At Bottom

The following is my reply to a friend in India who has made a detailed analysis of the communiques issued by the two countries during and after Obama's visit:

It might not be so productive to quibble about Obama’s words. You - India - might be better served to look at what Obama has actually done. It was his words alone that got him elected President of the United States. Eleven days into his term he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, two years later, he has lost the trust of the American people. Promises broken.

Ask Americans what they think of him now. Everything is worse since he took office. Ask the Israelis if they are feeling safe. Ask the defeated members of his own party which continues to exist by appearances only.

Obama is a narcissist with a singular mission. He aims to pursue that mission no matter the dislocation and destruction that will come in its wake.

I direct your attention to the endgame as it is being played out in the Middle East with Israel at the center. And you will see that Israel stands alone. Despite innumerable treaties and promises, the U.S. has turned against it. (I must note that American people have not abandoned their overwhelming support for Israel; that this is strictly Obama’s doing. He, as in so man other things, has turned rogue.)

His visit to India was all show, to sustain an air of legitimacy which he himself has shattered - on purpose. For Obama at his core is a revolutionary. He will spare nothing to achieve his ends which consist primarily of clearing the table for a new world order to emerge - just as he envisions it - with America (and India and Israel and all of America’s traditional allies) at the bottom.

Joe Manchin Speaks Out: Cause for Celebration

JB makes no secret of the fact that he loves this ad. It takes on Obama and Democrats in two ways: (1) It rebels against a significant bellwether Democrat taking point, and (2) rubs sand in the eyes of those seeking to upturn the second amendment. Both issues taken together can be seen as a frontal attack on the party leadership by one of their own.

Joe Manchin’s effort should be celebrated and rewarded. It marks a break with Democrat orthodoxy. And, recognizing that what is facing this country cannot be solved by merely playing a numbers game - that change must come organically from within - it is important to note that Manchin is the first to speak out forcibly against the radical fringe that has co-opted his party for too long.

For nearly a decade, even while stipulating that the majority of Muslims means us no harm, we have been waiting for someone in the Muslim community to speak out against its radical fringe. While their reluctance to speak out can be understood, their silence nevertheless makes them accomplices.

Where Democrats are concerned, they now have the opportunity to rally around someone who has dared to speak out. I agree with John, it’s a watershed moment. Our fight is not with Democrats per se, most of whom love our nation as we do. It’s their silence that is vexing; their willingness to follow their leadership into the grave.

If we are to survive as a nation, we must root out the extremes and work together to solve our problems. We can no longer afford to depend on the woefully inadequate ‘R’ and ‘D’ shorthand to show us the way. (Note my use of the term ‘bellwether” in the first paragraph.)
--------------------------------------------------------
The Nobel Prize committee’s lurch to the Right re its awarding prizes to Llosa and Xiao-bo has veered Left again in announcing its economics prize. Peter Diamond, Dale Mortensen and Christopher Pissarides were rewarded for their “search theory” which seeks to couch the “new norm” of jobless recovery in new, more politically acceptable terms.

In doing so, they have provided cover for the misdeeds of the Obama administration. The new theory applies the meaningless, asexual term, ‘friction’ to the present economic crisis - such as to housing, trade (in general), and even to marriage - to spin and finesse what is already self-evident to most: that Keynesian economics does not work.

I might also note that Peter Diamond's nomination to a spot on the Federal Reserve Board has been held up by Republicans questioning his qualifications.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Liu Xia Taken

This goes to the point of just how much the Nobel Prize committee has been politicized. It has been seriously embarrassed recently, having awarded prizes to the likes of Barack Obama, Al Gore, Paul Krugman among others. The committee has been blatantly exploited as a political tool by the Left, and it has finally sunk in. This year they’ve tried to redeem themselves by awarding Mario Vargas Llosa and Liu Xiaobo. In doing so, at least in Xiaobo’s case, they’ve succeeded in making things much worse for him. The Nobel Prize committee has been playing in the deep, ideological end of the pool. They’ve done so without having first learned how to swim. It would be best for them to disband and start over.

The same can be said for the Republican Party. Their projected wins in November will thrust them into the spotlight. They will be held to an impossible standard. Any hint of flaw or wavering will be exposed, and magnified by the media’s version of Hubble. It would be best for both parties to disband and start over.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Mario Vargas Llosa

On its opinion pages the WSJ celebrates Nobel Prize winner in literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, in two articles this morning. The editorial begins, “Winners…are typically distinguished by their literary obscurity, suffocating prose and left wing politics. But every decade or so the prize-givers get it right: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 1970, Czeslaw Milosz in 1980, Octavio Paz on 1990, V.S. Naipaul in 2001. Right on schedule, this year’s prize went to Peru’s Mario Vargas Llosa.”

In 2007, WSJ’s Emily Parker interviewed Mr. Llosa in Lima, Peru. She writes today, “Mr. Vargas Llosa’s Nobel Prize is a great victory - and not just for the talented and prolific author. His work is perhaps the greatest rebuttal to those who believe literature exists on the periphery of history and politics, or who claim that they have ‘no time’ for fiction.”

She goes on, “Mr. Vargas Llosa’s novels reflect his deep personal hatred of dictatorships and his staunch belief in the value of individual liberty… he describes how dictatorships impregnate ‘every act of life’…(and how) ‘the woman is almost always the first victim of a dictator…’ (Llosa) gained notoriety for his emphasis on a market economy, free trade and private property (rights). He was no less controversial for his support of the invasion of Iraq, which he saw as necessary to ending the ‘monstrous dictatorship’ of Saddam Hussein.”

Book chains such as Borders may face a moral dilemma as their stock of unsold liberal tomes continue to clog their groaning display shelves; especially now, in light of the Nobel Prize committee’s remarkable hat tip to Llosa’s international triumph.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Portents

As happens so often, over and over again: On one hand, successful and creative individuals discover that the exercise of free self-expression is the one elixir that makes life overall tolerable; while, on the other, they invariably go out of their way to support leftist causes. The Left consistently uses these ‘useful idiots’ to grab power and then spits in their faces once the goal has been achieved.

Case and point: For years now, octogenarian author, Nadine Gordimer has been championing leftist causes in her native South Africa. Now that the ANC - which she has long actively supported - has come to power, she has been reduced to pleading for the right to free and open expression once again. (Three of her novels were banned during Apartheid.)

It has come to light that the present, freely elected SA government is highly corrupt. The government blames the media and threatens censorship and worse. The recent unlawful arrest of a Sunday Times reporter has sent a powerful and terrifying message throughout the South African journalist community.

In case no one has noticed, in our country the same media that vaulted Obama to the presidency, is now also coming under attack. Hollywood’s turn is certain to be next. They won’t notice, of course. They’ll be too busy congratulating themselves for the deportation of conservative talk show hosts to U.S. government re-education camps. It’ll all have been legal and above board, after proper public trials with the honorable Nobel prize recipient and Princeton luminary, Paul Krugman, presiding. (By the way, read his column today. It’s a laugh. He’ truly outdone himself.)

Folks, we’ve got a live one here!
----------------------------------------------------------
Along a similar vein, there’s a story by Mary O’Grady in today’s WSJ about the supposed coup attempt in Ecuador this past week. As I have suggested previously, substitute the name Obama for Correa in the story and you’ll have a very good indication what may yet lie in store for us.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

'Elegy' ('08)

I liked the Russian contribution to the Nobel farce in the form of a Christmas star over Oslo just before Obama arrived, signifying, perhaps, not so much the coming of Christ, as a babe in the (manger) woods.

No, the late night comics (or comics in general) will not be brutal with Obama. The sharpened end of brutality’s stick remains reserved for Republicans who are thought to have thick (elephant) skins and can take it. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the ban on brutality was never sanctioned under the rubric of 'civilization'. Only, those on the receiving end were more precisely delineated - as to include minorities… and, of course, women - bringing to mind a quote from the film, 'Elegy' ('08): "When you make love to a woman, you get revenge for all the things that defeated you in life."