About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

THE RULE ALINSKY FORGOT TO MENTION

 
   Barack Obama was swept into office by promising hope, change and governance
from the center. Present realities on the ground are despair, abandonment of
traditional American values and a radical agenda that many label "socialist,"
Now, as he goes out to campaign for Democrats seeking re-election, Obama faces
a roiling tide of rage from voters who feel deceived, disappointed and betrayed.
   As a Chicago southside community organizer, Obama was schooled in the mantra
and tactics of Marxist rabble rouser Saul Alinsky, whose infamous book "Rules
For Radicals" has become the primer for the political movement of which Obama is
now the head. In the book, Alinsky advises those seeking social revolution to "seize
power by whatever means necessary," including lying. cheating and stealing. He
then propounds a series of principles or "rules" to serve as discipline for true
believers, adding the admonition, "Once you have power, use it."
   Obama has run Alinsky's plays by the numbers, isolating, polarizing and demonizing
opponents and making their own rules work against them. His minions mobilized the
dead, convicted felons and some who claimed to have 40 registered voters in one
household. At least two organizations helping Obama have been or are being
investigated for voter registration fraud. He has done whatever it took to gain power.
And he has used it. Since election, he has sought to ram through one piece of
controversial legislation after another, orchestrated unprecedented government
takeovers of the private sector, produced the biggest presidential budgets in history
(with deficits to match) and repeatedly disregarded the expressed will of a majority
of the American people.
   It seems that Alinsky came up a rule short, and it was this: If you do whatever
it takes to seize power, and then use that power like a blunt instrument to
repeatedly bludgeon those who gave it to you, you will turn momentary adoration
into abiding rage. That's the rule Alinsky never told his proteges about, and it's the
one that's coming home to roost like buzzards to a carcass on Barack Obama.
   When one is campaigning, one can use platitudes and empty promises. When the
confetti has been swept from the floor, the balloons have been burst and the tough
work of governing begins, people have no further use for promises. They want and
expect results. Americans today face massive joblessness, a faltering economy, a
continuation of war, constant attempts at terrorist acts, an out-of-control and grow-
ing illegal immigrant problem, a government involved in lawsuits against most of the
states it represents, corruption in the Justice Department, more corruption in the
halls of congress and people just don't see the hope and change.
   Worse, they are beginning to believe that they were duped into ceding power to
one whose goal was to globalize America and remake it after the eurosocialist
republics so many Americans disdain. There is a blatant and discordant disconnect
between promises of the campaign and Obama's actions once in power. Now,
nervously eyeing the creeping deficit, sagging dollar, flagging commerce and
mutterings about a downgraded national credit rating, people are conufsed, a bit
frightened and yes, angry. Nothing makes people madder at you than realizing
that you have duped and used them. Alinsky didn't care about it, because an
alley-crawling seditionist like him never had the guts to put his name on a ballot.
But Obama, his disciple, has swallowed the poison pill, and now has the terminal
illness of creeping mistrust.
   People will forgive mistakes and misjudgments from those who apologize. They
will even look away from the occasional indiscretion. But the brazen abuse of
power is the one unforgiveable sin of politics, because people fear it, and they
remember it. At this late stage of the game, there is nothing Obama's henchmen
can prepare for his teleprompter that will trump his condescension, arrogant
aloofness and Draconian overreach in governing. Those who will have to pay
the price today are his foot soldiers in congress. Alinsky should have warned
him.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOW WHAT? PART III

 
   If, like many of your fellow Americans, you have concluded that change in govern-
ment is uegently needed, you may at first find youeself somewhat daunted by the
political process and how we go about making the needed change. It's really not
that complicated. Just follow a few easy guidelines.
   First, you must be registered to vote. If you have not already registered, you may
be too late for the critical November 2 elections, depending on the voting rules of
your state. But even if you are too late for this round of voting you should go ahead
and register now. Once you have registered, you have the legal right to cast a vote
for whichever candidates you choose.
   Choosing the right candidates is important. In this election the "right candidates"
are those who favor limited government, low, stable taxation and freedom for both
markets and individuals. Most of those candidates, in this election, will be either
Republicans or Independents, and may be somehow affiliated with the Tea Party
movement that favors limited government, fair taxation and freedom for all. The
way to find out is to do some research and ask some questions.
   Get online and find out who is running for office in your voting area. At a public
gathering or via e-mail, pose the following questions to the candidate you are
considering: (1) Were you oppossed to President Obama's $862M stimulus bill?
(2) Were you opposed to President Obama's national healthcare overhaul? Would
you, if elected, vote to repeal it? (3) Do you think the Bush tax cuts should be rein-
stated for everyone? (4) Are you opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens? (5) Are you
opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act (union card check)? (6) Do you oppose
cap-and-trade energy legislation? If you get a NO answer to any of the foregoing
questions, you can assume that this candidate will continue to support the extreme
policies of the current government and does not, therefore, deserve your vote. If
you ask these questions in an open meeting or face-to-face, you may get some
hemming, hawing and hedging. If you do, consider the answers negative and vote
accordingly. If you pose the questions by e-mail, you must specifically state that
you want a response and will not give the candidate your vote until you get one.
You should furnish your telephone number in the e-mail, because the campaign
may respond by e-mail or prefer to pick up the phone and call you. Every candidate
will have a website with contact information. Use it to become better informed.
   Once you have made up your own mind, try to influence other registered voters.
My own goal was to get at least 20 other people fired up about voting for change
on November 2, and I have already surpassed my goal. Individual votes count, but
blocs of votes are even better. Voting absentee is a good way to avoid standing in
long lines at the voting station, but you must request an absentee ballot from your
county election officials in advance. When it arrives by mail, mark it immediately,
following all the instructions in detail, put a stamp on it and mail it back.
   If you choose to vote in person, you must resolve yourself that even should you
not feel well on election day you will drag yourself to the polls and vote. Everyone
should vote in person at least once. There is benefit in seeing the democratic process
in action, and you may even be able to influence the votes of others in your line,
although it must be tastefully done so as not to make anyone angry. A conversation
can be started by simply asking, "Are you voting for change like I am?" If you work
a regular job, it is best to rise a couple of hours early and be at the polls when they
open. It will make your wait shorter and guarantee you'll be at work promptly. You
may even have time for that extra cup of coffee on the way.
   Voters have friends and families, and some of them may be shut-in or unable to
get to the polls on their own. You can either help them well in advance to obtain,
mark and mail back an absentee ballot, or you can take the time and trouble to
pick them up and take them to the polling station. By doing that and helping them
to understand the issues and what's at stake you can double, triple or quadruple
your own vote.
   There are just over six weeks to go before the mid-terms. We must elect a congress
(Senate and House of Representatives) who will listen to us, de-fund the current
government's big spending, intrusive takeover plans and vote for fair taxation. Polls
suggest that this objective is well within our grasp if we pull together to make it
happen. The stakes may never be bigger in your lifetime. Seize this chance to be a
part of historic change for the good.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOW WHAT? PART II

 
   If you have looked around you, searched your soul and decided that our nation is
headed in a disastrous direction, be assured that there is hope. If not, then don't
bother reading further, for what follows may offend you, raise your blood pressure
or cause you do do things you'll later regret.
   It seems to be a growing national consensus that what's wrong with this country --
what's driving the problems -- is an all-invasive, all-pervasive overarching government,
the policies of which appear to be confiscate, regulate, re-distribute and stifle all
dissent. Each of these habits pushes the envelope of constitutionality, and a couple
cross the line of constitutional impermissibility and are currently under legal
challenge. By "government" I mean the President, congress and the massive stealth
government of czars and executive orders put in place to circumvent congressional
opponents and existing laws. If, as I and millions of others firmly believe, government
is the problem, then the only way to fix the problem is to get rid of or put a tight
leash on the government. That's pretty obvious. But if you're on board for what it
will take to do that, buckle up. It's going to be a rough ride.
   We have to be realistic about what, and whom we are up against. The Democratic
party, which has rushed into the siren arms of socialism, currently controls both
houses of congress, the White House and the many arms of the administration that
make policies to influence every corner of our lives. It would be plain foolish to
suppose that they will go quietly into the night. Since the only constitutional option
open to us for changing the government is through the electoral process, then that
is where we must make our stand.
   Even though public polling runs very much in our favor, six weeks is a lifetime in
politics, and we need to learn to read the road signs. As the elections near, the poll
numbers will narrow. That is usual and to be expected. We cannot allow it to
discourage us or believe that our votes are futile. And we must be mindful of past
Democratic dirty tricks, such as bussing homeless people and felons who are not
legally allowed to vote to the polling stations, instructing them how to vote and even,
in some instances, paying for their votes. That such tactics are unlawful is beside
the point. They're part of the Democrats' playbook and they will occur. While a
repeat of the New Black Panther billy club intimidation is unlikely given the level
of scrutiny, expect rude and aggressive Democrat "poll watchers" to attempt verbal
intimidation and challenge legitimate votes they think are unlikely to favor their
candidates. "But this is America, not Venezuela or Iran," you say. Yes, but when
an unquenchable thirst for power drives one or more parties, that gap, also, narrows
at election time.
   As November 2 grows closer, expect vicious personal attacks on front-running
candidates. Consider them with a jaundiced eye, consider their real believability
and ask who stands to gain if you accept them at face value. Look for desperate
and empty policy gestures by the president or congress designed to buy 11th hour
goodwill. Expect the airwaves to be bombarded constantly by liberal propaganda,
bought and paid for by hundreds of millions of union dollars. Expect a knock on
your door, or a telephone call interrupting your dinner by aggressive canvassers
asking how you will vote and demanding justification if they don't like your answer.
Don't be surprised by anonymous and unwanted literature left on your doorstep
extolling one candidate and trashing others. They do these things because often
they work! If we are to effect the needed national change, we must refuse to be
intimidated.
   We have to seize this as OUR time. If we have, in the past, been apathetic about
voting, timid in saying which candidates we support and why, or have utilized the
eenie-meenie-minie-moe or ouija board method of marking ballots, we need to
grow a backbone, speak up and go to the polls informed and resolute. Some say
Democrats will not turn out to vote. Don't believe it for a minute! The only antidotes
to their votes are ours.
   In his 1975 Pulitzer Prize winning book Killer Angels, Michael Shaara depicts
union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain addressing reluctant troops before the battle of
Gettysburg and saying, "Men, I think if we lose this battle, we lose the war." It is
with careful consideration that I say, friends, I think if we lose this election, we
lose our nation.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

NOW WHAT? PART I

 
   We live in the days of dreadful deficits, an eviscerated economy, rampant partisan
rancor and tumultuous Tea Parties And we are all actors in a great national play
with no script, an ever-changing cast and an uncertain conclusion. Six weeks from
now we, the people, will decide at the mid-term elections whether we are satisfied
with the national direction, or are disillusioned enough to change the party in legislative
power. It is what we do today that will make all the difference in our tomorrows.
   To make a decision that will lead toward a happy ending, we must make a pain-
fully honest appraisal of the facts before us. Every poll suggests that, by a wide
majority, Americans think the current situation both dire and likely to get worse.
Why? "It's the economy, stupid," is far too facile an answer. That is not to say the
economy is good, or that the bad economy is not uppermost in people's minds.
Unemployment is at 9.6%, with 15 million unemployed. Credit has all but dried
up, and businesses are terrified to expand because of strangling government
regulation and the looming specter of higher taxes. So-called "green jobs" are
killing the old "non-green" jobs, and many have simply left the workforce in
despair. Worse, the unparalleled twenty-six months of unemployment will soon
run out for many. Then what will they do?
   But we've been through rough economic patches before, including the Great
Depression. Through all those times it was the intrepid American spirit, the fire
of entrepreneurialism and the ownership of individual responsibility the restored
economic order. What is dfferent today, is that the spirit and the fire stand in
jeopardy of being extinguished by the noxious potion of socialism and, to hear
government and the elite political establishment tell it, getting ahead is no longer
the individual's goal and government is now the rightful seat of responsibility.
   What we must ask ourselves, then, is whether we really believe what they
are telling us, whether they have demonstrated sufficient competence for us to
put our entire lives and livelihoods in their hands, and whether we are willing to
pay the homage of the subservient, ever-higher taxes to support an out-of-control
government's unbridled lust for growth? The answer to such a question comes
easier for those of us who are older and have watched generations of politicians
foist idiotic policies upon a great nation. It is harder for the young, the utopian
idealists. Many of them say, "What the heck. Let's try something new." That's
a reprise of what many have said just before taking fatal overdoses.
   So it's not just the economy. It is a need of the soul for something greater, some
inherent good that has always been a part of what America is. It is a deep hunger
for truth and responsibility in government, and for accountability. It is the sense
that when we speak en masse, someone up there is really listening. And yes, it is
the fear that WE have committed the unpardonable sin of tendering our country
into the hands of the truly and terminally incompetent at last.
   In our private lives, when we know we have made a terrible mistake, we either
make ourselves sick with guilt and remorse, live for as long as possible in a blase
state of denial, or we hitch up our pants and man (or woman) up to our error and
do everything within our power to make it right. Guilt is paralyzing and denial is
becoming increasingly impossible. So it's up to us. What will we do in November?
 
For the next segment, read tomorrow's post on Give Me Liberty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CHARGE OR RETREAT?

 
   Suppose you just met a man you liked. He invites you to go on a trip with him, and
promises you'll like the place he's taking you. He shows you a marked map, and
though you don't really know or understand the route he's marked, he seems like a
stand-up guy, so you decide to go along.
   After driving for miles you come to a place where high water has covered the road.
You can see the other side, but it's a long, long way and you have no idea what lies
beneath the hundred-and-fifty foot expanse of water. "Let's go for it," your new
friend says. "I don't think it's very deep."
   Now along the way your friend has not impressed you as the most responsible of
drivers. In fact, he has taken risks you would not have taken. Further, as you have
quizzed him about your ultimate destination, his answers have become more opaque
and less specific. You have begun to doubt whether you really want to go there.
   As you sit, idling at the water's edge, you have three choices. You can insist on
staying where you are until it can be determined whether the water is falling or
still rising, or at least until you can see other vehicles attempt the crossing and how
they fare. Or, you can plunge ahead, knowing that either you will make it, or the
engine will stall, the car begin to fill with water and your life be placed in jeopardy.
The other choice, of course, is to simply throw the car in reverse, turn around and
get to higher ground which, although it may not be exactly where you want to end
up, will at least be safer.
   This is a parable of the American economy, circa September, 2010. Your new
"friend" is Barack Obama, and he has held out golden-tongued hope of a grand
social utopia under a banner of hope and change. He has engaged in questionable
practices, spending wildly and driving the deficit to the brink of a chasm even more
foreboding than the high water crossing in the story. Now he exhorts voters to
grant him patience while he plunges even deeper into the waters of debt, promising
that everything will work out for the best.
   To influence your decision, he reminisces about the "bad old times" in the place
from which you came, and reminds you of people there who, in some cases proved
untrustworthy. He says that fear is all that makes you argue for reverse gear, and
that hope should cause you to go full speed ahead. So this is your dilemma: do you
throw caution to the wind, trust someone whose present trustworthiness is in
question and risk everything? Or do you seek the safer higher ground, away from
the threatening waters and with all the best of what you left behind, perhaps along
with some of the worst?
   Your decision really boils down to whether you want to place yourself completely
in this stranger's questionable hands and on uncharted ground, or whether you want
to take responsibility for your own destiny on ground you know. That is the decision
facing mid-term voters in November. Obama begs for time, and bashes George W.
Bush to remind you of the "bad old days." But in your heart you know that is a
false choice. George Bush is gone from politics, and cannot return to the presidency.
Nor have Republicans suggested a full-scale return to his policies. The bogey man
isn't real, but the depth of the water ahead is. Look how deep we're in already.
Fifteen million of us unemployed, with no significant job growth in sight, ballooning
debt with only exhortations to more and more spending, and a sinking international
credit rating that will raise interest on the debt to an unsustainable level. Businesses
are being strangled by government regulation, or even taken over by government,
higher taxes on profits are being threatened and businesses face a climate of
uncertainty that make new hiring improbable. The water is looking deeper and
deeper.
   Neo-liberals have appropriated the term "Progressives" to define themselves. It
is a convenient one, because it conjures the image of a glorious uinterrupted march
to eventual and inevitable perfection, and casts those eschewing their movement as
"regressive" which, in their mind connotes the opposite. So, as we face the original
dilemma, do we drop it in drive and splash forward, or pull it into reverse and get
to safety? Would you rather live in economic conditions like those under Bill
Clinton and George W. Bush, or in today's jobless economic freefall under Obama?
The answer should be obvious.
   Any suggestion that a Republican congress will restore Bush's economic policies
in their entirety is a false straw man argument proffered by Obama to distract
voters from the calamitous conditions around them on his watch. Many of the new
congressional class will be affiliated with the Tea Party or influenced by their
fiscal conservatism. The suggestion that they would allow further deficit spending
by EITHER party is simply not credible. But if you are even considering voting
for any Democrat in November, ask yourself: is there really any way to know 
what lurks beneath that muddy water ahead?  
Tags: the economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SOME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS

 
   Democrats are whistling a happy chorus as they approach the November cemetery.
Joe Biden, Howard Dean, Chris van Hollen and David Plouffe have given public and
pained assurances that Dems would retain control of both houses of congress. The
pollsters are all wrong, voters really aren't THAT mad, and it's all Bush's fault any-
way. Choose your own pitiful platitude of the day.
   But their prattlings have the hollow ring of someone in the denial stage of a terminal
disease. What they can't seem to get their arms around is the fact that there are reasons
why they're in the pickle they're in. Following are the inconvenient truths they must face.
   First, the arguments that Obama hasn't had enough time and that the economic mess
is all Bush's fault are (a) untrue, and (b) convincing almost no one. Democrats have
controlled congress and thus the purse strings since 1996. While Bush should be
blamed for going along with their foolish spending, it must be remembered that he
couldn't spend it unless they authorized it and if they decided to authorize it he didn't
have the votes to stop them if he had wanted to. The Bush error is that he focused on
military adventurism and foreign policy when he should have been focused on the
economy. But each time he tried to stave off disaster, congress said "no" (e.g., his
plea to reform Freddi Mac and Fannie Mae). Democrats have to take at least equal
responsibility for the economic crisis. And the economy has continued to worsen
under Obama. He spent more on the Porkulus package than he and Bush together
did on the Iraq war. Good luck selling the contrary to voters who are now fully
awakened and interested.
   Second, Barack Obama lied to the American people, didn't lay many of his true
cards on the table and then preceded to thuggishly implement his agenda over their
expressed objections. Do you suppose he would have been elected had he said, "By
hope and change I mean bigger government, takeovers of private businesses and
taxes on everything from diabetic supplies and wheel chairs to soda pop?" Or what
if he had said, "I want America to be more like Europe. I think Marx and Lenin had
something, and I'd like us to explore the wonderful world of socialism together?"
The upshot is that a lot of voters are angry just because they think they've been sold
a bill of goods, and others are angry because they think Marxist socialism and the
United States Constitution are irreconcilable. People don't like what's happening to
the country under Obama, and they have no other effective way to express that
than to vote out legislators who have supported his dishonest agenda.  
   Third, people are growing increasingly nervous about an immigrant population
who bring with them poverty, disease, ignorance, extremism and violence, along
with the many good things immigrants have always brought to America. It is the
balance that has people concerned, and when they see a president whose priority
seems to be to defend immigrants, legal or not, at the expense of Americans, there
is something strangely discordant about it. The only "policy" Americans see in
play is one which they do not believe is to their benefit.
   Finally, no one likes to be talked down to, and voters least of all. The Washington
political class, under Obama, has made a point of lampooning average Americans
as stupid rubes who simply can't understand Obama because he's so much smarter
than they are. This is interesting because however smart Obama and the Democrats
are, they don't seem to be smart enough to figure out a way to communicate with
and convince Americans of their point of view. And however dumb the rest of us
may be, we knew, and said all along that there was no way to insure thirty-one
million uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit, meaninng we were
right all along and the Brilliant One and his stooges were wrong (or dishonest,
take your pick), There's an old bumper sticker that says, "My FFA kid beat the
%$#@* out of your honor student." I think that was for the 2010 Democrats.
   The inconvenient truth is that if, in your capacity as an elected official, you abuse
America, eventually America will return the favor. With all the fumbling, bungling and
muddling of this amateurish administration, the words, "I'm sorry," have yet to be
uttered. If they aren't sorry now, they soon will be.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OBAMA TO FINALLY FIX THE ECONOMY

 
   Sixty days before mid-terms, Barack Obama sees his party falling apart around him.
Now he has turned to the economy, which was always his highest priority right behind
passing healthcare reform, closing Guantanamo Bay, taking over automakers, banks
and insurance companies, passing financial reform, declaring job-killing drilling
moratoriums, bashing George W. Bush and Republicans and suing Arizona. Now that
he knows it's put up or shut up on the economy, he has his advisors working round
the clock to come up with ideas that will jumpstart the economy before November
without increasing the deficit. Actually, they have come up with some pretty
intriguing ideas. Following are a few of them.
   Harvard economist and top Obama economic advisor Larry Summers decided that\
 the administration could dent the deficit and make themselves look good by taking
moonlight jobs and turnng the proceeds over to the treasury. He took a job as senior
consultant for McDonald's restaurants, and after putting on his Sunday thinking cap,
recommended two additions to the menu. First came the Limburger Burger. It looked
appetizing, but it stank to high heaven. So Summers further counseled passing out
plastic clothes pins with each order to be put on the noses of buyers. His second idea
was called the Giant Porkulus, which consisted of greasy pork sausage wrapped in a
cheesy crust and deep fried in lard -- a heart-attack-on-a-plate. As a result Mickey D's
had to take down their "One BIllion Sold" sign and change it to "Eleven Sold." When
they terminated Summers they told him it was because his recommendations smelled
bad and were not saleable to the public. Summers confessed that some at the White
House had made the same complaint.
   The most self-sacrificing of the innovations was the one made by Christina Romer,
who struck a deal with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to chip in a cool million toward
the deficit for every pound she lost up to 300 lbs. But I guess the Weight Watchers
gig didn't go so well, because she resigned.
   Not to be outdone, Tim Geithner set out to establish a professional dodgeball league.
(He figured his experience as a tax dodger qualified him). He hired fellow tax dodger
Charlie Rangel as Commissioner. The objective of the game was to nail everybody
with something, but hit white rich people hardest and oftenest for bonus points. He
created a special position for Maxine Waters to be sure that whitey got hit and that
black people never did. The league is scheduled to kick-off opposite the NFL this
month, and has sold six season tickets.
   A whole series of special exhibition fund raisers was also set up, with Rahm
Emmanuel squaring off against the New Black Panthers' King Shabazz in a cursing
and obscene language contest, VP Joe Biden and NAACP head Ben Jealous
competing to prove which could stick both feet farthest into his mouth, Keith
Olbemann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz blindfolded (as usual) trying to "pin
the tail on Glenn Beck" and William Brennan spending a long weekend alone with
a dozen jihadis who are, after all, just nice religious boys.
   Harry Reid also came up with his first ever good idea. He proposed that every
New Yorker opposed to the building of the ground zero mosque should pay the
government a fee of $250 each in order to secure its intervention. Millions were
raised, but in a closed door midnight meeting Obama promised the unions 80%
of the proceeds to compensate them for lost construction contracts.
   Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis hatched the most ingenius idea. She proposed
payment of a one-million-dollar bounty to every illegal alien worker who would
come forward and accuse an employer of not paying a living wage. She knew it
would work since the Obama administration has decided to deport only second-
offender axe murderers. Then, and here's the genius, she proposed imposing a
90% windfall tax on the illegals, who, upon receiving payment, would have to
give $900,000 back in taxes, thereby getting to keep $100,000, and leaving the
government the rest of its own money to apply toward the deficit. The only
problem is that the government is so broke it couldn't come up with $100K per
illegal, so the plan is on indefinite hold pending China's credit check of the U.S.
   One other scheme floated was that of a national lottery, with the winner to
get five minutes alone with Obama's long-form birth certificate. For some reason
Obama himself vetoed that one.
   Now these may sound a bit far-fetched to you. But how much worse could
they work than what these clowns have already done to butcher the economy? I
can just hear it now, as the lame duck congress prepares to vote on a stimulus
that they don't dare call a "stimulus," and Nancy Pelosi gets up in the House
chamber with that water-melon-eating grin and shrills, "we have to pass it so
we can see what's in it."
   Right now we can choose to either laugh or cry about the economy. In November
we can change it. Don't even think about staying home!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY BECK "GETS" AMERICA AND DEMS DON'T

 
   Most amazing about Glenn Beck's D.C. rally is the vitriol of liberal and mainstream
media attacks before, during and after it. Anything provoking so strong a visceral
reaction must have touched a nerve -- and Beck did. When libs and the BSM saw
that massive crowd turning out for the event, and enjoying it, they were scared
spitless. It was another sign that the sleeping giant, what some have called the "silent
majority," has awakened and is about to break their silence with a roar that will
echo from coast to coast.
   One of the most hate-filled attacks was launched by liberal scribe Bill Press, who
lamented that talk of God and politics have no place at the Lincoln Memorial. That
is an interesting observation in light of the fact that Lincoln constantly laced his
political speeches with references to God, as did Martin Luther King, Jr. when he
spoke in the same place where Beck stood. So was it somehow appropriate for
King, but not for Beck? Hmmm.
   But, as usual, the stated reason for the liberal mugging was not the actual reason.
The left has been working for years to crowd all references to God, faith and
religion out of public life, figuring out-of-sight, out-of-mind. And they've done a
pretty good job of it. But  the America in which a majority still claims belief in God
never liked that. They grudgingly tolerated most of it, but they never liked it. So
by dredging God up again, Beck has opened the Pandora's Box liberals thought they
had firmly nailed shut. And it scares them to death!
   Liberalism is a secular humanist movement. It's claim is that morality, which they
have re-named "social justice," has man as its ultimate source of authority. So as
man proceeds down the imaginary humanist utopian path to perfection, he will
become more moral and "justice" will prevail. And someday pigs might fly!
   In the real world, those seeking justice must be able to cite an authority beyond
themselves, otherwise they become the sole arbiters of what is just. When others
perceive that what is being advertised as "justice" is, in fact, codified self-interest
with no higher authority behind it, wars occur. That's why Hitler wasn't allowed
to decide where Germany's borders ended, Tojo was prohibited from extending
the Japanese empire and Saddam Hussein didn't get to decide where Iraq's
borders stopped and Kuwait's began. When one's claim of what is "just" (read
what ought to be) is questioned, he/she simply must be able to point to something
outside and above himself/herself. Otherwise, there is no distinction between
justice and what I want.
   That's where the law comes in, and its why America is currently involved in a
battle over the Constitution, with liberals claiming it is a "living document" that
should be constantly adapted to fit the situation, while conservatives say that there
are constitutional principles that may not be tinkered with on the basis of modern
whimsy. The courts are about the fact that to make a claim, one has to find a
source of authority outside himself/herself. That is the law, and it is the court's job
to weigh all claims against the requirement of the law and determine what justice
is. The founders based constitutional law on certain "inalienable rights" with which
they believed men had been endowed by their Creator.
   So when Beck argues that in reverting to its traditional values America needs to
rediscover God, he is striking at the very heart of modern liberal secular humanism.
God is that "authority outside ourselves" upon which the founding fathers relied and
that carried America through crises both internal and external for generations. If
Americans re-open that box, liberal secular humanism, the religion of the Democratic
party is doomed, and with it their self-righteous claim to moral authority based on
their own say so.
   It is impossible to carve a God-sized hole out of American history and culture
without proffering something to fill it. Just as Aaron fashioned the golden calf 
in God' stead for the ancient Hebrews, liberal secular humanism has substituted
something false in God's place. It is called "liberation theology," and it is the notion
that man can never make peace with God on his own, but can only find it as social
injustices are made right and the collective finds equality and harmony. This notion
would, of course, shock Saint Paul, Saint Augustine, Saint Francis of Assisi, Martin
Luther and many other notables in Christian history who found God in the solitude
of introspection, meditation and self-examination. But it is nonetheless the siren
song of liberalism, and its appeal is that it takes the individual off the hook, something
God never intended. Liberation theology says "let us redistribute your wealth to
those who are in need," while the Bible teaches that individual Christians have an
obligation to charity. Liberation theology says "equality of race, class and sex equals
salvation," while traditional Christianity holds that individual forgiveness through faith
and repentance constitutes salvation. Ironically, the liberationists have assumed the
posture of the medieval catholic church, intoning "outside the collective there is no
salvation." Like Martin Luther, traditional Christianity teaches that salvation is not
of human action, but by God's grace alone, and is accessed through the individual's
personal faith. Liberation theology is nothing but Marxism disguised as religion.
   So when Beck appeals to Americans to re-dial God, it scares the devil out of the
left. It threatens their secular, humanist, hedonist, socialist railroad train, and holds
them accountable to the electorate instead of some ivory tower blueprint for what
they have decided is "social justice." The bottom line is that if enough Americans
get serious about rediscovering where they came from, the party is over for the
liberal left. When Bill Press, and Keith Olbermann and Nancy Pelosi and Harry
Reid and Barack Obama have nightmares, they don't see goblins, werewolves and
vampires. They see Glenn Beck standing at the Lincoln Memorial talking to over
a hundred thousand people about what America once was. And they are afraid!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

BEWARE THE RUSE OF OCTOBER

 
   Mid-term elections are on the near horizon and Democrats, polling behind in race
after race are growing increasingly desperate. President Barack Obama, saddled with
abysmal ratings of his own and stout majority rejection of his far left agenda, has thus
far proven unable to help. When explaining the difference between today and the
Republican blow-out in 1994, Obama smugly said the difference is that "they've got
me." In this case his arrogance is exceeded only by his error.
   But it is far too early to count Obama or the Democrats out. Obama has an ace up
his sleeve, and when the time is right, he will play it. With the end of 2010 comes the
corollary end to the Bush tax cuts. Democrats have been faunching and posturing
about how they will not allow renewal of the cuts, not, at least, for those making over
$250,000 annually, and preferably not for anyone. The prolonged recession, high
unemployment and a vanishing GDP have given them pause, and caused a debate
within the party about the wisdom of raising taxes just now. That reluctance is
winning them no friends among tax-paying voters who want the cuts extended.
   Obama will likely delay through September to see (a) if Dems are able to regain
any electoral traction, and (b) whether there is any meaningful sign of economic
recovery on the horizon. Then he will reinstate the Bush cuts. He will either do an
end run on congress and do it by executive fiat, in which case he will take the credit
in hopes it will trickle down to congressmen and senators who are in trouble, or he
will greenlight Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to do it, thereby providing cover from
the tax and spend trademark that is sinking them. One way or the other, he WILL do
it. Take that to the bank!
   Why swallow such a bitter pill? The obvious reason is that he might be able to save
a congressional seat or two by doing it. Another reason is that it costs him nothing
to do it. If Republicans sweep into power they are going to do it anyway, so why
wait and let them take the credit? If it doesn't help, one can always blame them later.
If the Dems hold on, raising taxes during a recession can only hurt their image leading
up to 2012, so they're likely going to have to do it anyway themselves. What will
hurt Obama worse is not having the additional revenue the expiration of Bush tax
cuts would have given him for his entitlement programs. But if Republicans either
win or significantly narrow the power gap, he isn't going to get those either. It's a
no lose or, more properly, admit-you're-beaten gambit.
   It is also a brazen ruse. Will a temporary resuscitation of the Bush cuts really
convince anyone that Obama is not the biggest spendthift ever to sit in the Oval office?
Will it make his hated government takeovers and "big brother" government any more
loved? Will it signal his willingness to acquiesce in the repeal of Obamacare, or that
he will relent on cap-and-tax or union power grabs? Only the truly feeble minded will
believe it.
   But it is his last card, and Republicans should be preparing their response now for
when he plays it. Little praise is deserved for doing what is clearly the right thing.
Where was Obama on the issue before it became clear that his party would be
slaughtered in the elections? What was he thinking when he broke his promise not
to raise taxes on the middle class? Where was his brain when he armtwisted and
bribed through a third great entitlement when the U.S. already can't pay for the
two it has? No! This is neither a gesture of beneficence and conservation, nor an
awakening. It is an act of political desperation, and should be perceived and
rewarded as such.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE LEFT GIVES UP ON AMERICA

 
   President Barack Obama's expressed intent to "fundamentally transform" America,
along with the enthusiastic progressive embrace of his early agenda demonstrates
quite clearly that the left has given up on the nation. It is noteworthy that Obama did
not say "fundamentally improve" America, which all could have supported. But, in
his view, the only road to improvement is "transformation" which equates to radical
change.
   Longtime Cadillac owners don't switch lightly to Volkswagens. They do so because
they have concluded that their old luxurious gaz guzzlers can't cut the mustard in the
world of today. That's radical change. That's transformation, Obama style. And how
has that transformation played out? Obama has shown himself willing to bypass
congress, thumb his nose at the courts, govern by executive order, exceed the
approved budget and reject the expressed opinions of the majority of Americans. He
has embarked on a relentless, ruthless and unprecedented statist takeover that has
reached out to swallow up automakers, banks, insurance companies, healthcare
providers and the petroleum industry. He has made it abundantly clear by his actions
that, if left unchecked, he will "transform" America into a eurosocialist lookalike.
Have he and his party given up on America?
   The first affirmative clue is the limitation being placed on traditional American
freedoms. Oppressive taxation and regulation under Obama make it much harder to
start and operate a successful new business. The same factors make it equally
impossible for existing business to be profitable. The freedoms that allowed the
market to determine profitability and unprofitability have simply evaporated in a
cloud of regulations, red tape, government bureaucracy and new taxes. According
to Obama, there comes a time "when you have made enough money," and he has
made it clear that he and his party will be the deciders of when that time has been
reached. Forgetting what made America the greatest industrial and business complex
in the world, those on the left continually hurl invective and scorn at those they deem
"capitalists" and "profiteers." Apparently in their "transformed" America, there will
be room for neither.
   Another clue is their derisive attitude toward middle class white Americans. They
argue that left to their own devices, the majority will never be just. Therefore, the
government must define what justice is, and take upon itself the responsibility of
meting it out. In practice this means making it harder for whites to get jobs so that
it will be easier for people of color, taking from those they deem to have "made
enough" and giving it to those they deem not to have "enough," rigging electoral
districts to ensure permanent minority representation and crying discrimination,
racism and fascism any time their oppression is challenged.
   The next indicator is policy drift. Note how the left jammed through its unpopular
healthcare reform without a single opposition vote and against the will of a clear
majority of Americans who even now want the act repealed. Then see how much
that law resembles the United Kingdom's failed healthcare system that routinely
allows people to die by delaying or denying treatment. And note who Obama placed
in charge of Medicare and Medicaid. Why, it's Donald Berwick, who has publicly
proclaimed his slobbering love affair with the British healthcare sham. The United
Kingdom inarguably practices socialized medicine. The new U.S. law administered
by nimrod socialist Berwick is a socialist policy, making the U.S. more like Britain,
and more socialistic. The slide in that direction in security, economics, diplomacy and
immigration is well underway. The left doesn't like America as it is. Obama doesn't
want to improve the country -- he wants to "fundamentally transform" it into a
big-government, debt-addled socialist bureaucracy.
   Many who voted for Obama in 2008 did not sign on for this. They understood
Obama's deceptive promise of change to simply signify improvement, not
replacement of the American way of life. If you don't believe that's how they feel,
just look at his ratings which are running -14 to -19 unfavorable, and the polls
which reflect his breathtaking loss of support among Independents. Americans
want America improved, and most believe it possible to do that without making it
a carbon copy of a Europe that do not much like.
   Liberals, Obama included, cannot love an America they cannot "fundamentally
transform" after their own socialist leanings. To effect the change they want, they
have assumed an attitude of omniscience, that they alone know best. Then they
have sought to back it up with political omnipotence, "since we're in charge we
can do whatever we want, the constitution, the congress and the will of the people
be damned."
   Liberals go berserk when you challenge their patriotism. That's because they've
lost sight of what it means to be a patriot. Dictionaries variously define a patriot as
"a person who vigorously supports his country and its way of life," or "a person
who loves, supports and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.
Those on the left are like the fellow who tells the old spinster that he will love and
marry her only if she has a complete makeover, including cosmetic surgery. They
don't love the America we have known, nor its way of life. They are fixated only
upon remaking it after their own slanted vision, redefining justice, ownership and
personal freedom by their own leftist dictionary and evolving some monstrous
socialistic Frankenstein of a nation. That may be something, but it's not America.
The bad news for them is that they are sailing to the left against the prevaling wind.
We'll see if it's enough to cast the America haters' adrift. One can only hope.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

COPING IN THE AGE OF OBAMANOMICS

 
   This is a hard piece to write, because it entails dream-smashing. But a national state
of depression has set in over the condition of the nation's economy under President
Obama, and it's time to face the unpleasant truth and tell it like it is. So here goes.
   Unemployment stands at 9.5%, so we're told. But if one factors in those who have
given up even looking for work and those who have taken part-time jobs because that's
all they could get, that number at least doubles. Obama himself estimates the duration
of a recession economy to be at least four more years. Many economists think it will
take longer to rebuild employment to pre-recession levels, and that only if things fall
just right. Unemployment benefits are running out for many, and will continue to do
so for many more. Congress can't keep renewing them even if it had the will. The
country's darn near broke. So you're an unemployed adult whose benefits will soon
expire. What can you do?
   You should have already tightened your belt. You and your family may have to
learn to live without smart phones, four-dollar lattes, IPods, big-screen color TV
with cable and dinner out twice a week. You may have to repair the old jalopy
yet one more time, or even break out the bicycle. You might be better letting the
house go and moving into an apartment. You have to come to grips with the fact
that things have changed dramatically and your lifestyle must change with it.
   Another possibility is cost-sharing with friends, neighbors or extended family,
including group meals or even communal housing. The cruise and the trip to Disney
World will have to be replaced by a camp out at the lake. The kids may have to sub
out cheap clothing for "styles" when school starts. It sucks, no doubt about it. But
it's reality. Using food stanps for the first time seems humiliating to some.
   Now, about your "professional" future. The cushy middle management jobs are on
the endangered species list. If you're a real whiz with the track record and resume
prove it, and if you're willing to take a juicy pay cut, you might still be lucky enough
to land one of them. But if you're a journeyman plodder without a lot of transferable
skills, get used to the fact that while pizza and newspaper delivery, burger-flipping,
seasonal agricultural work, lawn-mowing and landscaping aren't exactly prize plums,
they beat the heck out of starving. You may be too good to consider doing such scut
work, but are you too good to eat?
   While in times gone by, accepting a demotion or a major pay cut were career suicide,
today, today they may be career life rafts. Even union people have to be careful, in
such a climate. about protesting too loudly about changes in work rules or making
exhorbitant salary and benefit demands. Because jobs that grow too expensive will
simply be eliminated, and there's nothing the union can do about that.
   All of this is simply to say, as graphically as possible, that we're all living through
a time we thought and hoped we'd never see. It's a time that's going to require of many
of us sacrifices we never though we'd be called on to make, doing jobs we said we'd
never do, and doing without things we once earned. It's time to take honest stock of
our rescources, our capacities, our priorities and our obligations.
   We are here because government presumed to solve our problems when it couldn't
solve its own. Government has been on an ever-escalating ten-year binge, and we're
the ones getting hit with the hangover. But we need not suffer alone, or in silence.
We have every right to demand that if we eat bread and water, the government does
also (light on the bread). We have the right to account for every last penny of tax-
payer money, for every failed program, dime lost to fraud and corruption and subtle
double-standard for the "political class." The original American Revolution was fought
because of gross inequity and a government that had become an all-invasive and
ever-more-intrusive burden. The Declaration of Independence holds that when such
government no longer acts within "the consent of the governed," citizens have the
duty to "throw it off" and replace it with one that will. Think on these things.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A CONGRESSIONAL PRIMER

 
   So you're running for congress and enjoying a double-digit lead in the polls. While
it's a bit too early to count your chickens, it is not premature to begin thinking about
how you will comport yourself once inside the beltway, should voters honor you as
their elected representative. Following is some advice designed to shield you from
some of the contempt in which the current congress is held by Americans.
   Remember who you work for. It isn't the party bosses, lobbyists, labor unions
or even the president. None of them elected you. The voters back home did, and
they can un-elect you just as fast if you forget that the seat to which you've been
elevated is theirs, not yours. The bills you sponsor and the votes you cast must
honor the priorities of your constituents first if you want to stay in Washington and
be well regarded by folks back home.
   Think lots, speak little. From the time you arrive in Washington you will be
surrounded by members of the press corps seeking juicy quotes. Many a promisng
political career has been undone at the outset by uninformed, imprudent or
insensitive gaffes made by those who talked first and thought later. Reporters don't
care one whit about you OR your constituents. They don't even care about what's
true. All they're looking for is a juicy story. It will be in your interest to abide by the
old maxim that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open
your mouth and remove all doubt. It is best to be regarded as the most prudent
and thoughful congressman or woman, than the most quotable. Speak only when
you have something really important to say, and in circumstances and venues
over which you have some control. If you are misunderstood or misquoted, demand
immediate correction and/or retraction. People will notice.
   Never stop listening. The capitol is littered with the symbolic political tombstones
of those who, once in office, turned a deaf ear to constituents, their priorities and
concerns. You will need to set up mechanisms to keep tabs on thoughts of those who
voted for you, or might in the future vote for you, both while you're in Washington and
back home. Hire competent, sensitive staff, and make sure they understand that getting
constant and accurate feedback from constituents is your highest priority and that if
they ignore, misconstrue, misrepresent or disrespect that in any way, they are out.
   Make lots of friends, and watch your back. If that sounds conflicted it is because
political alliances are a different breed of cat. They are, for the most part, marriages
of convenience. You cannot assume that a colleague who supported you on one issue
won't turn against you on another. Every colleague has his or her own agenda, driven
by what their constituents want, their own party loyalty or lack thereof and their own
indebtedness to various lobbies and campaign donors. Don't assume that any of those
are necessarily in synch with yours. Seeking allies who share regional interests,
common problems and common values is safest. But betraying constituent interests
for any fleeting alliance is the unforgiveable political sin, as many are finding out to
their dismay this election season.
   Balance principle with pragmatism. You will arive in Washington wanting to fix
what's broken and change the world all at once. You can't. At least not alone, and not
immediately. Understand that while compromise is the nature of politics, it must be
contained to process and fine detail, never principle. Politicians who compromise
the principles on which they campaigned quickly become like hookers who were only
going to "do it this one time." Before long there is no real question about what they
are, just about what they charge. When your actions, words and votes no longer
reflect what you promised in your campaign, voters back home will lose track of who
you are. When that happens it's no longer a matter of whether you're finished, but
when. If, in light of realities on the ground in Washington, you need to backtrack on
a promise or an issue, be honest enough to tell your constituency about the change
in your thinking, and the reasons behind it. They trusted you. Now it's time for you
to trust them. If you can't get everything they want or need right now, and have to
settle for something less, tell them why you settled and what your plans are for
moving the discussion forward. They know you can't work miracles. But they have
a right to your honest best effort.
   Choose to be a leader. You were elected because you have certain areas of
expertise or strength, and someone thought you had good ideas. Don't sit on them
once you get to Washington, a place starved for change and innovation. Get them
out there in a clear, understandable, forceful manner. Be prepared for others to
try to shoot them down, whether for political or substantive reasons. But that's a
part of what you bargained for when you ran for office. Be sure of your ground
and stick to your guns. God hates a coward, and so do voters. Only those who
take defensible ground and persevere through the hail of criticism emerge as true
leaders. You weren't elected to follow the herd. So don't.
   Keep it clean. Little corruptions or compromises on principle, careless over-
sights and a sense of entitlement can easily make you another Trafficante, Rangel,
Rostenkowski, Cunningham, Jefferson or Maxine Waters. Election is an invitation
to corruption and disgrace. If you want a distinguished legislative career and not one 
that ends in disillusionment and disgrace, you  need to take care of business. Pay
your taxes, in full and on time. Don't take gifts from lobbyists, including trips, meals
or other "perqs." Beware of friends seeking favors. One government employee told
me that her boss's advice was not to be associated with anything or anyone you
wouldn't be comfortable being seen with on tomorrow's front page. That's good advice.
When constituents believe you are using elected office for personal gain, you are in
deep, deep trouble. You're  the only one who can control the perception, and you do
it by keeping the reality out of the gutter.
   Know when enough is enough. See your election as a rare and time-limted
opportunity. not a lifetime career. Congress may never have the discipline to
self-impose term limits. But individual congressmen who have become too deeply
enmeshed in the machine, too jaded to care, too out-of-touch with what's really
going on back home and bone weary of the political grind can always choose to
use their political experience as a springboard to what's next rather than an early
retirement home for those having lost their effectiveness, passion and purpose.
Honest and ongoing self-evaluation and a rejection of the "once in congress, always
in congress" myth is not just a place to end. It's an assumption with which to begin.
   If you heed advice like the forgoing, who knows? You may just change the world.
And you may prove the best friend your state and district's voters ever had. That's
the truest honor of politics!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT TO DO ABOUT WIKILEAKS

 
   WikiLeaks, whose treacherous capture and release of top secret files regarding the
Iraq and Afghan wars has placed countless lives in danger and made a mockery of
American national security is set to release another 15,000 documents via the
internet which, Pentagon sources say, will further jeopardize U.S. and allied lives.
WikiLeaks founder and CEO Julian Assange says the gambit is "worth the risks."
How did this travesty happen, and what can be done about WikiLeaks?
   WikiLeaks' reason for being is to uncover and expose government and corporate
secrets that can be damaging to those holding them when they become public. Based
on the old (false) journalistic saw that "everybody has a right no know everything,"
the organization casts itself as doing the public a service. So, of course, do prostitutes
and drug dealers. Consider WikiLeaks as one of the breed. There is an open war
between government and the so-called "fourth estate" of journalism. The game is that
while there may be legitimate reasons for keeping certain military and national
security "secrets," all bets are off once those "secrets" have been uncovered by some
enterprising, nosy, bribe-offering reporter, or been divulged by some agenda-pushing,
glory seeking rogue politician. Many such have been spared punishment, and even
allowed to go free by liberal courts which tend to acknowledge the "sanctity of
source" except in the most extreme cases. "Leakers," on the other hand, are often
punished with prison terms when caught.
   But what happens when a foreign-based organization like WikiLeaks obtains top
secret intelligence files and broadcasts them to all the world, including America's
enemies. Something certainly should. But what?
   First and foremost, the leaker should be publicly exposed and harshly punished
as an example to other would-be leakers. Pfc. Bradley Manning languishes today
in a prison stockade, awaiting arraignment and trial for divulging classified national
security information to WikiLeaks. His is a bald-faced act of treason -- him being
a soldier under arms having betrayed comrades in the field. If found guilty, Pfc.
Manning should face a firing squad. That's what happens to craven traitors
during time of war. The message will be stark and unmistakable. Leak and die!
   Second, the USA should unleash its estimable international power to muzzle
WikiLeaks, including diplomatic and, if necessary, economic pressure on governments
abetting and protecting WikiLeaks, Twitter, through which some WikiLeaks matter
is disclosed, and others who are a party to this betrayal. If China can ban Google,
why can't America and its allies ban WikiLeaks? How much of its international
capital this administration is prepared to spend in muzzling WikiLeaks will reveal
much about their true stance on national security.
   WikiLeaks should be black-balled financially by the U.S. and every NATO country.
Australia has already done this. Lets find out how well they do with their assets
frozen or seized. Assets located and frozen should be held in a victims' compensation
pool and divided among those killed, injured or displaced by WikiLeaks damaging
and irresponsible diclosures.
   The CIA and every other off-the-books U.S. intelligence agency should be unleashed
to steal or destroy documents that WikeLeaks has unlawfully obtained. They broke
the law, why shoud our operatives have to abide by it in dealing with them? Also, if
government information systems can be repeatedly hacked and infested with nasty
viruses, what about WikiLeaks' systems? The Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI and the
NSA employ an army of master hackers for just such a purpose. What if they were
all to be turned loose simultaneously on WikiLeaks, no holds barred? This is war!
   Finally, smug and smart-mouthed Aussie Julian Assange, who is the face and the
voice of WikiLeaks, is not invulnerable. People who have caused less damage to 
powers much less awesome than the U.S. have turned up at the bottom of rivers or
gone suddenly missing. Assange has declared war on the U.S. Maybe it's time he
found out just what war entails. In wars people die and suffer personal loss. Assange's
public remarks indicate that he doesn't care. Maybe we should make him care.
   At bottom, the point is this. Either stealing, divulging and publishing classified
information is a crime or it's not. There can be no such thing as an act which is a
crime for you and me, but not for someone posing as a so-called "journalist." If a
crime has been committed, then the perpetrator (Manning) and those who abetted
him (WikiLeaks) should be brought to justice and forced to pay for their crimes.
The niceties of international convention, e.g., it's a crime here but not there, should
in no way limit America's response. We are the aggrieved party and have a right
to just recompense. It's time for Julian Assange and his amoral gossip-mongers to
be VERY afraid. Payback can be a . . . well, you know.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DEATH OF THE DREAM?

 
   Ever since the original colonists who became the nation's founders, Americans have
been driven by a dream. The vision was that hard work, plus ingenuity, plus free
opportunity could lead to bettering oneself, getting ahead. Today, the dream which
has driven the nation and so many individual Americans to greatness is on life
support, slowly bleeding out while entangled in the menacing tentacles of socialist
"reform."
   I recently spoke with a young man just four years out of college who had a
brilliant idea for starting an innovative new business. He told me, with despair in
his eyes, that upon researching costs associated with the venture, he conluded that
due to government regulation, mandates, including the new health insurance one,
and the virtual absence of start-up lending, he was abandoning his dream and
staying in his current unchallenging and advancement-limited position. That's not
principally a difference between his generation and mine, but rather one of the
economic opportunities of my young life and the stark and discouraging realities
of his.
   For years, bleeding heart left-wing politicians, sniveling ivory tower academics
and neo-comunist community organizers have been whining about "fiscal inequity"
and the need to redistribute America's wealth. Never mind that such wealth was
accumulated through hard work, winning innovation and building "a better mouse-
trap." When a Marxist, arrogant, flim-flam artist named Barack Obama flummoxed
American voters into electing him president, it was the left's cue to "cry havoc and
let slip the dogs of war," against the bourgeoisie. In other words, Obama has helped
them stop talking about confiscatory government and start practicing it.
   If you're having trouble getting ahead in America today it's because under Democrat
socialism no one is supposed to BE ahead of anyone else. By their standards the
crackhead serial mom, the illegal alien busboy and the chronically unemployed are
entitled to share EQUALLY in the wealth of those who worked hard and long for
what they have. What they call "wealth redistribution" is what used to be called
"stealing."
   All of this proves a huge disincentive for would be entrepreneurs like my young
friend, for savers and investors, for lending institutions and for charitable givers.
Why should I give more to charity when my government is already giving a huge
portion of what I have to charity cases? So why aren't employers hiring, why are
jobless claims soaring, why have many just given up looking for work, why is the
GDP stagnant, the recession sputtering and the trade deficit growing? It's because
under Democrat/Obama socialism there is little motivation and even less opportunity.
   Socialist encroachment of this kind ends in one of two ways. Either it morphs
into outright communism, which Obama idol Saul Alinsky referred to as "heaven,"
or it provokes revolution in which the socialists are deposed and replaced with an
alternative order. There are dangers in both. Socialism tends to become communism
in order to stifle the very possibility of revolution. Motivated people (like Americans)
will not long sit still for confiscatory taxation, massive wealth redistribution and the
absence of hope for a better future. The only way to stifle such revolutionary
sentiment is to concentrate power in government, deprive people of control over
their own lives and thus of personal power. If spontaneous social combustion
eventuates in revolution, there is danger of a backlash so severe that it results in
equally repressive fascism.
   The genius of America has been that it always offered an alternative to socialism,
communism and fascism. The crux of that opportunity was giving the people a
genuine and ongoing say in government, public policy and national direction, and
providing individuals the unfettered opportunity to forge their own destiny, for
better or for worse. In such "free play," some who lack skills and motivation, or
who face either perceived or real handicap may not flourish. It is right for govern-
ment, WITH the consent of the governed, to assist such people not in wallowing
in their failure but in achieving realistic success. But in America no one is owed
a living -- or, at least, that used to be the case.
   The evil of socialism is that it seeks to change that genius, and in so doing it
is like the little boy who, in his enthusiasm after having caught a young bird,
crushes it into lifelessness. If socialism flourishes in America, the "American
Dream" will surely die. But there is still time to save our dream. When we vote,
we must be smart enough to look beyond the pretty face, the legislative seniority
and the glib tongue. We must look at the "reality on the ground." What is the
state of the nation, of my state and my community under this person's watch?
How has he or she voted on matters affecting the economy, jobs, the deficit and
national debt, and how, then, should I vote? In a socialist state, the power of the
ballot box is routinely diluted and manipulated. Under communism it is abrogated
altogether. How far do we let it go before saying "enough?" 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

AN INCONVENIENT SURPRISE

 
   Liberal Democrats, smarting under references to them as "the professional left" by
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, are bleating for him to resign. The always
outspoken and usually obnxious Alan Grayson (D-FL) even referred to Gibbs as a
"bozo." And if that's not the really ugly pot calling the kettle black then there never
was one, given that Grayson may be the stupidest, rudest, most miserable excuse for
a man ever to serve in congress. (Apologies to Pete Stark, D-CA, who will have to
move over until Grayson loses his race for re-election).
   Irked by the left's constant drumbeat of criticism against Obama for not moving far
enough to the left, Gibbs lashed out by suggesting that they would not be satisfied
until we had Canadian healthcare and destroyed the Pentagon, neither of which, he
added, is going to happen. This rather public exposure of the rift in leftist ranks
could not come at a worse time for Democrats who are fighting an uphill battle for
their political lives in the rapidly approaching 2010 mid-term elections.
   Also exposed is the gaping chasm between the liberal left and mainstream Americans
who are strongly of the opinion that Obama has already gone way too far and needs
reining in. The two sticking points with the leftists are that the "public option" did not
make it into the healthcare reform bill in spite of the Democratic supermajority in
congress, and that the war in Afghanistan, which they bitterly oppose, is dragging on
with neither resolution nor end in sight. They reflect not the slightest interest in
bipartisanship or what the American people think, nor are they willing to cut their
own president some slack in governing a bitterly divided nation. Like spoiled, pubescent
children they want it all and they want it now. They are throwing a temper tantrum.
   Such childish and partisan outbursts will most certainly not get them what they want
now, nor will the future congress, certain to have more Republicans, be able to deliver
it for them. Like the deranged artist who burns all his paintings because the perfect
canvas has eluded him, these left wingnuts seem prepared to burn down their whole
party just to express their outrage. What maturity.
   But there is something important in Gibbs' frustrated statement. What the freaks on
the left wanted was a single payer healthcare system and to emasculate the nation's
defense structure. If you buy into the core Democratic value system, that is precisely
what you're buying into. But Barack Obama has been forced to venture out of the
ivory tower of liberalism just enough to know that he can't possibly get what they
want from a congress responsible to the voters not, that is, unless he wants to be
a one-termer or, worse, impeached.
   The lefties can't seem to remember that they live in America, not Europe, and
that the rest of us live here instead of over there because we like it here better.
Maybe they should think about moving to countries where taxation is out-of-control,
unemployment is the norm, the economy is cratering and the government teeters on
the edge of the bankruptcy abyss. Policies like the ones they advocate helped bring
about such deplorable situations, and the rest of us will pass on that, thank you very
much.
   What remains in question is how far the radicals are willing to go in savaging their
own party's president. But it doesn't take a Robert Gibbs to tell them that there timing
really sucks.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »