Congratulations, America!

Congratulations, America! You now find yourselves on the same page as Hugo Chavez, Mugabe, Castro and Ahmadinejad. You are now in support of leftists, tyrants and dictators. Just six months ago, America would lend its (albeit rhetorical) support to anyone seeking liberty without hesitation. When in 2002 Chavez just barely survived a coup d’etat, then President Bush spoke out in support of the opposition. It earned him endless ridicule, as he knew it would; but he did it anyway.

Today, the word “coup” trumps “constitution”. This speaks to the mindset of our current commander-in-chief, who appears to be in awe of tyrants the world over. I’m sure he is taking studious notes to know just how to counter push-back when the time comes for him to extend his own term(s) in office. Will our own constitutional checks and balances remain viable? I doubt it. Should he succeed (as seems likely) in packing the courts with cronies, eroding the power of Congress, starving the military and criminalizing dissent, he is certain to prevail. As long as the press continues to carry his water directly to and from White House, the national narrative is Obama's – and none dare call it treason.

I went for a walk this morning on the grounds of the Theosophical Society here in Chennai. I was overwhelmed by the strange beauty of this (to me) still foreign land. There was bamboo, innumerable species of of cacti, bougainvillea; banyan, peepal trees and magnolia; coconut and date palms; and much that I couldn’t identify. There were crows, ravens and mynah birds; water buffalo, Brahma bulls pulling carts. I even saw a warthog crashing through the underbrush trying to get a better look at me.

I suddenly realized that I was looking for a country to call home. My own country is gone. I no longer feel comfortable in calling myself an ‘American’. I can feel only pity for a people - burdened by faux guilt and blinded by celebrity worship - who have allowed themselves and future generations to be enslaved by unfathomable debt while, at the same time, steadily slipping the constraints of principle and thinking it is freedom.

Environmental Armageddon?

Once you decide to engage in a discussion about ‘global warming’, you have already lost the argument. ‘Global warming’ is the magician’s parlor trick which compels one to focus on the empty flourish of the right hand while the left executes the prestige.

‘Global warming’, therefore functions primarily as a diversion and secondarily as a scare tactic. Perhaps Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center said it best as far back as 1997: ‘Global warming’ he wrote, is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world, bar none. Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment. Rather, it is a political movement led by those who seek to control world economies, dictate development, and redistribute the world's wealth." Since then, there have been many others who have come to the same conclusion. The major media, however, totally in the tank with re-distributionist policies, have so far refused to give equal time to ‘global warming’ skeptics, leaving the impression among the weak-minded that environmental Armageddon is perilously close at hand.

People who subscribe to the ‘global warming’ hoax generally fall into one of two categories: those who are genuinely afraid that the earth will collapse into an uninhabitable fireball and those who exploit the hoax for their own political advantage. President Obama easily fits the latter template. He has often spoken about his intention to redistribute the world’s riches more equitably. It is no wonder that he also supports the environmentalists’ calls to action (Cap and Trade).

Michael Jackson, on the other hand, also is said to have supported the environmental movement. He was persuaded to write, “Global Warming: The Earth Song” recently. It is a heartrending plea for people to come together and save the planet. From what has recently emerged about the ill-fated super star, there can be little doubt which of the two categories outlined above he belonged to.

Given what can be expected should ‘global warning’ zealots gain the upper hand in terms of immediate wholesale dislocation leading to simmering social unrest and culminating almost certainly in armed conflict, I choose to place my bet on ‘global warming’ as being something we can live with. A preview of the alternative is currently being played out on the streets and rooftops of Tehran.

A Toxic Cloud

I think we are in danger of reaching some kind of impasse when we seek to quantify ‘evil’. First and foremost, in fairness we must acknowledge that which precipitated our drive to unseat the Iraqi dictator. Without it, I doubt we would have even considered our subsequent Iraqi adventure. Right or wrong, our desire to exact some measure of revenge is what motivated much of what would follow. To Bush’s eternal credit, it was always 9/11 - an attack on Americans on American soil - that lent credibility to everything he tried to accomplish on the global stage.

Let’s stipulate (what many still believe) that President Obama is not a Trojan Horse determined to destroy the U.S. as a viable entity; that he genuinely has the best interests of the nation at heart and wants to be the one to lead it into a Promise Land, independent of Middle Eastern oil and, at the same time, rescue the planet (along with Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore, and Palme d’Or winner, Michael Moore) from the evil Republicans, apocalyptic ‘global warming’, pandemic, and/or nuclear war.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that, by clamping down on carbon emissions and by breaking the stranglehold of ‘Big (American) Oil', the best minds, entrepreneurs and investors in our country will rise to the occasion and begin developing alternate energy sources. In the process thousands, if not millions, of new lucrative jobs would be created. It would amount to the country coming together and making a commitment akin to deciding to conquer the moon. Perhaps there were those who pooh-poohed it back when Kennedy first proposed it. I can’t remember. But I think that most of us were cool with it. I remember staying in a lodge in Austria on the Mond (moon) See when the live pictures were first being sent back to earth (“One small step…”). My Dad, a scientist himself, was so excited. Everyone in the room was. And we, as the only Americans there, were looked upon as VIP’s.

The problem with Obama’s plans as outlined is two-fold. First, his vision for America is one that only he can see. True, it is vague enough so that each individual can fill in the blanks with his own wish list of desires. On that basis alone, he can expect to maintain some degree of core support. Second, there are, however, enough of us who essentially distrust his motives which throws everything he says and does under a toxic cloud of suspicion. A nation can chart its course confidently only when it can be certain that stability (It can’t happen here) or the lack of same does not become an issue. Financial markets function as a barometer – a harbinger – of future economic activity. So far, they’ve given the President a decisive thumbs-down. It’s not that Obama lacks consistency. It’s just that everything that he proposes appears to run counter to what people were expecting.

What is Obama’s mandate that allows him to disrupt, transform and lay waste existing institutions and templates that have worked flawlessly for so long? Is it the largely self-inflicted banking collapse? Is it the hyped-up and mostly unsubstantiated threat of ‘global warming’? Or is it the imagined grievances of a vocal minority that refuses to appreciate the sacrifices our country has already made to atone for past sins? None of these warrant the immense dislocations that can be expected should Obama’s agenda proceed unopposed. By fashioning himself as a messiah or mahdi - as a primal event (black swan, if you wish) - he runs the risk of becoming a tyrant; an oppressor; an ‘evil’ – not unlike Batchelor’s Twelvers - that will be opposed by all who are slated to suffer undeserved consequences.

TREASON

Last night we witnessed the American equivalent of what is currently happening on the streets in Tehran. The House passed "historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape" (as reported by yahoo). The bill was passed unread by members, which would indicate that it was voted for and against purely for ideological reasons. As Democrats control the every facet of government, there was never any doubt that the legislation would pass by virtue of herd instinct alone.

All this happened while growing international scientific consensus appears to indicate that the ‘man-made global warming’ scare is a hoax (see article by Kimberley A. Strassel entitled, “The Climate Change Climate Change: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere (6/26’o9). In America, however, we are not allowed to discuss this - along with a whole host of related topics - in open debate. In fact, I have even heard voices suggesting that ‘global warming’ skeptics be subject to criminal penalties similar to penalties imposed by some countries on holocaust deniers. The fact that this bill was passed on a Friday evening without rigorous debate (how is it possible to debate something that no one has read?) is a pretty good indication that its proponents believe that sentiments concerning this particular issue are about to shift.

Why, then, be in such a hurry to ram it through? That's precisely because this bill has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ and everything to do with ideology. For one thing, government needs the money generated by this bill to pay for its proposed Health Care Reform. Major media had pretty much taken a neutral stance, asking only the question, ‘Will Obama prevail?’ What is generally understood to be right-wing talk radio has been screaming against passage, urging listeners to call their representatives, even while acknowledging that the issue has become strictly partisan. Talk radio listeners responded, jamming Washington switchboards in huge numbers. One representative in Oregon was asked if he would vote for the bill. He said, yes. When asked if he had read it, he said, no. Would he still vote in favor of the bill? He said, yes.

What right-wing talk radio listeners did not know was that they were not the only ones calling. Spanish language radio stations have also been exhorting their listeners to call the Capitol Hill and the White House to express their support for the bill. I understand that they were promised that comprehensive Immigration Reform coupled with ‘Universal Health Care’ would be next on the agenda.

No one seriously believes that ‘Universal Health Care Reform’ will substantially improve health care in America. Obama himself admitted during a recent press conference that he would take members of his own family to private doctors should they require it. (Same as sending his own children to elite, private rather than public schools.) What, I ask again, is the reason for the rush in pushing all these bills through Congress (now)?

Simple! Obama’s unspoken agenda is to bankrupt the country and to drive down the dollar. In this way America will never again be in a position to exert its influence on the world stage. Obama sees his messianic mission as one to unite the world under a single authority. To this end he is willing to sacrifice the nation that has elected him to be its leader. By advocating the enslavement of the American people to outside interests, he has effectively broken the oath of his office. In the old world order, there existed a word to describe such behavior. That word (and I have never used it here before; and I do so now only with a heavy heart) is TREASON.

Comparatively speaking, Obama’s vision of his new Utopian world order is nearly as unrealistic as Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic vision of the emergence of the Mahdi (or the 12th Imam) from the bottom of some well. Reasonable people in both nations have been effectively shut out of the conversation. What has been seen as happening on the streets of Tehran is the result of frustration building in an increasingly disenfranchised electorate. The government’s response was also predictable.

Similarly, as the consequences of Obama’s (and in some ways Bush’s) policies mount, at some point the people can be expected to revolt. And the government can be expected to respond – with everything it has.

The Main Course is Missing

Finished! Protest over in Iran. It was only a minor annoyance - soon to be forgotten. Lesson learned; duly noted: Don't mess with the puppet master.

I remember, one fine morning in September. I remember because I was out on the road - working. My crew and I watched the smoke rising over Lower Manhattan (from the Jersey side). At one of our stops, the TV was on. There were people gathered around it - watching intently. The president was explaining that two planes had crashed into the World Trade Center towers. I felt a strange new sensation. By the time we arrived at our next stop my hands were shaking. One of my co-workers was sobbing openly. We all felt something had changed – something that could not be put back to how it had been.

We continued the route. Cell phone calls kept us informed. Within hours we knew the names of the skyjackers. It never occurred to us to wonder who might have been in on it from the inside, though that would become an issue in the coming months; years. How could we trust the words of a man who had (we were told) effectively stolen an election, after all?

Soon after, 9/11 was forgotten. Our focus became scattered; diverted by other, more immediate concerns. War, torture, body bags, political gamesmanship and conflicting opinions about how to go about rebuilding that which had been broken were expertly served in an unbroken stream of dolled up platters. Nobody noticed that the main course was missing. 9/11 never happened, or so it seemed. WE had been attacked on our own soil and almost 3000 people died, but that part of it was no longer to be mentioned. Only subsequent events deserved obsessive repetition and magnification in the press. Lacking the context of 9/11, none of these pieces fit satisfactorily, giving rise to wild speculation and doubt, all of which the media exploited to render an administration clumsy and ultimately ineffective.

Then, just before last November’s presidential election, came whatever it was that gave rise to TARP – another, this time (perhaps) more subtle, attack on our financial systems. It is never talked about and has never been investigated. Instead, we are told, it was capitalism that had failed (on its own). I, for one, still want to know how and why? The why is pretty obvious: Obama was elected in November. The how remains a mystery. (I suspect that knowing how would lead to who.) Politicians and the media consistently skip over this part of the story – just like 9/11 has now been effectively relegated to a mere footnote.

Obama was elected president. Again, so much about the man was unknown to us when we pulled the levers in good faith. So much was covered up; glossed over. Only now are we are beginning to see the trends.

Some say, take your pick: Either Health Care Reform or Cap and Trade will spell the end of America as we have known her. Both are coming up for a vote in our rubber stamp congress. Immigration and Tax Reform also loom large on Obama’s radical Marxist agenda. We have no reason to assume that any of this will bode well for us. I say, the die was cast way back on 9/11/’01. That’s when the ball started rolling in earnest.

Protest over in Iran! The government controls the narrative. Tienanmen Square (’89): The government controls the narrative. Obama assumes the office of President (’09). We still don’t have a clue just who this guy is. The government controls the narrative.

‘It can’t happen here’, we try to reassure ourselves right after saying our prayers and pulling the covers up. Outside the wind is howling and the rain splashes loudly against the windows. There’s also a branch that’s rubbing up against the eaves. We inhale sharply as we look forward to another sleepless night.

Day Tripper

Peter Koelliker | June 24, 2009 3:04 AM | Reply

JB - Glad you mentioned the Peace Moratorium (October 1969). It brought back some memories. We drove down from Gettysburg College. There were six or seven of us, all crammed into a VW mini-bus lacking a starter motor. We’d always have to make sure to park it on a hill.

I’d be lying if I claimed to attribute anything lofty or cerebral to this exercise. It was envisioned as a ‘happening’ – no more; a reason to embark on a day trip, drop some acid, smoke a little dope and raise hell. ‘Vietnam’ simply provided the pretext.

So you were there too! I remember wandering around aimlessly and being suddenly confronted with a phalanx of helmeted cops. They were shooting tear gas in our direction. We all turned and ran. I stumbled and fell – blinded; my eyes burning. Maybe you were the one who lifted me up and carried me around the corner. …and my faith in humanity was restored.

This stumble and subsequent rescue, more than anything else of that day, remains etched in my mind. I realize now that I had decided to go only because I felt myself perfectly safe. Even from the police, ultimately under the command of a beleaguered president, I knew I had nothing of lasting consequence to fear. It’s way too easy to be brave under such circumstances – quite unlike those in so many other parts of the world who risk everything daily for freedom. I now wonder how I could have looked myself in the mirror all these years.

I continue to be grateful for this forum that gives me a chance to redress some of my youthful indiscretions. I remain fearful for our nation. By helping to sound the alarm, I hope to help mitigate the worst of what might yet be in store for us.

Peter Koelliker | June 23, 2009 10:27 PM | Reply

Why is POTUS cranky? It's because he's learning first hand that there is true evil in the world. This is not something he learned about in Ivy League affirmative action universities, where the concept of 'evil' has been effectively purged from the lexicon. The closest thing to 'evil' that POTUS can conceive of is cranky opposition from misguided capitalists who might not feel comfortable with the tenets of Marxism. Neither is he able to blame the U. S. as being the source of this particular evil. All this has left him without the usual talking points without which POTUS' teleprompter finds itself outside its depth - cranky and confused.

Peter Koelliker | June 23, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply

Powerful stuff indeed! Thank you, John, for posting it. I haven't seen too much of this over here in India. B. Raman's posts appear to indicate that at least some here are aware. I also don't know how the rest of the American media is treating this. I just saw a sanitized version of it on the NYT on-line edition. I doubt that the same media that refused to show people jumping out of the World Trade Towers would make an exception in this case. If I'm wrong, it must be because they feel that the cold-blooded murder of Neda does not in any way reflect badly on their own cartoon creation ‘cat-got-your-tongue’ president.

Peter Koelliker replied to comment from Sapientia | June 22, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply

"Iran is very similar to Romania, the people hate their leaders." Look closer to home, Sapientia. It's not so much that we hate our leaders (it hasn't come to that point yet), it's more that we don't trust them. "More ballots counted than eligible voters in any given district." Where have heard that one before? IG's fired for no legitimate reason (only to protect Obama's buddies). Taxpayer's TARP money unaccounted for. Billions in treasury bills (real or fake) in suitcases awash along international borders. The numbers re Obama's welfare programs not adding up. Obama's policies of trying to play nice, nice with corrupt and brutal foreign leaders while dumping on long-time trusted allies. Obama strangling the development of U.S. energy resources. Obama strangling industry. Obama unleashing the IRS (on perceived enemies). Obama rewarding car dealerships that supported his election and closing those who didn't. Obama building an army of brown shirts apart from the military and local law enforcement agencies.

I can hear some of you say, "Peter, you're being paranoid. Obama is a good, God-fearing man. He's doing his best, given the mess he inherited (from Bush). Give him a chance!"

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps I'm over-reacting. I just find it extremely troubling that not a single soul with clout, either in the government or in the press, is pursuing any of the issues I have just mentioned. Only discredited, scorned and vilified talk radio is asking questions. Who exactly and how many are we insuring for a trillion dollars? Do the math! Divide a trillion dollars by the legitimate number of the currently uninsured. This will give you what this new government insurance policy will be costing us. I doubt that any of us who are currently paying health insurance premiums is paying anywhere close to what Obama is willing to spend on our behalf.

Peter Koelliker replied to comment from Anonymous | June 21, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply

Intelligent, straight forward observations. My own, admittedly anecdotal experience is quite similar to yours. I also think there's a huge segment of our population that's not being properly served by the government/media complex. When these people begin to make themselves known, who knows what will happen. Democrat? Republican? Independent? I happen to think that an Independent Party (or Third Party) could win at this point. Look at what happened last November. Both, the Democrats and the Republicans essentially lost. Instead, we chose a wild card from a stacked deck.
Next time, I'm sure, we'll be more careful. We'll demand that our media vets our candidates properly. We'll demand accountability for past actions and associations. We'll actually listen to what candidates say and ask them to elaborate. They themselves will be made to acknowledge the desires of the majority of us, as the extremists on either side will have been exposed (and marginalized). All this, of course, is contingent on the media righting itself.

Peter Koelliker | June 21, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply

As is always the case, the people suffer when the big boys can't get along. B.C. makes a good point. America has no dog in this fight. Nothing will change for us whoever wins. I'm dying to know how Obama sees this. He's being awfully circumspect. Still, he must have a private preference. Is he beginning to realize that the regime he once embraced (or still embraces) consists of murderous thugs? Or is he quietly rooting against the people? Is he as blind to the Iranian people's plight as he is to the plight of the American muddle class? Does he view them as a potential threat once the effects of his re-distribution policies begin to hit home? Is that why he is reconstituting catalist; funding ACORN; and organizing his private Civilian National Security Force?

Dogs Running

The following is my response to a question that I had initially thought was posed rhetorically: “What have you experienced that has made you so cynical, so hopeless, so convinced all but talk radio USA and its excitable followers can lead us to salvation?”

My response: "Let me point out that you didn't answer my questions either. I would like to view our discussions as an honest exchange between friends who may agree to disagree politically but can still respect each other. Therefore, I would submit that characterizations such as "hate(ful)", "cynical" and "hopeless" are not worthy of either one of us.

"Let me begin answering your question by saying that the birth of my daughter was a seminal moment in my life. Before that, I had no interest in children. In fact, I regarded them as a nuisance. I could not imagine investing even a scrap of myself in their raising. As we had very little money at the time, I doubted that it would work out financially as well. We considered abortion, but were too cowardly to pull the trigger.

"I was a reluctant witness at the birth. When the nurse gave me my daughter to hold, a sudden change came over me. It was totally unexpected. I felt like a light was shining on us from above. I felt all warm and gooey ...and for the first time in my life I felt connected to something.

"I relate this simply to demonstrate that people can change; that change can come naturally; that change is organic; permanent. From the incredible high of that day, the interaction between me and my children only grew even more amazing with each passing day. (Our son was born a year and a half later. I went through the same routine at the hospital but this time there were no fireworks, only the quiet joy of having been chosen to care for another young life.)

"I can honestly say that I have never had a bad moment with either one of my children. It was the wife who turned out to be the problem.

"I once voted for Jessie Jackson for president. In those days I was full of vim and vigor, seeking out the 'hidden' meanings in the lyrics of Beatles songs, hoping for revolution.

"Winston S. Churchill was once to have said: 'Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." I guess I changed. It came naturally. I did not seek it. I just felt, after a while, that conservatism made more sense.

"I note that most of my friends, especially those who managed to make something of themselves in their chosen careers, have remained staunch liberals. (This includes you.) I don't really understand why. Liberalism, in the U.S. especially, has become rabid Marxism. I don't understand how the lessons of Communist Eastern Europe (among so many other sad examples) could have been so quickly forgotten. Has this now become our model? It certainly seems so.

"I'm not obsessed with it. I just watch incredulously as it happens. It's interesting (as you say.) And I try to add my two cents. It's gotten me to write again. Sometimes I astound myself with what comes out.

"Everything that is bound to happen, will happen. Of this there is no doubt. We are far too insignificant to affect such outcomes. All we can do is ride the wave. I sense a tsunami-like wave building in America unlike any we've seen before. Two blocks away from here is the Bay of Bengal where the tsunami hit several years ago. They say, the ocean got sucked out so far, that you couldn't see it anymore. Down in Mahabalipuram (where we happened to go today), ancient temples long claimed by the sea were unearthed again for a brief time. Then the sea came rushing back.

"They say, just as the sea was retreating, the stray dogs that make their home on the beach came galloping up our road as fast as they could go. Humans, on the other hand, went down to the beach to gawk. I don't believe what you're hearing is talk-radio. What you are hearing is dogs running, seeking higher ground."

Chrysalis

This article and many like it fail to account for the huge role the media plays in all this. Take the media in Gaza, for example, proceeding as it does with its unrelenting drumbeat vilifying the Jews and wanting them driven into the sea. (And it's not just Jews. The same hatred is propagated against Christians, Hindus or anyone not actively promoting genocide.)

Children are taught from the moment they can understand anything at all that Jews and those who support them are the scourge of the earth. No other view is tolerated within the community riddled with spies ever ready to inform, intimidate and threaten. How is it possible under such circumstances for ‘moderate’ views to emerge? Just yesterday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said that Egypt, nor any other Arab country, would ever accept Israel as a (Jewish) state. Given such sentiments, oft repeated throughout the Arab world, how can there be any talk of peace? If peace at any cost were the goal, would it not require Israel to put its head quietly on the chopping block and welcome the blade?

Do we now curse any glimmer of rational thinking as well? Do we curse the Israelis for wanting to survive? Should we not bless the candle that refuses to go out even during the ragged sirocco of unmitigated animus focused upon it?

It’s virtually the same here in the U.S. Only here the (seemingly) dominant ideology is liberalism. Liberalism first and foremost declares its hatred of Republicans. The drumbeat in the mass media against Republicans has been absolutely relentless. Conservatives, who can effectively articulate the principles of Conservatism, have been especially and specifically targeted. Media is not alone. Academe and Hollywood also have effectively used their big megaphones to wage war on conservatives. So maligned have they become, few dare to speak out openly. And yet, mass media outlets are hurting financially which suggests that liberalism in America is a tyranny by the few.

Do we now curse Republicans which, though effectively powerless, nevertheless (potentially) remain a repository of options and alternatives?

That is why John Batchelor's attacks on the Republican Party sound disingenuous. Republicans have not lost their clout for being too conservative. They’ve lost it for not being conservative enough. It’s the Democrat majority that is hollow. They survive by spin, intimidation and threat. (In America they don’t cut your throat (yet); they give you a hi-tech lynching in the media instead.) This is not a position of strength. As time goes by, the political sands will shift – and shift decisively.

There is much to suggest that the political winds have shifted already. Only the elites who talk only among themselves, ensconced in their utopian fantasy bubbles, haven’t noticed yet. They think it’s still pre-TARP; pre-9/11; pre-Columbus. No one will be more surprised than Katie by the tsunami of rejection the next polls are likely to demonstrate. The poison the Dems have allowed to seep into the fabric of their party will eat them alive. As there are only two viable parties in this country, Republicans cannot help but benefit. That doesn’t sound like a party that’s dying to me. Sounds more like a chrysalis. If even a shred of credibility re our electoral system remains, Republicans will be in like flint no matter what Democrats, Repubicans (sic) or the press try to spin.

What's the Big Idea?

The worst thing about entertaining dystopian thoughts is that if it does not come to pass, we feel somehow cheated. Even if we all were locked away in some big sky gulag along with the like-minded, with Obama's brown shirts standing sloppy watch, there might still be the delicious excitement of planning escapes a la the cagey crew in 'Hogan's Heroes'.

I am reminded of my mother saying, “The soup is never as hot when eaten as when it's cooked." It might well be that all we imagine will not materialize in the way we expect it to. True, the Republican opposition has been all but wiped out. But there will always be other checks and balances in play, not the least of which is the Dems themselves who can be expected to mutiny at some point. I dare say, not all of them share Obama's totalitarian vision.

No doubt, it’ll take something big to turn it around – a fairly significant terrorist strike on American soil; a major economic event; an international event; a domestic disturbance - something captivating enough so that the media won’t be able to simply sweep it under the rug by blaming Republicans or by ignoring it completely.

I remember going somewhere on an Indian train back in the early 70’s when they were still using steam engines. The train was moving so slowly through the ancient countryside, people were actually getting off and jogging along while others climbed onto the roofs of the cars for the additional breeze. Luckily, the engine was at the back of the train, pushing it; so, we were not subjected to repeated blasts of black soot as had been the case on previous trips. The compartment was almost empty as most people had abandoned it to congregate elsewhere, leaving only the aged and an odd collection of nodding farm animals.

Looking out my window, I happened to see a pack of about a dozen strays (dogs) chasing along side the train in v-formation, barking loudly. The lead dog was the smallest – a white spindly-looking thing – that could have easily fit into a big man's hand. The larger dogs brought up the rear. It occurred to me that dogs must not regard mere size as a good measure of leadership; that largeness of spirit, inspiration and enthusiasm must rank much higher when deciding on who among many to follow.

If the dog community can teach us anything, it is this: America has clearly been the big dog on the farm for many years. But it has allowed the twisted enthusiasm for an Islamic Caliphate (for instance) to eclipse its own bigness. What ever happened to the big idea of America and all it has entailed? Why are we ashamed of it? Why have we allowed it to become chipped and tarnished? We still have our big bombs; our big skies; our big hearts. That much cannot change. But relying on those aspects alone does not make us first. The big idea of America will have to be revived if we are to survive as a nation. A big nation fights for that for which it stands. It will insist on its own rightful place. It will defend its borders – its citizens, at home and abroad. It will not apologize. And, above all, it will not attempt to deconstruct itself to appeal to no one.

Make it a big tent if you wish. Make it inclusive of all. God knows, everyone’s contribution helps. But keep out those who would undermine it. We know their names. They reveal themselves daily. Keep out the false prophets, the Marxists, the moral degenerates, the traitors, the deconstructionists, the jihadis, the apologists, the anarchists and the ones who just don’t care. And you will find there’s a lot more of us than there is of them to carry on the big idea of America for which so many have given their last full measure of devotion.

Shun the ankle biters who risk nothing; who stand for nothing. Recognize their existence, but marginalize them. Let them know in no uncertain terms that they are barking up the wrong tree; that they are free to seek their bliss in the likes of Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Europe, Bermuda, Palau (wherever they may wish to go). We will be more than happy to buy their (one-way) ticket.

A War We Must Win

Rove vs. Dowd is merely a Punch 'n Judy side-show for the politically addicted. It makes no difference what either of them says as long as they continue to invoke the names of past presidents.

Yesterday, the NYT ran an article by David Leonhardt entitled “For U.S., a Sea of Perilous Red Ink, Years in the Making”. In it he charts the now reasonable dystopian predictions of severe financial crisis ahead. He makes certain to remind us several times that it is mostly Bush’s policies that have brought us to this sad state of affairs. Obama’s only role in this looming disaster, he claims, is in continuing with the bulk of Bush’s policies unabated. Let me say at the outset that I do not ascribe any credibility to what the NYT says on any matter. I raise the point merely to show that everyone now concedes that we’re in for a rough ride.

I would even go a step further and say that everything we see happening today and can safely project into the future has been carefully orchestrated with the ultimate aim of reducing what some see as the disparity inherent in the following sentence: The U.S. has 5% of the world’s population and uses 25% of the planet’s (energy) resources. This has been the goal of foreign and domestic Leftists for years. With the America-hating Obamas in the White House and an equally deranged majority in Congress it now seems possible for them to get their way.

Americans are not stupid; they can smell the coffee. I dare say if elections were held today, the whole gang of Marxists, their sympathizers and appeasers (which includes practically everybody in Washington these days) would be sent packing. As it is, when mid-term elections finally do come around, many people fear it will already be too late to turn things around.

Must we sit idly by while Democrat-dominated Washington does its worst? The answer is unequivocally NO! In fact, without consciously knowing how to fight them, we’ve been instinctively doing just that. We’ve canceled our subscription to TIME and the NYT. Some of us have canceled cable. Some have quit smoking. Almost all of us have stopped buying (now government) cars. We’ve stopped going out to restaurants as much, especially the ones with pictures of Sean Penn up on the celebrity wall. We’ve stopped going to the movies.

You might think that it’s just a matter of not feeling quite as flush as we did a year ago; when our nest egg was still something we could fall back on; when the company we work for wasn’t looking to lay off people every other week. But I really think it goes far deeper than that. We instinctively know that this is a war we must win if there’s any chance at all of passing anything on to our kids. Wars are never comfortable, but we’ve reached the conclusion that we must deny ourselves; we must starve them out. By laying low and not buying that new car (which we always buy after two or three years); by not going out to eat as much; by simply making do with what we have, we deny our rogue government the taxes our consumerism generates.

Quit your job; live off your savings instead (if you can). It’s the only way we can slow them down. They need us more than we need them. If we lie down on the job of running the country, they’re sunk.

Don’t try to pretend everything is alright when you know it isn’t. It’s time to invest everything you have in this (what has turned out to be an existential) struggle; which simply must result in a win for the good guys. They’ll howl like stuck pigs when they find out what we’re (not) up to. They’ll try to silence the likes of Rush and Savage. Even should they succeed, they’ll realize it’s not them; that it’s morphic resonance (look it up) that has gripped the nation; that the American spirit is now fully awake and poised to throw salt on the leeches.

When I first started smoking I would cough. Now that I've been smoking for many years I find myself coughing again. It's high time, I think, for us to break our addiction to smoke and mirrors liberalism.

Interiors

During last week’s news cycles we were treated to the delicious spectacle of crestfallen BBC news presenters announcing the results of the EU Parliamentary Elections. How is it possible, they asked, that a mostly apathetically pliant public could fail to hold “capitalism” to account for all the world’s ills and vote overwhelmingly for conservative candidates (defined as anyone holding any stance that does not unambiguously endorse Marxism)? The answer in this particular case was “immigration”.

Meanwhile here in America, the continuing drone of partisanship has become ever so boring. Take any issue, determine the political affiliation of any prospective candidate and you can virtually guarantee his or her stance no matter how absurd. Compromise has become impossible. Allegiance is now to party alone. Those attempting to triangulate are routinely pilloried by all sides.

Written opinion, overall, is equally lacking in depth. We cheer when we recognize ourselves in any given editorial; we boo when we don’t. We’re that close to taking the strap to anyone who disagrees with us. We’ve already resorted to calling each other unpardonable names.

Worst of all, we no longer listen. “What is there to listen to?” you might ask. Manufactured talking points? They all do it so shamelessly. It’s a disgrace the way they take money simply for sticking their pinkies in the dyke (and running the other way when she’s about to blow) – and, in the end, it’s always us who get screwed.

They don’t even bother to hide it anymore. Everybody knows they can fix it so that they’re in for life; that voting no longer matters much. Though, admittedly, recent elections in Europe were a surprise. We’ll speculate endlessly how Americans will vote the next time around; who or what they will blame for America’s continuing downward slide.

Still, it’s refreshing when you happen to see something that rises above the level of common discourse – it’s also humbling. From time to time I fancy myself as a commentator. Then a piece like this comes along and dashes all illusions. “Obama's women reveal his secret”, by Spengler (of the Asia Times), was published nine months before the election. It just goes to show, that the facts were out there, if anyone had only bothered to look. Not that anything would have changed much. Like I’ve said before, McCain would have been a bigger disaster than Bush for a whole host of reasons – and I won’t take it back. Either way, we were long overdue for a reaming. History has a way of supplying the individuals required at any given moment. In many ways Obama and his wife are perfect Punch and Judy foils for Clio.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html

Omaha Beach: Then and Now

You asked your father, who was there, why (or how) they did it. Why does anyone do anything? A direct answer is often inadequate or camouflage. That’s why he (likely) didn’t say. Why do bloggers blog; singers sing; talkers talk; etc. Tomes can be written about just this and all would come to the same conclusion: They did it because it was there to be done.

We only ask when an action is so alien to our own experience, it leaves us breathless. We never realize that any action is in part directed by circumstance; that we do the same every time we pick up a spoon to eat. Every action resulting in a certifiable event is the result of no less than 100% commitment of which at least 50% is owned. The balance can be attributed to outside coercion, or even to the absence thereof – as in “allowing” something to happen. The exact motivation behind it might be diffuse, branching off into areas of the dimmest understanding and, just as often, beyond words – but nonetheless real. Bumper sticker slogans - like, “(we did it) For God and Country” - don’t even begin to tell the story. That’s why those who fought seldom talk about it.

They tend to identify with those who didn’t make it back. They continue to wonder why the bullets that killed their friends spared them. They were all in it together, after all. The bullets that determined the dead found the survivors as well. Even escaping unscathed, a part of you invariably died, as did the distinction between living and having passed on.

That’s why old soldiers don’t talk about it much as they look at the world through the eyes of their fallen comrades who the world’s living summarily classify as “heroes” without the slightest understanding of what they are talking about.

Golden Boy

No chance, that the fifth youngest president to take the oath of office would in any way acknowledge his mortality. That game becomes popular much later in life when the various instruments of one's death come galloping around the home stretch, vying for position, much as in a horse race. They say one's time on earth is set; that only the manner of one's death remains a mystery until the end.

To me, Obama seems much younger than his years. It’s the ears, I think. I wonder if he’ll age twice as fast as ordinary mortals, as presidents are apt to do. It’s the weight of the world on their shoulders – or should I say 'country'. Obama has no country - that much is self-evident by now. That leaves 'world'.

Is the world heavier or lighter than a nation? Difficult to say at this point. We’ll find out in four years; to see how much he’s aged. God has generally been acknowledged to have been in charge of the world until now. It’s possible that He’s looking to take a break. So, He sent… How long can it last?

God hasn’t been known to say much of late – or ever. Obama talks way too much. Do you think God might be more popular if He'd have more to say?

Who Distracts Who

Passing almost completely under the radar this week was Hillary Clinton’s surprisingly strong statement issued on the 20th anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. The Obama administration was severely criticized around the world for neglecting to make much of it (and, of course, the issue of Tibet) when the Secretary of State visited China on her begging tour in February.

In a statement issued by the State Department on June 3rd, Hillary said in part, that “China should publicly account for those killed in the suppression of the Tiananmen Square protests 20 years ago. China should release those still held over the protests and stop harassing those who took part.” The anniversary was a chance for China to "reflect upon the meaning of the events that preceded that day". China "should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal. …China can honor the memory of that day by moving to give the rule of law, protection of internationally-recognized human rights, and democratic development the same priority as it has given to economic reform."

What was it that made Hillary Clinton come out with this statement, which is unusually strong for the Obama Administration? According to B. Raman of the Institute of Topical Studies, Chennai, “two interpretations are possible. The first is that, stung by criticism of what was seen by many as its soft line towards China, the Administration felt it necessary to correct this impression by articulating its position on the Tienanmen Square massacre in strong language. The second interpretation is that the strong line reflects a certain annoyance of the Obama Administration over China's reluctance or failure or both to exercise sufficient pressure on North Korea not to carry out its nuclear test of last month and its repeated firings of missiles.”

I would add my own two cents by speculating that there might also be a third possibility: That this was a rogue operation by the Department of State. It is no secret that both Clintons have felt marginalized and hamstrung by the Obama administration. We have seen rogue behavior by the State Department before (when Bush was President).

It might also be significant that this thing was timed to coincide with Obama's long-awaited outreach to Muslims and would therefore not get much play in the press. Nevertheless, human rights groups will have been appeased and everyone can go to bed reasonably happy.

Never Been Tried Before

Things tend to come in threes. I guess three is a number that can catch one’s attention especially if it happens to elucidate a single point. First was this sentence in an article in Pravda that came to light earlier this week: “…the (American) population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics.” Next, an article in the opinion pages of The Hindu (South Indian English language newspaper) entitled , “What Business Schools Should Get Right”, detailing again how academe has failed us by shunning the basics and emphasizing “exotic financial instruments, private equity and hedge funds… complex trading strategies, mergers and acquisitions, shorting, straddles, an endless number of acronyms such as MBS,CDS,CDO and LBO, all valued as relevant and equated to rocket science.” All of this was done, of course, to figure out a way to dispose of billions of dollars in bad debt, fallout from the government-created housing bust. They took our best and brightest and essentially asked them to figure out ways to steal.

Prabhudev Konana of The Hindu continues, “Students poured into business schools to make that quick million after graduation in the finance world. At the same time, firms including those in the consulting sector needed thousands of accountants to make balance sheet complex enough using General Accounting Principles. And they needed even more to unhide or decipher what was being reported.”

Finally, Mr. Konana concludes, “…no one asked about the value added work from these accounting innovations. …we stopped asking if any of this complexity was actually adding value to our economy or to our society. Now we realize that all those supposedly value-adding financial instruments and accounting methods were in fact value destroying. (And) many of the jobs that were created artificially are gone, along with millions of real jobs, leaving the economy in tatters.”

The third indication of academe’s fatal collusion with government will be evident all week as President Obama heads off to the Middle East in an effort to remake the world. There’s no indication that he will arrive there with formalized facts, only with an ideology that says “I can do anything because I say so”, an affinity for Islam, a hatred for the Jewish State …and some say, for America as well.

To be fair, similar arrogance can be attributed to the men of past generations who also nursed prejudices, drew arbitrary lines on maps and sought themselves powerful enough to enforce just enough peace to maintain control for personal gain. But all those arguments are moot now. Things are as they are. It’s no utopia. It never is.

Some still think utopia is within our reach. Gandhi thought so when he agreed to divide India; the UN thought so when it shepherded a plan for the nation of Israel to exist side by side with the Arabs. Though ambitious in effort and good intentions, it seldom works out as advertised. Still, we must give high marks for trying. Obama’s current effort re the Middle East also deserves applause for boldness and vision. It may even succeed in breaking a blockage as it differs in one important aspect from everything that has ever been tried: Never before was a head of state so willing to sacrifice his own nation for something as elusive as a vision that history has consistently shown is impossible to achieve.

Kooks and Hatemongers

I get so discouraged seeing us endlessly debating style over substance. Apparently, it's now become gauche to criticize whatever harebrained idea Obama happens to come up with. When has that standard ever applied to Republicans? I note we are all too eager to accept the Left's admonition whenever we dare raise objections. "Crass", "hatemonger" and "extreme" (right wing) come immediately to mind. Add, "unsophisticated", "stupid", "buffoonish". And like the obedient, oft abused children we feel we are, we reflexively jump up to embrace every chance to cleanse ourselves of such smears (in fastidious preparation for fresh abuse, no doubt). In the process we're thrown off-track and our argument (along with our dignity) dies.

L.G. calls me a 'kook', and 'hate(monger)'. Why? Because my views differ from his? It’s interesting that personal attacks are all he has in his arsenal. It’s all any of them ever have. Why do we continue to buckle under the barrage of personal slights by the media; academe; Hollywood; the limp-wristed bartenders at fancy restaurants? Why does a child continue to allow itself to be abused? Are we lacking maturity? Confidence? Have we become psychologically damaged?

Republicans need to learn to acknowledge the relationship between ‘standing for something’ and ‘winning’. ‘Standing for something’ is the currency with which politicians can purchase a win. In this world nobody looks twice at a man with empty pockets. Similarly, the public will not bestow its favors on a party with empty (or shifting) positions.

How quickly it would all turn around if just one of us were to stand up and stop apologizing for exhaling CO2! Do we actually mean to say that only liberals deserve to breathe? Has it come to the point where only one’s political affiliation determines a blameless life? I abhor the idea! There’ve been those who’ve lived through such times. It’s one of the reasons so many of them came to America.

And yet, we continue to follow the losing script. We imprison those who most effectively speak in support of us with our distancing. No one is interested in anyone reaching across the aisle; no one is interested in compromise. Compromise only leads us further to the left; a consistent trend in our stance that keeps losing us elections.

Are we so brain-dead to think anybody will accept our ruse of joining the other side in order to win? What do we think this is? A football game? And even in football it would not be acceptable to deliberately throw the game to one’s opponent. Why do we continue to do it on the political playing field? Don’t we yet realize that traitors are more despised than losers?

It’s interesting how news stories are written. I happened to be reading a story on Israel on yahoo yesterday. They missed no opportunity in referring to the Netanyahu government as “right wing”. The view from a Palestinian perspective was never categorized by any such pejorative, giving the impression that it reflects mainstream thinking. Any reporting about Republicans and Democrats in this country follows a similar pattern: Republican are always ‘right-wing’ while Democrat are always mainstream. Never mind that the country is going down in the flames of deceit, false euphoria and outright madness.