander in Chief pledged to properly resource this "war of necessity," which he also called during the 2008 campaign "the central front on terror." The President then sacked his war commander, who had been chosen by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in favor of Gen. McChrystal, an expert in counterinsurgency.
---
Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.
In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.
---
Gen. McChrystal's liberal critics also have very short memories. In 2003, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki clashed with his superiors by saying many more troops were needed to pacify Iraq. He became a Democratic hero and is now Mr. Obama's Veterans Secretary. In this case, Gen. McChrystal has become a political target merely for taking at face value Mr. Obama's order to fight the war properly. His superiors, the Central Commander David Petraeus and Adm. Mullen, back him, but can hardly be said to question civil control of the military.
In an interview with Newsweek, Gen. McChrystal said he wouldn't resign if the President rejects his request for more troops. If he were really trying to dictate policy, he'd have given a different answer. But we don't think Gen. McChrystal should stay to implement a Biden war plan either. No commander in uniform should ask his soldiers to die for a strategy he doesn't think is winnable—or for a President who lets his advisers and party blame a general for their own lack of political nerve.
It is the General's public image that has gotten Obama off his **s on this issue. There are four scenarios: 1) Obama steps up and we win this war - real victory, 2) Obama is shamed into giving McChrystal some of the requested troops and resources and we continue to take the fight to the enemy, or 3) Obama surrenders but keeps troops there to die, or 4) Obama surrenders and pulls out of Afghanistan.
An AP story reported on Drudge today: US forces leave isolated Afghan base after attack.
KABUL (AP) - U.S. forces have withdrawn from an isolated base in eastern Afghanistan that insurgents attacked last week in one of the deadliest battles of the war for U.S. troops, the NATO-led coalition said Friday.
The pullout from the Kamdesh outpost near the Pakistani border is likely to embolden insurgent fighters in the region. The Taliban swiftly claimed "victory" for forcing the coalition to leave and said they had raised their flag above the town.
The pullout from the Kamdesh outpost near the Pakistani border is likely to embolden insurgent fighters in the region. The Taliban swiftly claimed "victory" for forcing the coalition to leave and said they had raised their flag above the town.
Obama's hesitation is sending a very clear signal. Even if he gives McChrystal the requested troops, McChrystal's job will be harder now than it would have been. In short, more great American soldiers will suffer.
Labels: Losing a War, Not a Socialist, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 8:17 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, October 02, 2009
Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities? If they do, what risks do they, and others face? If they will attack, when? These and other considerations are discussed in a great 4-page interview with Kenneth Levin at Frontpage Magazine, When Israel Strikes by Jamie Glazov.
Krauthammer chimes in on the recent comments by Sarkozy, and Obama's modus operandi in his Townhall article, Obama's French Lesson.
But hey, this isn't criticism. Obama is in a long line of US presidents that have been called naive by their French equal...
A pattern is developing in themain stream fringe media. Some rather important stories of late haven't been given their due attention. James Taranto comments on this phenomenon regarding the NEA, ACORN and Van Jones non-stories in two of his recent Best of the Web posts.
Sept. 25:
Sept. 28:
Take a guess who Thomas Sowell is talking about in his Townhall article, The Brainy Bunch:
posted by Karl @ 1:23 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Israel confronts the likelihood of being able to inflict at most only limited damage on Iran’s nuclear program, having to do so in the face of strong opposition from its main ally, almost certainly incurring fierce military and terror reprisals, and likewise having to deal with intense negative diplomatic fallout. Yet, with all the challenges and dangers, Israel does have options for an attack on Iran’s nuclear program and, given the certainty of the existential threat presented by a nuclear Iran, it will almost certainly act to set back the Iranian program whatever the risks and dangers.
Krauthammer chimes in on the recent comments by Sarkozy, and Obama's modus operandi in his Townhall article, Obama's French Lesson.
When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom.
---
Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
---
Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program -- whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.
But hey, this isn't criticism. Obama is in a long line of US presidents that have been called naive by their French equal...
A pattern is developing in the
Sept. 25:
This is the first time the paper has mentioned the [NEA] scandal, first reported 29 days earlier on Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood and 22 days earlier by Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck.
This follows the same pattern as the Times's coverage of the Van Jones and Acorn scandals, both of which the paper did not mention at all until the Obama administration had taken some remedial action, and then reported only in brief stories on inside pages (though in fairness, a full-length front-page story about Jones's hypovehiculation appeared on the second day).
Trying to find information about the Obama scandals in the Times can be a fun challenge, just like the "Where's Waldo?" books. But if your taste in puzzles runs more to crosswords or sudoku and you want the news delivered straight, there are plenty of better sources.
This follows the same pattern as the Times's coverage of the Van Jones and Acorn scandals, both of which the paper did not mention at all until the Obama administration had taken some remedial action, and then reported only in brief stories on inside pages (though in fairness, a full-length front-page story about Jones's hypovehiculation appeared on the second day).
Trying to find information about the Obama scandals in the Times can be a fun challenge, just like the "Where's Waldo?" books. But if your taste in puzzles runs more to crosswords or sudoku and you want the news delivered straight, there are plenty of better sources.
Sept. 28:
The Obama administration, as we noted Wednesday, was supposed to usher in a new era of transparency in government. Instead we find ourselves in a new era of opacity, not only in government but in the media.
Take a guess who Thomas Sowell is talking about in his Townhall article, The Brainy Bunch:
There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.
Such people have been told all their lives how brilliant they are, until finally they feel forced to admit it, with all due modesty. But they not only tend to over-estimate their own brilliance, more fundamentally they tend to over-estimate how important brilliance itself is when dealing with real world problems.
Such people have been told all their lives how brilliant they are, until finally they feel forced to admit it, with all due modesty. But they not only tend to over-estimate their own brilliance, more fundamentally they tend to over-estimate how important brilliance itself is when dealing with real world problems.
Labels: MSM, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 1:23 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thursday, September 24, 2009
WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady explains how the US is "trying to force the country [Honduras] to violate its constitution" in her op-ed Hillary's Honduras Obsession:
Strong arm tactics. That is what is discussed in Tuesday's WSJ Opinion page, Baucus Bludgeons Humana. Apparently, Humana sent a one-page letter to their customers informing them of proposed changes to Medicare in the health reform legislation:
Author Mark Helprin reports that Obama blinked twice while the world watched. In his WSJ article, Obama and the Politics of Concession, he discusses the blinks: to Russia over missile defense, and to Iran over their nuclear program.
Baltimore's ACORN office finally stepped up and filed a law suit against those meddlesome kids. $2 million, which is a paltry sum compared to the massive (proposed) cuts in government grants to the criminal organization. These comments from James Taranto caught our eye, and suggest ACORN is saving money by going to the low-cost attorneys.
posted by Karl @ 8:47 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thousands of readers have written to me asking how all this can happen in the U.S., where democratic principles have been recognized since the nation's founding. Many readers have written that they are "ashamed" of the U.S. and have asked, in effect, "How can I help Honduras?" A more pertinent question may turn out to be, how can they help their own country?
In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy.
In its actions toward Honduras, the Obama administration is demonstrating contempt for the fundamentals of democracy.
Strong arm tactics. That is what is discussed in Tuesday's WSJ Opinion page, Baucus Bludgeons Humana. Apparently, Humana sent a one-page letter to their customers informing them of proposed changes to Medicare in the health reform legislation:
Political intimidation has always been part of the current Congress's health-care strategy: "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu" is tattooed on every lobbyist and industry rep in Washington. But Max Baucus's latest bullying tactics are hard to believe by even these standards, as the Senate Finance Chairman has sicced federal regulators on the insurer Humana Inc. for daring to criticize one part of his health bill.
---
A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.
Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana's yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.
This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law.
---
Humana merely made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, and now CEO Michael McCallister had better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make him an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.
---
A new study from America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are "overpaid," but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.
Mr. Baucus doesn't want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he's willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn't affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana's yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.
This episode neatly shows how all U.S. health care will operate if Mr. Baucus's bill becomes law.
---
Humana merely made the mistake of trying to tell seniors the truth about what will happen to their coverage, and now CEO Michael McCallister had better hire a good team of lawyers. Mr. Baucus and the Obama Administration are out to make him an object lesson to the rest of the business class, and that means they won't stop until Humana cries uncle or is ruined.
Author Mark Helprin reports that Obama blinked twice while the world watched. In his WSJ article, Obama and the Politics of Concession, he discusses the blinks: to Russia over missile defense, and to Iran over their nuclear program.
What we have here is an inadvertent homage to Lewis Carroll: We are going to cancel a defense that takes five years to mount, because the threat will not materialize for five years. And we will not deploy land-based interceptors in Europe, because our new plan is to deploy land-based interceptors in Europe.
---
Not OK. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich at least he thought he had obtained something in return for his appeasement.
---
Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Reagan, and, defying millions in the street (who are now the Obama base), Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian president and the Russian prime minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.
---
Not OK. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich at least he thought he had obtained something in return for his appeasement.
---
Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Reagan, and, defying millions in the street (who are now the Obama base), Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian president and the Russian prime minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come.
Baltimore's ACORN office finally stepped up and filed a law suit against those meddlesome kids. $2 million, which is a paltry sum compared to the massive (proposed) cuts in government grants to the criminal organization. These comments from James Taranto caught our eye, and suggest ACORN is saving money by going to the low-cost attorneys.
This lawsuit is a gift to Acorn's critics. Assuming it goes forward, the defendants will be able to use the discovery process to gather still more facts about Acorn--and this columnist for one cannot wait to see what they find out.
Here's another oddity: Acorn's co-plaintiffs are the employees it recently fired precisely because of the misconduct the defendants exposed. Doesn't this create a big fat conflict of interest for the plaintiffs' lawyers? Maybe Thompson and Williams can sue Acorn for rightful termination.
Here's another oddity: Acorn's co-plaintiffs are the employees it recently fired precisely because of the misconduct the defendants exposed. Doesn't this create a big fat conflict of interest for the plaintiffs' lawyers? Maybe Thompson and Williams can sue Acorn for rightful termination.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 8:47 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Randall Hoven asks What Would a Communist Do? in his American Thinker article this week. A good review of recent Communist Party USA posts at their site, and their opinions of current political events and proposed legislation. Regarding health care:
Mark Steyn writes at NRO, The Long Retreat: Our security will now depend on the kindness of strangers. This paragraph on missile defense was our favorite:
Charles Krauthammer analyzes Obama's communication skills in his Townhall article, Does He Lie? It appears Charles has figured him out. Obama's changing arguments for healthcare reform:
James Taranto does some analysis on the recent ACORN defunding vote in congress, specifically the votes from the Black Caucus members. In his Best of the Web series, Shrieker of the House:
posted by Karl @ 5:32 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
So what would a communist do about health care? Support Obama, tenaciously and with persistence, and especially insist on including a public option. And attack your opponents as right-wing extremists and racists.
Mark Steyn writes at NRO, The Long Retreat: Our security will now depend on the kindness of strangers. This paragraph on missile defense was our favorite:
Vladimir Putin is no longer president but he is de facto tsar. And he thinks it’s past time to reconstitute the old empire — not formally (yet), but certainly as a sphere of influence from which the Yanks keep their distance. President Obama has just handed the Russians their biggest win since the collapse of the Iron Curtain. Indeed, in some ways it marks the restitching of the Iron Curtain. When the Czechs signed their end of the missile-defense deal in July, they found themselves afflicted by a sudden “technical difficulty” that halved their gas supply from Russia. The Europe Putin foresees will be one not only ever more energy-dependent on Moscow but security-dependent, too — in which every city is within range of missiles from Tehran and other crazies, and is in effect under the security umbrella of the new tsar. As to whether such a Continent will be amicable to American interests, well, good luck with that, hopeychangers.
Charles Krauthammer analyzes Obama's communication skills in his Townhall article, Does He Lie? It appears Charles has figured him out. Obama's changing arguments for healthcare reform:
That transparent attempt to exploit Emanuel's Law -- a crisis is a terrible thing to waste -- failed for health care because no one is stupid enough to believe that the 2008 financial collapse was caused by a lack of universal health care.
So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.
Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.
So on to the next gambit: selling health care reform as a cure for the deficit. When that was exploded by the Congressional Budget Office's demonstration of staggering Obamacare deficits, Obama tried a new tack: selling his plan as revenue-neutral insurance reform -- until the revenue neutrality is exposed as phony future cuts and chimerical waste and fraud.
Obama doesn't lie. He implies, he misdirects, he misleads -- so fluidly and incessantly that he risks transmuting eloquence into mere slickness.
James Taranto does some analysis on the recent ACORN defunding vote in congress, specifically the votes from the Black Caucus members. In his Best of the Web series, Shrieker of the House:
...fewer than 1 in 4 Black Caucus members voted to stop spending taxpayers' money on an organization that has been caught on video at least five times offering advice on how to practice slavery.
Labels: Healthcare, Russia, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 5:32 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, September 11, 2009
Bret Stephens at the WSJ offers a suggestion for to remember on 9/11 in his article, The Afghan Stakes:
Forced unionization for all health care workers? That is what Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee warns in his WSJ article, Read the Union Health-Care Label.
In his Wednesday Best of the Web post, James Taranto offers some British health-care stories from the Daily Mail and Sunday Times. Just 'scare tactics' by right-wingers?
Not fair. The Brits got their Hope and Change before us.
posted by Karl @ 7:04 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
...Afghanistan matters not because that's where 9/11 was conceived. It matters because that's where it was imagined.
---
Put simply, it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that laid much of the imaginative groundwork for 9/11. So imagine the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists—and the possibilities that would open up to them—if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn.
---
Withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Taliban takeover in Kandahar and perhaps Kabul, would plunge Afghanistan into another civil war infinitely bloodier than what we have now. Withdrawal would force Islamabad to abandon its war on terror and again come to terms with its own militants, as it did in the 1990s. Only this time, it wouldn't be clear who is patron and who is client. Withdrawal would give Pakistan's jihadists the freedom to shift fronts to India, with all the nightmare scenarios that entails. Withdrawal would invite the al Qaeda remnant in Iraq—already on an upswing—to redouble its efforts, and do so with the confidence that the U.S. has permanently soured on Middle Eastern interventions.
---
This is not the noblest fight, and no sane nation would wage it by choice. But we did not choose it and, if we keep our nerve, we can win it. Otherwise, the consequence will be ashes flying again in our own streets, something to remember on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary.
---
Put simply, it was the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that laid much of the imaginative groundwork for 9/11. So imagine the sorts of notions that would take root in the minds of jihadists—and the possibilities that would open up to them—if the U.S. was to withdraw from Afghanistan in its own turn.
---
Withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Taliban takeover in Kandahar and perhaps Kabul, would plunge Afghanistan into another civil war infinitely bloodier than what we have now. Withdrawal would force Islamabad to abandon its war on terror and again come to terms with its own militants, as it did in the 1990s. Only this time, it wouldn't be clear who is patron and who is client. Withdrawal would give Pakistan's jihadists the freedom to shift fronts to India, with all the nightmare scenarios that entails. Withdrawal would invite the al Qaeda remnant in Iraq—already on an upswing—to redouble its efforts, and do so with the confidence that the U.S. has permanently soured on Middle Eastern interventions.
---
This is not the noblest fight, and no sane nation would wage it by choice. But we did not choose it and, if we keep our nerve, we can win it. Otherwise, the consequence will be ashes flying again in our own streets, something to remember on the eve of another 9/11 anniversary.
Forced unionization for all health care workers? That is what Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Committee warns in his WSJ article, Read the Union Health-Care Label.
The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis of California in 1999.
---
Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.
---
The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion medical facilities from participation.
---
There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans.
---
Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.
---
Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and support (class)" reimbursement plan.
---
The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion medical facilities from participation.
---
There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing American workers' existing health-care benefits—but he would exempt union-negotiated health-care plans.
---
Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed, Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.
In his Wednesday Best of the Web post, James Taranto offers some British health-care stories from the Daily Mail and Sunday Times. Just 'scare tactics' by right-wingers?
Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.
---
Parents are being threatened with having their children taken into care [state custody] after questioning doctors' diagnoses or objecting to their medical care.
---
The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.
A couple had all six of their children removed from their care after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.
A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a care order after she complained that her local authority's failure to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to maintain sanitary standards.
---
Parents are being threatened with having their children taken into care [state custody] after questioning doctors' diagnoses or objecting to their medical care.
---
The mother of a 13-year-old girl who became partly paralysed after being given a cervical cancer vaccination says social workers have told her the child may be removed if she (the mother) continues to link her condition with the vaccination.
A couple had all six of their children removed from their care after they disputed the necessity of an invasive medical test on their eldest daughter. Doctors, who suspected she might have had a blood disease, called for social services to obtain an emergency protection order, although it was subsequently confirmed that she was not suffering from the condition. The parents were still considered unstable, and all their children were taken from them.
A single mother whose teenage son is terminally ill and confined to a wheelchair has been told he is to become the subject of a care order after she complained that her local authority's failure to provide bathroom facilities for him has left her struggling to maintain sanitary standards.
Not fair. The Brits got their Hope and Change before us.
Labels: Healthcare, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 7:04 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, September 04, 2009
Dan Henninger takes a stab at guessing the electorate's target(s) for their rage. Is it 'those f******* D*** libs", the spineless spending Republicans, or dare we say, both? Dan seems to be leaning towards that last - both parties - in his WSJ article The Revolt of the Masses.
Ya, but.... Remember the PUMA (Party Unity My A**) movement in last year's campaign where the Hillary supporters vowed to revolt? While we're on board with Dan's point, we know we'll vote for the candidates that 'suck less' next year. That means our disgust with the Republican party will not translate into votes against their candidates. You?
Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports there are behind-the-scenes attempts by the State Department to strong-arm Hondurans to restore Zelaya to power. Combined with what we already know - Visa and Aid restrictions - we're just shy of calling Obama a full fledged commie.
Your government at work.
Keeping with tradition, we're posting Laura Hollis' latest Townhall article, Don't Call Them Progressives. We won't be so presumptuous to say she 'speaks truth to power', but with all of her articles we've linked to we can say with all confidence that Laura Hollis speaks to us!
posted by Karl @ 8:14 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
What accounts for the global electorate's growing disgust with the political overclass? Try this: No matter the ideological cast of these governments, they all hold in common one policy: the inexorable upward march of national indebtedness. It has arrived at the edge of the cliff.
---
Unable to identify who or what has put them in hock to the horizon, national electorates are attempting accountability by voting whole parties out of power. Rasmussen recently found that 57% of voters would throw out Congress en masse if they could. Gerrymandered districts ensure that they can't.
---
Unable to identify who or what has put them in hock to the horizon, national electorates are attempting accountability by voting whole parties out of power. Rasmussen recently found that 57% of voters would throw out Congress en masse if they could. Gerrymandered districts ensure that they can't.
Ya, but.... Remember the PUMA (Party Unity My A**) movement in last year's campaign where the Hillary supporters vowed to revolt? While we're on board with Dan's point, we know we'll vote for the candidates that 'suck less' next year. That means our disgust with the Republican party will not translate into votes against their candidates. You?
Mary Anastasia O'Grady reports there are behind-the-scenes attempts by the State Department to strong-arm Hondurans to restore Zelaya to power. Combined with what we already know - Visa and Aid restrictions - we're just shy of calling Obama a full fledged commie.
The most recent example of the Obama-style Good Neighbor Policy was the announcement last week that visa services for Hondurans are suspended indefinitely, and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut. But these are only the public examples of its hardball tactics. Much nastier stuff is going on behind the scenes, practiced by a presidency that once promised the American people greater transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy.
---
By insisting that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power, the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution.
---
When I asked the State Department whether it was employing such dirty tricks a spokeswoman would only say the U.S. has been "encouraging all members of civil society to support the San Jose 'accord'"—which calls for Mr. Zelaya to be restored to power. Perhaps something was lost in the translation but threats to use U.S. power against a small, poor nation hardly qualify as encouragement.
---
By insisting that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power, the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution.
---
When I asked the State Department whether it was employing such dirty tricks a spokeswoman would only say the U.S. has been "encouraging all members of civil society to support the San Jose 'accord'"—which calls for Mr. Zelaya to be restored to power. Perhaps something was lost in the translation but threats to use U.S. power against a small, poor nation hardly qualify as encouragement.
Your government at work.
Keeping with tradition, we're posting Laura Hollis' latest Townhall article, Don't Call Them Progressives. We won't be so presumptuous to say she 'speaks truth to power', but with all of her articles we've linked to we can say with all confidence that Laura Hollis speaks to us!
If liberals want a new moniker, they should be called regressives.
---
[Regarding using Sen. Kennedy's death to achieve socialist health care] ...given the 100 million other people who died in the fruitless pursuit of contemporary collectivist dystopias, what’s one more? I’d call this Stalinesque, but even Stalin was more tempered. He reportedly said, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Apparently, today’s regressive does not even view the single death as a tragedy, at least if it is a stepping stone to the greater good.
---
What is “progressive” about America is its grounding in individual liberty and human freedom.
---
So let’s recap: incensed mobs demanding collective adherence to failed ideologies; the abolition of personal freedom; millions of impoverished individuals dependent upon a handful of self-appointed elites; the confiscation of more and more individual wealth to satisfy the appetite of an insatiable and bankrupt government; the elevation of deeply flawed human leaders to the status of gods, and the willingness to sacrifice other human beings to appease them. You can call these behaviors many things, but “progressive” they are not; one need know only a little history to see the frequency with which they occur.
---
[Regarding using Sen. Kennedy's death to achieve socialist health care] ...given the 100 million other people who died in the fruitless pursuit of contemporary collectivist dystopias, what’s one more? I’d call this Stalinesque, but even Stalin was more tempered. He reportedly said, “One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Apparently, today’s regressive does not even view the single death as a tragedy, at least if it is a stepping stone to the greater good.
---
What is “progressive” about America is its grounding in individual liberty and human freedom.
---
So let’s recap: incensed mobs demanding collective adherence to failed ideologies; the abolition of personal freedom; millions of impoverished individuals dependent upon a handful of self-appointed elites; the confiscation of more and more individual wealth to satisfy the appetite of an insatiable and bankrupt government; the elevation of deeply flawed human leaders to the status of gods, and the willingness to sacrifice other human beings to appease them. You can call these behaviors many things, but “progressive” they are not; one need know only a little history to see the frequency with which they occur.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 8:14 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thursday, August 27, 2009
We comb through 20-40 articles per week for this post, and one thing is becoming obvious: the conservative voices have hit critical mass on the problems with ObamaCare. For each page of the socialist legislation, there is an equal number of valid points to reject the idea of government care. For us and those like-minded, this wasn't necessary to know a bad thing when we saw it. But for many others who are just starting to listen, these arguments are doing to ObamaCare what SDI did to Soviet military thinking. Its no wonder our Dear Leader wanted to rush this through.
We assume you're reading these pieces too, so we won't bother you with the links. So this week - links to non-ObamaCare pieces that, as required, are top-notch articles worthy of your weekend reading.
Obama's Summer of Discontent, by Fouad Ajami in the WSJ, is a great read. Rush read parts of this article this past week and said it was one of those articles he wishes he wrote. Us too! Our quotes below do not do it justice, so please click here to read it all. He talks about how Obama fit into a short window of national despair and doubt in last year's campaign, and how the nation has restored its self-confidence despite a leader that wishes against it.
Bret Stephens at the WSJ comments on Obama's intent to pursue CIA interrogators. Seen as a way to distract from the ObamaCare embarrassment, this pursuit of America's protectors appears to be a bone thrown to the wacky lefties who prefer apologies for America to Death Panels. Stephens comments on the hypocrisy of the left who screamed about the (in the end, lawful) disclosure of Valerie Plames' identity and who equally scream for the heads of those who saved American lives. He also warns that disclosure of these agents' identities will lead to threats to their safety.
Daniel Henninger also opines on the CIA witch hunt, The War On Terror Is Over. He concludes, "The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West's caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future."
posted by Karl @ 9:48 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
We assume you're reading these pieces too, so we won't bother you with the links. So this week - links to non-ObamaCare pieces that, as required, are top-notch articles worthy of your weekend reading.
Obama's Summer of Discontent, by Fouad Ajami in the WSJ, is a great read. Rush read parts of this article this past week and said it was one of those articles he wishes he wrote. Us too! Our quotes below do not do it justice, so please click here to read it all. He talks about how Obama fit into a short window of national despair and doubt in last year's campaign, and how the nation has restored its self-confidence despite a leader that wishes against it.
We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country's institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.
---
The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic.
---
Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.
---
The Obama devotees were the victims of their own belief in political magic.
---
Those protesters in those town-hall meetings have served notice that Mr. Obama's charismatic moment has passed. Once again, the belief in that American exception that set this nation apart from other lands is re-emerging. Health care is the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it is an unease with the way the verdict of the 2008 election was read by those who prevailed. It shall be seen whether the man swept into office in the moment of national panic will adjust to the nation's recovery of its self-confidence.
Bret Stephens at the WSJ comments on Obama's intent to pursue CIA interrogators. Seen as a way to distract from the ObamaCare embarrassment, this pursuit of America's protectors appears to be a bone thrown to the wacky lefties who prefer apologies for America to Death Panels. Stephens comments on the hypocrisy of the left who screamed about the (in the end, lawful) disclosure of Valerie Plames' identity and who equally scream for the heads of those who saved American lives. He also warns that disclosure of these agents' identities will lead to threats to their safety.
Liberals have never liked the CIA, except when it suited their partisan purposes. That's fine: There's much not to like about the agency, and the U.S. might well be better off without its bungled operations and laughable intelligence estimates. But having shouted themselves hoarse over Mrs. Wilson, their enthusiasm for this new round of outing is a bit unseemly. Especially when lives are actually at stake. Especially when a liberal president has pledged to protect those lives.
Daniel Henninger also opines on the CIA witch hunt, The War On Terror Is Over. He concludes, "The war on terror is being downgraded to not much more than tough talk. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Iranians, not yet converts to the West's caricature of its own legal traditions, will take note. In time, they will be back. The second war on terror is in the future."
This litigation nightmare, together with the chilling effect of the special prosecutor's potential indictments, has as its goal making the price of aggressive interrogation too high under any circumstance, including a one-hour-bomb scenario.
---
This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the USS Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect.
---
...it's a death sentence for an effective war on terror. It makes what's left of the war—telephone wiretaps or monitoring money transfers—vulnerable to a steady stream of congressional and legal objection. That lets the Obama administration evade political responsibility by letting others wind down the war on terror.
---
This means that the class of person who blows up skyscrapers, American embassies or the USS Cole would spend less time under a bare light bulb than a domestic robbery suspect.
---
...it's a death sentence for an effective war on terror. It makes what's left of the war—telephone wiretaps or monitoring money transfers—vulnerable to a steady stream of congressional and legal objection. That lets the Obama administration evade political responsibility by letting others wind down the war on terror.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 9:48 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, August 21, 2009
We're doing something different this week. Our first three below aren't article recommendations per se, but instead quotes that stand alone as both entertaining and destructive.
On healthcare reform, WSJ's James Taranto provides three gems from his Best of the Web column:
Rules for Republicans, Too:
Spammer in Chief:
and Unilateral Invasion, in regards to the go-it-alone attitude of the congressional Democrats
THAT would lower the political discourse and stifle debate!
Also in the WSJ, Daniel Henninger writes about the core issue coming out of the healthcare 'debate', the tea parties and the general mood of Americans toward their government - trust. In Government We Trust?
posted by Karl @ 10:28 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
On healthcare reform, WSJ's James Taranto provides three gems from his Best of the Web column:
Rules for Republicans, Too:
Our Fearless Independent Media
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, NPR.org, Aug. 11
"Obama Takes On Health Care Reform Critics"--headline, Voice of America Web site, Aug. 11
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, USA Today, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Critics at Town Hall Forum"--headline, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, Slate.com, Aug. 12
"Obama to Take On Health-Care Critics"--headline, Washington Post, Aug. 14
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, NPR.org, Aug. 11
"Obama Takes On Health Care Reform Critics"--headline, Voice of America Web site, Aug. 11
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, Associated Press, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, USA Today, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Critics at Town Hall Forum"--headline, Chicago Tribune, Aug. 12
"Obama Takes On Health Care Critics"--headline, Slate.com, Aug. 12
"Obama to Take On Health-Care Critics"--headline, Washington Post, Aug. 14
Spammer in Chief:
Al Gore might have taken the initiative in creating the Internet, but no one seems to have bothered to teach basic netiquette to Barack Obama and his White House staff. As they have grown more desperate in their attempts to remake America's medical system in the image of the post office, they have resorted to increasingly obnoxious email tactics.
First was flag@whitehouse.gov, the address for reporting "fishy" speech. After being pilloried endlessly for what critics thought was an effort to compile an enemies list, the White House deactivated the address--and blamed its critics.
---
We are far from convinced that the White House takes online privacy very seriously, although we will concede that the White House takes the perception that the White House doesn't seem to take online privacy very seriously, seriously.
First was flag@whitehouse.gov, the address for reporting "fishy" speech. After being pilloried endlessly for what critics thought was an effort to compile an enemies list, the White House deactivated the address--and blamed its critics.
---
We are far from convinced that the White House takes online privacy very seriously, although we will concede that the White House takes the perception that the White House doesn't seem to take online privacy very seriously, seriously.
and Unilateral Invasion, in regards to the go-it-alone attitude of the congressional Democrats
So let's see if we have this straight: Democrats sought to go to war with one-sixth of the U.S. economy. They didn't have a plan, and now they have no allies, so they've decided to go it alone.
Of course, if we really wanted to be cruel, we'd point out that the Republicans are acting like the French.
Of course, if we really wanted to be cruel, we'd point out that the Republicans are acting like the French.
THAT would lower the political discourse and stifle debate!
Also in the WSJ, Daniel Henninger writes about the core issue coming out of the healthcare 'debate', the tea parties and the general mood of Americans toward their government - trust. In Government We Trust?
I believe Madoff's massive and destructive breach of trust had an effect on the public mind that carried beyond the tragedy of its immediate victims. After Madoff, John Q. Public set the bar really high for anyone seeking a big commitment of trust with money. But that's exactly what the ambitious Obama health plan did.
---
...people seem to think that if a popular president can just find the right way to describe this entitlement, the American people will take his word for it. Maybe there was a time when a strong presidential personality could sell big things. Those days are gone. The government frittered them away.
---
...people seem to think that if a popular president can just find the right way to describe this entitlement, the American people will take his word for it. Maybe there was a time when a strong presidential personality could sell big things. Those days are gone. The government frittered them away.
Labels: MSM, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 10:28 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, August 14, 2009
In case you missed it, Healthcare Reform was in the news this week. Lots of good reading - here are our picks:
Laura Hollis, one of our favorite Townhall writers, gives instructions to us tea-partying, ramble rousersNazisin her article, Americans Must Refust to be Cowed into Submission:
Michelle Malkin: The Etiquette Czar's Rules for Patriotic Protest. No ruling on wearing a Commie Obama Rally Cap to future protests, so we'll continue wearing one until told otherwise. Some of our favorites:
James Taranto at the WSJ discusses the poor analogy to Bush going into Iraq to Obama's faltering Healthcare efforts in his Tuesday Best of the Web post, The ObamaCare Quagmire:
Yep. Bush = Class.
Karl Rove suggests Obama should snap out of campaign mode and start acting like a president in the WSJ article, Obama and the Permanent Campaign.
Daniel Henninger at the WSJ offers some analysis on the slow-motion trainwreck in Will They Still Love Him Tomorrow?
James Lewis, at American Thinker, lowers the political discourse with his article, At What Point Does a Liberal Become a Stalinist? The gall. But actually, it is a very reasoned, measured discussion.
Good advice.
posted by Karl @ 2:00 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Laura Hollis, one of our favorite Townhall writers, gives instructions to us tea-partying, ramble rousers
...how have the liberal elites responded to their countrymen’s concerns, their exercise of their First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly, and petitioning the government? By calling them Nazis, accusing them of bringing swastikas to town halls, characterizing American taxpayers as “angry mobs,” dismissing their grassroots protests as fake “Astroturf,” drummed up and funded by multinational corporations; by cancelling town halls, and insulting constituents who want to know why Congress passes laws without reading them. Uh-huh, sure. When ACORN and other Lefty activist groups pay and bus in homeless people, union members, and others to disrupt and intimidate, that’s “democracy.” When taxpayers, parents, and senior citizens show up on their own and protest how the government plans to spend their money, they’re a threat.
Hey there, average American - NOW do you understand how much they hate you and everything you stand for? The lengths they will go to to discredit and marginalize you, and take from you everything you have worked a lifetime to secure for yourself and your family? They want you to shut up. They want you to go away. They want to humiliate you into backing down while they take over your country, dismantle your constitutional protections, seize your assets, tax you into submission, and insert themselves and their appointed bureaucrats between you and your doctor.
Are you going to lay down and let them get away with it?
Hey there, average American - NOW do you understand how much they hate you and everything you stand for? The lengths they will go to to discredit and marginalize you, and take from you everything you have worked a lifetime to secure for yourself and your family? They want you to shut up. They want you to go away. They want to humiliate you into backing down while they take over your country, dismantle your constitutional protections, seize your assets, tax you into submission, and insert themselves and their appointed bureaucrats between you and your doctor.
Are you going to lay down and let them get away with it?
Michelle Malkin: The Etiquette Czar's Rules for Patriotic Protest. No ruling on wearing a Commie Obama Rally Cap to future protests, so we'll continue wearing one until told otherwise. Some of our favorites:
No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small-business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper and only challenge your lawmakers with hushed, dulcet tones. Otherwise, you will scare them, and they will be forced to hide behind teleconference calls, sick children at hospitals or union bosses.
---
No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be "evil-mongering," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.
---
No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the "S" in "BusHitler" and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.
---
No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be "evil-mongering," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.
---
No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the "S" in "BusHitler" and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.
James Taranto at the WSJ discusses the poor analogy to Bush going into Iraq to Obama's faltering Healthcare efforts in his Tuesday Best of the Web post, The ObamaCare Quagmire:
...the comparison sells President Bush short in a way that is independent of the merits of the policies. Whereas Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president, Bush actually made an effort to persuade the public--including the opposite party--that his plan for Iraq was a good idea. The effort was very successful: Congress authorized the use of military force with strong bipartisan majorities, and by early 2003, public approval of the plan was in the 70% range.
Republican politicians did not label opponents of the war effort "un-American," as Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer have done to ObamaCare foes. Bush's White House, unlike Obama's, did not urge supporters to report "fishy" pro-Saddam arguments. Bush did not tell his critics to shut up and "get out of the way," as Obama did last week. The Bush administration simply made a compelling argument and won. The Obama administration, on the verge of losing after making a poor argument, now is lashing out at its critics--which seems a strategy to maximize the damage of this effort.
Republican politicians did not label opponents of the war effort "un-American," as Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer have done to ObamaCare foes. Bush's White House, unlike Obama's, did not urge supporters to report "fishy" pro-Saddam arguments. Bush did not tell his critics to shut up and "get out of the way," as Obama did last week. The Bush administration simply made a compelling argument and won. The Obama administration, on the verge of losing after making a poor argument, now is lashing out at its critics--which seems a strategy to maximize the damage of this effort.
Yep. Bush = Class.
Karl Rove suggests Obama should snap out of campaign mode and start acting like a president in the WSJ article, Obama and the Permanent Campaign.
Team Obama is suffering from Extended Campaign Syndrome. In an election, campaign staffers are often just trying to survive until the next week or the next primary. They cut corners because they are fatigued or under pressure. They can be purposely combative and even portray critics as enemies.
Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.
---
Life inside the White House is far different from life inside a presidential campaign. The spotlight is brighter and scrutiny greater. While the posse in the White House pressroom is still slow to challenge Mr. Obama, ordinary people are forming their own judgments and they are increasingly negative.
Carrying this mindset into the White House can get you into trouble, a lesson the Obama administration is now learning the hard way.
---
Life inside the White House is far different from life inside a presidential campaign. The spotlight is brighter and scrutiny greater. While the posse in the White House pressroom is still slow to challenge Mr. Obama, ordinary people are forming their own judgments and they are increasingly negative.
Daniel Henninger at the WSJ offers some analysis on the slow-motion trainwreck in Will They Still Love Him Tomorrow?
It's early. A lot of Mr. Obama's centrist admirers are no doubt willing to wait for their moderate man to emerge. I don't think that will ever happen.
The moderates have nearly no presence in the administration, its agenda, or the congressional leadership. Maybe Larry Summers, on paper. The president likes to talk to moderates, but he doesn't ask too many to work for him. The internal exile of Paul Volcker speaks volumes. Obama can't keep the moderate-man conceit going indefinitely.
The moderates have nearly no presence in the administration, its agenda, or the congressional leadership. Maybe Larry Summers, on paper. The president likes to talk to moderates, but he doesn't ask too many to work for him. The internal exile of Paul Volcker speaks volumes. Obama can't keep the moderate-man conceit going indefinitely.
James Lewis, at American Thinker, lowers the political discourse with his article, At What Point Does a Liberal Become a Stalinist? The gall. But actually, it is a very reasoned, measured discussion.
The first adjective that comes to mind for "liberal" may be "touchy-feely." The best adjective for a Stalinist might be "murderous." That's a pretty big difference. I would never want to mistake a well-meaning liberal for a nasty Stalinist. At the same time, I hope we don't fail to spot any Stalinists who might be looking for mischief and pretending to be liberals.
---
Don't look for Communists under every bed, but don't be foolish enough to ignore self-proclaimed Marxist Radicals who wish us ill. Keep your faith in the strength and common sense of the American people. Spread the truth, as you see it, and let others express theirs.
---
Don't look for Communists under every bed, but don't be foolish enough to ignore self-proclaimed Marxist Radicals who wish us ill. Keep your faith in the strength and common sense of the American people. Spread the truth, as you see it, and let others express theirs.
Good advice.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 2:00 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, August 08, 2009
At Victor Davis Hanson's blog, Praire-Fire Anger. Some excerpts from the 4-pages of thoughts as to why the anger from freedom-loving Americans:
Daniel Henninger suggests many of Obama's original supporters have suffered two reality checks with the size and scope of the health care socialism push. Why Obama May Fail, in his WSJ article this week:
In the same WSJ, Karl Rove argues that politicians that let polls dictate their positions are rudderless. What happened to Hope and Change being the key values of our leaders??
posted by Karl @ 9:31 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Evocation of “socialism” is still considered inflammatory by the Left, but it is now simply an empirical term, not a slur, given that America’s tax codes and entitlement spending may look like the social landscape in France or Scandinavia in short order.
---
The zealotry of expansive bureaucracy and dependency instills fears, rational or not, of a radicalized huge federal work force, a sort of national version of Acorn to the nth degree that in pack-like fashion is mobilized to target potential naysayers.
---
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal.
---
I confess that when I first read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, first learned in depth about Trinity Church and its tirades about “black middle classness”, first studied the modus operandi of Obama’s state legislative campaigns and the mysterious implosions of both his primary and general election senatorial foes—all this belatedly in late 2006 and early 2007—I had little hope that he would prove to be anything other than the fossilized angry liberal that he is sadly proving to be.
But I erred in one key regard: I assumed his prepped oratory, youth and “cool”, transracial profile, media sycophants, and “Bush did it” excuses would ensure that his ratings stayed well above 60% at least through the midterm elections.
---
The zealotry of expansive bureaucracy and dependency instills fears, rational or not, of a radicalized huge federal work force, a sort of national version of Acorn to the nth degree that in pack-like fashion is mobilized to target potential naysayers.
---
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal.
---
I confess that when I first read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, first learned in depth about Trinity Church and its tirades about “black middle classness”, first studied the modus operandi of Obama’s state legislative campaigns and the mysterious implosions of both his primary and general election senatorial foes—all this belatedly in late 2006 and early 2007—I had little hope that he would prove to be anything other than the fossilized angry liberal that he is sadly proving to be.
But I erred in one key regard: I assumed his prepped oratory, youth and “cool”, transracial profile, media sycophants, and “Bush did it” excuses would ensure that his ratings stayed well above 60% at least through the midterm elections.
Daniel Henninger suggests many of Obama's original supporters have suffered two reality checks with the size and scope of the health care socialism push. Why Obama May Fail, in his WSJ article this week:
Taxpayers in New York, California and other states at the fiscal brink are asking whether they’d rather pay a jacked-up marginal rate unto death for another federal health-care program or pay taxes to support the quality of life where they live.
The newly arrived inhabitants of the Obama White House, who this week floated the possibility of middle-class taxes to pay for their deficit, talk as if the states don’t exist. Factoring in the “millionaire” health surtax, the Tax Foundation’s recent analysis puts the top marginal rate over 50% in 39 states. This is nuts. Even if they back off on the surtax, the health-care debate has made clear the needs and compulsions of this White House...
---
For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about “47 million uninsured Americans.” Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen?
The newly arrived inhabitants of the Obama White House, who this week floated the possibility of middle-class taxes to pay for their deficit, talk as if the states don’t exist. Factoring in the “millionaire” health surtax, the Tax Foundation’s recent analysis puts the top marginal rate over 50% in 39 states. This is nuts. Even if they back off on the surtax, the health-care debate has made clear the needs and compulsions of this White House...
---
For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about “47 million uninsured Americans.” Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen?
In the same WSJ, Karl Rove argues that politicians that let polls dictate their positions are rudderless. What happened to Hope and Change being the key values of our leaders??
...he is losing control of his agenda and resorting to rhetorical tricks and evasions.
---
If some version of ObamaCare is passed, the president will break his tax pledge several more times while adding trillions to the deficit, dismantling the best elements of our health-care system and slashing Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are no polling data or focus groups on earth that can help Mr. Obama out of this jam. He has set in motion events he appears unable to control and commitments he cannot keep. Great communicators succeed when the ideas they are communicating are sound. Tax-and-spend liberalism doesn’t work, no matter how pretty its package.
---
If some version of ObamaCare is passed, the president will break his tax pledge several more times while adding trillions to the deficit, dismantling the best elements of our health-care system and slashing Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are no polling data or focus groups on earth that can help Mr. Obama out of this jam. He has set in motion events he appears unable to control and commitments he cannot keep. Great communicators succeed when the ideas they are communicating are sound. Tax-and-spend liberalism doesn’t work, no matter how pretty its package.
Labels: Healthcare, Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 9:31 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Dick Morris and Eileen McGann say "Orwell's heirs should sue [Obama] for copyright" in their Townhall article, Rhetoric V. Reality: Health Care by Orwell. In reference to Orwell's book, 1984, where logic such as "War is Peace" prevail. A few summary-type lines from a an article full of them:
The WSJ editorial board puts the historic moon landing in perspective. The Right and Wrong Stuff:
posted by Karl @ 11:14 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending ... by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.
He says that "health-care decisions will not be made by government" ... while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.
Obama told the media, "I will free doctors to make good health care decisions" ... by telling the physicians what to do.
---
The president will "get the politics out of health care" by putting it under government control.
He says that "health-care decisions will not be made by government" ... while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.
Obama told the media, "I will free doctors to make good health care decisions" ... by telling the physicians what to do.
---
The president will "get the politics out of health care" by putting it under government control.
The WSJ editorial board puts the historic moon landing in perspective. The Right and Wrong Stuff:
It took eight years from the time John Kennedy declared we would go to the moon to the day an American landed on it, 40 years ago this week. It was also eight years ago this September that terrorists struck the World Trade Center, the site of which continues to be a hole in the ground and a national disgrace.
---
We’ve long resisted the notion of American decline, and our country has always managed to overcome its periods of despond. But it is hard not to see in the contrast between the moon program and the failure to rebuild Ground Zero a warning about America’s national will.
---
We’ve long resisted the notion of American decline, and our country has always managed to overcome its periods of despond. But it is hard not to see in the contrast between the moon program and the failure to rebuild Ground Zero a warning about America’s national will.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 11:14 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The WSJ's Americas expert, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, further explains why the Honduran supreme court and military chose to expel commie President Manuel Zelaya rather than imprison him within the country.
So, in short, the Hondurans are serious about their liberty. We envy them. But we'd add to O'Grady's reasons the fact that help for freedom-loving people will not come from the usual source. One must take more drastic and permanent actions to preserve freedom. They, like the protesters in Iran, are alone. We wish them well.
The New Great White Hope, Gov. Sarah Palin, penned a piece in the Washington Post: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End:
Hilmar von Campe, author of Defeating the Totalitarian Lie and former Nazi Youth warns us all in his Accuracy in Media article, The Threat of Totalitarianism:
Even our sexy Commie Obama hat isn't as direct as von Campe's warnings. Is anybody listening?
James Taranto examined Sotomayor's testimony in his Best of the Web post, New Bork, New York. His analysis starts:
We vote NO, as in "NO liars on America's courts".
posted by Karl @ 9:28 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
It was this fondness for intimidation that prompted Mr. Zelaya's exile. Honduras was worried that if he stayed in the country after his arrest his supporters would foment violence to try to bring down the interim government and restore him to power.
It wouldn't be a first. Bolivia's President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was removed in 2003 using just such tactics. Antigovernment militants, trained by Peruvian terrorists and financed by Venezuela and by drug money from the Colombian rebel group FARC, had laid siege to La Paz. As the city ran short on supplies, Mr. Sánchez de Lozada issued a decree to have armed guards accompany food and fuel trucks. The rebels, who had dynamite and weapons, clashed with the guards. Sixty people died. The president was pressured to step down.
It wouldn't be a first. Bolivia's President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada was removed in 2003 using just such tactics. Antigovernment militants, trained by Peruvian terrorists and financed by Venezuela and by drug money from the Colombian rebel group FARC, had laid siege to La Paz. As the city ran short on supplies, Mr. Sánchez de Lozada issued a decree to have armed guards accompany food and fuel trucks. The rebels, who had dynamite and weapons, clashed with the guards. Sixty people died. The president was pressured to step down.
So, in short, the Hondurans are serious about their liberty. We envy them. But we'd add to O'Grady's reasons the fact that help for freedom-loving people will not come from the usual source. One must take more drastic and permanent actions to preserve freedom. They, like the protesters in Iran, are alone. We wish them well.
The New Great White Hope, Gov. Sarah Palin, penned a piece in the Washington Post: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End:
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
---
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
---
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Hilmar von Campe, author of Defeating the Totalitarian Lie and former Nazi Youth warns us all in his Accuracy in Media article, The Threat of Totalitarianism:
It may sound like I am exaggerating or over-dramatizing the situation, but I think that we have a repetition of Hitler's policy to get total power developing in the United States. Obama's massive expansion of the federal government will destroy the United States as a world power, make us even more dependent on our enemies, and will ruin a great part of the present population and their descendants.
I believe his real purpose is not to get the United States out of the financial mess but to set the stage for a total takeover. The liberals controlling Congress are helping him in that task.
---
When the Nazis took over power on January 30, 1933, they immediately set up a parallel party structure to the administration to watch over the action of the civil servants. They were responsible to Hitler. Obama has taken a similar approach and has already at the time of this writing appointed 16 czars, part of an unconstitutional governmental apparatus. It seems that their task is to watch over and interfere in the private sector. However, they report only to Obama, bypassing the Congress.
I believe his real purpose is not to get the United States out of the financial mess but to set the stage for a total takeover. The liberals controlling Congress are helping him in that task.
---
When the Nazis took over power on January 30, 1933, they immediately set up a parallel party structure to the administration to watch over the action of the civil servants. They were responsible to Hitler. Obama has taken a similar approach and has already at the time of this writing appointed 16 czars, part of an unconstitutional governmental apparatus. It seems that their task is to watch over and interfere in the private sector. However, they report only to Obama, bypassing the Congress.
Even our sexy Commie Obama hat isn't as direct as von Campe's warnings. Is anybody listening?
James Taranto examined Sotomayor's testimony in his Best of the Web post, New Bork, New York. His analysis starts:
Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. Consider some of the positions she has taken:
On empathy: She repudiated the idea that it has any place in judging, as we noted yesterday.
On foreign law: She expressed her agreement with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and said flatly, "Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law."
On the Second Amendment: She said, "I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." As to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states under the incorporation doctrine, she agreed with Justice Scalia that this is an open question.
On abortion: She declined to endorse Roe v. Wade, offering only the usual dodge that it is "the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
On judicial activism: She said that judges' "imposing policy choices in--or their views of the world or their views of how things should be done" is "improper."
She's practically a new Robert Bork!
On empathy: She repudiated the idea that it has any place in judging, as we noted yesterday.
On foreign law: She expressed her agreement with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and said flatly, "Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law."
On the Second Amendment: She said, "I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." As to whether the Second Amendment applies to the states under the incorporation doctrine, she agreed with Justice Scalia that this is an open question.
On abortion: She declined to endorse Roe v. Wade, offering only the usual dodge that it is "the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court."
On judicial activism: She said that judges' "imposing policy choices in--or their views of the world or their views of how things should be done" is "improper."
She's practically a new Robert Bork!
We vote NO, as in "NO liars on America's courts".
Labels: Venezuela, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 9:28 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Karl Rove frames the socialized health care issue extremely well in his WSJ Opinion piece, Obama Can't Be Trusted With Numbers. The first half is a review of false promises and other propaganda that has helped Obama push 'change' in the past few months that would normally be rejected by most Americans. The second half is devoted to that same MO as it is being applied to the so-called health care debate. No quote will do this article justice - you must read it in full - but we'll share his concluding paragraph:
As of this post, Honduras remains free. The communists are circling, and pressure is coming from both the North and the South for the commie president's reinstatement. Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media, shares information not seen in elsewhere on just what level of coordination exists between Chavez and his like-minded friend in DC. Leading "Progressive" Describes Obama-Chavez Axis:
UPDATE 7.11 10am. The risk of posting a Weekend Reading post on a Thursday is that Friday brings a brilliant article.
Charles Krauthammer discusses Obama's anxious deal-making in Russia, the new START treaty (or memo of understanding).
Once again, a Democrat president pursues an arms treaty for the purpose of a photo-op. And once again a Democrat president weakens our national security - this time by offering missile defense as a negotiating chip. Treaties are meant to strengthen national security. Other than the IMF treaty (Reagan), can one think of a treaty that benefitted the US?
Plumage - But at a Price:
posted by Karl @ 7:42 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Mr. Obama has already created a river of red ink. His health-care plans will only force that river over its banks. We are at the cusp of a crucial political debate, and Mr. Obama's words on fiscal matters are untrustworthy. His promised savings are a mirage. His proposals to reshape the economy are alarming. And his unwillingness to be forthright with his numbers reveals that he knows his plans would terrify many Americans.
As of this post, Honduras remains free. The communists are circling, and pressure is coming from both the North and the South for the commie president's reinstatement. Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media, shares information not seen in elsewhere on just what level of coordination exists between Chavez and his like-minded friend in DC. Leading "Progressive" Describes Obama-Chavez Axis:
According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano. What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present."
---
But why would Obama be appeasing Chavez? Could the "appeasement" reflect the fact that Obama and Chavez are ideologically in sync and see events in Latin America through the same Marxist lens?
---
The communist paper [The Militant] reported that, before there could be a revolution in the United States, Marxist forces would have to take control of Latin America. "Another idea frequently expressed by speakers from the floor and by a few panelists was that 'change has to come from the South,'" referring to Latin America, the paper said.
Almost two years later, that "change" has come to America and is threatening Honduras.
---
But why would Obama be appeasing Chavez? Could the "appeasement" reflect the fact that Obama and Chavez are ideologically in sync and see events in Latin America through the same Marxist lens?
---
The communist paper [The Militant] reported that, before there could be a revolution in the United States, Marxist forces would have to take control of Latin America. "Another idea frequently expressed by speakers from the floor and by a few panelists was that 'change has to come from the South,'" referring to Latin America, the paper said.
Almost two years later, that "change" has come to America and is threatening Honduras.
UPDATE 7.11 10am. The risk of posting a Weekend Reading post on a Thursday is that Friday brings a brilliant article.
Charles Krauthammer discusses Obama's anxious deal-making in Russia, the new START treaty (or memo of understanding).
Once again, a Democrat president pursues an arms treaty for the purpose of a photo-op. And once again a Democrat president weakens our national security - this time by offering missile defense as a negotiating chip. Treaties are meant to strengthen national security. Other than the IMF treaty (Reagan), can one think of a treaty that benefitted the US?
Plumage - But at a Price:
Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.
---
Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies -- and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the last 20 years have resisted.
---
Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies -- and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the last 20 years have resisted.
Labels: Venezuela, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 7:42 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy 4th! Hurry and read these top picks before you start blowing stuff up!
L.E. Ikenga, a "first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria" finds a disturbing comparison between our new president and a common trait among African leaders. American Thinker, Obama, the African Colonial.
Kyle-Anne Shiver, also at American Thinker, comments on our 'Wimp in Chief's' position on the crisis in Honduras in, Obama's True Colors Shine in Honduras.
Careful Ms. Shiver. We don't want to be rash and label Obama a Communist!
Another from American Thinker, America's Socialist Past by Ryan Siefert, is a short but necessary historical review of the damage from socialist inspirations.
"Russian media are now abuzz with speculation about a new war in Georgia, and some Western analysts are voicing similar concerns" - so reports Cathy Young in the WSJ Opinion section on Thursday. She asks, "What would the Kremlin gain" from a war with Georgia:
YES! That was our response when reading Gordon G. Chang's WSJ Opinion, How to Stop North Korea's Weapons Proliferation. He writes about that N.K. ship, Kang Nam, that has been trailed by US warships (as if trailing is a foreign policy). Chang explains a legal way to board or sink the Kang Nam, refering to the North's May 27 rejection of the armistice that ended the fighting (not the war) in 1953. When you read this, remember how Clinton turned down a chance at Bin Laden for a lack of legal justification...
Did the North wait for Obama to replace Bush before setting sail with illicit cargo? If so, pretty smart. The only way Obama will get tough is if the criticisms of his pathetic foreign policy migrate from here to the nightly news...
posted by Karl @ 8:56 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
L.E. Ikenga, a "first generation born West African-American woman whose parents emigrated to the U.S. in the 1970's from the country now called Nigeria" finds a disturbing comparison between our new president and a common trait among African leaders. American Thinker, Obama, the African Colonial.
Obama has been living on American soil for most of his adult life. Therefore, he has been able to masquerade as one who understands and believes in American democratic ideals. But he does not. Barack Obama is intrinsically undemocratic and as his presidency plays out, this will become more obvious.
Kyle-Anne Shiver, also at American Thinker, comments on our 'Wimp in Chief's' position on the crisis in Honduras in, Obama's True Colors Shine in Honduras.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest, it must be noted, of the Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup" faster than you can say Fidel Castro. And just as quickly the rest of the region's socialist gang chimed in too. The real Castro brothers. Hugo Chavez. Daniel Ortega.
Birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Birds of a feather do tend to flock together.
Careful Ms. Shiver. We don't want to be rash and label Obama a Communist!
Another from American Thinker, America's Socialist Past by Ryan Siefert, is a short but necessary historical review of the damage from socialist inspirations.
There seems to be a need in American society to have to relearn the same hard lessons over and over again, regardless of whether the results were seen on the other side of the planet or suffered through by our own people.
We're living in a country that elected a President that believes in redistributing wealth. He's mentioned this himself, from the "Joe the Plumber" incident[i] to his critique[ii] of the failures of the civil rights movement. Whether you call it Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state.
We're living in a country that elected a President that believes in redistributing wealth. He's mentioned this himself, from the "Joe the Plumber" incident[i] to his critique[ii] of the failures of the civil rights movement. Whether you call it Socialism, Communism, Marxism, or by its simpler name, theft, they are all part of the same economic system that destroys private property and puts everything in central control of the state.
"Russian media are now abuzz with speculation about a new war in Georgia, and some Western analysts are voicing similar concerns" - so reports Cathy Young in the WSJ Opinion section on Thursday. She asks, "What would the Kremlin gain" from a war with Georgia:
A crushing victory in Georgia would depose the hated Mr. Saakashvili, give Russia control of vital transit routes for additional energy resources that could weaken its hold on the European oil and gas markets, humiliate the U.S., and distract Russians from their economic woes. Mr. Piontkovsky also believes the war drive comes from Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is anxious to reassert himself as supreme leader.
YES! That was our response when reading Gordon G. Chang's WSJ Opinion, How to Stop North Korea's Weapons Proliferation. He writes about that N.K. ship, Kang Nam, that has been trailed by US warships (as if trailing is a foreign policy). Chang explains a legal way to board or sink the Kang Nam, refering to the North's May 27 rejection of the armistice that ended the fighting (not the war) in 1953. When you read this, remember how Clinton turned down a chance at Bin Laden for a lack of legal justification...
...an armistice as a legal matter cannot remain in existence after one of its parties, a sovereign state, announces its end. Today, whether we like it or not, there is no armistice.
Furthermore, there has never been a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means the U.S., a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang. On legal grounds, the U.S. Navy therefore has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as prisoners of war, and confiscate its cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than melons. Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.
Furthermore, there has never been a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War. This means the U.S., a combatant in the conflict, as leader of the U.N. Command, is free to use force against Pyongyang. On legal grounds, the U.S. Navy therefore has every right to seize the Kang Nam, treat the crew as prisoners of war, and confiscate its cargo, even if the ship is carrying nothing more dangerous than melons. Because the Navy has the right to torpedo the vessel, which proudly flies the flag of another combatant in the war, it of course has the right to board her.
Did the North wait for Obama to replace Bush before setting sail with illicit cargo? If so, pretty smart. The only way Obama will get tough is if the criticisms of his pathetic foreign policy migrate from here to the nightly news...
Labels: N. Korea, Not a Socialist, Russia, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 8:56 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Iran, and Neda Agha Soltan were in the news this week. Here are some comments on our Dear Leader's reaction to a fraudulent election and subsequent crack-down, abuse and murder of freedom-loving people.
Mark Steyn, Neutrality Isn't an Option:
Alexander Benard, How to Handle a Tyrant:
Victor Davis Hanson, Obama's New Liberal Realism:
Rich Lowry, Obama's Fantastical Realism:
James Taranto, Their Name is Basij:
Michael Barone, The Adolescent Angst of Barack Obama:
Jonah Goldberg, Obama's Iran Policy Is a Bomb:
posted by Karl @ 7:54 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Mark Steyn, Neutrality Isn't an Option:
...when the analysts had finished combing [Obama's] speech, they would have concluded that the meta-message of his “equidistance” was a prostration before “stability” — an acceptance of the region’s worst pathologies as a permanent feature of life.
The mullahs stole this election on a grander scale than ever before primarily for reasons of internal security and regional strategy. But Obama’s speech told them that, in the “post-American world,” they could do so with impunity. Blaming his “agents” for the protests is merely a bonus: Offered the world’s biggest carrot, Khamenei took it and used it as a stick.
The mullahs stole this election on a grander scale than ever before primarily for reasons of internal security and regional strategy. But Obama’s speech told them that, in the “post-American world,” they could do so with impunity. Blaming his “agents” for the protests is merely a bonus: Offered the world’s biggest carrot, Khamenei took it and used it as a stick.
Alexander Benard, How to Handle a Tyrant:
"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
These words, spoken by President Obama in his inaugural address, marked the beginning of what has been a concerted effort to reach out to tyrants from Pyongyang to Tehran. A dozen missile launches, a nuclear detonation, a rigged election, and countless crackdowns on individual liberties later, it is safe to say this effort has had the opposite of its intended effect.
These words, spoken by President Obama in his inaugural address, marked the beginning of what has been a concerted effort to reach out to tyrants from Pyongyang to Tehran. A dozen missile launches, a nuclear detonation, a rigged election, and countless crackdowns on individual liberties later, it is safe to say this effort has had the opposite of its intended effect.
Victor Davis Hanson, Obama's New Liberal Realism:
Then, of course, there is Obama and his quest for a global messianic rather than an American presidential role. So far it pays to be Hamas and the Palestine Authority rather than Israel, Chávez rather than Uribe, Ahmadinejad rather than Maliki, Putin rather than an Eastern European elected prime minister, a Turkish Islamist rather than a Greek elected prime minister. The former all gain attention by their hostility, the latter earn neglect by their moderation and generally pro-American views. Praising Islam abroad is a lot more catchy than praising democracy — one boldly inspires Bush’s critics, the other sheepishly dovetails with Bush’s agenda. All that, in varying degrees, also explains the troubling neglect of the Iranians in the street.
One mystery remains: Does Obama do this because the squeaky problem gets the attention, or does he really empathize with the tired anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist refrain of those who used to be considered hostile?
One mystery remains: Does Obama do this because the squeaky problem gets the attention, or does he really empathize with the tired anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and anti-capitalist refrain of those who used to be considered hostile?
Rich Lowry, Obama's Fantastical Realism:
If only the Obama administration considered motorcycle-riding thugs beating demonstrators in Iran an offense on par with Israel’s West Bank settlements.
Then it could speak with moral passion. It could unmistakably denounce the killings, and relieve its State Department spokesman of the trouble of dancing around the word “condemn.” It could say that our relationship with the Iranian government depends on the unconditional end of its thuggery. It could explain that only if Iran stops the crackdown can we “move forward” in the Middle East.
But Iran is not an ally of the United States. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gets a rhetorical pass that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t. As hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters march for democracy, in defiance of a government that is our committed enemy, Pres. Barack Obama resorts to lawyerly equivocations. He labors to avoid saying anything denoting untoward disapproval of the baton-wielding shock troops of Iran’s theocracy.
Then it could speak with moral passion. It could unmistakably denounce the killings, and relieve its State Department spokesman of the trouble of dancing around the word “condemn.” It could say that our relationship with the Iranian government depends on the unconditional end of its thuggery. It could explain that only if Iran stops the crackdown can we “move forward” in the Middle East.
But Iran is not an ally of the United States. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei gets a rhetorical pass that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t. As hundreds of thousands of Iranian protesters march for democracy, in defiance of a government that is our committed enemy, Pres. Barack Obama resorts to lawyerly equivocations. He labors to avoid saying anything denoting untoward disapproval of the baton-wielding shock troops of Iran’s theocracy.
James Taranto, Their Name is Basij:
The Iranian regime is using nonuniformed thugs to impose its will on the population. These are the tactics of a terrorist organization, not a legitimate government.
---
During his press conference today, President Obama declared that "we have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms":
"It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we've been saying over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take."
The truth is, what we've seen over the past 30 years is not encouraging. A regime that takes foreign diplomats hostage, uses children in combat, threatens to wipe another country off the map, and uses terrorist tactics against its countrymen has shown its determination to flout international norms.
"We must . . . bear witness," says Obama. This entails acknowledging evil as well as celebrating the courage of genuine martyrs like Neda. Obama could do a lot of good simply by giving a speech describing the Iranian regime's departures from international norms starting in 1979. In the process, he might even learn something himself.
---
During his press conference today, President Obama declared that "we have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms":
"It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we've been saying over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take."
The truth is, what we've seen over the past 30 years is not encouraging. A regime that takes foreign diplomats hostage, uses children in combat, threatens to wipe another country off the map, and uses terrorist tactics against its countrymen has shown its determination to flout international norms.
"We must . . . bear witness," says Obama. This entails acknowledging evil as well as celebrating the courage of genuine martyrs like Neda. Obama could do a lot of good simply by giving a speech describing the Iranian regime's departures from international norms starting in 1979. In the process, he might even learn something himself.
Michael Barone, The Adolescent Angst of Barack Obama:
Back in July 2007, Obama said that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other tyrants without preconditions. Grownup squares like George W. Bush wouldn't talk to these guys, so as the avatar of the generation of hope and change, Obama would. Obama figured he was cool enough to get the mullahs to agree to renounce nuclear weapons and all that hate stuff.
Obama has held to this ever since. Before June 12, he said he would give the Iranian leaders till the end of the year to be enchanted. When millions of Iranians started demonstrating in the streets, denouncing the obvious election fraud and in some cases calling for an end to the regime, his initial responses verged on stony indifference.
He expressed "deep concern" but said he didn't want to "meddle." He issued a statement on June 20 calling on the Iranian government "to stop all violent and unjust actions." Finally, in a hastily called news conference Tuesday, he for the first time uttered the verb "condemn" and said he was moved by the video of YouTube martyr Neda Soltan being shot down by the mullahs' gunmen.
But he clearly hasn't abandoned his policy of seeking the good opinion of tyrants.
Obama has held to this ever since. Before June 12, he said he would give the Iranian leaders till the end of the year to be enchanted. When millions of Iranians started demonstrating in the streets, denouncing the obvious election fraud and in some cases calling for an end to the regime, his initial responses verged on stony indifference.
He expressed "deep concern" but said he didn't want to "meddle." He issued a statement on June 20 calling on the Iranian government "to stop all violent and unjust actions." Finally, in a hastily called news conference Tuesday, he for the first time uttered the verb "condemn" and said he was moved by the video of YouTube martyr Neda Soltan being shot down by the mullahs' gunmen.
But he clearly hasn't abandoned his policy of seeking the good opinion of tyrants.
Jonah Goldberg, Obama's Iran Policy Is a Bomb:
Here is the one immutable fact of Barack Obama’s foreign-policy agenda as it relates to Iran: It’s over. The rule book he came in with is as irrelevant as a tourist guide to the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama’s plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama’s plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.
---
In his press conference Tuesday, the president finally condemned the outrages in Iran in terms he should have used a week ago. But he also kept alive the idea that the current Iranian regime could be a fruitful negotiation partner, despite what has already happened in that country. “It’s not too late,” Obama explained, for the regime to negotiate with the international community. He wouldn’t even cancel plans to invite Iranian officials to Fourth of July barbecues at American embassies.
That amounts to tacit approval of the bloodshed and fraud that we’ve already seen and acceptance of the ultimate triumph of the regime. And it won’t work.
If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama’s plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama’s plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.
---
In his press conference Tuesday, the president finally condemned the outrages in Iran in terms he should have used a week ago. But he also kept alive the idea that the current Iranian regime could be a fruitful negotiation partner, despite what has already happened in that country. “It’s not too late,” Obama explained, for the regime to negotiate with the international community. He wouldn’t even cancel plans to invite Iranian officials to Fourth of July barbecues at American embassies.
That amounts to tacit approval of the bloodshed and fraud that we’ve already seen and acceptance of the ultimate triumph of the regime. And it won’t work.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 7:54 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, June 19, 2009
WalpinGate is what they are calling it. You wouldn't know this, as the MSM is covering it all up. The firing of federal Inspector General Gerald Walpin. The WSJ offers the best summary on the topic: The White House Fires a Watchdog.In adition to the obligatory quote, we'll post the names of some losers mentioned in the article. Nothing like having your name in lights!
Editors at the State Media offices of the Washington Post published an unauthorized and hateful editorial on healthcare reform, The President's Health Care Promises. Whoops!
One of our favorite Townhall columnists, Laura Hollis, writes Governance By Destruction. Read it all - click here. Her clarity is both rare and refreshing. One question: Is it hateful to discuss the thingsliberals progressives communists hate?
Adding to the topic two posts down - Operation Vigilent Eagle - James Taranto responds to Bonnie Erbe's call for "ridding the Internet and the public dialouge of hate speech".
Link to Taranto's video on this subject.
posted by Karl @ 7:55 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
...Mr. Walpin wrote a 29-page report, signed by two other senior members of his office, and submitted it in April to Congress. Last Wednesday, he got a phone call from a White House lawyer telling him to resign within an hour or be fired.
---
President Obama.
NBA star Kevin Johnson.
Career prosecutor with US Attorney's office, Lawrence Brown.
Obama fundraiser, Alan Solomont.
Special counsel for the President, Norman Eisen.
White House Council, Gregory Craig.
First Lady, Michelle Obama.
Americorp's senior advisor, Jackie Norris.
---
...the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
---
President Obama.
NBA star Kevin Johnson.
Career prosecutor with US Attorney's office, Lawrence Brown.
Obama fundraiser, Alan Solomont.
Special counsel for the President, Norman Eisen.
White House Council, Gregory Craig.
First Lady, Michelle Obama.
Americorp's senior advisor, Jackie Norris.
---
...the evidence suggests that his White House fired a public official who refused to roll over to protect a Presidential crony.
Editors at the State Media offices of the Washington Post published an unauthorized and hateful editorial on healthcare reform, The President's Health Care Promises. Whoops!
The government is good at "saving" money by simply reimbursing Medicare and Medicaid providers for less than their cost. It is essentially a tax that the government imposes - a tax that doctors and hospitals pay for staying in business. But this tax raises doctors' and hospitals' costs, forcing them to charge private patients more to compensate for the lost Medicare and Medicaid revenue.
In the short run, these higher costs will force more people out of private insurance and into Mr. Obama's proposed government-provided insurance. In the longer run, as fewer people carry private insurance, it disappears and there is no one to pay this tax. With the profit motive removed, there will be fewer hospitals and fewer doctors practicing medicine. That means less health care to go around.
In the short run, these higher costs will force more people out of private insurance and into Mr. Obama's proposed government-provided insurance. In the longer run, as fewer people carry private insurance, it disappears and there is no one to pay this tax. With the profit motive removed, there will be fewer hospitals and fewer doctors practicing medicine. That means less health care to go around.
One of our favorite Townhall columnists, Laura Hollis, writes Governance By Destruction. Read it all - click here. Her clarity is both rare and refreshing. One question: Is it hateful to discuss the things
Liberals profess to “love” all kinds of things: whales, polar bears, snail darters, the planet. Strangely, few of them are human. Or anything that makes humans’ lives better. What seems to drive most liberals is hatred and a need for control. What they control, they destroy. And there are few things they hate as much as American business.
---
We should not be surprised that liberalism’s approaches to business are failures. Consider its 40-year reign over our social policies, and witness the legacy:
Liberals wanted to redefine marriage and remake the family. The result? A divorce rate that now hovers between 45 – 50%, a precipitous decline in the number of two-parent households (a primary indicator of poverty), a birthrate that barely replaces the population (with corresponding devastating consequences for Social Security) and an illegitimacy rate of close to 40% (among African-Americans it is over 70%). Need we mention welfare’s role in all of this?
---
Liberals have hated the internal combustion engine...
---
They hate farming.
---
They hate pharmaceutical companies.
---
They hate power companies.
---
They hate the military.
---
...they hate guns and ammunition...
---
They hate the Judeo-Christian tradition.
---
For decades, liberalism has crept surreptitiously through our courts, our educational system and our media. Now, with the election of Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress, liberalism is in full glory and ascendant. All the things they have loathed in private, they can now assail in public. And American businesses are at the top of the list.
---
We should not be surprised that liberalism’s approaches to business are failures. Consider its 40-year reign over our social policies, and witness the legacy:
Liberals wanted to redefine marriage and remake the family. The result? A divorce rate that now hovers between 45 – 50%, a precipitous decline in the number of two-parent households (a primary indicator of poverty), a birthrate that barely replaces the population (with corresponding devastating consequences for Social Security) and an illegitimacy rate of close to 40% (among African-Americans it is over 70%). Need we mention welfare’s role in all of this?
---
Liberals have hated the internal combustion engine...
---
They hate farming.
---
They hate pharmaceutical companies.
---
They hate power companies.
---
They hate the military.
---
...they hate guns and ammunition...
---
They hate the Judeo-Christian tradition.
---
For decades, liberalism has crept surreptitiously through our courts, our educational system and our media. Now, with the election of Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress, liberalism is in full glory and ascendant. All the things they have loathed in private, they can now assail in public. And American businesses are at the top of the list.
Adding to the topic two posts down - Operation Vigilent Eagle - James Taranto responds to Bonnie Erbe's call for "ridding the Internet and the public dialouge of hate speech".
This is not Islamist Iran or communist Cuba or some tin-pot military dictatorship. Our government does not simply round people up. It cannot deprive people of their liberty without a legal basis to do so, and it has no authority to punish people merely for expressing political views, no matter how odious.
Link to Taranto's video on this subject.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 7:55 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, June 12, 2009
As we continue to write the last chapter in US History here at Ushanka.us, two items deserve attention as two of the main components of Obama's destruction of the US as it was intended: monetary policy and entrepreneurship.
Arthur B. Laffer writes in the WSJ, Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates: The unprecedented expansion of the money supply could make the '70s look benign.
If we weren't on the same boat as the current generation of corporate liberal elites that voted for this administration, we'd be laughing ourselves silly. They fell for the liberal trick: Vote for us because what you have today under Republican leadership - we can make better! Well, we're less than 6 months into that plan. How's it working for you?
There are two reasons why the top rungs in corporate America have been traditionally Republican - 1) to preserve the environment that allowed their success, and 2) to give future leaders the same fair shot they had. Well, idiots that run most of the businesses in Silicon Valley chose to differentiate themselves from their predecessors last November, and it will not surprise us to see the pendulum jolt back, assuming there is still such thing as private business in 2012.
Michael S. Malone warns "Be careful what you wish for" in his Pajamas Media post, The Obama Surprise:
posted by Karl @ 4:21 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Arthur B. Laffer writes in the WSJ, Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates: The unprecedented expansion of the money supply could make the '70s look benign.
But as bad as the fiscal picture is, panic-driven monetary policies portend to have even more dire consequences. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s.
---
Reduced demand for money combined with rapid growth in money is a surefire recipe for inflation and higher interest rates. The higher interest rates themselves will also further reduce the demand for money, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures. It's a catch-22.
---
Alas, I doubt very much that the Fed will do what is necessary to guard against future inflation and higher interest rates. If the Fed were to reduce the monetary base by $1 trillion, it would need to sell a net $1 trillion in bonds. This would put the Fed in direct competition with Treasury's planned issuance of about $2 trillion worth of bonds over the coming 12 months. Failed auctions would become the norm and bond prices would tumble, reflecting a massive oversupply of government bonds.
---
Reduced demand for money combined with rapid growth in money is a surefire recipe for inflation and higher interest rates. The higher interest rates themselves will also further reduce the demand for money, thereby exacerbating inflationary pressures. It's a catch-22.
---
Alas, I doubt very much that the Fed will do what is necessary to guard against future inflation and higher interest rates. If the Fed were to reduce the monetary base by $1 trillion, it would need to sell a net $1 trillion in bonds. This would put the Fed in direct competition with Treasury's planned issuance of about $2 trillion worth of bonds over the coming 12 months. Failed auctions would become the norm and bond prices would tumble, reflecting a massive oversupply of government bonds.
If we weren't on the same boat as the current generation of corporate liberal elites that voted for this administration, we'd be laughing ourselves silly. They fell for the liberal trick: Vote for us because what you have today under Republican leadership - we can make better! Well, we're less than 6 months into that plan. How's it working for you?
There are two reasons why the top rungs in corporate America have been traditionally Republican - 1) to preserve the environment that allowed their success, and 2) to give future leaders the same fair shot they had. Well, idiots that run most of the businesses in Silicon Valley chose to differentiate themselves from their predecessors last November, and it will not surprise us to see the pendulum jolt back, assuming there is still such thing as private business in 2012.
Michael S. Malone warns "Be careful what you wish for" in his Pajamas Media post, The Obama Surprise:
The first surprise to many Valleyites is how innately anti-entrepreneurial the new Administration has turned out to be. Candidate Obama looked like a high tech executive - smart, hip, a gadget freak - and he certainly talked pro-entrepreneur. But the reality of the last six months has been very different. One might have predicted that he would use the best tool in his economic arsenal - new company creation and the millions of new jobs those firms in turn create - to fight this recession. But President Obama has instead appeared to be almost exclusively interested in Big Business as the key to economy recovery.
---
...the tech giants are now discovering they may have made a devil’s bargain. The Administration’s brute force handling of the Chrysler and GM take-overs, seemingly violating contract law in the process; its mutterings about managing executive bonuses; its creation of industry czars without the need for Congressional approval; and the prospect of endless debt, economic stagnation and runaway inflation waiting in the wings - all have to be making the same CEOs pretty darn nervous these days . . . and asking themselves if they’ve made a terrible mistake.
---
...the tech giants are now discovering they may have made a devil’s bargain. The Administration’s brute force handling of the Chrysler and GM take-overs, seemingly violating contract law in the process; its mutterings about managing executive bonuses; its creation of industry czars without the need for Congressional approval; and the prospect of endless debt, economic stagnation and runaway inflation waiting in the wings - all have to be making the same CEOs pretty darn nervous these days . . . and asking themselves if they’ve made a terrible mistake.
Labels: Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 4:21 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Our Sponsors
Recent Posts
Labels
Communists
Russia
China
Venezuela
N. Korea
Cuba
DNC
MSM
Loss of Freedom
Slippery Slope
Gun Rights
Taxes
Education
Health Care
Cartoons
White Flag
Hammer & Sickle
Other
Not a Socialist
Losing a War
Russia
China
Venezuela
N. Korea
Cuba
DNC
MSM
Loss of Freedom
Slippery Slope
Gun Rights
Taxes
Education
Health Care
Cartoons
White Flag
Hammer & Sickle
Other
Not a Socialist
Losing a War
Campaigns
Library
Reagan’s War
Peter Schweizer
While Europe Slept
Bruce Bawer
Arrogance
Bernard Goldberg
Carnage and Culture
Victor Davis Hanson
Animal Farm
George Orwell
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister
John O'Sullivan
Reagan: In His Own Hand
Red Horizons
Ion Mihai Pacepa
The Black Book of Communism
Communism: A History
Richard Pipes
The Venona Secrets
Herbert Romerstein
The Case For Democracy
Natan Sharansky
Programmed to Kill
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg
No Simple Victory
Norman Davies
The Crusader
Paul Kengor
Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand
Ivan Denisovich
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Great Terror
Robert Conquest
Tears of My Soul
Sokreaksa S. Himm
Peter Schweizer
While Europe Slept
Bruce Bawer
Arrogance
Bernard Goldberg
Carnage and Culture
Victor Davis Hanson
Animal Farm
George Orwell
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister
John O'Sullivan
Reagan: In His Own Hand
Red Horizons
Ion Mihai Pacepa
The Black Book of Communism
Communism: A History
Richard Pipes
The Venona Secrets
Herbert Romerstein
The Case For Democracy
Natan Sharansky
Programmed to Kill
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg
No Simple Victory
Norman Davies
The Crusader
Paul Kengor
Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand
Ivan Denisovich
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Great Terror
Robert Conquest
Tears of My Soul
Sokreaksa S. Himm
Cinema
BlogRoll
Archives
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
- Blog
- Add as Friend