Guest Contributer: Tom From NJ: Big Starker & Little Schnook

Support for public unions certainly is the Progressives' current litmus test and grand tactic, so it is right to identify the unions as part of their sine qua non. But I'd like to take things a step further. In terms of strategic goals, the Progressive sine qua non is POWER, grabbing it, using it, keeping it. This is why the public unions are playing such a critical role in the Progressive coalition because they understand power and will let nothing -- not the law, the constitution, or the political process -- get in their way. The rest of the Progressive coalition is composed mainly of eggheads, far-left ideological cranks, MSM types, Alinsky disciples, elderly hippies and others of the drug-addled classes, professional agitators (aka. Community Organizers), permanent collectors of welfare and SSI, etc., and therefore lack the muscular intimidation factor that union thugs always bring to the table, even when allegedly "representing" school teachers (Miss Bishop and Mr. Chips are long gone!). As Andy Stern said when he was still head of the SEIU, "If the power of persuasion fails, we will use the persuasion of power."

The Progressive movement of today reminds me of the ninety-pound weakling in school who gives his lunch, his allowance money, whatever it takes, to make some muscle-bound brute his loyal protector and keep him that way. Thus can Little Schnook talk and act big, because he knows he has Big Starker around to do his dirty work for him. Despite his "cool" self-image and basketball pretensions, Barack Obama is Little Schnook. His alleged street smarts and Chicago toughness are a pose made even remotely credible --although not abroad, apparently -- largely by his association with Big Starker, i.e., the labor movement, especially the public unions. BTW, Saul Alinsky was just the same, basically an egghead sociologist who liked to pose as a streetwise tough guy, especially when safely in the friendly company of real tough guys. But I digress.

The American political "game", if you will, has rarely been played for stakes higher than those on the table right now and right through November 2012. The Progressives know this and so do their great comrades, the public unions, and they do not intend to give up power no matter what We the People may say at the polling place. What is the true Progresssive idea of "democracy" today? Check out Wisconsin 2011 or -- same thing --St. Petersburg, Russia, 1917. In both cases, the Little Schnooks cheered on the Big Starkers as they applied "the persuasion of power" to their opposition. Of course, the Russian "workers" were far more successful in grabbing, using, and keeping power than their American counterparts have been to date. However, hope springs eternal, especially in those radical precincts where, in the end, power is really the only sine qua non. Of course, between now and 2012 it may become increasingly unclear who is master and who is servant, Little Schnook or Big Starker.

No Joy In Mudville

Whereas in dreams landscapes often change and even faces merge into rough composites of people we may have known, the dreamer always remains the same, encompassing all that we understand the core of ourselves to be. It therefore behooves us to make some modicum of effort in making inquiries of anyone we aim to enter into a contract with. If we should want to get the garage roof fixed, for instance, we would normally first seek references before deciding on a roofer.

Society, even a democratic society, always breaks down into a hierarchy of leaders for the rest of us to follow. Leaders are freely chosen on the basis of their resumes and our assumption that their intentions are similar to ours. When the actions of a leader approximate what we would do under similar circumstances, we can pretty much take it for granted that the leader has our best interests at heart.

Last night, on the John Batchelor Show, John ran a segment in which three of his guests were asked to recall their personal experiences back in the late 70’s, waiting in gas lines (on alternate days) to have their tanks filled. Curiously, all three drove Pintos. We all were so much younger then, but we all remember having participated in some capacity in the drill. Back then, we blamed OPEC and, to a lesser extent, president Carter’s ineffectiveness. It made for large headlines all over the country but never rose to the level of existential concern. After all, Ronald Reagan stood in the wings.

Today, a similar situation earns barely a whisper. True, so far there have been no shortages; only the price of fuel is spiking. Enough money will buy you anything. Still, it’s worrying as we are coming face to face with our own limitations in our need to keep up.

We’re not talking about it because we fear we already know the truth. And we’d rather not know. Every dollar we spend on oil goes to fuel our own destruction. And it’s being orchestrated by our own White House. Every policy decision our current leadership has made seems specifically designed to make us more vulnerable. There can no longer be any doubt: this re-distribution of our wealth in the name of atonement is fast approaching the limit of our endurance. Our dependence on oil remains constant even as our sources and options decline. We have been rendered literally powerless to save ourselves.

With Carter in office, we at least knew that things could possibly turn around with the next election. Now, we’re no longer so sure. Obama appears to have his second term well in hand. We may never get another chance.

That’s why we don’t talk about it. Instead, we grin and bear it. Two years - even one - seems like an eternity. Any plan to unseat Obama seems like a long shot. And though spring is approaching after a long hard winter, there’s not much joy in Mudville as the driving season commences.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Going Too Fast to Take the Exits

We have now reached the point I have been warning about. The state of our nation is anything the government says it is. “The economy has turned the corner” and, poof! the stock market goes through the roof; “eight million jobs saved”, and, shebang! it is so; “companies have resumed hiring” and, would you believe it? (Obama is a genius!) Unemployment goes from nearly 10% to barely 9 (the new norm), and, again, Obama is simply the best!!! “Oil prices will not spur inflation” and, miracles of miracles… “We are winning the war.” Really?

How can we possibly oppose the policies that have brought about such incomparable blessings? All throughout the Middle East and beyond, democratic movements have awakened and unseated long-entrenched tyrants and placed power into the people’s hands. And we did it all without firing a shot. Here at home, we’re standing up for workers’ rights; a chicken in every pot; a roof over every head; heath care for all; etc.

He (Obama) will go down in history as the greatest American president since Lincoln, or is it Roosevelt? Or Reagan? Or Washington? (Let me check my calendar.) Only bright days ahead. A nation powered by shiny new high speed (can we still say, ‘bullet') trains and batteries; wind and solar power. …clean, crystalline air to breathe. No one smokes. Everyone eats healthy - and not too much. Utopia is truly within our grasp.

This one is a keeper. This president. The best we’ve ever had. Why bother with any more elections? This is a good as it gets. Boy, are we ever lucky!
------------------------------------------------------------
"We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country (England), even if it does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators."

- Neville Chamberlain.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely riveting broadcasting last night, John. I had dozed off with my radio on. Was literally frightened awake by the raw energy emanating from your segment with Malcolm Hoenlein alone. You turned into a pit bull and would not let go. You got Malcolm to say what he didn’t want to say. You got him to admit that Iran is winning.

I understood Malcom’s reticence. It was so obvious the man was struggling, stumbling. He fully grasped the import of the words that you so pitilessly coaxed from his convulsing throat. He understood what it means for Israel.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Flipped

Both China and Japan - (we could even go so far as to say) all countries - face challenges in implementing policy. There are always approaches that warrant tweaking. Since there might be questions as to the underlying assumptions that would presumably lead to improvement, it is possible that any given policy (based on such assumptions) might ultimately fail to produce the desired result. So far, China has done things pretty much by the book.

There is, however, nothing to guarantee that ‘the book’ - even the American book - is always right. Time is like a train rushing ahead. There also needs to be some measure of faith that the tracks will continue to be there.

There is no doubt in my mind that - although China has made some serious mistakes in the past, giving birth to any number of Albatrosses around its neck - China aims high. It wants to be top dog. As such, it intends to surpass America. This does not necessarily imply evil intent. It proceeds out of a sense of national pride. The leaders of China believe in destiny. They feel that their time is at hand, and that they must now prepare as much as possible and, when the time is right, ‘seize the day‘. Apart from China, there are any number of signals that the U.S. itself has been sending that confirm China’s suspicion that its own turn at the wheel is near.

When my wife queries me if I would prefer eggplant or carrots for supper, she immediately jumps to the conclusion that I don’t like carrots and will never buy them again. In truth, I don’t mind carrots at all. Confronted with a choice, I inevitably fall into a trap of my own making as soon as I voice an opinion. Carrots, after all, are different from eggplant.

I agree with a liberal friend of mine that we should not be in the business of exporting ‘democracy’ throughout the world. We should persuade by example. China has been watching us and has adopted many of our ways. It has helped them to become relatively successful in a short period of time. China also sees us now, and intends to avoid making our mistakes. The point is, the leadership of China seeks to do what it feels is best for China. We may or may not agree as to how China‘s ascendancy would ultimately affect us.
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting opinion piece by Michael Medved in this morning’s WSJ, entitled, “Obama Isn’t Trying To ‘Weaken’ America”. The pull quote from it reads “Some conservatives call the president the political equivalent of a suicide bomber: so consumed with hatred (for America) that he is willing to blow himself up in order to inflict casualties on a society he loathes.”

It goes on to list various failings of past presidents from Franklin Pierce to Bill Clinton, implying that we have well survived all their foibles; that Obama’s fumbling in office is of no more consequence than Clinton’s diddling with Monica Lewinsky in an Oval Office anteroom. Medved’s grand proof that people like Rush Limbaugh - who has said, “I think we face something we’ve never faced before in our country; and that is, we’re now governed by people who do not like the country.” or Sarah Palin, who said, “...he (Obama) is hell-bent on weakening America.” - are imbecilic. He bolsters his argument by saying, “None of the attacks on Mr. Obama’s intentions offers an even vaguely plausible explanation of how the evil genius, once he has ruined our ‘strength, influence and standard of living’ hopes to get himself re-elected.” - as if elections would be of any concern to ‘evil geniuses’ in the first place.

I used to like listening to Medved’s radio program when he was here in New York years ago. I especially liked his movie reviews. It could be that he has flipped, like Philadelphia's Michael Smerconish, and as John Batchelor himself is forever threatening to do.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Reply to Corlyss: 'Democracy'

You don’t have to travel anywhere to get what people feel about “democracy” - or “socialism”, for that matter. Pick random people on the streets of New York and ask them what they think and they will tell you the most curious things.

There’s still some brand equity in the word “democracy”. Most people on our side of the pond will say they support it - as they might support a new movie theater, a mosque or Walmart opening up around the corner. Ask them what they think of “socialism” and they’ll tell you that’s just fine as well. A recent high school graduate defined ’socialism’ as ‘being sociable’; people ‘connecting with each other as on Facebook‘.

The confusion about basic terms abounds here and everywhere. The schools just don’t teach anything anymore. In New York State 32 billion is spent annually on primary school education (this does not include property taxes paid), yet two-thirds of students are judged ‘not ready’ for college or careers at graduation. In the cities (like Rochester, Elmira, and Syracuse), it can be as high as 95%.

This, in essence, produces a population that can be made to believe anything you want to tell them - and even impose brutal dictatorships under guise of nice-sounding terms and definitions. It’s called ‘hijacking a popular movement’ and it’s the latest rage to sweep the world, including our country. “One man, one vote” sounds great to most people. It’s what comes next, that’s the kicker: “one time”.

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/

CLOSE OUT: Everything Must Go

Knowing and comprehending are two entirely different animals. Caring is a third. We actually don’t know what POTUS knows. We’ve never seen his college transcripts. We don’t know what courses he’s taken. It’s all a closely guarded secret.

What we do know is that POTUS has a short attention span. He does not absorb new material readily. He has a flair for spectacle and self-promotion. Hu Jintao knows that something in America has gone terribly wrong. He has come to see for himself.

I do not agree with John Batchelor that the Chinese leader sees himself or his leadership either as fragile or illegitimate. There are templates out there other than ‘democracy’. In fact, democracy seems to be on the wane the world over. It has lost favor in the same way that capitalism has. This is in large part because we’ve abused ours.

There has even been the suggestion that our very own government (under Clinton) gave away military secrets to the Chinese with full approval of the military itself. Why? Because they thought in doing so they could exact more funding from the Congress to build even bigger and better projects. Corruption everywhere.

In fact, ‘democracy’ has always been a shill for power. Power is all that ever really mattered. Since Obama, our power (under the guise of ‘democracy’) has been proclaimed illegitimate. Our enemies have been singing this tune for a long time. This is the first time we ourselves have picked up the refrain.

To view Obama as impotent, derelict or incompetent is a mistake. He is doing exactly what he set out to do. The world’s leaders are beginning to take note. Hu Jintao is no exception. The doors to the whore house have been thrown wide open. The gang rape of America is on. Everyone gets what they want.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

The Stoning Of Sarah

The Left certainly was more than ready for this one. It’s almost as if their talking points had been already scripted and sitting right there in the ‘out’ tray for months, just waiting for the inevitable moment to materialize. The media was already suited up, (ink)jets scrambled. It was the moment they had been waiting for: the opportunity to strike a blow against such perennials as gun rights, the tea parties, and talk radio. Well done, Left!

No time was lost on reflection. Facts that didn’t quite match evaporated before our very eyes. Websites scrubbed. Beck dropped. The rugs had been lifted to accommodate whatever was inconvenient to dispose of properly.

Some months ago a website (I forget which) posted a video of the stoning of a young girl somewhere in Pakistan. Nothing was left to the imagination. At the time, I wondered not just about the vicious frenzy of those throwing the stones, but also of the passive nature of those watching, and filming. The filming, especially, bothered me. “How sick!” I thought.

But then I realized that those filming couldn’t possibly be sitting around watching this again and again over popcorn and beer. There must be something more to it.

Maybe they were crying out for help. Maybe it was the only way they could think of to expose the madness. It was for us to see - to be outraged, as they were - to be moved to intercede; to take charge; to rescue them from their bloody Islamic hell. At considerable risk to themselves, they succeeded in smuggling the video out to what they believed to be the beneficent West, only to be shelved there and ignored.

We too have a bloody woman on our hands. Only, for us, it doesn’t seem to be enough. We want more. We want Sarah Palin’s head mounted on a stake to be paraded through our streets. We want Limbaugh and Beck. We want the population disarmed and helpless, at the mercy of thugs and tax collectors. We want the Tea Parties castrated and silent. We want our Constitution shredded. It is now clear that this is the official narrative of our intent.

We’ve just come from celebrating an election (in which the wrong party made huge gains). Some of us had been full of hope that things will improve with the infusion of fresh blood. That much we got. We were eagerly awaiting the first signs of change, of rebuilding that which had slipped away during the past two years. Now all of it has been overshadowed, sidetracked, postponed - the momentum lost. Who wins? Not democracy; not freedom. We’ve exploited our opportunity to take a step backwards. We’ve been derailed, stifled, disheartened. We’ve once again come face to face with just how fragile our system has become. We’ve become irritable and irritating in the same breath.

Those cell phone Pakis must be crying. America will not help. America can’t even help itself.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Is Democracy Dead?

Is democracy dead? That’s the point, isn’t it? If Washington should prove to be dysfunctional, the argument could be made that democracy is dead - rigor mortis; gridlock, anything you want to call it. When government no longer functions, what more can one say? There’s no use pretending it works when it doesn’t.

This ‘compromise’ that’s now under threat of unraveling would effectively saddle Americans with higher taxes they can’t afford. People forced to make decisions about when it’s best to die.

Maybe the death of democracy goes hand in hand with the death of capitalism. The crashing dollar; total reliance on monetized (future) debt. Consumer confidence. “Don’t worry, when things pick up…”

Capitalism relies on some degree of adherence to protocol: balancing budgets; honoring contracts; etc. - much of it thrown out the window to favor those who hate the system anyway; to get them aboard (the green-powered ark, only half built). To be replaced by what? No standards, no constraints; only bounced checks, compensation for services never rendered - relating only to the need for protection.

What would replace democracy/capitalism? Degrees of brutality; of corruption, theft, servitude, illusion. Enter the tyrant, the dictator to make the trains run on time. He then can make the rules any way he wants them - until he too is strung up. Et to, Brute?

No way to run a railroad.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Reply to Corlyss D

Not quite (insane). It’s always been there. In fact it’s hard-wired into the human condition. I’m talking about religion. Progressivism is a religion. High priests comprise the State. It comes complete with sins (littering), sacraments (abortion), rituals (protest marches), denominations (splinter groups), proselytizing (propaganda), ash cloth and salvation. God, of course, is Gaia, the Earth Mother. Today, it is as virulent as Islam.

Before it came ‘the divine right of kings’ and feudalism. Democracy is its exact opposite. Democracy confers rights to the individual. Power extends from the grass roots. It was a rare but bold experiment. And it led to unparalleled success for the people who dared to take this leap of faith. It required an educated public and a free press. It is no accident that exactly these fundamental prerequisites have been precisely targeted all along.

Democracy, if you wish, is also a religion. It requires a personal faith in the goodness of one’s neighbor. It requires a belief in the soundness of ones own judgment. It requires daring and self-reliance; and an understanding that all people possess such qualities individually.

As I said, the experiment yielded great success. We became the shining city on the hill and nothing we could envision was impossible.

Lucifer couldn’t stand it. He planned and plotted ways to tear our city down brick by brick. He used our own success against us. He imbued us with guilt, doubt and self-loathing. …and then he took power.

The only one totally in the clear in this sordid drama is the agnostic. He couldn't care less either way.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Midterms: Pyrrhic Victory For Republicans

All this about the "Impossible Kick" by Brazilian Roberto Carlos in a 1997 match of Brazil vs France applies if you have two teams out on the field. In America you have only one team playing. Whatever split can be discerned is only between good players and bad players. There is no goalie guarding the opposition’s net. Even the bad players can make a goal (if the others will let them).

We still pretend we have a two-party system with checks and balances. We pretend we have something akin to a democracy - much as the Left pretends there is still ‘global warming’. The Left’s pretense succeeds precisely because there is no credible opposition.

Republicans winning overwhelmingly in the November congressional elections will not change this one-sided game. The Left will continue to win where it counts. Obama is the Left. He has already succeeded in reducing the legislative branches to ashes. Nothing either one can propose that differs from the official line can amount to more than spit in the wind.

These past two years, congress has broken all the rules of acceptable behavior. It is no longer viable as an institution. Obama has succeeded in essentially carving the guts out of it.

This leaves only Obama and the courts. Therein lies the last remaining friction. But even there Obama is rapidly gaining the edge. Must I remind that the Justice Department also is no longer independent? They don’t even try to hide it anymore.

The media, education, science - they’ve all aligned themselves with the hard Left. The Left is the only team playing. All the rest is BS.

Yesterday evening on returning from dinner in central Chennai, we passed a street along which every single shop sold furniture. Each one was brightly lit. The stop-and-go traffic gave me time to peer inside. The proprietors and their clerks seemed bored and were glued to the windows, idly staring at the steady stream of mechanized humanity streaming past their premises. From what I could see all of them were Muslim.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

The Nuclear Option: Destroying Both Camps

Gibbs is in a difficult position. And what’s worse, he knows it. He knows the administration, as a political entity, is becoming unraveled. Not he (Gibbs), nor the president can stop the unraveling. It has become a lost cause to attempt to maintain the trappings of a democracy.

The people have discovered that ‘progressivism’ is just another word for what used to be called ‘communism’ and they want no part of it. Re-defining terms has been a hallmark of this administration and of the movement it represents. It has become all too clear that the ‘Big Lie’ is being exposed. Gibbs trips. He intends to hide the ‘Big Lie’ behind an even bigger one - and nobody’s buying.

The president has managed to destroy both camps. Progressives are so eager to come out of the closet, they’ve all but punched through the doors. Conservatives, arrogant as always, can finally see - beyond their own noses - what’s lurking inside.

This is not good news for a president who needs the support of at least one political faction. Fortunately, when they made Obama, they broke the mold. He is totally disinterested in politics as usual. In fact, he distains it. What is still unclear is whether he personally means to cling to power in perpetuity, or whether he is prepared to subordinate his own ego to the Cause. If the latter, he will hand off to Hillary Clinton; if the former, he will declare himself dictator for life.

Governments Fail

In many ways, India finds itself in the position of Israel. It has intractable neighbors hell-bent on drawing it into a vortex of dysfunction. The grand puppet master is China of which Pakistan is a client state. China has made it no secret that it wants to see India broken up into separate and competing regions that would be helpless in the face of a Chinese advance. The best way to accomplish this is to drain focus and resources away from what it takes to maintain India’s identity.

India has fashioned itself as a western-style democracy which by definition requires the participation - economically and politically - of all its people. If large segments of its population could be persuaded to opt out, India would no longer exist as a nation.

Pakistan is a failed state, created by the good will of the Indian power brokers after the British colonialists had been forced to retreat. It was determined that each of the two countries would pursue separate paths and that these would prove incompatible within the confines of a single laboratory. Still, it was hoped that the two nations could exist side by side in relative peace. Israel’s desire to live side by side with a fully-functioning Palestinian state reflects a similar desire. In both cases, this goal looked achievable on paper. In reality it was not to be so.

While India prospered, Pakistan disintegrated into a failed state. Failed states typically fall under the control of more powerful regional actors. These then determine their fate and function. Pakistan has become a tool in China’s hands to destabilize India just as the Palestinian conflict has become a tool in Iranian hands to destabilize Israel.

It is easy to be distracted by the flashpoints in the world and dismiss the role of the grand puppet masters. Every time there is a problem between Pakistan and India we should be looking at China. Every time there is a problem between Israel and Palestinians we should be looking at Iran.

Success and failure cannot exist side by side. The words ’success’ and ’failure’ are interchangeable. What one side deems as ’success’ is ‘failure’ from the other’s perspective. Totalitarianism does not tolerate democracy. Islam does not tolerate infidels and so on… Therefore we have a problem that can only be resolved by power and the willingness to use it. We have reached the limit of what can be achieved by appeasement alone.

America’s challenge is to rediscover what it stands for and then to fully support those of like mind who may find themselves in trouble: in this case, India and Israel.

I find it fascinating how we kowtow to the Chinese. We are afraid that they will stop buying our debt. They are well aware of the power we allow them to wield over us; that we will do nothing to provoke them. Why don’t we just turn it around and use the same weapon against them? Why don’t we just come out with it and say we are broke and are no longer able to service our debt; that the U.S. paper they hold is worthless? Why don’t we just tell them outright that if they don’t call of their attack dogs - North Korea and Pakistan - we will announce to the world, making it official, that we’re broke, thus putting an end to the charade?

Their government would likely fall; as would ours. The question then becomes: What would take its place? My bet is on the American people who would make a fresh and positive start of it given their present advantage. China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran - who knows? One thing is for certain: We’ll have to get ourselves right before we can even think of doing anything for anybody else.

Conspiracy Nutcase

Do I detect a pattern? I’ve been accused of being a conspiracy nutcase. But there appears to be a pattern nonetheless. Case and point: The so-called near world banking collapse installs Barack Hussein Obama in office amid the jubilant cries of the hopeful. Since assuming office, the crisis is said to have been averted, but every policy decision appears to be having precisely the opposite effect. New York State is said to go bankrupt by Monday. Other states are on the brink. In New Jersey, for instance, we have a governor who says all the right things but risks the wrath of the public sector unions as well as that of homeowners who can be expected to pay higher taxes for lesser services. In our town the local library has cut its hours of operation.

The ‘solutions’ being so vociferously discussed and fought over do not address the fundamental issue. They merely delay the inevitable. Money that is saved will immediately go to plug some other hole. And the whole thing is predicated on the expectation that the economy will gradually improve. Not much chance of that. Looks to me rather like the doubling down on a death spiral.

There has been much talk of ‘disaster’ lately. First there was the constant harangue about what we can expect if ‘global warming’ were to continue. After that particular ploy fell apart, there was the ‘disaster’ in the Gulf. Are these two connected? True, the first was theoretical; the second is real. Question: Was the second concocted to maintain the momentum of the first? Will it now become possible for our government to pass ‘cap and trade’, a scheme to rake untold billions into government coffers, quite without regard to what it will do to the private sector economy?

Additionally, there’s been trouble along our southern border with Mexico. Should it escalate into ‘disaster’, will that be the signal to cram immigration reform onto the books that (some say) would add millions of Democrat voters to the rolls, assuring (for lack of a better word) ‘Democrat’ control of over U.S. governance in perpetuity?

The pattern appears to be ‘disaster’, followed predictably by a blizzard of regulation, all designed to benefit one party. I will go further: These regulations, by the very definition of the word, are designed to limit the people’s freedoms. Whereas it can be said that the Bush administration also spent our money like a drunken sailor, what’s been happening since literally dwarfs all previous spending. It may have still been possible to grow ourselves out of Bush’s excesses by prudent policies designed to encourage economic growth. But now, most agree that even that hope has all but faded.

Lastly: Is it being deliberately done? In my view, yes. If this makes me a nut job, so be it. Just as there are alternate energy solutions out there (to my mind, illusory) - like wind, solar panels and perpetual motion machines – there are alternate economic models as well. There is the Islamic model involving such concepts as zakat and gharar, strikingly similar to communism and the overall concept of wealth re-distribution. There is feudalism and barter – all designed to concentrate power among the elite few. The vast bulk of us, reduced to worker bees, would exist solely for the benefit of the State which then decides whether we live of die.

A frontal assault on the very concept of democracy, I fear, is perilously close. It will assert itself with a vengeance within the next couple of years when we are likely to find that our choices at the ballot box are severely limited or inconsequential. It may also take the form of canceled elections. We remain under assault.

This is not to say that we remain victims. In fact, I believe, our present economic malaise is more due to our own determination to put on the brakes – passive resistance: not buying; not spending; not expanding our businesses; not investing; and, in some cases, not working. We are sitting on our hands. We are refusing to contribute to the success of a government whose policies we despise. We hold the reigns. If things continue to go the way they might, we may even decide not to vote.

No Narrative

Quite right, John! There’s no narrative – no political narrative, that is. There hasn’t been a political narrative since Obama got himself elected. The Congress has disgraced itself beyond redemption - and made itself irrelevant. All the rest is shadow dancing; mere window dressing. Every dictator the world has ever seen has maintained the tinsel trappings that mimic democracy. Iran and Afghanistan hold fraudulent elections – as does Venezuela, Russia, etc. The dictator always wins 99% of the vote. Hurray for the dictator!

There is a narrative alright, but it’s no longer political. It’s Obama’s narrative of change. That’s the one and only narrative that counts. Obama will proceed. Obama will win, for he holds the reigns of power. I can’t wait to see what happens in November – or, rather, what doesn’t happen. Politically, nothing will. But we will find ourselves further diminished and at the mercy of Obama’s change.

Everything has an expiration date. America was finished when we elected Barack Hussein Obama. We say he grovels at the feet of Calderon. He doesn’t grovel; he is in total sync with the Mexican president. He truly believes America has no right to defend its borders. And Calderon believes it as well. His is a poor country. America is rich. That is the narrative. Both men regard this as our unpardonable sin that must be rectified. Without borders, America cannot claim to be a country.

Just the fact that we are even debating whether or not a 13-story mosque should be built within a stone’s throw of the hole we call ‘Ground Zero’ shows we have been defeated. We might as well fly the Nazi flag above Arlington Cemetery.

It’s just a matter of time now for the final recognition of our humbling to sink in. Will it come in November, or two years from now when Obama is overwhelmingly re-elected? I’m sure we’ll be talking about it – if talk radio is still on the air by then - or playing dirges.

Two Wolves and a Lamb

There's so much one hears daily on the radio talk shows and on cable TV, it all melds into one dull, interminable groan. There is a theme, though, that seems to be emerging on the Democrat side of the aisle: "the majority must rule", i.e., democracy.

People are understandably confused as to the various terms that are being used to describe governance. In the ever-shifting sands of word definitions, there's no longer any way to tell the difference between "socialism", "communism", "Marxism", "Maoism" and the like - especially since such terms are being used indiscriminately as pejoratives by individuals who are interested only in scoring put-downs.

On the other side too distinctions have become blurred. "Democracy" is touted as the highest to which man can aspire: one man, one vote; every vote counted; etc. Seldom mentioned is that ours is actually a republic: "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

There's a reason for why we are a republic instead of a democracy: democracies seldom survive. Which brings me to a quote I heard among all the din only yesterday. It's a quote commonly attributed to Ben Franklin that actually stuck and bears repeating: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

Shunned Concepts

Note that Republicans have been rendered borderline giddy by what recent polls are showing. They’re clearly expecting a huge payday next November and beyond. I would caution that there are still many pitfalls that lie ahead. For one thing, people are not overly enthused with Republicans either. They see Republicans as being something on the order of unindicted co-conspirators. There may yet be a huge push for a third party (which would split the Republican vote and give Democrats a victory). Democrats themselves are divided, though none of them can be expected to vote Republican.

The Obama election set the template: “Anybody but Bush and (to some extent) Republicans.” Republicans themselves buckled, disavowing their own support and principles, reaching across the aisle to embrace questionable Democrat proposals. All this has left a bad taste in voters’ mouths. Taste is the sensation that lingers the longest in memory. It is a factor that cannot be overlooked.

Even more disturbing is the possibility that once the new congress is seated, it will find itself marginalized and unable to stop anything that the executive branch puts forth. Once the people catch on, they will begin to question the efficacy of representative governance. “Democracy” will become a shunned concept, similar to what “capitalism” has become.

The Tail Wagging the Dog

I think it is time for the American voter to finally be afforded a seat at the table. Throughout the Bush years, I kept hearing that the president was losing his base because he was not conservative enough; because he was said to have moved too far to the left and embraced the likes of Ted Kennedy. Now, the complaints are the exact mirror image: Obama is in the process of losing his base because he is not radical (left) enough and much too willing to make concessions. Whether any one of these two men - who’ve had the misfortune of being president during these dysfunctional times - adjusted their actions and rhetoric due to expediency or epiphany remains an open question.

In any case, this is a discussion for the political class and taking head pundits. It leaves out the rest of us - we, (in Washington terms) the ‘great unwashed’, the sheeple; the voter/taxpayer – who, most likely by deliberate design, are becoming increasingly confused (and suspicious) about what Washington may actually be up to.

The sheeple have not yet have been totally rendered blind. (Alan Strang, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, has not yet been moved to consummate his dirty thought.) People see that while they’re hurting financially, Washington’s elite are doing quite nicely by comparison. There’s also nothing unusual about periodic outbursts of harsh rhetoric in public debate; or in elected representatives jumping off the government Ferris wheel with their multi-colored parachutes ablaze in the dying winter sun. There’s nothing exceptional about tabloid intrigue, or in mock media crucifixions. What is confounding is the constant political shifting to the left or to the right that deprives this hapless constituency of a reliable measure by which to hold their representatives to account.

In November ’08, the American people voted to end war, close Gitmo, and adopt socialist governance. A year later, most of what Bush had put in place and maintained continues unabated. It’s no wonder that the Left is peeved. They might very well decide to just stay home during the next several election cycles, just the way the conservatives did for McCain.

Pundits call it efficacy or ‘governing from the center’. I call it muddying the stream. All this sniveling around simple yes/no positions gives voters of any persuasion the false hope that their particular expectations are about to be met. When these then are allowed to gather dust, voters become disenchanted with the very concept of democracy itself. They stay home on Election Day and watch reruns of ‘Friends’ instead. That’s when the ‘special interests’ come out to do their worst and, as we have seen for all too many years, the tail has been happily wagging the dog.

Let the voters decide once and for all whether they want capitalism or socialism; fight terrorists to the death or pay them off; support or abandon Israel; keep or shred our Constitution; support or implode the dollar; designate education to be instructive or merely day care; etc.

Any of the above deserves a firm commitment. The people should be aware of where their candidate stands. Once the election has been decided, the representative should not be allowed to stick his moistened finger into the air to decide which way to vote. He is already committed to vote as he has promised. ‘Say anything just to get elected’ should no longer be tolerated.

America Watching from the Sidelines

Pundits agonizing over what seems like a flurry of year-end diplomatic activity between sovreign states reflects the current trend of nations on every continent scrambling to re-fashion their alliances in light of U.S abdication of its traditional dominant role. The vacuum that has been created, either by ineptness or intent, since Barack Hussein Obama came to power is beginning to cause global concern. Unease has followed hope and ridicule. America is beginning to be perceived as ‘changed’, quite without the assurance that this change will translate into something better. Quite to the contrary, there is every indication that America is heading for something worse. It is time for the rest of the world to divest itself of its reliance on America’s teat or, at the very least, to begin scouting around for alternatives.

Specifically with respect to Asia, what is happening there is way overdue. Systems of governance should determine which countries should align and which should not. Democracies such as Japan, Australia, Israel, and India would make for a natural alliance. Authoritarian governments, of which China is the biggest in the region, make for an obvious counterpoint. Though some may see the democratic model as messy, history has shown that the democratic template generally yields greater and more profound advances in the long run. A profitable alliance between democracies in the Far East may even convince its non-democratic neighbors to adopt some democratic measures; that is, provided that ideology – often closely linked with corruption - does not cloud the obvious.

Unless America can regain some sense of its former confident self, she will be relegated to watching from the sidelines while the rest of the world advances through the next century.

Failing to Achieve the Ecstasy

Back when George Bush famously quipped that he wanted to spread democracy all over the world, he was roundly laughed at. The old woman (democracy) was already dying. Her two sons, communism and nihilism were ascending and preparing to take power. The election of Obama was proof certain that democracy had run its course. She stood weak and discredited, shamed by her own arrogance which precluded her from mounting a credible defense.

Communism seemed the most logical heir. He was older and could claim a record of sorts. Admittedly, there were gaps and disappointments in his resume but - being young and strong, with plenty of tricks up his sleeves - he succeeded in pulling himself back up each time after error and embarrassment had stained his effort.

Nihilism was the upstart. Nihilism had been subject to manipulation by his older brother in his younger days. No more! …and eventually the equation turned around.

Now nihilism rules. He has taken a bride named ‘solipsism’. There are no longer any rules. The degree of savagery determines success or failure. We’ve been there before – the Roman Coliseum – only no one remembers back that far.

It is acknowledged that, for many, history begins on the day they are born. Most of us have been living off the fruits – the success – generated by our culture. We have known little else. Happiness is relative. I’ve been astounded how few Americans travel to see how others live. If they did, they would know that their (good) fortune is quite unique. They would be more appreciative of those who came before. They might even be enthusiastic.

Lacking such exposure and perspective, however, they tend to look longingly at worlds that can exist only in theory. They tend to ascribe reality to tomes which, like fishing nets, can only capture debris of a certain size, while the vast balance filters through. Still, failing to achieve the ecstasy to which we all feel entitled, we’ve now resorted to attacking the net itself. Ennui is Sisyphus’ stone rolling down the other side of the mountain.

The terrorists are merely an expression of ourselves. ‘Solipsism’ taught us as much.