Goodwin Liu: A Liberal's Liberal

If there be any doubt remaining as to where Barack Hussein Obama intends to take the country, consider his nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 40-year old University of California (at Berkeley) law professor needs to secure the 60 votes as early as today in the Senate, needed to overcome a promised filibuster by Republicans.

Besides having had no hands-on judicial experience, Liu’s writing’s and pronouncements show him to harbor views that would seem excessively liberal even by the liberal standards of the 9th Circuit.

The WSJ in its lead editorial today quotes Liu:

On Chief Justice John Roberts: “A Supreme Court nominee must be evaluated on more than just legal intellect.”

On Samuel Alito: “Judge Alito’s record envisions an America where police may shoot and kill an unarmed boy to stop him from running away with a stolen purse.”

More: “(Alito) approaches law in a formalistic, mechanical way abstracted from human experience.”

More: “(…judges should) determine, at the moment of decision, whether our collective values on a given issue have converged to a degree that they can be persuasively crystallized and credibly absorbed into legal doctrine.”

On the use of international law in the courtroom: “The resistance to this practice to this practice is difficult for me to grasp, since the U.S. can hardly claim to have a monopoly on wise solutions to common legal problems faced by constitutional democracies around the world.”

And: “’free enterprise’, ‘private ownership of property’ and ‘limited government’…are code words for an ideological agenda hostile to environmental, work place, and consumer protections.”

Republicans have been known to roll over for Democrat judicial appointments. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan both were installed without much fuss. The thinking goes that American presidents should pretty much be afforded the right to pick whoever they want as court vacancies occur. If recent history is a guide, Obama can expect to get this nominee through the confirmation process as well after some initial, obligatory grumbling from the peanut gallery.

Recent developments have shown, however, that suspicion remains high that Obama’s agenda is damaging to the country overall. Nowhere is the impact of a presidency greater than in president’s prerogative to appoint wildly partisan judges for life. As more and more – especially Republican – lawmakers are waking up to the fact of what’s happening to our nation, future nominations can be expected to be hard fought – starting today.

This is not to say that people like Liu should not be allowed to express their views. Far from it; our Constitution (or what’s left of it) expressly allows for it. It’s just that we are not necessarily obliged to put such people in leadership positions.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Short Bits: Killing Osama

I seem to remember a soldier being court-martialed for giving a captured terrorist, a fat lip. Now I could be wrong; I never heard anything about it again. I understand, the rules of engagement are really quite stringent – unless, of course, they are overruled by the Commander-in-Chief.

A police officer who has killed in the course of duty often requires many hours of counseling. Now that Obama has a targeted kill under his belt, he cannot help being a changed man. (Somebody must have given the order to ‘kill on sight’.) He can now go one of two ways. Either he will grow hesitant and indecisive, or he will take on the role of mob boss with renewed gusto.

Killing has always been the ultimate wet dream of the Left. I remember people incessantly toying with the idea while Bush was still in office. And just this week liberal talk show host, Mike Malloy, proposed on air that the Navy Seals kill “mass-murderer” George W. Bush.

Despite the apparent applause from all virtually quarters, I cannot shake a distinct sense of unease.
--------------------------------------------
Now for a different view by Corlyss D, Guest Contributer, responding to John Batchelor's question, "Why not capture him (OBL)?"

Hypothesize me no hypotheticals. They are frankly less than worthless. Reality demands response. You can sit and think and think all day long about "what ifs."

I say good on SEAL Team 6! We need more of that kind of covert assassination rather than a moralizing epitaph for the dead. A writer who fancies himself a historian and moralist declared a couple of years ago that the only "winners" of WW2 were the European Jews because most of them died and, in so doing, aquired a sort of beatification of the defenseless. The writer implied that was a state that all peoples should aspire to if they want their reputations to survive conflict. Bugger that.

"Why not capture him?" (John Batchelor asks.) "Infamous war criminals make for epochal landmark war crimes prosecution (the delusional, deprraved, stupid Martin Borman: and surely the Nuremberg gang was far more frightening the Bin Laden)."

Why capture him? The Nuremberg trials might have been epochal, but they were a huge political mistake. They gave the illusion of state action without a legitmate state. They polluted the judicial process with a star chamber whose outcome was never in doubt. They wasted a lot of money creating the impression that there was such a thing as consensus in an international community that was hardly more developed than the Libyan resistence is today. Churchill was right: the trials have indeed come back to haunt the hell out of us, establishing a precedent that lives in the feckless ICC and the misguided internationalist blather that motivates many policy makers in the EU and other trend-setters seeking legitimacy for an international community incapable of doing anything but relief work by consensus. Quasi-states are impotent in so many categories of critical civil society functions that to bestow on them serious state functions like law enforcement and war-making capability is simply delusional.
--------------------------------------------
Final thought: I guess what has me upset is that this Osama killing accrues to Obama. It’s just one more way for Obama to maintain the illusion that he is an ‘American’. He is not. Everything he’s done has been detrimental to our nation. I say it’s deliberate. Read Kimberly A. Strassel’s opinion piece entitled “Obama’s ‘Gangster Politics’” in today’s WSJ; and then go on to read Gerald P. O’Driscoll, Jr.’s “Barney Frank’s Latest Bad Idea”. Then turn the page and read Michael B. Mukasey’s “The Waterboarding Trail to bin Laden”. And that’s just today! Every day brings a fresh outrage or more. And now we’re supposed to forget it all and say he’s the best thing since sliced bread? Not me, brother!

Perhaps Cicero said it best:

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Cinderella's Bloody Glass Slipper

Since I had to carry a gun for my work, I needed to qualify every six months. Missing the target was not an option. It never is.

This morning I went downstairs for breakfast. I turned on the radio. And there it was: The obligatory jabs at both Trump and Palin – and all this by a New York local radio host who’s considered ‘conservative’. It seems we’ve all been down this road before. We just never learn. Back then, our fav piñata was Bush. What we wouldn’t give to have him back again!

Obama remains untouched. Every word of his is routinely afforded the gravitas it no longer deserves. We try so hard to fit this wicked stepsister’s foot into Cinderella’s glass slipper. It must be the slipper’s fault. And yet, midnight is fast approaching when everything turns to pumpkins.

The Left has no compunction in slicing off toes. In fact, they have the surgeons constantly standing at the ready. Never mind the spectacle of blood, smear and dishonesty which disgusts and, at the same time, fascinates. They work in tandem with the media, like a well oiled machine. Slice here and dice there, and the shoe is made to fit despite the corns.

There, on the front page of the WSJ, the headline reads, “Karzai Told to Dump U.S” – by Pakistan no less. Inside, there’s a story about the trial and conviction of ‘Big Fish’ Lee Farkas, former chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage. Only, it turns out, that Farkas wasn’t such a ‘Big Fish’ after all; that our government was behind it all (in the form of Fannie and Freddie Mac).

It’s just that the government has now assumed the status of ‘sacred cow’ and can never be touched. Instead we send up thousands to atone for the government’s sins. As Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. – author of “A Mortgage ‘Big Fish’ Disappoints” – laments, the whole thing “fails to confirm the media intuition that the housing boom and bust were brought on by the criminality by mortgage CEOs.”

Same with the spike in gas prices at the pump. It couldn’t possibly be due to Obama’s policies (even though he explicitly told us that he wants us to pay more for gas). It couldn’t possibly be due to the collapse of the dollar due to the government policy of printing images on paper and pretending it’s real money.

Overseas hangs the giant Libyan question mark – and Egypt, Iran, Syria and the entire Middle East. Then, there’s Russia and China; South America. What is it this president believes?

Bolton says there’s no rhyme or reason to Obama’s foreign policy. Really? Everywhere we look we lose. Sounds suspiciously like a plan.

At the very least, Kaddafi knows what he wants and he’s willing to go for it, even if it kills him. Anyone who can articulate what he wants, short of sh*t-canning their own nation has a leg up on Obama at this point. I’m not saying that Obama isn’t smart or doesn’t have goals. …and isn’t it remarkable how Obama just managed to get us to sh*t-can our own just by the ruse of releasing his birth certificate?

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

A Cautionary Tale

Today it is raining. As is quite usual for us, when it rains, our morning newspaper – though double bagged – gets soaked through and through. I threw it in the garbage and called 1-888–JOURNAL to complain. Their automated system gave us a credit. That did not really solve it.

Then, curiosity got the better of me. I retrieved the paper and struggled on to the opinion pages. I was glad I did. There was an article by Takis Michas entitled “Athens Descends Into Anarchy”. It began thus:

“Greece’s public debt may reach 150% of GDP this year… But in the final analysis, the major issue confronting Greece may not be its solvency, but its governance.”

It goes on, “The country is at the mercy of militant activists who are inspired by various factions of the hard left.” Then it goes on to list some of them: Greece’s Communist Party, the anarcho-Stalinist Coalition and the International Workers’ Left among these. “…their followers have taken to harassing citizens and destroying public property – even taking over whole villages.”

Mr. Michas goes on, “What stand out in all these incidents is the authorities' inability or unwillingness to enforce the law…

“Many argue that Greece’s disintegration is the unavoidable consequence of the government’s attempt to enforce fiscal austerity.” Michas disagrees. “This meltdown can be seen,” he says, “as the product of the authoritarian left’s open attempts to exploit the economic crisis and destroy Greece’s existing democratic and economic institutions. What we are witnessing is not a descent into chaos, but… into organized lawlessness; sowing pandemonium and forcing Greece to default…”

Michas states that according to polls, the Left only enjoys the support of 13% of the population. He concludes by saying, “The problem… lies with the political and ideological passivity of the parties that do represent Greece’s broader middle classes. The tolerance these democrats have shown toward their totalitarian counterparts has allowed the latter to play a leading role in shaping Greek public discourse.” Michas asks, “Do they imagine that the favor would be returned if the… Left were in charge?”

As such, this is a cautionary tale for us as well. What the people of America still fail to understand is that the ideological Left will not be content to rule over a capitalist/democratic system. They fully intend to change it and make it into their own.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Soup Nazis Galore

Let me begin by saying that I love Kelly Evans. In fact, my post entitled “I Want Kelly Evans Back” last January 1st became one of my most popular posts and elicited quite number of intemperate responses to boot. She’s looks smart and can well massage liberal talking points and chew gum at the same time – all this, while fitting in perfectly with the Soros-certified media sycophants that would include such luminaries as Meredith Viera along with most others that one sees on lame stream media outlets on a regular basis. I might add that John Batchelor himself has been skating dangerously close to falling in with this same dreary group, particularly by his frequent use of John Avlon as a surrogate.

My post entitled “Smoke-Filled Rooms At Bretton Woods” could be inserted here. In it I tried to show that what we are currently facing is much more insidious than the current vogue: Democrat/Republican divide, that seems to drain every last drop of our almost limitless patience; that the real players lurk in the shadows (at Bretton Woods) and would never expose themselves to Kelly Evans’ (among others’) essentially banally scripted questioning.

I submit that if George Soros had been sitting in Trump’s chair there at the WSJ studio, the questioning would have been quite different. He might have been asked what amount to a series of softball questions like, “Would you have gone into Iraq or Libya for ‘freedom’?” and he would have answered with a resounding ‘YES’, adding, “but never for oil” for that would rub against the grain of Soros’ own self-inspired talking points that demand that America should bleed herself dry before doing anything at all in its own self-interests.

Conventional wisdom has it that by the time the 2012 elections roll around, “anyone but (Bush)Obama” will be the order of the day. This would not necessarily mean that we are now out of the woods. On the contrary – as we have seen with both Bush and McCain – our situation would remain essentially on the same trajectory. It would take an outsider like Trump or (to a lesser extent) Palin to really shake things up.

Soros’ lib soup Nazis would spare nothing to smear anyone who could upset their apple cart. Of the two, Palin or Trump, the latter would be in a much better position to survive the onslaught. He is forceful, plain-talking, competent and savvy. He appears to be a patriot. I believe he could win if the present system would allow him to compete. You know it would do its level best to destroy him if he ever got close. The question then becomes: Is Trump man enough to smash the system?

As we continue to observe this approaching train wreck of an election and as we continue to keep score, it might do well to note which prospective candidate receives the brunt of press ire. That would be the one I would go with. Whether or not he or she could actually win; and, in winning, shred the current anti-American narrative top to bottom, is another matter entirely.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Cucible

If any should doubt that we are deeply entrenched in a clash of cultures - a war, if you wish - I direct you to Caroline Glick’s opinion piece entitled “The West’s proxy war against the Jews” in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post. She lays it out clearly as few can and have. The crucible, in her view, is Israel. That is to say, the fate of Israel is the metric that will define the ultimate winner of the struggle.

To live side by side in relative peace (like sticks of furniture in an otherwise empty room) with the current Islamic/communist coalition assault now in full swing is out of the question. It is now fully in attack mode. One of its goals is to push Israel into the sea. (Envision anything I might mean by that.) It’ll mark the defeat of the West. The victorious coalition will at first gather ‘round to congratulate themselves; then, they will begin fighting each other, for they are only united on one issue: their hatred of Israel and western capitalism.

Whereas America will remain relatively unscathed by the fall of Jerusalem into Arab hands, Europe will likely not be so lucky. To be sure, America will have its own problems. For one thing, it will be difficult to convince the entire country to salute the red flag. This will have to play out over time.

In today’s WSJ, Mark Helprin tells of America’s retreat from the high seas in an article entitled “The Decline of U.S. Naval Power” We see it ourselves in the continuing saga of pirates successfully negotiating ransoms and killing civilians. It seems incredible that we cannot do much about it. Similarly, as pertains to Libya (or any other trouble spot on the globe), our hands appear to be tied by outside interests and internal concerns (and distractions).

The media has been gearing up to tell us just how bad Kaddafi is (and has been). This is the likely view of the Obama administration as well. It makes me suspicious, however. It’s been a long time since either the media or the government has told us the truth about anything. It may simply reflect Obama’s calculation as to what he believes Kaddafi’s staying power to be, and this administration’s scrambling to get out in front of the curve for once (of course hindered somewhat by - as JB points out - Tripoli’s long and well-established connections to radical elements in Chicago (Farrakhan).

Realistically, you’ve got to go all the way back to 1988 when Pan Am flight 103 crashed at Lockerbie following an in-flight explosion, killing all on board and scattering wreckage all over the area to pin anything of substance on Kaddafi. Since then, I’ve been under the impression that Kaddafi has undergone semi-successful rehabilitation and earned his way back into the fold of the human community. In light of what else is going on in the world today, the springing of bombing suspect Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish hospital/jail seems more of a prank, designed to redden the faces of the pompous, than a full-blown crime against humanity.

There is no doubt in my mind that the relatively recent upheavals we are witnessing in the Middle East and elsewhere is due to America’s deliberate distancing itself from its traditional international obligations. This has, at the very least, left a vacuum for sinister forces to exploit. The end result continues to be the chaos of birth. We definitely appear to be on the cusp of some momentous change. This (chaos) is only the first step. What will eventually emerge is anybody’s guess.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Resurrection

Either by sheer ineptitude or by design, leadership (as most understand it) is not one of our president’s strong suits. We recommend that anyone waiting for Obama to make the first move not hold their breath. And why should the president trouble himself? By not acting - or only appearing to act - the stinkweed will still continue to bloom in in Michelle’s much-hyped White House garden.

In today’s WSJ there are two unsigned editorials relating to Obama’s policy regarding oil: he hates it, along with every other carbon based fuel. The Gulf oil spill introduced the opening chords of this multi-layered symphony. It gave the administration the excuse to declare a drilling moratorium. Despite being forced to rescind it at a judge’s order, this administration still hasn’t issued a single drilling permit, citing cut-backs in staffing and problems in deciphering the new regulations.

This is not the only time the Obama administration has chosen to drag its feet to achieve policy objectives. Since a judge declared the government’s health care plan unconstitutional, requiring the government to immediately cease its implementation, Obama has used every delaying tactic to circumvent the judge’s ruling. As in the drilling moratorium matter, it now finds itself in contempt of court rulings. But who would enforce it?

Setting the Middle East on fire also meets Obama’s objectives. Likely to drive up prices beyond endurance, the administration figures this to equate with a huge shot-in-the-arm for the fledgling alternative fuels industry…and, most importantly, ‘cap and trade’ legislation which would place a premium on energy usage to then be pocketed by favored constituencies - hence, wealth re-distribution, another policy objective high on the president’s list.

The entire field is in play; all the fuses are lit. All the president has to do is sit back and watch as the sacred cow dominos fall one by one.

I personally have trouble agreeing entirely with this analysis. There are too many steps involved, any one of which could put the ultimate objective ( so called energy independence) at risk. Not the least of which is that the alternative fuel bandwagon is still far from ready. But it does point to a target much closer: this, being America - to stop the blood flowing to America’s heart. If this can be achieved, by any means, America (as we know it) could be declared dead.

I maintain, that America is already dead. She can no longer defend herself in her present state while threats, both internal and external, abound. External aggression will not finish the job; i.e. strip the flesh off her bones. This will be done internally. The opposition in virtually every sector has already been eliminated. And no one from the outside will come to bury the body in accordance with respectful custom. Her one and only hope continues to be Israel which is under attack itself.

My one consolation is that the architects of this monumental crime will not be allowed to rest on their laurels. Whatever may be said of humanity, it does not celebrate murder.

As America is removed from the cross, a new spirit will sweep the world and the idea of ‘America’ will revive to guide it back into safe waters. It will signal a resurrection of sorts in which even the bad guys will have a chance for redemption, and the Mahdi will jump back into his well.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

We Are Building a Religion

As we go back and forth and speculate about what might yet happen (in Egypt), we should go straight to the horse’s mouth. Let’s ask our president directly what it is that he wants to happen. And while we’re at it, let’s ask him straight out what he has in mind for the U.S. Let’s ask him to explain why he is doing what, and what he is hoping to accomplish by doing so. And let’s pretend to believe what he says.

By the way, there’s a great opinion column in the WSJ this morning (Feb. 1) by Bret Stephens entitled “Being Mubarak”. It takes an interesting slant, speculating that the old fox (Mubarak) may yet have some tricks up his sleeve.

It is what it is (and has been for some 30 odd years). There was a reason for why we supported Egypt and, I might add, Israel. With the election of Obama, those reasons have eroded. We turn our backs to both - and things happen. Read Caroline Glick’s column in the JPOST today. What we (in the West) define as ‘success’ is not defined as ‘success’ among Islamists (or communists). Our metrics are not valid there. Any attempt at such comparison may be regarded as ‘category error‘.

What if the revolution succeeds? What if the dominos fall, one by one; and an Islamic Caliphate emerges - one that is hostile to the West? And there is a genocide? Would it end with the destruction of Israel? Maybe so. Or would it gather steam and push into Europe? By the way, would Europe be capable of defending itself?

What if it were found that the American president actively participated in engineering the revolution in the Middle East by withdrawing key supports; manipulating food prices world-wide; deliberately crashing economies by way of monetary policy; supporting radical elements in the name of ‘social justice’? Would we be spared the indignity of shariah? Would he? Not likely. Traitors are universally despised, even under the minimal discipline of chaos.

The twelfth imam is likely to credit his own and pay scant attention to the welfare of foreign accomplices.

In any case, it’ll be the Atlantic that will shield us from the worst of it. Having allowed ourselves to come to this point, however, will haunt us into eternity. We will spend the rest of our lives apologizing, wearing sack cloth, wailing, and tearing our hair. No more arrogance; no more illusions of ‘American exceptionalism‘. We’ll have to rebuild slowly and painfully; our civilization will re-emerge, (this time) stripped of excess and bravado. We’ll have to harden ourselves to the hurled scorn of the betrayed, and forever suffer the weight of insurmountable guilt.

Only the Germans currently have a sense of it. They have been blessed with every attribute that would facilitate achieving unparalleled success; but, at the same time, they know they have forever forfeited their chance at enduring greatness.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Where's Waldo?

You already know how I feel about Hu Jintao's atate visit to Washington, so I won’t even go there; except to quote from a WSJ editorial this morning: “Of all the differences between dictatorship and democracy, probably none is so overlooked as the ability of the former to project strength, and the penchant of the latter to obsess about its own weakness.” This quote was written under the heading, “RED SCARE REPRISE”. Now, apply this bit of wisdom to our own Democrat and Republican parties today.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I must say, I've been missing Beck on the radio each morning. His replacement here in New York means well but is an utter lightweight. It's like going from putting cream in your tea to putting in water. WOR gave ‘low ratings’ as a reason for dropping Beck. I happened to run across a ratings book (on the net) since. There is no way that Beck had low ratings - even in New York!!! WOR is lying big time.

Also, when you google "Batchelor leaving WABC” (some time ago) or “Curtis Sliva leaving WABC” (more recently) you get no less than eight pages of material to choose from. Googling "Beck leaving WOR (in New York)" gives you just two stories (one is a re-cap of the other). Beck is much bigger than Batchelor (in terms of ratings), yet there is practically nothing reported about Beck being dropped anywhere. No talk show host has talked about it. To my knowledge, not even Beck has mentioned it.

I’m not a Beck junkie. I haven’t gone chasing after Beck, either on the radio dial or on the net. Yet, this says to me ‘news blackout’ - like what we experienced during the oil spill, and the sinking of the Cheonan.

If this can happen, anything can happen. People can just ‘disappear’, legislation can be passed without the knowledge of those affected, election results can be manipulated, or falsified outright, etc.

This, to my mind, is a big deal. It could be an indication of where we are headed. Up until now, we’ve all been painfully aware that the media slants the news. But what are we to say if there is no news to slant?

Sure, there are plenty of links out there where you can stream Beck’s radio program, jihad, porn or anything else you might want. But that isn’t really my point, is it? It’s not a matter of having accessibility to news. There are millions of people in North Korean work camps as well. Each and everyone of them knows exactly what’s going on there. But you never hear from them, do you? It’s as if they don’t exist.

The third-highest rated radio program is shut out of the biggest American media market. And nobody talks about it!? That’s what I find disturbing!

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

To Live Another Day

All this is entirely self-evident. Taxation inhibits economic activity. That’s why one sees the flight of people and businesses from high tax states to lower tax states. As jobs and money flee, the tax base shrinks, resulting in less money flowing into government coffers. It’s difficult to understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp for some people.

‘Democrat ex-legislators’ have just sealed Illinois’ fate. It is not hard to figure out what will happen next. “Wisconsin, here we come!”

Unless, of course, Illinois is so progressive, they feel they are not subject to economic consequences. They would first and foremost blame the economy in general - the loss of jobs (new norm) overall, due to whatever - without necessarily understanding what the word ’economy’ actually means. They would further argue that what is quite obvious in ordinary household budgeting becomes counter-productive when applied to a macro model where increased government spending and higher taxes are the ultimate solution. They would have plenty of company in support of that view from the likes of Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist, to many in the halls of Congress, and in Democrat-controlled State legislatures.

Even more ominously looms the casual wholesale dismissal of economic principles overall; the view that it is and never has been about fiscal policy; that the whole purpose of the exercise is to make things ‘fair’ by re-distributing wealth.

Our current administration has been mounting an all-out campaign to criminalize achievement. Wealth is regarded as some kind of unpardonable stain - and, to some extent, the class warfare narrative has taken hold. If successful, metrics to actually measure economic success or failure would cease to exist. Only one thing would stand in the way of fully implementing the program: neighboring states or countries in which capitalism actually works.

That is why these too have to be destroyed by Federal rules and regulations. It is why Israel cannot be allowed to survive, and why America cannot remain as she once was.
----------------------------------------------------------
Read an article this morning in the WSJ by John Eibner and Charles Jacobs, entitled, “Will Freedom Come for Sudan’s Slaves?” about a country that is about to be split in two. Among a whole host of outrages, slavery is still practiced in northern Africa. It is of the most brutal and degrading sort, vividly detailed here.

Earlier this week, I saw a clip of a debate on France 24 about the kidnapping and murder of French citizens in Niger. And yet, we keep our condemnation close to our vests. At no cost must we insult Islamic extremists. They are noble savages, after all. Easier to turn against ourselves and become like them. It is now clear that they won’t necessarily like us any better if we do; but, at least, they’ll presumably no longer be tempted to come across to our shores to raise holy hell. We who have far less experience in the art of intimidation and physical brutality may yet live another day.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

I Want Kelly Evans Back

“POTUS cannot solve the possibility of a challenge from the Left of the Democrats.”

First off, let me say, I want Kelly Evans back. As to the Batchelor quote above, how does that square with the opinion of many pundits (including the WSJ) that the Left is finished in this country? This has to be thought through. If the Left is finished, so is the Right. The problems this country faces - both foreign and domestic - are no longer solvable. Game point, POTUS.

And this has been the whole point of the Obama presidency thus far: to erase any distinction between Democrat and Republican, Left and Right, economic success or failure; winning and losing re foreign policy; etc.

That has been the ‘game’ all along - a classic Marxist ploy, meant to prepare the field for takeover. By the time it’s finished, there will no longer be any way to judge the best from the worst. There will be just one choice. It will masquerade as harmony.

The Kucinich play will fade to sideshow (if it hasn’t already), as will the Tea Parties, the Clintons and all the rest. The action will be in the main tent; and the ring master will be Barack Hussein Mubarak (or any other dictator you wish to name).

All the partisan hand wringing; all the endless talk about this and that was over once Barack Hussein Obama got elected. He has forged (and is still forging) a new way forward - new for America, that is. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can get down to the business of restoring the country. Otherwise, don’t come whining to me if, when 2012 comes ‘round, Obama gets ‘re-elected’ (again and again…)

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Watching It Burn

When a car quits running it’s most likely either out of gas or low on oil. If it’s low on oil, adding gas won’t help; similarly, if it’s out of gas, adding oil will do little to get it going again.

A WSJ editorial today reads in part: “Oregon raised its income tax on the richest 2% of its residents last year to fix its budget hole, but now the state treasury admits it collected nearly one-third less than the bean counters projected. The sun also rose in the east, and the Cubs didn’t win the World Series.” and, I might add, Oregon’s economy didn’t improve. It takes both oil and gas for a car to run properly.

Taxes have hit the wall in many states. Raising them, has (at best) had no effect on either topping-off state coffers or on improving the economy. We’ve already drained the oil down to dangerous levels; adding gas (stimulus) won’t help.

Gas represents the government’s power to tax. Oil represents the people’s willingness to keep on working and paying taxes. When either one exceeds or falls short of its optimum level, the economy falters.

Anyone who simply advocates - as Democrats do - that increased taxes will kick-start our economy is ignoring the oil-side of the equation. Similarly, anyone who advocates cuts in spending to the exclusion of other factors is on the wrong track. The economy will not improve unless and until the equation balances.

Tea Parties tend to harp on government spending while our government is harping on ‘tax breaks for the rich‘. Neither one will ultimately succeed in bringing the economy back. It doesn’t take a mechanic to diagnose the problem in Oregon. Those who simply say “it’s the economy, stupid” are missing the point. They’re blaming both gas and oil under the umbrella of the economy not working. It takes a more nuanced approach. Clearly there’s more than enough gas. What’s missing is the oil.

Solution: Ease off on the gas and add oil. [Note to Obama: If the plan, however, is to kill the economy outright, simply to watch it burn, there are other (quicker) options. We could always run it into a bridge abutment. All options remain on the table.]

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Dead-Center Left

Candy has it wrong. The biggest story now, and for the past several years, has been the press itself. It has been it’s creation of the Franconian figure that is Barack Hussein Obama. The tea parties have been treated pretty much as one would an afterbirth . No one celebrates it. It figures much more prominently in the process of cleaning up.

Crowley may have misspoken because, when all was said and done, the afterbirth showed more promise, more life than the fetus ever did. Here we are two years later, and the tea parties exhibit a far greater vitality than the awkward mongoloid child. All those having celebrated the birth with such unconstrained enthusiasm, are now faced with having to climb down from their original high expectations. Naturally, they have been reluctant to do so.

In the process they have poisoned their own well of credibility. It seems the child was unable to open the heavens and has had to follow in the footsteps of his elders. The accommodation to ‘tax cuts for the rich’ was just the latest in a series of broken campaign promises. This one in particular represents the crowning achievement of the outspoken tea parties in that the name ‘Bush’ was actually attached to it. There can be no way of flushing it or sweeping it under the rug.

All during the rise of the tea parties, the press has done its best to ignore them. When the final salvo against them failed - pegging them to the threat of violence and making them a target of Homeland Security - it became clear to many that they would have to begin taking the tea parties seriously. There is now an increasing number who are in the process of doing so. Only the likes of the NYT still push the predictable narrative of Obama’s omnipotence, hardly ever mentioning the tea parties by name. They continue to pursue this course at considerable personal risk. From what I hear, the finances of the old ‘gray lady’ are in dire shape. This as opposed to the WSJ who has manage to pick up subscribers just as fast as the NYT is dropping theirs.

Still, the NYT is said to be the paper of record. Any number of U.S. publications - and the international press in particular - take their cues from The New York Times. These are beginnig to suffer equally and we can soon expect a bill introduced in Congress geared to bailing out failing news organizations. In addition, there’s been some serious talk afoot of ‘regulating’ the industry. Long entrenched politicians are becoming concerned. They would like nothing better than to be able to limit the scope of what has come to be known as ‘alternative media‘. The John Batchelor Show radio and blog also fall into this category.

There are of course others far more critical of the ruling classes on both sides of the political aisle. In a head-fake to fairness, both FOX and MSNBC are now in the crosshairs. It’ll be interesting to see how this issue will fare in the next Congress. Lawmakers will feel compelled to deal with it and the tea parties will be watching closely how this heretofore dead-center left narrative develops. America has spoken after all. It will no longer tolerate rank distortions.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

A Sputnik Moment

I understand that the title ("George W. Obama") of JB’s post above is meant as a dig at Democrats. It is they who shrink from any comparison with Bush like Dracula shrinks from daylight. There’s no way that Obama and Bush can in any way be seen as the same. Though both are despised equally, it must be noted who is doing the despising, calling to mind the adage, "You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." (Wilde)

In this morning’s WSJ, there is an opinion piece by Chester E. Finn, Jr. entitled, “A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Education”. The pull quote reads, “China delivers another wake-up call to those who think American schools are globally competitive.” Mr. Finn is referring to the results of the 2009 PISA test in math, reading and science which shows Shanghai’s 15-year-olds topped every other jurisdiction in which the test was given. Hong Kong was also in the top five, while the U.S. was somewhere in the middle of the pack of sixty-five. The article closes with the question, “Will (this news) get us beyond the excuse-making, bickering over who should do what, and prioritizing adults over children?”

It remains unclear what the former assistant secretary at the DOE wants us to do. Finn points out that Beijing has made education a high priority, especially in key cities like Shanghai (population, 20 million); that this success will likely be duplicated in 10 cities by 2019 and 50 by 2029; or even faster. I know, for example, that qualified, native English teachers willing to work in China can command considerable perks. At the same time, they are exporting teachers to teach Mandarin all over the world.

It would be interesting to know just how much the PLA is paying (per student) to be able to exhibit such success. I expect it’s much less than we pay to keep the doors of our own failing schools open. For too long now we’ve been under the impression that money can buy anything - literacy, peace, love, respect, politicians, immortality, solvency and the like - without the effort and discipline involved in actually maintaining such things hands-on. With the dollar buying ever less these days, we’ve run out of money. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for the dregs, we’ve managed to choke off opportunity for generations to come.

Time to reassess the root of what defines 'value'. IOU’s just don’t cut it anymore.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Metrics Don't Matter

Cracking open today’s WSJ, you’ll find an article entitled “There’s No Escaping Hauser’s Law” by W. Kurt Hauser on its opinion pages. The pull quote reads, “Tax revenues as a share of GDP have averaged just under 19% whether tax rates are cut or raised. Better to get 19% of a larger pie.”

Seems plausible enough. At least, there appears to be enough data to back it up. So, why is our government doing everything it can to keep its heel firmly planted on the neck of business?

The Left’s battle cry remains, “Tax cuts? Who will pay for it?” It implies that there is presently not enough money to pay for government programs. We can agree on least that much. The solution would seem to be growing the pie and thus increasing the revenue stream to government coffers by first and foremost lowering taxes.

Since we refuse to do this, it becomes obvious that for the Left tax revenue is not the issue. Socialism is.

The disagreements we have on this blog are relatively minor. We all share the same basic assumptions. Not so the Left. The Left does not believe in economies; they do not believe in the individual’s right of free expression; they do not believe in success; they do not believe in failure as an option. The Left intends to enforce equality. For this to happen, success must be reduced to failure. Failure is so much easier to achieve. So, failure it is; standards removed; judgment banned.

It took Marx over 300 pages to write “Das Kapital”. It would take me at least that much to refute it. And even so, the Left cannot be converted. Equality is like a religion to them. And it’s taken on aspects of jihad. That’s why the Left refuses to engage (except on its own terms). The Left aims to win. Worldwide communism; worldwide Caliphate.

Anyone who still thinks Obama is in some way deficient is a fool. In the U.S. president’s mind he is succeeding. Brand Obama a socialist or a Muslim all you want. It does not scare the Left. They operate under entirely different assumptions. To them, capitalism’s success is a false success. It is evil. Equality is their one and only goal. Whether it is achieved by forced labor (“Arbeit Macht Frei”), gulag or shariah is all the same to them. Capitalism must be destroyed. It’s a war in which the only outcome can be the domination of one over the other. Metrics don’t matter.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

We Must Believe

You’re not helping, John, bashing Republicans at every turn. When Barack Hussein Obama took office, I felt a shift under my feet. ”I don’t mean fear to anger. I mean a sudden shift, a tumultuous upheaval, an uncontrollable displacement, concepts whose surfaces had been insignificant heaving over, up-ended, raised as huge boulders smelling of the earth that still clings to them, a shift that came to me physically, as intestines violently stir and contract when some irritant throws a switch in the digestive tract. Earth, guts – I don’t know what metaphors to use (anymore), to describe…” my clutching for words to explain my sense of impending doom.

You obviously haven’t felt it yet. You’re as one deciding between cake and ice cream – Democrat or Republican – while the rooms of the mansion we cohabit burst into flames one by one.

Is the WSJ now also on the no-fly list – like FOX, MSNBC, Rush, Drudge, JPOST among so many others? The WSJ, whose offices you yourself frequently avail yourself of; the same WSJ that chronicles daily fresh, flagrant abuses by our essentially one-party government.

(Note, I threw MSNBC in with my mix of no-flies because it too has been singled out for censure after having been deliberately dragged down to unfathomable depths of ridiculousness for the sole purpose of giving the exercise an appearance of balance.)

Time will tell who is right. Yes, we are grasping at straws. Whereas Republicans don’t look promising, there is no alternative at the moment. Give them a chance. They will rise to the occasion. We must believe it, for the others (Democrats) are already way beyond redemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Italics taken from Nadine Gordimer’s “Burger’s Daughter”.

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/

Obama 2; Congress 0

Notch another victory for the Obama administration. Obviously, Congress has become dysfunctional to the point of irrelevance. The ‘change’ that Obama envisioned from the outset not only pertains to our nation’s fiscal health and social cohesion, it also involves our system of governance: elections; our two-party system, the Supreme Court, checks and balances; and all the rest. Clearly, Democrats have been cajoled into rubberstamping the president’s market basket, helping to push through deeply unpopular legislation - some say illegally - thus shattering the nexus between the voter and themselves. Washington is now seen as rogue. Voter view themselves as victims without recourse to traditional means of having a say in how their nation is run. As such Democrats are expected to reap the wrath of the electorate in November.

Republicans fare no better. They were content to stand by and watch Democrats literally hang themselves. Republicans are now eagerly awaiting their 15 minutes of fame in the shadow of the gallows, hoping (as JB suggests) to divide the spoils of majority among themselves. The problem is that there are no longer any spoils to divide. The nation is bankrupt. Republicans have stood by, licking their chops; and watched as America was being depleted of its essence. It now no longer matters who wins in November. A huge Republican landslide can only serve to animate talk TV and radio hosts who will find, as time goes by, that Obama will get his way no matter what; that the moment to actually have done something constructive has long since passed.

In a WSJ opinion piece today, L. Gordon Crovitz writes about Iran’s Ahmadinejad. He might just as well have been writing about Barack Hussein Obama. Crovitz begins: “There have been rogue leaders on the world stage before. In cases such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao, people were shocked to learn they actually meant what they said.“

Crovitz asks the question: “A leader who mocks all questions (and) is thumbing his nose at (the) core beliefs of our era, including that information wants to flow freely, and that no one is above this law of increasing openness - What to do with (such) an information pariah?”

Crovitz concludes: “In today’s world, a leader who consistently mocks, lies, (blame-shifts) and threatens deserves to be set apart. We no longer have the excuse of misunderstanding. We will (only) have ourselves to blame if (he)… achieves his ambition.”

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Clash of Civilizations

Paul Harvey used to preface some of his stories by saying, “It’s not one world.” It isn’t. Howard Dean has not suddenly become Republican or conservative. He is and will (most likely always) be a socialist. Hillary Clinton is a socialist. Obama, at the very least, is a socialist. ‘Big government’ is fundamental to socialist thinking.

At the same time, socialists are not suicidal. They do not check their common sense at the door. They know that in order to survive as a viable alternative, they cannot totally ignore certain political realities. For Muslims to build a 13-story mosque in close proximity to Ground Zero is simply a bad idea, unless we fail to understand that Muslims have declared war on us; that they cannot be appeased or bargained with; that any altruistic gesture we might intend will not make them like us, and will be proclaimed a victory for their side, allowing them to propagandize and recruit in continuance of their war against us.

In a recent exchange with a friend about ultimate causes, it came to me that the fundamental difference between man and animal is ego. I had it right, but I did not go far enough.

We’d been putting bones out on the driveway after supper with the expectation of seeing them gone by morning. We’d often wondered just who our nocturnal visitor might be. We imagined any number of the ‘friendly’ animals we’d become familiar with over the years of living here. After an overnight blanketing of fresh winter snow, their various tracks cross the lawn in every conceivable direction. Most of these we can readily identify.

Last night I had to go out for milk. When I returned, I happened to see the interloper in my headlights. I still can’t tell you what it was: larger than a cat; smaller than most dogs; large pointy ears; protruding snout; thin, spindly legs. There have been reports of fox and/or coyote in our neighborhood, but I’ve seen the fox in daylight and it wasn’t that.

I almost felt sorry for the intruder. He looked so frail and wobbly, and nervous to boot. We don’t put scraps out every day. I imagined him coming by on days when we don’t - and being hungry. It also occurred to me that he - as most any animal - had no arms and was obliged to eat directly off the ground. The difference between us, I reasoned, is that we at some point decided to get up on our hind legs and remained that way. This allowed our front legs to develop into arms, hands and fingers with which we could do things. We could now build something and say, “I did that. It’s mine.” - hence, ego.

Thought would develop similarly as well - based on differing assumptions - into different appendages. Ayaan Hirsi Ali in an opinion article in yesterday's WSJ entitled “How to Win the Clash of Civilizations” briefly summarizes the late Samuel Huntington’s assertion that “the essential building blocks of the post-Cold War world are seven or eight historical civilizations of which the Western, the Muslim and the Confucian are the most important.

The balance of power among these civilizations, Huntington argued, is shifting. The West is declining in relative power, Islam is exploding demographically, and Asian civilizations—especially China—are economically ascendant. Huntington also said that a civilization-based world order is emerging in which states that share cultural affinities will cooperate with each other and group themselves around the leading states of their civilization.

Ali concludes: “The West's universalist pretensions are increasingly bringing it into conflict with the other civilizations, most seriously with Islam and China. Thus the survival of the West depends on Americans, Europeans and other Westerners reaffirming their shared civilization as unique—and uniting to defend it against challenges from non-Western aggressors (sic)."

He Did Not

It does seem like many Americans must be hit in the head with two-by-fours before they finally realize what’s actually happening. The trouble is that a blow like that is also likely to render the victim unconscious. It is now clear that ever since 9/11, some - if not most - of us have been rendered unconscious. This is not to say that the forces that are bedeviling us today had not been gathering long before the towers came down. 9/11, however, should have served as a wake-up call. It didn’t.

I am amused by reports that consistently prefix their findings with words such as ‘unexpected’ and ‘surprising’. There were many who predicted exactly where we were headed years ago. I myself remember saying that Barack Hussein Obama was destined to chauffeur the hearse to America’s final resting place. We seemed to be okay with that.

9/11 was an attack on what? America’s source of strength: its economy (and to a lesser extent on its military). It succeeded in bringing down the manifestation of that strength in unambiguous, most spectacular fashion. Less of our people died in the Japanese attack on Peal Harbor than did on 9/11. You would think that that would have meant something. Instead, our government to this day still has a problem in defining the enemy. And as such, it’s strategy is in disarray: unfocused, scattered, ad hoc, and - in large part - turned in against itself.

Bush meant well when he said, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Almost immediately our enemies - both here and abroad - sprang into action and began to ridicule him. Our domestic enemies turned out to be far more effective, turning ridicule into high art; a national pastime. They got what they wanted. They gave us Obama.

Now that it’s become clear where our nation is ultimately headed, everyone acts surprised. As a WSJ reader points out today, ‘unintended’ is not the same as ‘unforeseen’. Whereas everything reported today is couched in ‘unintended’ (surprise); nothing was ever so obscure as to escape prediction. We are being attacked on so many fronts, it’s difficult to keep one’s focus. Unless we’re willing to admit (to ourselves) that we’re in a war, and address the enemy appropriately, our fortunes will continue to wane. The ‘mosque on Ground Zero’ controversy is a case and point: Half of us do not recognize that Islam is at war with us, while all of Islam is utterly convinced of it.

Yesterday, the president of the United States spoke out for the first time on the mosque controversy. I wish he had said, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” He didn’t.