baldilocks

Irony Burrito

Soul Food:  it’s yummy stuff. The origins of what is known a Soul Food, however, are often forgotten. For very pertinent reasons, it can legitimately be called ‘Black Food.’

Foods such as rice, sorghum (known by Europeans as "guinea corn"), and okra — all common elements of West African cuisine — were introduced to the Americas as a result of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

Yams and watermelon are other examples.

Eventually, such fare became known as Southern Food. These days, Soul Food is considered a delicacy. (Personal note: I like the stuff very much, with the following exceptions. Yams and chitlins have crossed the threshold of my lips only once, respectively.) But, back in the bad old days, masters fed their slaves the type of food considered crap, and saved the choice meats, grains, and vegetables for themselves. Much of the fare called Soul Food consists of plantation throwaways.

European enslavers fed their captive workers as cheaply as possible, often with leftover/waste foods from the plantation, forcing slaves to make do with the ingredients at hand. In slave households, 'vegetables' consisted of the tops of turnips, beets, and dandelions. Soon, African-American slaves were cooking with new types of "greens": collards, kale, cress, mustard, and pokeweed. They also developed recipes which used lard, cornmeal, and offal; discarded cuts of meat such as pigs' feet, oxtail, ham hocks, chitterlings/"chitlins" (i.e., pigs' small intestines), pig ears, hog jowls, tripe, and skin.

So what’s my point? It’s this.

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

(All bolding mine.)

Rice and other Spartan grub. Hmmm.

One wonders how the OWS cooks know that the “freeloaders” are vagrants and criminals. After all, aren’t both the “professional homeless” and the “amateur homeless” (the OWS protesters) squatting on land that does not belong to them? I bet I know how they know: most of the amateurs are white and most of professionals are black.  And both groups are freeloaders. After all it isn’t as if the OWS protesters bought the food.

I wonder why the OWS cooks don’t want to cook for the “professional homeless” aka “freeloaders.” And what are the “non-freeloaders” doing to help the cooks? Delivering the goods? Chopping the vegetables? Washing the dishes? Disposing of litter? Not according to reports.  But, of course, the “non-freeloaders” are speaking “truth to power,” so, one assumes that counts.

But, oh wait! Some designated persons labored to prepare the food and want it to go to the hungry and downtrodden!  Except not the actual hungry and downtrodden. 

But, oh wait! The “freeloaders” are vagrant and criminals! But according to the Left, vagrants and criminals do what they do only because the rich won’t help them. So the OWS want to help them! Except they don’t.

But, oh wait! OWS cooks will still feed the “professional homeless”—just not the good stuff.  Only the slave food.

But, oh wait! There are soup kitchens where the “vagrants, criminals, and freeloaders” can eat. Wonder who funds those places. No matter. The “vagrants, criminals, and freeloaders” have the soup kitchens--equal but separate facilities in which to chow down. They can “freeload” on someone else’s dime and time.

So, in one ill-considered decision, the Occupy Wall Street sorts manage to epitomize hundreds of years of slavery and government oppression against black Americans and, on top of that, managed to promote one of the principles in the Bible—that those who do not work, should not eat.  In one fell swoop, they have become everything they say they are against.

Chew on that.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ)

Obama's Gameplan and Republican Options (KingShamus)

Remember when President Obama said this?

The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.

But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.

Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”

As a statement of fact, the Bamster was of course correct. He did win the 2008 presidential election in very handy fashion. John McCain was a lousy candidate, but that doesn't change the fact that 52% of the public pulled the HopeyChangey lever.

As it relates to the contemporary fight over the debt ceiling, Obama's 2009 triumphalism represents just how badly the President misread the circumstances that swept him into power. Candidate Barry ran as an aspirational post-partisan Lightbringer. He was going to change the country's imperial posture on the world stage and reverse the damage done to the US's reputation by the American warlord Premier Bush. International intellectual elites, formerly hostile governments, hardcore terrorists; all would fall for Barack Obama's apologies for past American misbehavior and his sophisticated charisma.

On the home front, an Obama presidency was advertised as an even-keeled moderate administration that would stand athwart the ideological poles of American politics cooing, "Let's Be Nice." President Pantscrease (thanks again, David Brooks!) wasn't going to give in to the extremes of the Republican Party hacks of course, but he also wasn't going to let Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi define his political agenda either. Sure, there would be some new spending, but nothing crazy. Yes, there were going to be some tax hikes, but only on the really rich people.

A conciliatory anti-Dubya abroad and a pragmatic centrist in the domestic sphere: this is the Barack Obama many Americans voted for in 2008.

In 2011 we find ourselves sifting through the wreckage of Obama's presidency. All the ridiculous spending with absolutely nothing to show for it, all the bloated Leviathan government programs passed against the public's will, all the ludicrous domestic decisions that have damn near annihilated the private sector, all the random wars started with little public explanation and even fewer plans for victory; all of these things and more were borne out of Barack Obama's self-delusion. This arrogant ideologically-blinkered talentless achievement-free hack of a man, with decades of politically correct college campus leftism crammed into his thick Ivy League skull, actually thought that just because he snookered some folks into believing his factless self-description he could govern like the Marxoid rabble-rouser he actually is.

Better still, Barack Obama wants John Boehner and the rest of the GOP--you know, the folks who won last November--to make the exact same mistake he did back in 2009. In the budget ceiling battle going on, the President needs Speaker Boehner far more than he probably ever thought he would. In fact, Obama's chances for pulling a victory out of this (and saving his re-election bacon) rest on John Boehner's forgetting the reason why people voted for the GOP in the midterm elections.

Related: Let's look at the grand agreement that Obama wants and needs Boehner to approve. The Democrats get the Republicans to stop hammering them about profligate spending. In exchange for that, the GOP gets what exactly?

...the president and his allies are playing a familiar card. It’s not that they are against entitlement “reform,” they say, it’s just that they want to protect the beneficiaries from any financial sacrifice. And so we learn in recent days (see here and here) that Democrats are willing to put sizeable Medicare and Medicaid “cuts” on the table. Among the changes that are reportedly under consideration are further reductions in what providers of services and products are paid, trims in Medicare’s support of hospital-based physician-training programs, and importation of Medicaid’s pharmaceutical-rebate scheme into the Medicare
prescription-drug benefit for the so-called “dually eligible” (that is, the elderly who are enrolled in both programs). And apparently some Republicans are willing to play along.

These kinds of changes in Medicare and Medicaid are nothing new. Various versions of them have been included in every budget deal going back 30 years, and most especially in the bipartisan deals of 1990 and 1997. They do not constitute genuine entitlement reform. They will not fix Medicare and Medicaid. And they will not solve the nation’s budget problem.

Yes, on paper, the Congressional Budget Office will say they save money, perhaps even a lot of money. But CBO has said that every time a budget deal in the past has included similar provisions. As the years go by, the savings always vanish in the regulatory complexity of the programs, and entitlement spending continues to rise just as it always has. Moreover, arbitrary across-the-board payment cuts are actually damaging to the efficient operation of the health system. They lead to cost shifting, and they drive willing suppliers of services out of the marketplace. In the end, price controls do nothing to change the underlying reasons for cost growth.

So...the Republicans would get nothing. And a whole lot of it.

Excuse my Frogtalk, but why the frack should the GOP cave in on this? Because some jack-ass grandees over at the Washington Post are crying about it? Newsflash: The mainstream media hates Republicans and conservatives the way Roman Polanski hates statutory rape laws. They lie and lie and lie some more, all in the hopes of convincing enough people of the progressive-approved narratives.

More than a few people got their knickers in a twist when Rush Limbaugh said he hoped Barack Obama would fail. Very few people, even those on the Right, ever mention the countless magazine articles, newspaper op-eds and television pieces the MSM produces every goddamn day that practically begs the Lord for the Republicans to fall down a sinkhole and vanish from the political scene.

What about the Mitch McConnell horrible train wreck compromise, you ask? 'Demoralizing' would be a grotesque understatement. Imagine if in World War II the Allies spent months planning the D-Day invasion of Normandy, executed the landing, suffered horrendous casualties and successfully secured a beachhead in France...then turned around and went back to England on June 7th. That's the kind of insanity Senator McConnell is proposing here.

The Republicans have gone too far to stop now. If they do some sort of preemptive surrender where they end up with no real spending cuts while giving their imprimatur to Obama's liberalism, the GOP will all but guarantee the formation of a third party. That in turn will probably mean an Obama win in 2012. The stakes are that high.

Withering Liberalism (KingShamus)

Or...whither liberalism?

The political composition of U.S. adults held fairly steady in 2010 compared with 2009. Conservatives remained the largest group, followed by moderates and then liberals. At 35%, the percentage of moderates has declined to a new low, highlighting the increased political polarization that has occurred over the past decade.

 

...While the political pendulum in Washington can swing widely, Americans' political ideology, like their party identification, tends to shift more gradually. Such a shift has been underway in recent years. While the changes are not large, they are unmistakable. Moderates are growing fewer in number while the percentages of conservatives and liberals have expanded. Conservatism has gained ground among Republicans and independents, while the growth in liberalism is strictly among Democrats.

 

Liberals will look at the Gallup poll and have an immediate response:  "What about 2008?  Liberalism won in that year."

Sure about all that, Nancy?  Obama ran as a sane, cool-headed moderate.  Conservatives warned that St. Barry was a flaming lefty, but most voters either couldn't be bothered to dig too deeply into Obama's troubling ideological pedigree or just didn't think it was that big a deal considering the Bamster's GOP opponent.  In 2008, Republican George Bush was presiding over a crumbling economy and two foreign wars, one of which was fairly unpopular.  John McCain ran a weak-willed feckless campaign that did much to alienate and demoralize his very necessary conservative base.  When he did do something right--like pick Sarah Palin for VP--the campaign promptly misused that most valuable asset when it couldn't afford even the slightest mistake.  If the Democrats couldn't win big in that electoral year, they were never going to score a major victory.

Again, how did the Donkey-Punchers get their wins in '08 and '06? (I throw 2006 in because it set the table for the unified Democrat government of the last two years.)  They ran guys such as Bob Casey, Jon Tester and James Webb, men who could pull off a fake-o-la centrist political stance when needed.  Look at the Democrat campaign messages in those years.  'Open, honest, transparent government'.  'Most ethical congress ever.'  '95% of Americans will see a tax cut.'  The self-description we got from the Democrats in 2006-2008 could be summed up as: "We're in the middle of the road and we're not Bush. Pretty please vote for us and we'll be your BFF's." 

By the fall of 2008, Dubya was seen as ideologically brittle and only slightly more popular than raw sewage, shin splints and homelessness.  Running in the middle while opposing Bush was smart strategy for the Democrats.  However, while it may have been the politically intelligent move, it was not--and is not--what anybody would consider openly left-wing.   

Liberalism did not win in 2006.  It did not win in 2008.  Instead, it cloaked itself in moderation, a reasonable tone and...in the case of Barack Obama... a pretty princess visage.  While the Left bided it's time, George Bush, Denny Hastert and most of the elected GOPers busied themselves with soiling the party's small government brand.  

Once the Left ascended in 2008, with it's big congressional majorities and an ideologically copacetic presidency, how did it govern?  Like progressive statists, of course.  Now, if liberalism were truly on the rise, why did America's left-of center party get creamed in the off-year elections of 2009 and subsequently pummelled in the 2010 midterms?

The Gallup poll gives us some very important lessons about American politics.  First, it shows just how aberrational the 2008 election was in relation to the ideology of the America electorate.  More importantly, the Gallup data indicates that US voters will be potentially quite receptive to conservative policy initiatives if these ideas are articulated and fought for with vigor.  

Cross-Posted at Blog De KingShamus.  Big ups to the rad Baldilocks for letting me hang out and post here.

Unburdening Government (KingShamus)

Government is too damn big.

How many times have we said that to ourselves or to others?  Dozens?  Scores?  Hundreds?

For conservatives, the freedom-crushing size and liberty-lessening scope of the federal government is an ironclad fact, as true as water being wet or Lady Gaga being a first order publicity whore.  Liberals have a ready retort when right-wingers complain about the growth of the DC leviathan.  "What would you cut?"

Well, how's about...damn near everything?

I think it’s time for all Americans to step-up to the plate and help take some pressure off the President, the Senators, the Congressmen, all the Czars and Agency Heads, and etc. I think that We The People have just plain been asking too much from our leaders and the strain is beginning to tell on them.

Here’s the problem. Our leaders in Washington just have too much on their plate and it’s all our fault for demanding so much from them.

...So here is what I think we should do. Let’s institute what I call Government Light. I think We The People need to dramatically reduce the work load on our poor public servants. I’ve got some ideas on how we could do that. Instead of al these zillions of things we’ve been asking government to do for us I have a much shorter lists of what we should be willing to settle for:

1. Provide for the common defense. You know. A military to protect us from our enemies and to protect our borders from invasion.
2. To create a body of objective laws to protect the God-given rights of all citizens.
3. Develop a judicial system to capture those that break the laws and try them and to punish the guilty.
4. Establish a stable monetary system.
5. Develop and maintain a national infrastructure in order that commerce can freely occur between state and with other nations.

I think if our government only had to focus on these five things, the mental health of our public servants would improve dramatically and We The People could take care of the rest of our needs instead of burdening government for everything.

Jim from the always-interesting Conservatives On Fire has come up with a nice working framework.

There's just one problem with it.  It's not the drastic withdrawl of the central government from citizens' lives.  It's not the austerity measures that would result from these new directives.  In fact, none of those things are terrible in and of themselves.

No, the issue is that CoF's plan assumes that liberals have created the mega-state in order to actually solve problems.  In fact, that's only a very small part of the left's reasoning vis-a-vis the ever-growing federal gubmint beast.  The major snag with Jim's program is that it won't allow hacks to rob from the taxpayers.

Ponder the omnibus spending bill that just took a dump in Harry Reid's mattress.  The thing was designed to be massive and impenetrable.  The Senate Democrats tried to get it passed in December, after the Donkey-Punchers got their heads handed to them in the midterm elections.  It was also brought to the Senate during a time when the American voter is most inattentive.  The bill was loaded with pork in the hopes that Senators and those constituents who were paying attantion could be bought off.

Limited government is great.  But if you're really looking to redistribute wealth and pad you're own fiefdom, there's nothing like the crazy unlimited variety of government to do the trick.

Further thoughts:   I realize that the latest omnibus spending toothache was smashed.  But over the years, this type of gargantuan budget bill--packed to the rafters with ridiculous earmarks, porktastic programs and barely concealed graft--have passed through Republican and Democrat congresses with relative ease.  Conservatives won a victory of sorts by killing Senator Reid's fantasy budget, but it's one win in a sea of defeats.

Let's look at a random year...2003...and see what fiscal idiocy we can find.

$44,239,000for projects in the state of Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee member Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee member Tom Latham (R-Iowa), including: $33,000,000 for the National Animal Disease Center in Ames; $700,000 for the Midwest Poultry Consortium; $280,000 for the Iowa Vitality Center; $235,000 for dairy education; $210,000 for hoop barns; and $100,000 for the Trees Forever Program.

We can draw a few conclusions from this wee nugget of fail.  Maybe there was a need for a National Animal Disease Center in Iowa.  The Hawkeye State, like many parts of the Midwest, is deeply invested in agriculture.  Perhaps there such an institution had to be started by federal dollars. 

This begs the question:  What about the private sector?  Did nobody ever think to create a company to deal with animal diseases before Tom Harkin...one of the dimmer bulbs in a dimbulb-centric US Senate...came along?  Furthermore, what about state governments?  Had nobody without DC cash been able to study or treat ailments that afflict our four-legged friends before 2003?

Beyond the dubious need for the National Animal Disease Center comes another realization:  We're still paying for it.  The NADC is part of the United States Department of Agriculture, thus federal dollars are used to hireand retain workers.  What about building maintenance or cafeteria staffing?  That's on us as well.  Much like the Corporation For Public Broadcasting or Ben Affleck, the NADC is the government-friendly hole that keeps on sucking.

Bear in mind that this is just one relatively small portion of the 2003 federal budget turd sandwich.  Buried within that bill was an army of ridiculous spending.  Taken individually, these more or less tiny chunks of pork look like the cheesy punchline to a lame joke.  Put together, they amount to nothing less than the biggest heist in history, making the most lucrative bank robberies, Ponzi schemes or Soros currency shenanigans seem minute in comparison.

More depressing than that?  The 2003 appropriations bill represents just one year's worth of porky goodness.  This spending is not an abberation.  It was, and pretty much still is, business as usual.

And that's the problem.  People do not want to be bothered paging through a gazillion pages of legalese and congress-talk to separate the worthy wheat from the wasteful chaff. More, folks have heard so many stories about $50 hammers and $100 toilet seats that they've become numb to it.  Inertia and inattention have conspired to make the federal budget very hard to shrink.  The budget creation process was designed to keep people in the dark about just how much they've been getting robbed. 

The last omnibus bill was defeated, which is a good thing.  With any luck, it's the start of a movement to reign in federal spending and--more importantly--scale back the influence Washington DC has in our daily lives.

Cross-Posted at Blog De KingShamus.  Thank you so much, Baldi.

You want a perfect summation of the RINO? (King Shamus)

Here it is, courtesy of Bob Belvedere.

Here before us is another reason we, the outsiders, the TEA Party folks in action and spirit, must show no quarter towards the GOP Establishment.  Besides living in a collegial and congenial past that no longer is [call it what you will, the Gerald Ford or Bob Michael Era], the GOP and conservative Elites have a track record that is strewn with utter and abysmal failures.  In fact, historians not yet born will label them as the Useful Idiots of the Left who, by their weaknesses and naiveté, help bring about the lamentable situation we now find ourselves in.

Bingo.  Read the rest of his post; Bob's got some good stuff in there.

This is what kills me when people talk about the Republican establishment and their fetishization of electability.  It's one thing to acknowledge that RINOs and moderates can often get elected easier (in certain states/districts/campaigns) than a rock-ribbed across-the-board rightwinger.  This is a fact that we shouldn't simply dismiss out of hand.  For instance:  looking back on the particular circumstances of the race, Mike Castle probably had a better chance of winning the Senate election in Delaware than Christine O'Donnell.

However, what would we--actual factual conservatives--have gained by getting Castle into the Senate?  He would've voted for Cap-n-Tax in a potential dead-duck congressional session.  He was still going to be pro-choice and anti-Second Amendment.  Knowing his record, his first term in the US Senate would've been marked by ArlenSpecterian hands-across-the-aisle moments of capitulation to various facets of the liberal nanny-state agenda.  A hug for Obama would not have been completely out of the question.

Would a guy like Mike Castle, a classic go-along-to-get-along DC establishmentarian, have the stomach for repealing ObamaCare?  What makes anybody think Castle would be capable of defunding the utterly wretched NPR or abolishing  the utterly useless Department of Energy?  In what possible scenario would a guy like Mike Castle vote against illegal immigration amnesty?  Could Mike Castle, famous for his chummy, clubby attitude towards Democrats, actually go along with his own party on something substantive like real free-market entitlement reforms?  Many signs point to an emphatic 'no.'

Not only would a potential Senator Mike Castle be a thorn in the side of conservatives, he'd be doing everything he can to damage the already-tarnished Republican brand.  While he was busy building a media-backed Fiefdom of Royal RINOLand, he'd also happily throw monkey wrenches into GOP-backed fiscal discipline measures.  

So conservatives would get lots of drawbacks and almost no benefits from a Senator Mike Castle.  But the Tea Party and it's allies were supposed to forget all that because Mike Castle happened to have a weak 'R' behind his name?  Really?

(Cross-Posted at Blog De KingShamus)

Origin of the Nightmare

A dog that chases its tail will be busy.

--George Clinton, Atomic Dog

President Obama’s usage of the decidedly un-presidential phrase “talk about me like a dog,” in a speech the other day seemed to baffle a goodly number of my non-Southern white friends, some of whom concluded that the president was cribbing Jimi Hendrix.  Aside from my guess that the president probably doesn’t know who Jimi Hendrix was, Hendrix himself was cribbing an old phrase of unknown origin common among  southerners well before either man was born. (For the record, to “talk about someone like a dog,” means to bad-mouth a person severely.  The phrase has also morphed into “to dog someone out.” The latter has an additional—and interesting—meaning:  to betray someone.)

Victor Davis Hanson and Dinesh D’Souza, however, are intent on reviewing the attitude crystallized in the phrasing, along with the thinking fueling that attitude. 

Hanson:

We know Obama got into Columbia; we have no idea what he accomplished there — or whether his undergraduate transcript merited admission to Harvard Law School. Obama may have charmed his way into Harvard Law Review, but in brilliant fashion he seems to have guessed rightly that once there he would be singularly exempt from the usual requirements of quantifiable achievement.

A part-time visiting law professorship at the University of Chicago Law school rarely leads to a permanent tenure-track position, much less a tenured billet– and never without a body of published articles and books. In Obama’s case those protocols simply did not apply. He was not only offered whatever he wanted, but as Justice Kagan reminded us, Obama was courted by Harvard Law School as well.

(…)

Obama seems aware that a particular cadre of influential white liberals has traditionally accorded him deference not warranted by actual achievement, but rather by his projection of a progressive persona, as crudely outlined by a Biden or Reid [when both articulated how different President Obama is from the everyday “Negro,” whom these Democrat politicians implied  are usually dirty and inarticulate]  — and that this by now is a normal course of events rather than an aberrant experience. Hence his anger that all that has at last begun to end.

D’Souza’s main theme is one that is well-known to anyone who has been paying attention since Barack Obama arrived on the national scene: that he has adopted the life’s work of his father:

What then is Obama's dream? We don't have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father's dream. Notice that his title is not Dreams of My Father but rather Dreams from My Father. Obama isn't writing about his father's dreams; he is writing about the dreams[of anticolonialism) he received from his father.

(…)

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors. This dependence is called neocolonialism, a term defined by the African statesman Kwame Nkrumah (1909--72) in his book Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. Nkrumah, Ghana's first president, writes that poor countries may be nominally free, but they continue to be manipulated from abroad by powerful corporate and plutocratic elites. These forces of neocolonialism oppress not only Third World people but also citizens in their own countries. Obviously the solution is to resist and overthrow the oppressors.

(…)

Obama Sr. was an economist, and in 1965 he published an important article in the East Africa Journal called "Problems Facing Our Socialism." Obama Sr. wasn't a doctrinaire socialist; rather, he saw state appropriation of wealth as a necessary means to achieve the anticolonial objective of taking resources away from the foreign looters and restoring them to the people of Africa.

(…)

As [Obama Sr.] put it, "We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now." The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that "theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."

There is a good reason that many Africans of that generation--educated in Europe and America--are socialists, aside from the desire to repudiate the capitalism to which most of the hated European colonial masters subscribed.  They were actively indoctrinated.

Most readers know that my origin and life circumstances are a mirror image of the president’s—some things are frighteningly similar; others radically dissimilar in obvious areas.  However, for continuity's sake, here it is again: courtesy of the Mboya Airlift, our Kenyan Luo fathers arrived in America in 1959 to receive an American education, married and produced children with American women, divorced them, and, upon graduation, returned to their homeland.

Both of us were partially raised by the generation prior to that of our parents--in his case, his maternal grandparents; in my case, my maternal grandmother’s sister and her husband.

When Philip Ochieng and Barack Obama, Sr. arrived in America, their mentors were people like radical Progressives Cora and Peter Weiss, who—via the innocuously coined African American Student Foundation-- funded much of the tuition, travel, care and feeding of the Kenyan students selected for the Airlift.  (My mother says that when she and my father were in college, their non-African--read: white--social circle included nothing but communists and socialists.)

And herein lies a crucial difference as to the reason that my life turned out differently than Obama’s: both of our biological fathers are socialists and atheists.  However, in Obama’s case, his mother’s immediate family consisted of socialists and atheists as well.  Mine does not. 

Here’s another difference: neither my great-aunt, great-uncle, mother nor American father ever implicated that I was so innately different—so alien-- from them, that it was necessary to turn me over to a monster like Frank Marshall Davis for “parenting.”  By that very act, the Dunhams indicated to their grandson that they believed him to be inferior because of his black African heritage.  It is unbearable even to imagine the things instilled into young Obama's spirit under such tutelage.

Coupling this with his mother’s abandonment, one may see how his attitude toward white people developed.

So, surrounded by callousness, lack of empathy and no grace, who was left to latch onto?  The one who wasn’t there, of course.  (That his father abandoned him also is beside the point.  It was easier for Obama to see Obama Sr. as the victim of a white-dominated world, justify the abandonment and, even take up the elder Obama’s cause where he left off.)

So it may be that Barack Obama believes that all of the gifts which white liberals have conferred upon him are his just due with criticism being, conversely, manifestly unjust. All he's trying to do is administer "justice!"  And in dispensing that justice, in “taking back” that which was "stolen," Obama can finally obtain love from his Third World “family,” something he never received from his biological family.

Of course, a humongous monkey wrench will be thrown into all of this armchair shrinking should our president’s real birth certificate ever surface.  Relax.  I think he was born in Hawaii; I just don’t think that the birth certificate has Barack Obama, Sr. listed as the father.

A fine mess the Left has gotten us into, wouldn’t you say?

(Thanks to Barb the Evil Genius, Est Quod Est and Instapundit)

 

Handling the Truth

From Byron York at the Washington Examiner:

Two days before Christmas, Politico reported that White House officials believed [the health care fight] would last until February -- after which Obama would make a "very hard pivot" to the jobs issue.

But health care dragged on even longer; the bill didn't pass until March 21. Even then, with his No. 1 priority accomplished, Obama did not execute the long-awaited pivot and go full-tilt on the economy. In fact, at times it was hard to tell just what he was doing.

(…)

Then came months during which Obama sometimes talked about the economy and sometimes talked about energy and sometimes about immigration and sometimes the Middle East and sometimes about other stuff. Watching the polls, Democrats squirmed, seeing their hopes for November grow dimmer and dimmer. Republicans looked on, bewildered.

"I don't get it," GOP pollster David Winston told me at the time. "I don't understand what he is doing. He's not addressing the No. 1 issue that Americans want him to address.

(…)

In a flurry this week, he's proposing spending $50 billion on the nation's roads and railways. He's proposing a $100 billion research tax credit for businesses.

Who will be the first mainstream personality of either party to come out and say that the destruction of the American economy and, therefore, America herself has been the entire purpose of the Obama Administration and the leading lights in the Democrat Party from the beginning?

That some are confused about the Administration’s strategy speaks merely to the inability to accept a hard and distasteful truth: that the majority of voters elected a man as POTUS who has this country’s demise at heart and who has repeatedly demonstrated this in word, deed and associations well before the election.

Around the right side of the political blogosphere, one can read the posts and comments of many who excoriate President Obama for his “stupidity.”   These people don’t get it either.  Those who look at the Obama Administration’s policies and programs and observe President Obama’s obliviousness and lack of empathy in the face of acute and on-going national crises and make a summary low judgment of the president’s intellect do so with the premise that the man really is trying to improve the economy and other conditions in the USA. 

That premise is wrong. 

This is what people need to realize about destruction: it is the total opposite from building/improving.  This seems like an obvious truth, but when comparing the concept, we must take it further.  Construction of anything requires carefully ordered planning and implementation.  For example, when constructing a solid, stable building, the architect recommends proven construction methods and using the right materials.  But before doing these things, the builder gains certain knowledge of future purpose of the building and, from there, makes his decisions on how to proceed.

Destruction, however, is not only opposite in purpose; it is so in methodology. (We’re talking malicious destruction here.)  Using the building analogy again, think of what happens when someone blows up a building—or flies an aircraft into it.  Are any orders or rules to be followed for the goal to be achieved?  No.  In fact, the more chaos perpetrated by malicious destruction, the faster a building disintegrates.  The same is true for a nation.

President Obama, the Democrat Party, and whoever sits behind the scenes sow method after method of chaos—and, in some cases, inaction is the chaos sowed.  They stab the giant repeatedly, hoping it will finally fall, hoping for utter destruction.

In light of this conclusion, it seems that establishment Republicans and reasonable Democrats do not want to acknowledge--possibly not even to themselves-- the demonstrable bad intentions of the Socialists presently in charge and, therefore, they don't have to think about what may follow should the Republican Party fail to take back one or both houses of the Legislative Branch.  

To be honest, I, too, don’t want to think about what kind of country the USA may become in the aftermath of a GOP failure.

[Re-edited]

(Thanks to Hot Air)

Tale of the Tigers: My Personal Debt and Ours (UPDATE: Yes!!)

At Real Clear Politics this morning, the Top 5 Stories are as follows:

Record Number in Government Anti-Poverty Programs

More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.

The Folly of Subsidizing Unemployment

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion—providing for persons temporarily without work—and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program.

Why the Recovery Lags

The recovery is a creature of confidence, or its absence. "In normal times, psychology doesn't matter much. It reflects economic conditions," says Zandi. "But in abnormal times, it's the reverse. Psychology determines economic conditions." What the boom and bust left is a massive case of collective doubt.

The Obama Vision of Federal Government

[President Obama gave] a stirring Sunday secular sermon [in New Orleans on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina] on the value of the federal government—and on the idea of national community that, in its best incarnations, it does or should represent to us all.

He wanted to prove not only to the people of the [Louisiana] but the people of the nation that the feds can be a source for good.

70% of Americans Know They’ve Been Conned

Two years into what had been sold as a new politics and a new approach, the 70 percent are fully aware that they have been conned, suckered, and taken to the cleaners by a hyper-ideological amalgam of leftist public intellectuals, snarling bloggers, career politicians with limited abilities who are often corrupt, and a president wholly inexperienced in the management of complex problems who is in way over his head and prisoner to slogans and schemes that make for great campus debates -- but for disaster in the real world.

The Total Outstanding Public Debt as of today: 13 trillion dollars and change. (See what I did there?)

It’s a High-Tech Looting of We, the People; it’s reparations to the "deserving" from the "undeserving."  Forget about the injustice and the immorality of it all and follow the mass dependence on public funding to its logical conclusion:  what happens when there are no jobs to service this debt via tax revenue?  What happens to all and sundry who are fed, clothed and sheltered by American treasury monies when the treasury money is gone?

Speaking of unemployment, I’ve been laid off from my position as Social Media Consultant at Carmel Coast Publishing Enterprises—no worries; it’s a friendly parting and but a sign of the times.  And even though it was only a part-time job, it was sufficient for my needs.  But now, my only source of income is…you guessed it, my novel.

I’ll get right to the point: I need to raise $10,000 to pay my bills and my taxes.  So far, I’ve sold 23 books from Amazon and Barnes & Noble, 15 via Kindle and 150+ via my novel’s website.  Here’s what I need:

556 books sold from Amazon and B&N;

589 books sold from the Tale of the Tigers website;

2000 Kindle Editions sold. (Only $5.00!)

I will accept any combination thereof and, of course, donations will be much appreciated.

You can do so here:

It’s tough for me to get out and do the hard-core, in-person marketing I need to do because I’m the sole caregiver for my great-aunt.  (My inability to be away from home for long periods stands as one of the reasons that I finished the novel and took the chance on self-publishing.  Therefore, nearly all of my marketing has been online, word-of-mouth and reputational.)  All of the reviewers have judged Tale of the Tigers to be an exceptional work and I am grateful to those who have bought, read and commented.  But now I need more.

About the national debt:  many observers conclude that it is impossible for the United States to recover from such a crushing weight.  I’m not sure that I believe this, though.  Oh, it isn’t that I don’t believe that the debt isn’t lethal or isn’t meant to be so.  It’s merely that God-inspired human inventiveness and ingenuity always seem to save the day.  Sometimes we see through a glass darkly as to how, but, with faith, hope, love—and work—the light can be turned on.

God gifted to me an allotment of talents and I chose to invest them rather than bury them.  I know for a fact that I am far from being the only recipient.

UPDATE: Love ya, Jeff.

UPDATE: To the fine gentlemen at the RoadRaceAutoX.com message boards: I would say that my work isn't "chick book," but others might be a better judge.  There's no bodice-ripping and there's some cussing and violence, so there's that. :)  At any rate, welcome and thanks for the link!  I think you will enjoy it; my reviewers are mostly men.

UPDATE:  Welcome Instapundit and Ace of Spades HQ readers! I'm humbled by your purchases, donations and good wishes.  As for the tally: 37 additional Kindle Editions sold and $1,100 in sales and donations!  As for Amazon, I have to get a report from my publisher but I can tell that the book is selling when my rank drops.  More report--and blogging tomorrow.  I'm very grateful!

On Love,Taking a Stand, and Clear Vision (UPDATE)

After you give your life to God, when He commands you to stand, you have no choice.

--Glenn Beck

It was a joy and a privilege to watch Glenn Beck, Marcus Lutrell, Alveda King, Bishop Harry Jackson, and hundreds of thousands of others as they stood to remind the government that our rights are a free gift from God and that no man or government of men may insert its being in between that providential connection.  Like all who love liberty, I would have found it a blessing to have attended, but other responsibilities took precedence.

However, during my morning reading and prayer, it “occurred” to me—again--to ask God what His will is for my life.  I wanted to know what I was or wasn’t doing that is against His will.  Was there something I needed to do more of?  Had I failed to say ‘how high’ when God told me to jump?  Every person still breathing has an assigned mission, whether it be great or small.

After admitting publically that I had had an abortion, I received many compliments for my courage and honesty, but I felt neither courageous nor particularly honest.  It wasn’t false humility; it was simply a feeling that there was more—as if there was something else I needed to face.  And there was.

The accolades I received for that admission were watered down by a very sobering state of affairs in my life.  The one person from whom I needed love and support has, because of my confession, repeatedly ridiculed me for it--seeming to want to induce shame in me for being so public.  The irony contained therein is that, prior to my admission, I had avoided blogging about abortion due to the shame I had felt for doing away with my own child.  Admitting it publicly was an attempt to free myself from that shame and it was done in the hope that at least one young woman reading would realize that she did not have to be the fool that I had been.

Abortion was my greatest shame and, though my eternal guilt has been washed away by the acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Savior, its earthly effects have been extremely painful, spiritually and emotionally—the consciousness of sin and the regret at committing a form of suicide. 

The interesting part is this: when God opens your eyes, your spiritual vision is 20-20.  The person who wants me to feel shame for my admission once claimed to love me.  But, my being continues to be shaped by God and when He says, “Stand,” I have no choice.  And what I’ve had to face is this: anyone who would ridicule me and attempt to provoke shame from me for my obedience to the Lord cannot possibly love me.

Even more interesting is the realization that when you are doing what you know is morally correct in the sight of God—when you take a stand in the name of Jesus Christ—any chastisement you receive is an indication that you are on the right path.  Additionally, the source of that chastisement will give you a clear window into the soul of that source.  Be sure to pray for that soul, however.

In Glenn Beck’s decidedly pastoral address on the Mall in Washington, DC, the emphasis was on Restoring Honor.  The primary recipient of our honor as individual human beings is to God and is simply outlined in Mark 12:30-31; each human being is commanded to love God with an entire heart, and with full mental power and to love one’s neighbor as self.  Love is the variant of honor that should constantly pour from our being—the highest type of honor.

For the longest time, I did not understand what it meant to love God, this incorporeal being.  But how does one love a sentient earthly being?  We communicate.  We talk to that person and, most importantly, we listen to them and when we do this, we trust that the communication consists of truth—we extend good faith to our beloved.  (And we show love by rejoicing in our beloved’s happiness and comforting him in his pain.  And we never, never, never ridicule our beloved when he reveals his soul.)

With God, loving Him has an extra component, of course.  Since He’s omnipotent and omniscient, we show our love to Him by doing what He commands and trusting that the commandments of a loving God are meant for good.  We extend to God the ultimate in Good Faith.

After talking to Him (praying in the name of Jesus Christ) and listening to Him (reading the Word), we do what He puts in our hearts, in spite of any earthly consequences.  We take a stand.

So my eyes are open and my vision is clear.  I will continue to stand for the unborn and the murdered.

And I will remember that true love is (Holy) spiritual.

UPDATE: Though the story seems sad, I feel set free; very happy and peaceful. Peace is what I prayed for.  It's a great birthday gift.

                                                                                                                                                                     

The Herding, Part Two

Over at Ace’s, there’s a commenter who continually tells Ace’s presumably mostly white readership that it’s pointless to go on about the history of race relations in this country and that white Americans should simply join the battle which the Obama Administration and the organized Left are trying to provoke.  When I responded with a condensed version of how black American social and political allegiance has been manipulated over the past ten decades, he stated that a people who could be so easily (sic) manipulated must really be inferior.

This man demonstrates the type of limited perspective that I sketched out in Part One and, actually, his type could have furnished me with an additional bullet point; not only is he unable to think strategically, he actually rebukes the notion that such analysis has any value.  Moreover, such a person is blind to how his own thinking and emotional state have been shaped and molded by Leftist ideology in a much shorter time span than was so for black Americans.

In this second part, my purpose is to detail another tactical weapon of the Left, the purpose of which has been to instill a set of attitudes in the minds of the American populace; in this case, the mindset is meant for white Americans.

If the Left has been successful at keeping racial grievance in the forefront of black American agenda—in indoctrinating black Americans into believing that retaining racial anger at whites is inherent in being black and essential for black survival--it has also been successful in later years of producing a certain mindset in white Americans.  Actually this seems to be two mindsets, but it is really a singular one—a two-headed beast.  The first is guilt-fear and the second is unproductive anger.

The Herding, Part One

From American Thinker:

 

The proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this tendency to plunder instead of work. The law should protect property and punish plunder. The law, whether made by one man or one group of men, operates with the sanction and support of a dominating force, and this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws. Legal plunder occurs when the law takes from one person and gives to another. The law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. If such a law is not abolished, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. 

Have you noticed that there are some people—many people--who have no concept of time?  No, I’m not referring to the chronically tardy, though I do suspect that many of them fall into the categories of which I’m about to outline.

Those to whom I’m referring do not have a concept of the following; they are

• Unable to consider individual events from the past as anything but singular and isolated occurrences, e.g. unable to connect those events with each other and—further--with contemporaneous, on-going events,
• Unable to use known, available and pertinent information/ideas to analyze the sum (or, to use a better mathematical term, the product) of events in order to come to a plausible conclusion as to what is going, and
• Unable to take that conclusion and reasonably project what may happen in the future.

The ability to do this is called strategic thinking—the ability to recognize patterns and figure out what is true and what is false.  Most of the time, this inability has nothing to do with IQ and can be selective and temporary.  I believe that, in the latter two types of cases, the inability is due to a syndrome to which almost all of us are prone: wishful-thinking.

Many do not want to or cannot put together the events which have lead this country to its present state, much less come to a reasonable conclusion.  However, I don't fall into either category.  Believe me, sometimes I wish I did.

But the more I learn about the history of the twentieth century, the more I consider it against what is known about human nature, the more I observe the state in which this country finds itself in at present--the more I believe that the peril anticipated by all too many observers, was planned by the Left.

Tactical Analysis

In the wake of the al Qaeda terror attack in Uganda, the Obama Administration states, for the record that:

...U.S. intelligence has indicated that al Qaeda leadership specifically targets and recruits black Africans to become suicide bombers because they believe that poor economic and social conditions make them more susceptible to recruitment than Arabs," the [Obama Administration ] official said. "Al Qaeda recruits have said that al Qaeda is racist against black members from West Africa because they are only used in lower level operations."

By now, however, anyone who has been close observing what this administration says and does knows that nothing can be taken at face value--especially a statement which should produce a "duh" in the minds of anyone who is familiar with Islam's history in Africa.

So, what to make of such an unneeded statement? Here's what.

Most recently, the online commentariat on the Right has been abuzz about the NAACP and its formal statement condemning the Tea Party movement for its alleged racism against blacks (more about that in a later post). 

So, when President Obama calls al Qaeda terrorists racist (true, but who cares? dead is dead) and his minions in the NAACP call the Tea Party movement racist (untrue), they are attempting to plant seeds in the minds of the uninformed and still evaluating.

They are attempting to paint the Tea Party movement as a terrorist movement in the arena of public opinion. Sissy Willis comes to the same conclusion before I do. 

And if the attempt is strategically successful, the president will attempt to make the designation public policy.

[Edited]

Scenario

The federal government--read President Obama--plans to sue the state of Arizona due to the state's new illegal immigration law.

Let's say that such a travesty does occur and let's say that Arizona loses in court.  They will be penalties, prescriptions and proscriptions laid out for the state.

If the lawsuit plays out in this manner, what would the federal government do if the state of Arizona refuses to accept the judgment of the court; what would the fed do if AZ refused to comply with the penalties and continued to enforce its law? 

What would President Obama do should Arizona defy such a judgment?

Why We Have To Drain The Swamp (KS)

Once again, Mark Steyn brings up a depressingly great point.

It’s not just long-ago sins like imperialism and colonialism and Eurocentric white male patriarchy and other fancies barely within living memory. Our very lifestyle demands penitence: Americans have easily accessible oil reserves, but it would be wrong to touch them, so poor old BP have to do the “environmentally responsible” thing and be out in the middle of the Gulf a mile underwater. If you’re rich enough to be that stupid, what won’t you subsidize? The top al-Qaeda recruiter in Britain, Abu Qatada, had 150,000 pounds in his bank account courtesy of the taxpayer before the comically misnamed Department for Work and Pensions decided to cut back his benefits.

The green jobs, the gay parades, the jihadist welfare queens, the Greek public sector unions, all have to be paid for by a shrinking base of contributing workers whose children and grandchildren will lead poorer and meaner lives because of the fecklessness of government. The social compact of the postwar era cannot hold. Across the developed world, a beleaguered middle class is beginning to understand that it’s no longer that rich. At some point, it will look at the sheer waste of government spending, the other shoe will drop, and it will decide that it no longer wishes to be that stupid.

The Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives for, what, 12 years?  During that time, the GOP did very little to break the Left’s choke-hold on the levers of power. Oh sure, the GOP would win a presidency and yeah, they’d gain control of the Senate for a time or two. But the basically permanent federal bureaucracy, which is overwhelmingly liberal, hardly changed.

The left-wing hacks that infest almost every layer of the federal government are very protective of their fiefdoms from outside-aka conservative-influences. Here’s a question: Does anybody think the mega-bureaucracy that is Obama-Care will be any sort of compatible with small government reforms?

Look at something as seemingly benign as PBS. From Sesame Street to Nova, it’s a bastion of left-wing politics. It indoctrinates kids and adults in liberal propaganda with your tax dollars, then guilt-trips you into donating $100 for a $5 tote bag. In the history of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, have they ever been in any danger of being weaned off the public trough? Have they ever been in any danger of just having their budgets cut?

Elements of the government have long been in bed with barely-legal groups like La Raza and ACORN. Socialism, race-hustling and criminal conduct…all of these things are aided and abetted by taxpayer dollars.

Don’t get me wrong. Elections still matter. 2010 is most assuredly going to be a big battle in the fight against the statist project. But on a deeper level, the government life support system for the Left must have it’s plug pulled. If we are to make any progress against the Progressives, we must stop giving the liberals a blank check from the government to meddle in American public life.

When Delineation is not Segregation

Marie and Sebastian Stroughter of African American Conservatives and Kevin Jackson of The Blacksphere have collaborated to form the Black Conservative Census, urging conservatives who happen to be black to “stand up and be counted.”  Of course, this is in response to the Big Media-driven notion that racism is indicated in the facts that most black Americans are liberal Democrats and that most of those who protest in/sympathize with the Tea Party movement are white.

An absurd notion, is it not?  As my friends Mike and Sonja T. mentioned, if all-white groups over two in number were automatically racist, they became an official racist mob when their first-born entered the fray.  (They have four.  I'm scared!)

Deeming a group 'racist' which labels itself by race/ethnicity or incidentally consists of mostly one race isn’t an idea exclusive to Big Media, however.  I recall that, back in 2005, when Jay Tea of Wizbang! was kind enough to publicize the efforts of another black conservative online alliance--the Conservative Brotherhood--a lot of assumptions were made regarding the nature of that group; assumptions which existed solely because we billed ourselves as a 'black' group. Many of us who belong to CB waded into the comments section and tried to dispel erroneous notions about the group, some of which were astonishingly stupid and racist themselves.

As it often goes, however, when people are on the side of the angels, one of the most eloquent defenders of the concept which produced the Conservative Brotherhood was Jeremy Pierce—the husband of one of CB’s members, Samantha.  Jeremy is white.

The point of the CB is so more black people will be exposed to their ideas, because those are the people whom these ideas will most directly affect and the ones most commonly ignoring the CB members as Uncle Toms who are in Whitey's pocket.

(…)

It's a matter of connecting with those who have similar views from the same background, a group who tends to be ostracized and marginalized merely for being both black and conservative.

(…)

As they [band together], they haven't isolated [themselves]. They've just taken note of each other and become allies, with a central location that links to all of them. Then someone comes along and calls them racist, and others say it's immoral and against conservative principles. Why? Because they care about race. If we say it's racist or immoral in some other way to care about race, then we're not going to care about race, and that's going to feed into all the problems that come when you ignore the real racial problems in this country. That's catering to institutional and residual racism. It's thus part of the complex social forces that perpetuate racial problems. It's thus racism.

One of the ways in which discord and distrust have been sown for years by racists of all colors and persuasions is by accepting as valid the perception in which any group which formed on the basis of ethnicity is automatically racist, especially if the group is white—no if, ands or buts.    So it is that Wizbang! guests applied the same standard to a black group--ignoring the nuance inherent in the adjective ‘conservative’ and ignoring the CB members' displayed words and actions up to that point in time.  These people decided to see something sinister (no pun intended) in anything labeled black or composed mostly of black people.  

(It doesn’t feel too good, does it, fellow Tea Partiers? And now you know why I posted the message about my affiliation with the social network, The Professional Black Writer.)

It’s the flip side of identity politics.  It replaces thinking. And in acknowledgment that some people don't want to think these concepts through, Jackson and the Stroughters have provided a not-black affiliation field for the census. Understandable.

Admittedly, however, President Obama’s racialism—indicated both before and after his election—has made mere “pride” in one’s heritage even more suspect.  That racialism started on the very day of the election and has been officially condoned by the Obama Justice Department.   The Obama Administration has planted and continues to plant the seeds of mistrust and discord among American brethren.  Simply put, it has painted a target on each of our backs.

I assert that it’s up to all of us to think things through and to recognize the administration's strategy for what it is—a means to destroy the United States of America—and not to buy into the mutually-assured destruction this president offers.

Repeal is the only answer

President Obama's health care deform has of course passed.  Great.  Huzzah.  Hallelujah.  He's really scored himself a legislative victory, hasn't he?  I for one am sure that now that Obambi and the Donks have their stirring socialized medicine on their curriculum vitae, the American public will rejoice and flock to the Democrats super-left agenda.

Right?

Last week, President Obama signed historic health care reform legislation into law -- but his legislative success doesn't seem to have helped his image with the American public.

The latest CBS News Poll, conducted between March 29 and April 1, found Americans unhappier than ever with Mr. Obama's handling of health care - and still worried about the state of the economy.

President Obama's overall job approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 44 percent, down five points from late March, just before the health bill's passage in the House of Representatives. It's down 24 points since his all-time high last April. Forty-one percent of those polled said they disapproved of the president's performance.

Wow.

So people still hate Obammy-Care, still despise the way it was passed and still think poorly of our President.

How are the Republicans reacting to this seemingly great news, you ask?

Just like you'd think.  But here's a hint just in case-it rhymes with 'Howards'.

For Republicans, urging a full repeal of the law will energize conservative activists whose turnout is crucial this year. But it also carries risks, say strategists in both parties.

Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and some grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade.

"It's just not going to happen," Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said of repeal in a speech Wednesday. "It's a great political issue," he said, but opponents will never muster the 67 votes needed in the 100-member Senate...Republican leaders are moving cautiously, wary of angering their hard-right base. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who chairs the committee responsible for electing GOP senators this fall, said in an interview, "The focus really should be on the misplaced priorities of the administration" and Congress' Democratic leaders.

Asked if he advises Republican Senate candidates to call for repealing the law, Cornyn said: "Candidates are going to test the winds in their own states. ... In some places, the health care bill is more popular than others."

Uggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Of course, it's unlikely that the Republicans will repeal HCR after the 2010 elections.  They'd have to pick up 67 senators to repeal, either through straight up GOP gains or have enough Democrats go against their president to create a working bipartisan super majority to kill the bill.  So yeah, it's gonna be tough to do in even the rosiest of post 2010 scenarios.

But that reality doesn't mean that Republicans shouldn't run on repeal.  The Obambi version of socialized medicine is unpopular right now.  How will the public look at the President and his health care reform as the taxes, fees, numbskull bureaucracy, lost jobs, lost benefits and the other collateral damage from the bill kick in?  How will the citizenry feel when they realize that any benefits they're going to get out of Donkey-Med aren't going to materialize for another two years?

Furthermore, over the next few months, the anger from Obama-Care is only going to get more intense.  The states' lawsuits against the bill are going to ratchet up.  All the corruption in the bill is going to come crawling out in full view.   Naturally, that would lead the chicken-$#!t Republican leadership to not run on repeal.

If the GOP ignores the political reality and backs off of reform, they will throw away a massively effective weapon to use against the Democrats in 2010.  More importantly, they will lose the Tea Party folks, which would be a disaster.  The Tea Parties have been the main drivers of the anti-Obama resistance.  If the GOP gives those people nothing but crumbs, they will surely drift away from the Republican orbit.

Keeping the Tea Party energized and excited is the best option for the GOP.  So what will the Republicans most likely do?  Play it safe and lose the golden opportunity that's been thrown on their lap.  

INTERPOL May Operate Freely in the US (UPDATED)

So how many "Christ"mas gifts that keep on giving do our Executive and Legislative branches of government have laid up for us?

By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, [INTERPOL] now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. 

The order:

For Immediate Release December 17, 2009
Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425

EXECUTIVE ORDER
- - - - - - -
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER 12425 DESIGNATING INTERPOL
AS A PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION ENTITLED TO
ENJOY CERTAIN PRIVILEGES, EXEMPTIONS, AND IMMUNITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.

BARACK OBAMATHE WHITE HOUSE,

December 16, 2009.

What it means: INTERPOL assets are above the US Constitution while operating in the United States.  So if the agency arrests an American citizen while operating on US soil, it can hand such person over to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

A foundation is been laid for sure.  For this...

[T]he next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

...and more.

By the way, did you know that INTERPOL's central operations office in the US is located in and among the Department of Justice offices?

There is only one force stronger than those who would curtail our liberty--and it isn't an earthly force.

(Thanks to The Quarreyman)

UPDATE:  Ed Morrissey points out that

Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo.  Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?

Yes, that is exactly what this administration intends.

Impossible?

Do the members of the US House and Senate know something that their constituents don't?

Of course.

One of the prime motivations of politicians is self-preservation in office.

They do not normally go out of their way to take a stand on anything for fear of angering blocs of voters. They will straddle any issue, talk out of four sides of their mouths [double talk on both sides], and watch polling religiously twisting in the breeze of public opinion. (...)

Fear of repercussions at the polls over-rides all. While they may have contempt for us (...), they do their best to conceal it behind a smile and fake concern.

Politicians acting out of character indicates a change in the rules, whether we know it or not.

The Legislative Branch of the United States government seems Hell-bent on imposing Socialized Medicine on the American public whether the majority of the latter want it or not and, more importantly, whether Socialized Medicine and all of its attendant details are constitutional and/or moral or not. 'Why' isn't such an important question.  This is: what makes them think that they can get away with it without paying a steep political price?

Politicians in a group when they act consistently and anomalously against what would seem to be their own interests, are usually operating on information not available to anyone else. One also has to add to the mix the question why the Republicans as a party are only offering token opposition to the Democrats, when standing up would rally support to them? What do they know?

When you rule out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, has to be considered. The only thing that remains, that I can see, is that no matter what they do, they no longer have any fear of facing the voters in an honest election.

Read this whole thing.  The short of it, however, is this: our republic may be taking its last gasps.

It isn't as if we weren't warned.

Why Black Americans Think That the Federal Government is Our Friend

While hanging out yesterday at Ace's yesterday as he was flogging racists, I happened to mention that many if not most black Americans view the federal government as beneficial and friendly.  Some other commenters were surprised and I was surprised at their surprise, because it isn't difficult to figure out why this is.  Whether it's the Emancipation or the desegregation of the Armed Forces or Brown v. Board or the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the federal government for the most part had seemed to be on the side of the black American as his constitutional rights were being oppressed by state or local governments.

What needs to be spelled, however is what the federal government did in the above-mentioned areas: it legally removed obstacles to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of Americans who are black.  And that is what it was supposed to do.

The present problem in my unlearned opinion is this: the federal government began overstepping its bounds during the Great Depression and did so most infamously in the late sixties via the Great Society programs.  Doing more that getting local racists out of the way, the federal government sought to and succeeded in making itself the suppliers of life, liberty and, putatively, the happiness of many black Americans.  (Try telling a senior of any race that Social Security is sending the country to financial ruin. You'll get an earful about her "rights".) 

And even many black Americans who do not rely on the federal government still view the fed as our friend because of that history.

What's needed in order to change this perception is obvious: education--not a new education but the old one, one which contains an objective explanation of the role of government.

Simply put, the role of the American government is to remove obstacles to liberty of the People--even when that obstacle is American government itself.  Supplying all of one's needs is not government's role.  That's God's purview.

We all remember President Obama's statement containing the assertion that one of the flaws of the US Constitution was that is only contained a  list of "negative rights," meaning negative government "rights."  The idea that a Harvard-trained lawyer thinks that the government has rights or that there was no list of positive responsibilities assigned to government was mockable.  (Hey, you voted for him.)

But what the statement betrayed was a widespread misconception present in those of us who aren't lawyers of any variety of a friendly fed whose role is to insert itself between God and man's liberty and to redistribute wealth (aka stealing).  The notion that the founders "forgot" to address this is hilarious.

So when the Democrats came to full power this year, they began to build on the foundation that Democrat Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson laid.  The good news?  Between Socialized Medicine, Cap and Trade, TARP, etc., the federal government's active role in overstepping its bounds--in crippling America--is opening the eyes of Americans of all races.  The bad news: there may not be an America left when the federal locusts finish.

UPDATE: Hi, Glenn's readers!

What I'm Reading (December 2, 2009)

Via Glenn Reynolds, I became aware of the existence of the Encounter Broadsides.  (Encounter's publisher is Roger Kimball.)  There are seven of them--so far--Outdentand they are penned by conservative thinkers and opiners like Michael Ledeen and Victor Davis Hanson.

Because the first couple are on back order, I have received and am reading the following. One need only take a look at the title of this third one in the series to discover the upshot.

It's only thirty-five pages long which I would guess is about the average length of the rest. Taking their cue from the founders, the authors of these broadsides intend to

make the case for liberty and the institutions of democratic capitalism at a time when they are under siege from the resurgence of collectivist sentiment.

And yesterday I received another book regarding a topic that seems to be on the back-burner of Internet political discussion but I contend is one of the main ideologies fueling the present leaders of our government.

The title refers a segment of a 1956 Martin Luther King Jr. speech in which he asserted that 11:00 Sunday mornings (church attendance time) was the most segregated hour of the week. But that assertion is preceded by these accusatory statements:

There is another thing that disturbs me to no end about the American church. You have a white church and you have a Negro church. You have allowed segregation to creep into the doors of the church.

Therefore I applaud Jeremy D. Lucas for his sense of irony when choosing the title of his book.  Why? Because of the book's subject matter. Here's the subtitle:  A Layman's Guide to the History of Black Liberation Theology.

This one is short also--only seventy-five pages long.  Perhaps I'll get to finish a book for a change!  And these two most definitely need finishing.

Intent

A symptom of stupidity?

In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention.

Or is it merely a window into viewing intent?  My premise on asking the last question is this:  Obama wants to destroy this country and, to that end, destroy or weaken the things which make this country great.  Two things which make this country great-- its philosophy of jurisprudence and its due process --will be weakened by the venue alone of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and friends.  So President Obama can be as careless about commenting on the prospective outcome of the trial as he is about every other item that is part of American Exceptionalism. 

He does, however, think everyone else is stupid, as does Attorney General Eric Holder.  That’s why the two keep assuring the public that these terrorists will be "convicted and get the death penalty." That’s why the AG says irrelevant things about “not being scared” when questioned about the venue decision before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The two play on the emotions of the public but never address what will happen as a result of this trial; they think that all the public cares about is hanging these terrorists.  (Secretary Clinton was dead-on message yesterday.)  They think that the outcome is what matters to us and that we don’t care how the guilty/death penalty destination is reached, that we don't care about the process.  But in reality this is how they feel—all Leftists believe in outcome-based decision making.   (Need an example? The Community Reinvestment Act.)  The problem with outcome-based decision making is that it almost always produces an outcome not foreseen and one which is almost always detrimental--usual inadvertently.

In this case, however, the verdict of a civilian court trial of KSM et al. will not matter a whit to President Obama and Attorney General Holder.  If the trial remains in civilian court and it begins, their intended destination will have already been reached. 

As a result of such a trial, all the rules to which courts and, therefore, judges and lawyers previously adhered will be openly thrown out of the window.  Forget about the terrorists for a second; I’m talking about the rules as they apply to you and to me.  Venues changed at whim; double jeopardy; anonymous accusers--you name it.  Precedent is being set and the name of that precedent is…chaos.  Nothing will kill an organization—or a nation—faster.

Whether the defendants are found guilty or innocent not guilty, we are in grave danger, both from those who openly hate what this country stands for and those who secretly do.

The ensuing chaos is the detrimental outcome intended and it's not such a secret anymore.

UPDATE: Holder admits that there's no real reason to change the KSM trial venue, no legal one, that is:

I have thought about that possibility [of an acquittal]. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…

It will be a show trial--a stab in the heart of the legal tradition in this country.

And where would KSM go if he is acquitted and is unable to settle into a nice loft in Lower Manhattan? Back to Afghanistan/Pakistan, no doubt, where it all began and where he can train the next generation of Soldiers of Allah using supplies and facilities bought with Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Army pay.

Lovely.

 

Malevolent Outcomes

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit puts up a video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton being interviewed by David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press yesterday morning and notes that she appears to at least give lip service to agreeing with the Obama Administration’s decision to try admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his cohorts in civilian federal court--in a venue located within walking distance of the site where the World Trade Center towers once stood.  Not really a surprise.

But Secretary Clinton said something which I think needs to be highlighted.  Here’s a cut of the transcript from Real Clear Politics:

SEC'Y CLINTON: … I'm not going to second guess any decision that the attorney general made. But I think it's important that Mayor Bloomberg, that our law enforcement officials in New York, you know, all believe that New York City not only can handle this, but that it is appropriate to go forward in the very area where these people launched this horrific attack against us. You know, I was a senator from New York, and I, I want to see them brought to justice. The most important thing for me is that, you know, they pay the ultimate price for what they did to us on 9/11. And if the attorney general and, and veteran prosecutors think this is the best way to achieve that outcome, then I think that, you know, they should be given the, the right to move forward as they see appropriate.

(Emphasis mine.)

The outcome is the most important thing to Secretary Clinton and to the administration for which she works.  The appropriateness of jurisdiction and venue  doesn’t matter.  The rules of evidence don’t matter.  Nothing matters except for the outcome and the outcome which Secretary Clinton claims to want is death for KSM and his boys.  So if it isn’t important that the proper process be followed when determining the fate of these…these…these  human beings…if the process is secondary to the outcome then why are they bothering? 

Because I think we all know of an even better way that the “ultimate price” outcome can be achieved.

However, isn’t proper and due process supposed to be of the utmost of importance when an individual find him/her fate under review by a given court?  Aren’t the rules, rather than the outcome, supposed to be at the crown jewels of the legal edifice of this country?

If these Jihadis get the death penalty in this court, our problems are not over but are just beginning and not just those which will be caused by their brethren.

Once the  process is thrown out, once the rules are thrown out, once the outcome becomes the most important factor in making legal decisions, all bets are off.  Americans will be just as subject to outcome-based jurisprudence (again) as it appears that KSM will be.  That’s one of the most important reasons that President Obama and Attorney General Holder want GITMO closed and the prisoners thereof subject to US law and granted the rights which all those on American soil enjoy.

Another thing: Secretary Clinton, et al. are also giving lip service to wanting a guilty verdict.  One word: Miranda.  That's  proof in a nutshell that they have other endgames in mind.

Awesome (UPDATED)

Watching the 9/12 Tea Party Protest on Fox Interactive.  Godspeed to them all.

UPDATE: Who's there?

Stephen Green the VodkaPundit

Stacy McCain

UPDATE: 1.5 million in attendance.

God love Senator Jim Demint (R-SC).  I never thought I'd say that about a U.S Senator.

UPDATE:  Live Webcam.  And Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) can't seem to find the word 'Czar' in the U.S. Constitution.

(Thanks to Ace of Spades HQ who has a couple of breathtaking photos.)

UPDATE: From VodkaPundit:

 

That's pretty much the case.  Once you folks who object to the government redistributing your money to others realize this, you'll be truly free.

UPDATE: A NYC firefighter who responded to the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 reminds us that people are still dying from the diseases that come from inhaling the remains of two disintegrated office buildings and two destroyed jet aircraft.

UPDATE:  I think we've just heard a coinage: Million Patriot March.

UPDATE: Highlights (via Michelle Malkin)

UPDATE:  A whole load of photos are here.  A million people, easily.

UPDATE: I can't wait to see what the ground covered looks like afterward--certainly no worse than did the National Mall following Presidential Inauguration Day 2009.

UPDATE: Wow.

Tearing Down Different Walls

This morning, President Obama mentions to NBC’s Today Show host Meredith Viera that he met with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to discuss his plan to nationalize healthcare, according to Ed Morrissey. What’s the big deal? Well, do the phrases ‘separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances’ mean anything to you? No?

Likely, neither does the phrase ‘coconut treatment.'

More:

After this came to my attention, I contacted two sources in Washington and asked if presidents routinely conferred with the CBO on budget scoring. Both called this highly unusual and could not recall if or when it had been done in previous administrations. It treads on the entire process of legislative oversight and threatens the independence of the CBO from the administration, which is essential for Congress — if it’s interested in independent analysis. [snip]

This feels like an attempt to either intimidate or co-opt the CBO, neither of which would be a good thing.

Way to completely understate things, Ed! (Empahsis mine.)

Regardless of which purpose is the correct one such a meeting is completely in keeping with the manner in which this administration has operated from beginning. Repeated demonstrations of disregard for the U.S. Constitution and the concepts set forth therein are meant to do one thing: render that Constitution meaningless.

Of course we know that this same Constitution has been savaged by earlier interpreters and enforcers of it—by those who saw laws which are not there. The thing about that is this: it emboldened those who are now ready to ignore or render meaningless the laws and concepts which are there.