Thursday, April 28, 2011

Obama's Real Strategy

April 28, 2011
 
Watching the machinations of Barack Obama, it seems as though he is creating what the Marxists call "internal contradictions."

Gas prices ready to breach the $5 mark, but a relentless Administration campaign against increased domestic energy production; midterm elections soundly rejecting the President and his party's command and control initiatives, but vigorous efforts to extend them in contempt not only of electoral, but legislative and judicial checks; foreign and defense policies that have produced nothing beyond betrayal of our interests and few remaining friends, but an eager embrace of fringe notions of a utopian internationalist order and our place in that order: every day brings new movements in this symphony of  dissonance.

Unfortunately, we are not simply enjoying a clarifying dialectic; we are in the middle of a high stakes race.  The objective in this race is not a place; it is a date: Election Day, November 6, 2012.

As the contending parties converge on the objective, the Administration understands that the conventional electoral calculus seems irreversible -- gas prices, inflation, unemployment, and geopolitical discomfiture will be joined in 2012 by the newfound fear of deficits and the national debt, and maybe even for the fate of constitutional government.  Their response to this looming threat of defeat is a version of the old Cold War communist strategy of "talk talk, fight fight."

The talk element is employed to waste time, obscure tactical maneuvers, divert and divide the opposition, and sometimes even to draw fire onto decoy targets.  Behind the screen of the talk is the "fight" or action element of the strategy -- executive, and to the extent still possible, fiscal measures calculated to bring the country by November 6, 2012 to a state in which an electoral majority, comprising both Obama partisans and opponents, is in such a high state of anxiety that they are unwilling to change presidents.

How does this work?  First, there is the talk element.  Obama and his people are drowning us in a talk tsunami.  I am convinced that much of it is, for them, meaningless, meant merely to overload our capacity for outrage and give their house media "issues," ostensibly to debate each evening, but really for generating a constant supply of vehicles through which to diminish the opposition and generally desensitize the country to the enormity of what Obama is doing.  The outrage fatigue grows and conservatives scramble to confront the dizzying torrent of talk, talk, with a tone increasingly shrill and desperation -- borne intramural wrangling.  The  release of the birth certificate, "Something special about the Resurrection," and other peculiar Easter omissions and commissions, the rise and disappearance of the political "civility" issue, keeping alive for months the fantasy of New York City trials for 9/11 conspirators, the great Fatwa against down time naps for drowsy air traffic controllers, UN international legal rights for Mother Earth, endless reprises of canards about the evil effects of conservative talk radio, the Ground Zero Mosque contretemps, TSA groping policy, attacking Arizona's immigration enforcement initiative, embracing Al Sharpton and giving the New Black Panthers a pass, Michelle's "You don't want fries with that!" campaign.

This is not to say some of these do not merit real concern, but Obama and his minions are merely playing with them; the best evidence for which is the airiness of their arguments and the insouciance with which they and their media mouthpieces flit from one to the next.  The key here for the opposition -- forget about the talk.  It is just talk.  Republicans shouldn't play the other guy's game.  They have neither the language nor the style, as Speaker Boehner most recently demonstrated when he trod on the oil price banana peel; he should concentrate on the fight fight.

When national Republicans respond to Obama talk talk in their accustomed mush mouthed, tentative, and bloodless way, they generally turn off those they need the most to join them -- including the libertarians and the generally politically inert 25-somethings, for whom irony and not outrage is the preferred tone.  But show you can fight, win, and deliver and they will give you a chance.  In the end, for all their eloquence, Lady Thatcher, John Paul II, and Ronald Reagan did not outtalk the Soviets; they showed they were prepared to outfight them, and that was enough.

As good as Obama is with talk talk, the fight fight component has thus far has been equally well-executed.  Again, fight fight for Obama consists of using his executive power and remaining fiscal armory to create and maintain an atmosphere of pervasive anxiety.  The calculation is that fear and anxiety will induce his remaining supporters to stick with him, and that enough of the forty-odd percent who claim to oppose him will pull the Democrat lever as well out of fear -- fear of retribution and fear of losing what shreds they have left of their security as one from the gaggle of lame Republican contenders attempts to reverse the damage Obama has done.

The elderly are the most obvious target.  ObamaCare frightened them because of its potential negative impact on Medicare, and this presented a problem for the President.  So Obama moved recently to postpone one of the more onerous elements of his health reform until after the election.  With that flank secure he is free to focus the Medicare fears of the elderly on the Ryan budget blueprint.

On the union front, the Obama gang fostered maximum thuggery and rancor in Madison, as teachers became screaming harpies and schoolchildren pawns.  The line was clearly drawn -- standing between fiscal prudence and public employee vested interests is Obama, so stick with him or else.  What about the business community?  Obama has assiduously used executive and regulatory power to show that crony capitalism works for his friends like GE, GM, and assorted connected green scam artists, but the retributive hand of his federal Myrmidons can be heavy indeed.  One frightened hedge fund magnate recently was reduced to whistling past the graveyard: "I am sure, if we are really nice and stay quiet, everything will be alright and the president will become more centrist and that all his tough talk is just words...I mean, he really loves us and when he beats us, he doesn't mean it."  (Notwithstanding, he has apparently begun contributing to Republicans.  Now that is hedging.)

Some elements of an ever more pervasive sense of fear and anxiety are more directly attributable to Obama policies than others.  Regardless, the parlous state of the nation overall, from what appears to be a fraying social fabric at fast food joints from coast to coast and soaring gold prices, to a feckless foreign policy allegedly necessitated by a reported presidential conviction "that the relative power of the U.S. is declining," reinforces the more directly-attributable fear and anxiety effects of fight fight.  Some are scared to oppose, some are scared that with a change they will lose even more, some are scared that the price of saving the economy, our institutions, and restoring our international standing will be too high.

Right now the course of the campaign is being controlled by the Administration.  The first step in wresting the initiative is to recognize their strategy.
 

Police Union Bosses File Complaint against Police Chief Stopping Crime while he was off-duty


Scranton, PA provides another example that Big Government Unions are more concerned about union power and control than citizens and crime in the street.


This attempt to intimidate a police chief by union bosses is shameless and the city council apparently unanimously agrees:
City Council unanimously passed a motion in support of Police Chief Dan Duffy on Tuesday, asking the police union to withdraw their unfair labor complaint against the city that involves the chief.

 Filed on April 14, the grievance takes issue with Duffy’s off-duty arrest of a man in possession of marijuana on March 20. The chief, who is not part of the collective bargaining unit, should not be allowed to perform bargaining unit work, FOP President Bob Martin explained to council last week, but Duffy would be “legally and morally obligated” to stop a crime if he came upon one in progress.
Martin clarified that the March 20 case was an example of the chief leaving his home to conduct police work, but noted that the chief also “happens to be a part of the collateral damage” in their attempt to convince city administration “to sit down and negotiate” the terms of their contracts.

It is pretty easy to see who the hero is in this story — hats off to you, Police Chief Dan Duffy.

Big Government

Americans Discern Correctly that Public Schools are a Poor ‘Investment’


We continue to hear the rhetoric from teachers unions and others in the education establishment that we need to “invest” more in America’s public schools.

Want smarter, better-prepared kids, the teacher unions ask? Give us more money! (And get the “rich” to pay for it.)

That’s been the nation’s approach to public education for, oh, the last 50 years.

But after decades of increased education spending, it’s time to ask the obvious question: What kind of return are American taxpayers getting for all this “investment”?

The answer: not much.

According to a  new survey by Rasmussen Reports, a whopping 72% of taxpayers say they “are not getting a good return on what they spend on public education, and just one-in-three voters think spending more will make a difference.”

Americans are correctly discerning that simply spending more money will not improve educational outcomes.


Sure, throwing more dollars at education helps shore up the teacher unions’ Cadillac health insurance and pension plans. The money also helps cover automatic step raises for teachers. The problem is, none of those things help children read better or compute a calculus equation. Not one iota.


Think of it this way: If you owned stock in a company that was producing a lousy, inferior product that the public was unhappy with, would you buy more stock in that company?

If you’re a savvy investor, you’d demand new leadership that has a clear plan for producing a better product before you gave them a single dollar more.

Why shouldn’t the same principle apply to public schools?

For years, the teachers union and their surrogates in elective office could get away with guilting Americans into spending more on public education. It was for the children, after all!

It was a cozy setup. More education dollars meant more union dues and more union political contributions for Democrats (and the occasional incompetent Republican who bought into the teacher union propaganda). Everyone benefitted.  Except the students.

This Rasmussen poll indicates that Americans are catching onto this racket.

If the nation’s public schools were producing college-ready, workforce-ready graduates, there is little doubt that Americans would be willing to spend even more money on public education.

But our education system is graduating many students who are lacking in basic skills. The number of college freshmen who have to take remedial English and math classes just to get up to academic speed is an indictment of the entire system.  “Kids Aren’t Cars” told the story of a graduate who couldn’t read his own diploma.

If leaders of the education establishment want more of our money, they must show a commitment to quality. That means holding teachers accountable (merit pay, ending tenure) and providing students with greater choices in education (charter schools, online learning). Do those things, National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, and then we’ll talk about more spending.

Until that happens, 72% of Americans understand that more school spending is simply throwing good money after bad.

Big Government

Retarded Leftist Projection: The Dark Soul of Collectivism

Adam BaldwinPosted by Adam Baldwin Apr 28th 2011 at 2:50 pm in Featured Story, New Media, Obama

A queer rhetorical and ideological alliance is found recently between President Obama and Joe Guzzardi, a senior writing fellow for Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) and a prominent contributor to V-DARE.com, which Leftists have denounced as a “White Supremacist/hate group” website.

Mr. Guzzardi writes:
population control [is] the ultimate green practice. As long as the most environmentally enlightened Americans ignore the relationship between population growth and environmental sustainability, then America will lose the green fight. In the 1970s, reducing population was so mainstream that biologist and Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich regularly appeared on the Johnny Carson Show as an advocate. Today, it’s rarely mentioned…

[A] solution to slowing America’s population… advocate for limiting family size. Having two or more children is not an obligation.
In a stunning display, Mr. Obama echoes Guzzardi’s “solution” in a recent town hall appearance. During the question-and-answer, Mr. Obama singled out for Alinsky-ridicule at least two attendees for their dissent in driving “Big SUV/Monster Trucks,” and having too many kids:


Obama has also championed abortion and callously mocked the Special Olympics and “water heads.”
The Urban Dictionary defines “water head” as “a person with mental health problems, i.e. downs syndrome, or retard.”

Paul Erlich’s Malthusian indoctrination, taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger’s targeting of the “feeble-minded,” or maybe even daddy issues, during these men’s formative years likely explains their eugenicist synergy.

Coincidentally arises the vile “humor” of Jack Steuf at Wonkette, a website that is to internet satire as Westboro Baptist is to churches.

Stuef targeted for ridicule three-year-old Trig Palin — whose mother, Sarah, is a political enemy of Stuef and Obama. Stuef called Trig “retarded,” “born somewhat alive,” and incapable of dreaming. Wonkette is now reaping the moral and financial consequences of the Stuef publication.

While the term “retarded” itself is not a cause for offense, as pointed out by K. J. Adan in her Open Letter to Jack Stuef, his assertion that retarded people cannot dream is an unwitting admission of ignorance. Adan points out, “The new politically correct term is ‘mentally challenged’ or ‘intellectually disabled’, but mentally retarded is a correct way to describe [her brother],” so “The issue is that you don’t know what retarded people can and can’t do.”

Stuef “apologized” on his blog, apparently in shame for the use of a non-PC term, but not the degrading things he said about a Down Syndrome toddler, his family who loves him, or the images he used before Adan’s post went up. He later sent a tweet of thanks for her perspective, so an outreach for understanding at least made his radar.

Why Leftists feel compelled to dehumanize their fellow man in order to make political hay is easily explained.

They need control over others to perpetuate their anti-humanitarian ideology. An ideology whose own intellectual disability agitates for, and all too often has achieved the prior restraint of centralized population control, economic control, even thought control (i.e., Political Correctness “hate crime”).

As much as Leftists covet other people’s money, they seem to detest other people’s children — unless of course those children can be exploited as political props; human shield victim-mascots used in pursuit of narcissistic political ends.

Although many Leftists detest children altogether, those who do have children of their own proudly hold them up as an example of the proper family. The Obamas have their two, and that fits into the Leftist paradigm of the intellectually responsible family. Obama, Erlich, Sanger, Stuef et al. ridicule and denounce the natural family — which may or may not include the intellectually disabled — as irresponsible.

One can read the subtext plainly. Smart (i.e., socially conscious) people ought to perpetuate their genes, while the stupid (bitter clingers to guns, God, and individual Liberty) ought to be limited. Genetic diversity is forsaken for the leftist code word “diversity,” which means “You idiots wouldn’t know a balsamic reduction if it dripped on your can of Bud.”

History proves how truly evil governments must be to limit genetic diversity.

And, as per Greg Gutfeld, if you disagree with them, you’re fair game to be demonized as “unsustainable,” “retards,” or worse… aborted before ever having the chance to learn about and fight against Leftism’s retarded, bankrupt, anti-humanitarian creed.

Big Journalism

Obama’s Birth Certificate Proved Americans Are Powerless

Jeffrey Scott ShapiroPosted by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro Apr 27th 2011 at 7:12 pm in Featured Story, Mainstream Media, Obama, media bias

Many Americans were shocked yesterday when President Obama finally released his long form birth certificate from the State of Hawaii. The real surprise however is that for the past three years our democratic institutions did not address the matter.



The press refused to tackle this issue with the same investigative drive with which they did investigated Watergate, President Clinton’s alleged indiscretions and the Bush administration’s missteps in Iraq – the courts declined to hear a single case on the issue, and the Congress failed to hold any hearings on the matter.   Perhaps the saddest part of this story is its ending.


President Obama did not release the birth certificate because the media pressured him or because the courts actually listened to one of the many cases that were filed. He released it because an obsessed billionaire threatened his electability in 2012, which forces us to ask the question – what good are our democratic institutions if they don’t stand up for the people?

Journalists did not address the fact that the president was refusing to resolve an issue about his constitutional eligibility. Instead, they covered the “birther” movement in an effort to discredit any American who had a legitimate question. Mainstream press organizations did not want to get grouped in with “birthers” since they had been effectively compared to the 9/11 “truther” movements, and anyone who raised birth certificate questions was labeled paranoid, crazy and even racist. However, there’s a big difference between people who just wanted to see Obama’s birth certificate and those who believe that our own government caused the worst terrorist attack in American history, especially when there is already a mountain of evidence pointing to al-Qaeda as the perpetrators.

With the Obama birth certificate issue, the archive of evidence was slim, and his refusal to release the more extensive version of his birth certificate rightfully created more suspicion. In fact, the Obama birth certificate issue is more similar to what happened when President Clinton refused to give a straight answer about his indiscretions in the White House.

The more the president evaded the issue, the more curious and upset people became. Americans want to know who their president is, plain and simple – and they have a right to know. Citizens who have wanted the issue resolved were frustrated because they felt powerless. The courts declined to hear cases filed and the Fourth Estate refused to pursue the story to get it resolved. Congress did nothing.

The more our institutions remained inactive on the issue, the more powerless we felt and the angrier we became, prompting us to question what good it was to have democratic institutions if they didn’t exercise their power. The courts repeatedly used the excuse that Americans filing suit in federal court lacked standing to get access to the birth certificate. Although the document may have been a vital health record protected under federal and state law, there was a higher constitutional issue of the president’s eligibility at stake.

If the people didn’t have standing on that issue, who did? Our government and our Fourth Estate failed America in this case. We the people of the United States had a right to resolution on this crucial issue, but no one did anything about it. In the end, the White House only relented because they knew it could cost them votes and a much more expensive 2012 presidential run for Obama. Money, not democracy was the currency that brought this issue to a final resolution.

 Big Journalism

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Move Along, Mullahs Say, ‘Nothing to See Here’


The following comes from someone in the financial industry who for professional reasons must remain anonymous:

Rep. Peter King’s  congressional hearings last month on the radical threat from Islam has been on the receiving end of caterwauling from liberals, Muslim radicals, assorted allies of the religion of peace, including the lame-stream media.  But for the all the protests the numbers speak for themselves.
First of all, nearly all the armed conflicts that are either recent or in progress around the world, not even withstanding the recent uprisings in Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Tunisia, have Muslims as a combatant on one side of the conflict, and in some cases, both sides.  Muslims are involved in nearly every recent armed conflict in the world.  Why exactly is that?

Recent wars with Muslim aggressors. In the 1990s violence occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan, Nigeria., Algeria, Chad, Sudan (Darfur), Somalia, Erithrea/Ethiopia, Nigeria,Western Sahara, Morocco, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Gaza strip, Cyprus, Pakistan/India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, Philipines China, Russia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Armenia, Azerbijan, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Uzbeskistan, Thailand and Kashmir.  Forgive me, if I left any other Islamic battleground out. .

The list would be nearly twice as long if it were to include countries suffering from systemic Islamic terrorism such as in England, Germany, Spain and the United States.
Here is Arab Psychiatrist Wafi Sultan in a clash with Egyptian Islamist cleric on Al-Jazeera TV. You’ll love it!

Domestic Terrorism. Now why should the US hold congressional hearings or be concerned by the religion of peace? First, although most readers haven’t forgotten 9/11, most have forgotten that this was not the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center.  That happened in 1993. That resulted in merely 1,040 injured and 6 deaths.

Every year, it seems as though the FBI and Interpol are foiling dozens of terrorist plots or actions of Islamic extremists. Unfortunately, some they miss preventing. Last year in Glendale, Arizona, a woman dies from injuries suffered when her father runs her down with a car for being too ‘Westernized.’ Also last year, an owner of a television station in Buffalo, NY which was established to show to Americans the peacefulness and normalcy of Islam in the US, goes on to behead his wife and then uses “spousal abuse” as his defense in court.

Every year, the FBI is intercepting Muslim terrorist plots in the US, few get much coverage.  The last one that did get serious coverage was the foiled Christmas day bomber in 2009.  But that was only one of many that the FBI uncovered.  Every name currently on the FBI terrorist most wanted list are Muslims. Imams are often telling their congregants not to cooperate with the FBI.  Is that a part of freedom of speech or do we have a 3rd column, rife with traitors aide by a complicity and politically correct court system that is aligned with these traitors?  I don’t know if we have a full fledged 3rd column in the US, but it often appears that way.

The Patriotic Muslim. We often hear that the Muslim community is very patriotic and that they love America just like you and I.  But consider this simple litmus test of being an American:
There are just 3,409 Muslims in the active-duty military as of April 2008, according to Pentagon statistics.   However, according to the U.S. News and World Report, there were 5 million Muslims in the US in 2008.   This would put the percentage of Muslims serving in the US military at about .0006 percent.  That’s just 6 ten-thousands of one percent! This is by far, the lowest percentage of any religious or ethnic group in the United States.   And unfortunately, of the few who do serve in the military, watch your back, many may have religious objections to actually fighting in America’s wars.  Certainly, Fort Hood’s Nidal Malik Hasan, a major, a psychiatrist and a certified nutcase, who murdered 13 and wounded 29 others is the most famous objector.


The Arabic speaking shortage at the FBI. Here’s another litmus test for Islamic citizens to show their American patriotism:  Arabic speakers are not seeking positions in the FBI, despite a huge need.  Less than one percent of the Bureaus 12,000 agents can speak any Arabic.   And this dismal record is despite of aggressive marketing efforts to the Arabic community.  It’s not hard to make a reasonable conclusion.  The Arabic speaking community is apparently reluctant to help root out the terrorists among us.

In this video Lebanese born, Brigitte Gabriel, offers an explanation of the Muslim’s national identity schizophrenia in America.  She recounts the growing threat of Islam to Americans. She’s alarmed that 26% of Muslims in America support suicide bombings to achieve Sharia law.


Nearly, every major critic of Islam in Europe or America has a Fatwa for death on their head.  Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, of “Draw Mohammed Day” fame is in hiding. And worse, her paper will no longer publish her. Chilling.  South Park creators have a Fatwa too for some mild satire and hired extra security.  Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmaker and critic of Islam should have gone into hiding sooner.  He was killed by Islamic radicals for his work.   Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the beautiful, recovering Muslim and writer of Submission, a film critical of Islam, is still in hiding.

Rep. King was right to conduct those hearings.  They were long overdue. But the hearings should be just a beginning to a long investigation as to why home grown terrorism is rampant in the US and what we can do about combating it.  Then comes the heavy lifting; when Americans rise up and change the politically correct policies that are choking us.  We have a long row to hoe.  As of now, we still have a very generous immigration policy to those who hail from nations that support terrorism.  Thank you, Obama, we’ll show you the door in 2012.

Big Peace

Endangered listing of lizard may shut down Texas oil

April 27, 2011
Greg Halvorson

You can't make this up.  First, a Spotted Owl destroyed the timber industry of the Pacific Northwest, then a minnow turned the most productive agricultural land in the world into a dustbowl, and now, as energy prices spike and the economy sputters, they're going after Texas with a scurrilous reptile.   

Specifically, the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard.  That's the latest more-important-than-people critter being used to lock-up resources in the name of planet Earth.  The drilling moratorium didn't cause enough pain, so onto the Endangered Species Act - known at the Sierra Club as "Ol' Reliable" - to make certain Texas has lizard-filled poverty.   

Lizard or livelihood?  That's what's at stake.  And the pro-poverty Earth Firsters stratifying government can't have both.  If it determines that the lizard is indeed endangered, the Fish and Wildlife Service will shut down the most productive oil counties in Texas, ban roads, and slow farm activity, as it "studies the ecosystem" for up to five years.   

This should please Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, who in 2008 said, "We must increase gas taxes to force people to turn to alternative energy.  Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to levels in Europe."

That's the goal-Europe.  Low growth.  High taxes.  As our economy shrivels and land is restricted, as we ignore wealth beneath our feet and slide toward uncertainty, they slither along, creating dependency....  Sauve le lezard!

They should say it in French.  



American Thinker