Mark Twain generally gets credit for, "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." Predating that piece of century-plus old wisdom by another century or so, we have Thomas Jefferson's observation that, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
This got me thinking about the joy of living the uninformed life.
My wife followed the twists and turns of our recent, lamented, and lamentable electoral process with a devotion and passion not seen since the days of Joan of Arc. She had electoral maps, polls, and pundits galore queued up on her computer, IPad, IPhone, and DVR. She and I read everything we could about the election, debated everybody we knew, and screamed advice for Romney at the TV set. All to no avail. The result was the result. As my rather blunt-speaking Spanish wife noted, "The morons got what they wanted."
Temporarily in California, I run into Obama voters galore, and occasionally ask them, especially the wealthy ones, why they voted for Obama. The answers prove very mixed. They don't really know why, except, well, he is black, and against the "war on women," etc. They have no remedies for the imploding economy or the collapsing federal government. They only vaguely know of Benghazi, and most haven't heard of "Fast and Furious." They already complain about high taxes--and the election saw yet another state income tax raise passed by voters here--but don't seem very aware of what's bearing down on them in the next few months.
They, in other words, live like H.G. Wells' Eloi, wealthy, happy, healthy, and blissfully unaware of the Morlocks about to eat them. Maybe, however, that's the way to go: Driving your Lexus to the Morlocks' slaughterhouse with a smile on your face.
Down with information! Down with thinking! Down with worry!
P.S. I will probably change my mind tomorrow.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Petraeus Affair Has A Whiff of Chicago
Does this sudden resigning of CIA Director Petraeus strike you as odd?
I hate big conspiracy theories. Having worked in the government for nearly 34 years, I know how the government leaks and creaks and is incapable of massive conspiracies. This, however, has all the smell of a little conspiracy; of a cheap Chicago hood conspiracy. Three days after the elections and a few days before scheduled testimony to Congress on Benghazi, Petraeus suddenly resigns because of an affair with his biographer, and makes it known that he will not testify.
So many questions, so very many questions.
Where to begin? How about why did the FBI have his biographer, Paula Broadwell, under investigation? It appears that she sought access to classified info. Why? Seems like a serous crime, but apparently the government will not file criminal charges. Why not? Did she cut a deal with the FBI to bring down Petraeus?
In the process of that investigation, the FBI found that Broadwell and General Petraeus, now head of the FBI's rival intel organization, had an affair. When did the affair occur? When did the FBI uncover it? They surely discovered it before the November 6 elections.
Did the FBI Director brief the White House about this looming scandal at CIA? When? Who got briefed? Could that have provided the Chicago hoods who run the White House the blackmail ammo to keep Petraeus in line during the Benghazi cover-up and scandal? Note the odd behavior and statements by Petraeus during the whole cover-up effort.
Did Petraeus decide he didn't want to play the game anymore, his sense of honor caught up with him, he confessed and resigned? If so, why apparently does he refuse to come before Congress as a private citizen?
How will this play out in the weeks, months, years ahead?
To paraphrase Bette Davis, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy four years.”
I hate big conspiracy theories. Having worked in the government for nearly 34 years, I know how the government leaks and creaks and is incapable of massive conspiracies. This, however, has all the smell of a little conspiracy; of a cheap Chicago hood conspiracy. Three days after the elections and a few days before scheduled testimony to Congress on Benghazi, Petraeus suddenly resigns because of an affair with his biographer, and makes it known that he will not testify.
So many questions, so very many questions.
Where to begin? How about why did the FBI have his biographer, Paula Broadwell, under investigation? It appears that she sought access to classified info. Why? Seems like a serous crime, but apparently the government will not file criminal charges. Why not? Did she cut a deal with the FBI to bring down Petraeus?
In the process of that investigation, the FBI found that Broadwell and General Petraeus, now head of the FBI's rival intel organization, had an affair. When did the affair occur? When did the FBI uncover it? They surely discovered it before the November 6 elections.
Did the FBI Director brief the White House about this looming scandal at CIA? When? Who got briefed? Could that have provided the Chicago hoods who run the White House the blackmail ammo to keep Petraeus in line during the Benghazi cover-up and scandal? Note the odd behavior and statements by Petraeus during the whole cover-up effort.
Did Petraeus decide he didn't want to play the game anymore, his sense of honor caught up with him, he confessed and resigned? If so, why apparently does he refuse to come before Congress as a private citizen?
How will this play out in the weeks, months, years ahead?
To paraphrase Bette Davis, “Fasten your seatbelts. It’s going to be a bumpy four years.”
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The State of the Republican Party
The mainstream media and lots of others right, left, and center have begun offering prescriptions for what ails the Republican party. The Democrats, of course, write one to produce a GOP that echoes--wait for it!--the Democrat party. Conventional "wisdom" apparently proposes a return to the "me too" party of the 1960s, when the GOP competed with the Democrats in finding things to give away, and more tasks and power for the government. Don't forget, for example, that EPA, DEA, and price controls were Nixon initiatives, and, much more recently, that G. W. Bush oversaw a significant expansion of federal involvement in education and health care.
So what do they see as the failings of the GOP? It seems it does not appeal to women, youth, blacks, and Hispanics. OK. First, using that criteria I would note that the Democrats have a major problem with white people, especially men, and with business owners. I don't see a lot of analysts worrying about that. Second, I would note that Romney's loss was pretty slim. It will be a while before we get the final vote tallies, but I suspect we will see perhaps a two or three point difference between Obama and Romney. The GOP also has kept control of the House of Representatives, and thirty out of fifty state governors are Republicans. The election, therefore, is not a sweeping rejection of the GOP by the American people. This loss could be attributable to fluke occurrences, e.g., trashing of Romney in the GOP primaries from which he could not recover in time; pernicious effect of media bias; the impact of hurricane Sandy and the bizarre actions of Governor Christie; decision not to raise Benghazi and Fast Furious; and even the historically well-known Democrat penchant for voter fraud in some locations. Who knows? The pundits will be yapping away and making money on this for years.
All that said, however, the historical trend line does appear running against the GOP, at least when it comes to winning the White House. America is a politically centrist and cautious nation; our voters are suspicious of sudden change, whether rightward or leftward. We see, for example, the great suspicion, rightfully so, of Obamacare and the draconian effect it will have on our lives. If, however, Obamacare gets installed, and becomes the new normal, then, as with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the public resists efforts to get rid of it. That means that there is a relatively small window in which to undo vast expansions of government power--the window on Obamacare is still open, but not for long. When, therefore, GOP politicians speak of reforming or otherwise greatly modifying already accepted programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., they must do so with great care. In theory, we are all against "free stuff," in practice, however, well . . . hard to resist.
The solution for the GOP, and the way to win voters from thus-far resistant groups, is to become libertarian with an asterisk--in some areas, I admit, a pretty large asterisk. Many libertarian concepts can be repackaged and given a glossy "progressive" sheen. The GOP goal should be a government in which 95%-98% of the time it makes no difference to the average American citizen who is president. The US President should matter more to foreigners than to Americans. Except for foreign policy, national defense, times of national crisis, and providing a very broad economic vision, it should not matter who controls the White House. That means keep the government out of as many areas as possible, and where it has been involved deeply and for a long time, try to push the responsibility and resources out to the states, counties, cities, and people.
The most overlooked Constitutional amendment is the tenth amendment. That amendment is the GOP's friend. The default setting on most issues now brought to the feds, should be to push them back out as close to the people as possible. Some of this will be hard for social conservatives. Why should the President have a position, other than his personal one, on abortion, death penalty, gay marriage? Let each state decide its own policy. Some times there will be an impact on federal policy: gay marriage, for example, has implications for tax policies, survivor benefits, etc., which can be debated at the national level.
We need a party that focuses on freedom and remains faithful to individual rights, and federalist traditions. Low taxes, few regulations, dump big bloated unnecessary bureaucracies such as Labor, Commerce, Education, and Energy; radically cut bureaucracies such as EPA, USDA, State, AID, Veterans Administration, Justice, Interior, and parts of DoD, e.g., the whole domestic PX scam.
Certain sacred cows need to be targeted. Hollywood and universities, for example, get all sorts of preferential treatment. Do away with Hollywood tax breaks. Call in those very well paid university presidents and make them explain why their tuition rates keep going up; make it clear that federal support for tuition hikes is coming to an end. Then we will see, as we have, for example, with lasik eye surgery, how the market pushes prices down.
Along with defense, immigration is a legitimate area for federal action. Here I have a proposal that does not sit well with libertarian friends but seems to be a common sense solution, and one that could be adopted without appearing to target any specific group: a national id card. Every other country has one, the feds already have the data on each of us, and it would almost overnight put an end to the whole nasty issue of illegal aliens working and voting.
My own personal pet peeve, as I have written here many times, is the drug war. I see it as an outrageous expenditure of lives and resources, and a growing threat to freedom. Drug abuse should be an issue for education, medical professionals, and the market. In other words, run our drug "policy" akin to what is now done on tobacco. If you want to use drugs, fine, but you can't be a soldier, teacher, cop, pilot, bus driver, surgeon, etc. That, however, is probably still too far in the distance to spend too much time worrying about now.
The party needs to reform its selection process and reach out to new people, e.g., there must be many more people like Allen West, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Susana Martinez out there. There is no reason why the GOP should forfeit Hispanic, black, and women voters. I think the GOP can attract them and keep the base with an agenda that supports freedom and individual rights, and opposes unnecessary government involvement in our lives. The primary process is much too long, expensive, destructive, and provides fodder for the Democrats in the general election, e.g., "Vulture capitalism" was a Newt phrase which the Dems picked up and used against Romney.
Just some thoughts as we look over the political panorama for the next four years. More later.
UPDATE: A perceptive comment from reader, Penny
So what do they see as the failings of the GOP? It seems it does not appeal to women, youth, blacks, and Hispanics. OK. First, using that criteria I would note that the Democrats have a major problem with white people, especially men, and with business owners. I don't see a lot of analysts worrying about that. Second, I would note that Romney's loss was pretty slim. It will be a while before we get the final vote tallies, but I suspect we will see perhaps a two or three point difference between Obama and Romney. The GOP also has kept control of the House of Representatives, and thirty out of fifty state governors are Republicans. The election, therefore, is not a sweeping rejection of the GOP by the American people. This loss could be attributable to fluke occurrences, e.g., trashing of Romney in the GOP primaries from which he could not recover in time; pernicious effect of media bias; the impact of hurricane Sandy and the bizarre actions of Governor Christie; decision not to raise Benghazi and Fast Furious; and even the historically well-known Democrat penchant for voter fraud in some locations. Who knows? The pundits will be yapping away and making money on this for years.
All that said, however, the historical trend line does appear running against the GOP, at least when it comes to winning the White House. America is a politically centrist and cautious nation; our voters are suspicious of sudden change, whether rightward or leftward. We see, for example, the great suspicion, rightfully so, of Obamacare and the draconian effect it will have on our lives. If, however, Obamacare gets installed, and becomes the new normal, then, as with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the public resists efforts to get rid of it. That means that there is a relatively small window in which to undo vast expansions of government power--the window on Obamacare is still open, but not for long. When, therefore, GOP politicians speak of reforming or otherwise greatly modifying already accepted programs such as Social Security, Medicare, etc., they must do so with great care. In theory, we are all against "free stuff," in practice, however, well . . . hard to resist.
The solution for the GOP, and the way to win voters from thus-far resistant groups, is to become libertarian with an asterisk--in some areas, I admit, a pretty large asterisk. Many libertarian concepts can be repackaged and given a glossy "progressive" sheen. The GOP goal should be a government in which 95%-98% of the time it makes no difference to the average American citizen who is president. The US President should matter more to foreigners than to Americans. Except for foreign policy, national defense, times of national crisis, and providing a very broad economic vision, it should not matter who controls the White House. That means keep the government out of as many areas as possible, and where it has been involved deeply and for a long time, try to push the responsibility and resources out to the states, counties, cities, and people.
The most overlooked Constitutional amendment is the tenth amendment. That amendment is the GOP's friend. The default setting on most issues now brought to the feds, should be to push them back out as close to the people as possible. Some of this will be hard for social conservatives. Why should the President have a position, other than his personal one, on abortion, death penalty, gay marriage? Let each state decide its own policy. Some times there will be an impact on federal policy: gay marriage, for example, has implications for tax policies, survivor benefits, etc., which can be debated at the national level.
We need a party that focuses on freedom and remains faithful to individual rights, and federalist traditions. Low taxes, few regulations, dump big bloated unnecessary bureaucracies such as Labor, Commerce, Education, and Energy; radically cut bureaucracies such as EPA, USDA, State, AID, Veterans Administration, Justice, Interior, and parts of DoD, e.g., the whole domestic PX scam.
Certain sacred cows need to be targeted. Hollywood and universities, for example, get all sorts of preferential treatment. Do away with Hollywood tax breaks. Call in those very well paid university presidents and make them explain why their tuition rates keep going up; make it clear that federal support for tuition hikes is coming to an end. Then we will see, as we have, for example, with lasik eye surgery, how the market pushes prices down.
Along with defense, immigration is a legitimate area for federal action. Here I have a proposal that does not sit well with libertarian friends but seems to be a common sense solution, and one that could be adopted without appearing to target any specific group: a national id card. Every other country has one, the feds already have the data on each of us, and it would almost overnight put an end to the whole nasty issue of illegal aliens working and voting.
My own personal pet peeve, as I have written here many times, is the drug war. I see it as an outrageous expenditure of lives and resources, and a growing threat to freedom. Drug abuse should be an issue for education, medical professionals, and the market. In other words, run our drug "policy" akin to what is now done on tobacco. If you want to use drugs, fine, but you can't be a soldier, teacher, cop, pilot, bus driver, surgeon, etc. That, however, is probably still too far in the distance to spend too much time worrying about now.
The party needs to reform its selection process and reach out to new people, e.g., there must be many more people like Allen West, Marco Rubio, Mia Love, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Brian Sandoval, Tim Scott, Ted Cruz, and Susana Martinez out there. There is no reason why the GOP should forfeit Hispanic, black, and women voters. I think the GOP can attract them and keep the base with an agenda that supports freedom and individual rights, and opposes unnecessary government involvement in our lives. The primary process is much too long, expensive, destructive, and provides fodder for the Democrats in the general election, e.g., "Vulture capitalism" was a Newt phrase which the Dems picked up and used against Romney.
Just some thoughts as we look over the political panorama for the next four years. More later.
UPDATE: A perceptive comment from reader, Penny
The Dem's "war on women" propaganda worked well for them. You can thank idiots like Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, cannon fodder for the Obama water MSM carriers, for that. Both were stupid Tea Party darlings. And, it's not that I don't appreciate the Tea Party folks a lot, but, hey, they threw away Richard Lugar too and what did they get for that hissy fit? Look at the election stats - Obama did amazingly well with women.
We will never turn back the cultural clock to the 50's when their was a dad and a single pay check in most homes. America has become much more secular. It's time that the Republicans took a cold hard look at the today's electorate.
I have my moral compass, so do you. My kids know what is acceptable behavior. Many do not. It's fruitless to try to convert them to my moral position.
I guess my point is, how many elections are dedicated fiscal, constitutional and foreign affairs conservatives like myself willing to lose, killing this once great democracy with these lost elections, for the sake of appeasing the Christian evangelical folk's insistence on mandating their morality issues on abortion and gay marriage to others? It's really that simple.
The next Republican candidate up at bat needs to not get enmeshed in the cultural/social wars and salvage the Constitution and American capitalism.
More "Flexibility" After the Election: Going After the Truth
We all remember the meeting in Seoul last March when President Obama told Vladimir Putin's stunt double, Dmitry Medvedev, that he would "have flexibility" after the elections to sell us out reach a deal with the Russians on missile defense. It is time that the GOP and conservatives, unfortunately not always the same thing, adopt the same principle when dealing with Obama.
Tuesday's elections guarantee a colossal Washington gridlock. The President has a much-diminshed popular base, and only a tenuous control of a Senate that has a Democrat membership sprinkled with some hard-left loons, e.g., Elizabeth "Native Daughter" Warren of Massachusetts, and some conservative sorts, e.g., Joe Manchin, who have, at best, a very loose loyalty to Obama. He relies for control of this unruly body on corruptocrat Harry Reid, a man with only a tenuous grip on reality, himself. The House, of course, will remain under the control of the GOP.
This provides the GOP a golden opportunity to halt the Obamacare disaster which threatens to ruin what is left of our economy, prevent any more whacky leftist initiatives, and, the subject of this post, to get to the bottom of huge scandals which the media have ignored and which apparently, because of their alleged "complexity," did not lend themselves to the campaign. We should insist that the House launch thorough investigations of "Fast and Furious"; Benghazi-gate; Solyndra, Tesla, Fiskar, and other crony capitalism "green investments"; the deplorable handling of relief efforts in the wake of hurricane Sandy; the giving away of Chrysler to FIAT; leaks of sensitive information; and myriad other acts of corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of this misadministration. We can all think of many more. Let's get some sweating officials and some indictments. Let's take a page from the Democrat playbook, especially since nothing else will be happening in Washington.
The new Congress should be the "Truth and Transparency" Congress. Let's all insist on that as the true legacy of November 6, 2012.
Tuesday's elections guarantee a colossal Washington gridlock. The President has a much-diminshed popular base, and only a tenuous control of a Senate that has a Democrat membership sprinkled with some hard-left loons, e.g., Elizabeth "Native Daughter" Warren of Massachusetts, and some conservative sorts, e.g., Joe Manchin, who have, at best, a very loose loyalty to Obama. He relies for control of this unruly body on corruptocrat Harry Reid, a man with only a tenuous grip on reality, himself. The House, of course, will remain under the control of the GOP.
This provides the GOP a golden opportunity to halt the Obamacare disaster which threatens to ruin what is left of our economy, prevent any more whacky leftist initiatives, and, the subject of this post, to get to the bottom of huge scandals which the media have ignored and which apparently, because of their alleged "complexity," did not lend themselves to the campaign. We should insist that the House launch thorough investigations of "Fast and Furious"; Benghazi-gate; Solyndra, Tesla, Fiskar, and other crony capitalism "green investments"; the deplorable handling of relief efforts in the wake of hurricane Sandy; the giving away of Chrysler to FIAT; leaks of sensitive information; and myriad other acts of corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of this misadministration. We can all think of many more. Let's get some sweating officials and some indictments. Let's take a page from the Democrat playbook, especially since nothing else will be happening in Washington.
The new Congress should be the "Truth and Transparency" Congress. Let's all insist on that as the true legacy of November 6, 2012.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Now What? [UPDATE]
A very confused end to a nasty campaign. It appears that Obama has been re-elected. Not clear what has happened with the popular vote at this moment, but I suppose once California comes in completely, he will win that--just barely.
OK. What does Obama do now? We are about to go over a fiscal cliff, and he denies it. Our economy is getting worse, and he denies it. Our poverty rate is getting worse, and he denies it. Our foreign policy has come apart at the seams, and he denies it. Al Qaeda is alive and well, and he denies it. Obamacare is about to ruin every small business in America, and he denies it. Our military is heading for an implosion, and he denies it. Iran is about to go nuclear, and he denies it. Our country has not been so divided in over one hundred years, and he denies it. He bears great responsibility for that division, and he denies it.
Obama has no plan to deal with any of our serious problems other than more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more dependency on the government, and more glib lies. Obama will face an angry and intransigent House of Representatives that will not be impressed by Obama's "mandate." He will face a House that will be investigating a series of very serious scandals: Benghazi, "Fast and Furious," Solyndra, the miserable response to hurricane Sandy, and who knows what else is out there in the Obama boneyard? He will encounter a revitalized Al Qaeda, and a nasty, vengeful Russia, and have nothing in his quiver with which to ward them off. After a bit, even our hideous and tame mass media will have to acknowledge the disasters and the paralysis, and then what? Ask your friends who voted for Obama: see if they have the answers that their candidate does not.
Yes, the GOP needs to undergo introspection: how could it lose to Obama and dishonest hacks such as Elizabeth Warren and Claire McCaskill? More important, however, as the Obama second term spins into a spiral of disaster, we, the American people, need some introspection. We need to think about how we could elect somebody such as Obama to the White House, not once but twice, and the second time after he had proven his incompetence and danger to the Republic. Have we become a people who want the government to take care of us? Willing to surrender our freedoms for an envelope full of food stamps and an earful of banal speeches from the Oval Office? Is that what we have become?
UPDATE: A very prescient comment from one of our readers, Evilmav2,
OK. What does Obama do now? We are about to go over a fiscal cliff, and he denies it. Our economy is getting worse, and he denies it. Our poverty rate is getting worse, and he denies it. Our foreign policy has come apart at the seams, and he denies it. Al Qaeda is alive and well, and he denies it. Obamacare is about to ruin every small business in America, and he denies it. Our military is heading for an implosion, and he denies it. Iran is about to go nuclear, and he denies it. Our country has not been so divided in over one hundred years, and he denies it. He bears great responsibility for that division, and he denies it.
Obama has no plan to deal with any of our serious problems other than more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more dependency on the government, and more glib lies. Obama will face an angry and intransigent House of Representatives that will not be impressed by Obama's "mandate." He will face a House that will be investigating a series of very serious scandals: Benghazi, "Fast and Furious," Solyndra, the miserable response to hurricane Sandy, and who knows what else is out there in the Obama boneyard? He will encounter a revitalized Al Qaeda, and a nasty, vengeful Russia, and have nothing in his quiver with which to ward them off. After a bit, even our hideous and tame mass media will have to acknowledge the disasters and the paralysis, and then what? Ask your friends who voted for Obama: see if they have the answers that their candidate does not.
Yes, the GOP needs to undergo introspection: how could it lose to Obama and dishonest hacks such as Elizabeth Warren and Claire McCaskill? More important, however, as the Obama second term spins into a spiral of disaster, we, the American people, need some introspection. We need to think about how we could elect somebody such as Obama to the White House, not once but twice, and the second time after he had proven his incompetence and danger to the Republic. Have we become a people who want the government to take care of us? Willing to surrender our freedoms for an envelope full of food stamps and an earful of banal speeches from the Oval Office? Is that what we have become?
UPDATE: A very prescient comment from one of our readers, Evilmav2,
Welcome to institutionalized rule by the 47%. Even if Catholics, coal miners, the Jewish community, etc... had voted a little more sanely in this election's battleground states, and given Romney the edge he needed to win there, the blue state political machinery and their fellow travelers in the legal professions, universities, and media would have viciously fought and clawed to steal the narrow victory away, constitution be damned.
As the arteries of Democrat power harden in the capital, and as more and more urban dwelling Americans get used to living off of their $1000 a month in SS disability, subsidized low income housing, Obama phones, Obamacare, and Eat Better Today cards, I'd expect that it is going to become very unlikely that we will soon see another chance as good as we did this year to put an actual old timey, pro-American tradition, pro-Mainstreet Republican in the White House.
In today's divided America, I'd bet Obama's toxic coalition of welfare dependents, privileged coastal manager-class whites, public sector unionists, university grandees, female gender warriors, clientized African Americans, and Hispanics will only grow in political power- giving the ruling coalition all the bread and circuses votes, armed federal police powers, currency printing presses, and governmentally suborned media assistance that any respectable despot and his party could wish for to retain their grip on power.
Monday, November 5, 2012
The Politics of Revenge
Obama's exhortation to his followers to vote out of "revenge" is another unappealing glimpse into the soul of the President. Combine that with his heartfelt "you didn't build that,""the bitter clingers" to guns and religion, his obsession with redistribution of wealth and income, his wife's "never been proud of my country," and the couple's twenty-some years in the pews of Rev. Wright's church, and you have a pretty complete picture of the First Couple, despite their efforts to hide and reshape their past. Obama and his wife are haters. They are the perfect incarnation of the university faculty lounge/Hollywood celebrity culture of contempt, resentment, vanity, and entitlement.
On this the day before election day, we must commit ourselves to getting these haters out of the White House. That will be the first major step in beginning to get our country back to its founding principles and off the road to Greece and irrelevance.
On this the day before election day, we must commit ourselves to getting these haters out of the White House. That will be the first major step in beginning to get our country back to its founding principles and off the road to Greece and irrelevance.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
No Hope Without a Change
I have made no secret of my disgust with Obama since he took office, and see him as the worst President in my lifetime, even worse than Jimmy Carter. By way of full disclosure, that opinion preceded this misadministration's derailing of my Foreign Service career. I voted for McCain in 2008, not because I thought him a great candidate--I thought he wasted Governor Palin--but because I saw in him and the people around him a decency and genuine patriotism missing in the Obama crowd. These past four years have confirmed my initial skepticism about Obama and the people around him.
There are many reasons why Obama must be defeated. The principal one is his delusional liberal ideology from which all else flows. He is a creature of the faculty lounge/Hollywood brand of intolerant leftist cynicism about, contempt for, and ignorance of America and how the world works. These liberals insist on seeing what they believe. They see a world awash in turmoil and poverty because they believe America's success comes at the expense of the rest of the world. We are rich, because they are poor; they are poor because we made them so; we can only be rich if they are poor. From here comes Obama's "apology tour," his disdain for our military--except when it brings him electoral advantage, e.g., killing Osama--and our increasingly absurd foreign policy evermore removed from our real interests. The world is now a much more dangerous place for American interests than it was four years ago. Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and terrorist groups all over the world are emboldened by our failure to develop domestic sources of energy, our half-hearted efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program, the easy manner in which Obama threw away our victory in Iraq, and the disastrous and cowardly handling of the Benghazi attack. Obama's generally cavalier attitude toward American security, interests, and power ensures that we will have more attacks on our people, facilities, and homeland.
That ideology carries over to the domestic scene, as well. Life for Obama consists of problems that need government solutions. The government should expand continually its power to control and regulate to ensure our health and safety. Obama, the community organizer, sees a constant struggle against the rich. The "poor" must be organized, led, taught to hate the "rich," and assured that the "rich" only got so because they rigged the system, and what they have, well, they "didn't build that." That system must get rejiggered to "help the poor" live in stress-free poverty. Wealth, after all, is just a fantasy and not something to be sought by hard work and innovation. The government in the hands of the comfortable and "educated elite" will redistribute wealth and income so that nobody is unfairly "rich." For Obama and his followers the government is the only source of legitimacy, status, and power in society. The government will get you your "revenge." As we see on MSNBC and in endless Hollywood movies and TV shows, the world's evil is caused by rich white CEOs who can be stopped only by gutsy single moms, crusading journalists, and, above all, dedicated public servants.
That view, for example, provides the driving force behind Obamacare. In one stroke, the government takes over one-sixth of the national economy. Our health care gets taken away from "foolish" consumers, and "greedy" drug companies, hospitals, and doctors, and put into the hands of the IRS. Obamacare seeks to push private insurers out of the medical care arena and leave government as the sole health care provider. The same government that cannot provide food and bottled water to flood victims in New York City will decide what medical care you can have, and do it at a budget-breaking cost that ensures our inability to have a credible military.
With another Obama term, the private sector permanently will come under the heel of the government. Production of energy will comprise a government responsibility; the government will select what energy is good and what is bad, and where we should "invest." The government will pick winners and losers--the market be damned. The government will decide what type of cars we drive, and what we feed our children. The government will provide. The government will decide.
If Obama gets re-elected we could face one of those cliched tipping points. There might well be no going back, no undoing the damage he will do to our national identity and character, not to mention to our economy and standing in the world. Once you become a pet dog who depends on his master for food and shelter, then you cannot object when the master puts a collar and a leash on you, ties you to a stake in the backyard, and tells you to stop barking--all for your own good, you understand.
Voting against Obama is made even easier by the fact that the 2012 Republican candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, is the polar opposite of Obama. Romney is a decent person with a record of success in the private sector and in the government sector. Romney is easy to vote for. He understands and appreciates America's uniqueness, and the reasons for our success in the world. Can anybody imagine President Romney going on a global apology tour? Abandoning our people to a howling mob of jihadis in Benghazi? Trying to appease the Russians? Running a "Fast and Furious" operation? Trying to destroy our private sector? Trying to reshape America into some sort of replica of the failed European social-democracies? He understands that saving our economy and our nation is not rocket science; it is common sense; it is returning to our founding principles.
Already having voted for Mitt Romney for President, I very much hope and trust he wins the election next Tuesday, despite the best efforts of the media, dead voters, illegal aliens voting illegally, the Hollywood and university crowd, and Chris Christie. I know there are endless dueling polls and pundits, all making excellent arguments as to why one or the other candidate will win. I don't pretend to know whether the polls, in fact, are as erroneously and heavily skewed in favor of Obama as some Republicans claim--I believe they are but am not an expert. I see that the Vegas odds makers have Obama winning, but do they have any knowledge beyond those polls? I don't know. I do know that for the sake of America, for the sake of freedom, and for the sake of our children Obama must go. I can only hope that there are still enough Americans out there who agree.
For me the choice is obvious: Obama must be defeated for America to win.
Romney 2012.
There are many reasons why Obama must be defeated. The principal one is his delusional liberal ideology from which all else flows. He is a creature of the faculty lounge/Hollywood brand of intolerant leftist cynicism about, contempt for, and ignorance of America and how the world works. These liberals insist on seeing what they believe. They see a world awash in turmoil and poverty because they believe America's success comes at the expense of the rest of the world. We are rich, because they are poor; they are poor because we made them so; we can only be rich if they are poor. From here comes Obama's "apology tour," his disdain for our military--except when it brings him electoral advantage, e.g., killing Osama--and our increasingly absurd foreign policy evermore removed from our real interests. The world is now a much more dangerous place for American interests than it was four years ago. Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and terrorist groups all over the world are emboldened by our failure to develop domestic sources of energy, our half-hearted efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program, the easy manner in which Obama threw away our victory in Iraq, and the disastrous and cowardly handling of the Benghazi attack. Obama's generally cavalier attitude toward American security, interests, and power ensures that we will have more attacks on our people, facilities, and homeland.
That ideology carries over to the domestic scene, as well. Life for Obama consists of problems that need government solutions. The government should expand continually its power to control and regulate to ensure our health and safety. Obama, the community organizer, sees a constant struggle against the rich. The "poor" must be organized, led, taught to hate the "rich," and assured that the "rich" only got so because they rigged the system, and what they have, well, they "didn't build that." That system must get rejiggered to "help the poor" live in stress-free poverty. Wealth, after all, is just a fantasy and not something to be sought by hard work and innovation. The government in the hands of the comfortable and "educated elite" will redistribute wealth and income so that nobody is unfairly "rich." For Obama and his followers the government is the only source of legitimacy, status, and power in society. The government will get you your "revenge." As we see on MSNBC and in endless Hollywood movies and TV shows, the world's evil is caused by rich white CEOs who can be stopped only by gutsy single moms, crusading journalists, and, above all, dedicated public servants.
That view, for example, provides the driving force behind Obamacare. In one stroke, the government takes over one-sixth of the national economy. Our health care gets taken away from "foolish" consumers, and "greedy" drug companies, hospitals, and doctors, and put into the hands of the IRS. Obamacare seeks to push private insurers out of the medical care arena and leave government as the sole health care provider. The same government that cannot provide food and bottled water to flood victims in New York City will decide what medical care you can have, and do it at a budget-breaking cost that ensures our inability to have a credible military.
With another Obama term, the private sector permanently will come under the heel of the government. Production of energy will comprise a government responsibility; the government will select what energy is good and what is bad, and where we should "invest." The government will pick winners and losers--the market be damned. The government will decide what type of cars we drive, and what we feed our children. The government will provide. The government will decide.
If Obama gets re-elected we could face one of those cliched tipping points. There might well be no going back, no undoing the damage he will do to our national identity and character, not to mention to our economy and standing in the world. Once you become a pet dog who depends on his master for food and shelter, then you cannot object when the master puts a collar and a leash on you, ties you to a stake in the backyard, and tells you to stop barking--all for your own good, you understand.
Voting against Obama is made even easier by the fact that the 2012 Republican candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, is the polar opposite of Obama. Romney is a decent person with a record of success in the private sector and in the government sector. Romney is easy to vote for. He understands and appreciates America's uniqueness, and the reasons for our success in the world. Can anybody imagine President Romney going on a global apology tour? Abandoning our people to a howling mob of jihadis in Benghazi? Trying to appease the Russians? Running a "Fast and Furious" operation? Trying to destroy our private sector? Trying to reshape America into some sort of replica of the failed European social-democracies? He understands that saving our economy and our nation is not rocket science; it is common sense; it is returning to our founding principles.
Already having voted for Mitt Romney for President, I very much hope and trust he wins the election next Tuesday, despite the best efforts of the media, dead voters, illegal aliens voting illegally, the Hollywood and university crowd, and Chris Christie. I know there are endless dueling polls and pundits, all making excellent arguments as to why one or the other candidate will win. I don't pretend to know whether the polls, in fact, are as erroneously and heavily skewed in favor of Obama as some Republicans claim--I believe they are but am not an expert. I see that the Vegas odds makers have Obama winning, but do they have any knowledge beyond those polls? I don't know. I do know that for the sake of America, for the sake of freedom, and for the sake of our children Obama must go. I can only hope that there are still enough Americans out there who agree.
For me the choice is obvious: Obama must be defeated for America to win.
Romney 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)