Ted Leonsis, the owner of Washington Wizards and the Capitals, has posted an article on his blog. It is an article that calls out Obama for his class warfare tactics. What makes this interesting is that Ted Leonsis is a life-long Democrat who has maxed out his contributions to Obama's re-election campaign.
Mr. Leonsis is a self made billionaire who came from a humble background. He may be a Democrat but he is not a crony capitalist a la Soros, Immelt, or any other of the billionaires or business leaders around the President. As such, he understands what makes America exceptional.
What sets the U.S. apart is its unique founding principles. All that anyone has to do is to read the Declaration of Independence. The proposition that “all men are created equal” was at the time a wholly new basis for legitimate government; likewise, to pronounce certain “rights” “inalienable,” such as those to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” meant that an objective standard of justice was to guide our experiment in self-government. Equality, especially, is the foundation for legitimate government in that it points to government by consent, because there can be no claim to legitimate rule by a man over his fellow men if all are equal in their rights. Personal responsibility, lying at the foundation of individual liberty, allowed Americans to exceed the personal boundries other societies have artificially imposed on their members by lacking similar founding principles. Finally, limited government has allowed us to be free to pursue our God given rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, thus unleashing the potential that lies in every human being.
Ours is a country built upon free market principles that values success and individual initiative. The fruits of our unique adherence to individual liberty above all has propelled us to global leadership in innovation and entrepreneurship, making us the indisputable world leader for over a century.
Demonization of success that has become the cornerstone of the Democrat Party accomplishes one thing only: Destruction of the human spirit. As strong as we can be when left alone, human beings are also weak in nature. The conflicting needs to be set free and provided for are the basis of the two major political philosophies of individualism and collectivism.
The U.S. has a simple choice to make: Do we abandon what made us exceptional (therefore great) in favor of a flawed philosophy that sees individuals as weak and feeble minded beings who require assistance in living their lives, or do we recommit ourselves to our founding principles and champion individualism?
We will know the answer in fourteen months.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Opinion of Perry Revisited
Last week I expressed my reservations regarding the candidacy of Rick Perry. Thanks to links provided by Common Snse, I have been researching the details of Perry's actions and policy stances more deeply than before. I am starting to think that maybe I was overreacting to his poor debate performances rather than his positions; you know, style rather than substance...
Although I am still not sold on him as far as being another Reagan, he appears to be the least RINO candidate of those who stand a realistic chance of getting the nomination (yes, although being somewhat premature, I think that Caine, Newt, and Bachman are all out of contention, rightly or wrongly).
Here are the links:
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 1
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 2
What you need to know about Rick Perry
The Truth about Gov. Rick Perry
As always, take these articles (pro or con) with a grain of salt. Anyone's positions can be slanted to demonize as well as embellish them. Once again, thanks Common Snse.
Although I am still not sold on him as far as being another Reagan, he appears to be the least RINO candidate of those who stand a realistic chance of getting the nomination (yes, although being somewhat premature, I think that Caine, Newt, and Bachman are all out of contention, rightly or wrongly).
Here are the links:
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 1
Seventeen (17) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry, Part 2
What you need to know about Rick Perry
The Truth about Gov. Rick Perry
As always, take these articles (pro or con) with a grain of salt. Anyone's positions can be slanted to demonize as well as embellish them. Once again, thanks Common Snse.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
At a Loss For Words.....
Have you ever been so outraged by the boldfaced, outrageous hypocrisy of someone's actions that you are literally at a loss for words? Well, I am (as I've become accustomed to with this Administration and progressives in general!)...
As Accuracy In Media reported on Thursday, the U.S. State Department and George Soros funded Global Integrity have jointly launched the "Open Government" initiative that promotes transparency in government. The initiative was announced by Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist, and President Obama - another Marxist comrade of the former.
Yes, the same Administration that has stonewalled congressional committees by refusing to answer to a record number of FOIAs, refuses to cooperate with numerous on going investigations including Solyndra, has pressured a four-star general to give false testimony in the scandalous case of LightSquared, has falsified expert reports in the case of BP oil spill for political ends, has conducted business behind closed doors as with Obamacare and almost every other piece of legislation despite assurances to the contrary, has a revolving door at the White House for thuggish Marxist union bosses, .....(on and on the list goes!)
And yes, the same George Soros who funds just about every organization that is currently working to undermine the U.S. as well as the most progressive non-traditional media outlets, has played a key role in collapsing the British pound making him a persona non grata in the U.K., is closing his off shore based secretive $25 billion Quantum fund to outsiders in order not to have to disclose details as required by Dodd-Frank law he supported, was convicted in France of insider trading, is four-squares behind the Administration's unwillingness to let American companies drill for oil but stands to make over $100 million from the multi billion dollar credit Obama Administration is extending to Brazil for off-shore oil drilling, .......(again, on and on the list goes!)
You can read the details of the behind the curtains, incestuous relationships here. (highly recommended!)
Our friends at the Weasel Zippers have coined the right terminology for just such instances: Assploding hypocrisy. "Gangster government" does not even begin to describe this bunch!
As Accuracy In Media reported on Thursday, the U.S. State Department and George Soros funded Global Integrity have jointly launched the "Open Government" initiative that promotes transparency in government. The initiative was announced by Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist, and President Obama - another Marxist comrade of the former.
Yes, the same Administration that has stonewalled congressional committees by refusing to answer to a record number of FOIAs, refuses to cooperate with numerous on going investigations including Solyndra, has pressured a four-star general to give false testimony in the scandalous case of LightSquared, has falsified expert reports in the case of BP oil spill for political ends, has conducted business behind closed doors as with Obamacare and almost every other piece of legislation despite assurances to the contrary, has a revolving door at the White House for thuggish Marxist union bosses, .....(on and on the list goes!)
And yes, the same George Soros who funds just about every organization that is currently working to undermine the U.S. as well as the most progressive non-traditional media outlets, has played a key role in collapsing the British pound making him a persona non grata in the U.K., is closing his off shore based secretive $25 billion Quantum fund to outsiders in order not to have to disclose details as required by Dodd-Frank law he supported, was convicted in France of insider trading, is four-squares behind the Administration's unwillingness to let American companies drill for oil but stands to make over $100 million from the multi billion dollar credit Obama Administration is extending to Brazil for off-shore oil drilling, .......(again, on and on the list goes!)
You can read the details of the behind the curtains, incestuous relationships here. (highly recommended!)
Our friends at the Weasel Zippers have coined the right terminology for just such instances: Assploding hypocrisy. "Gangster government" does not even begin to describe this bunch!
Friday, September 23, 2011
I Am Troubled About Perry.....
Rick Perry has long been my candidate of choice for 2012. Watching the past two Republican presidential candidates debates, I reached the conclusion that Perry might not be my ultimate choice after all. Now, almost all candidates have their strong and weak points:
I like Bachmann for her passionate belief in a small constitutional government. On the other hand, she is not a strong candidate because of her style (which at times can sound kooky); after all style usually wins over substance in the modern age.
I like Newt for his bold ideas that highlight American exceptionalism. On the other hand, he holds views, especially on man made global warming, that bother me a great deal.
I like Caine, Pawlenty, and even Ron Paul for various reasons but for one reason or another they are all off my list.
Finally, although I like the oratory skills and the presidential demeanor of Romney on the upside, but his defense of Romneycare in Massachusetts screams "I am a RINO" as I opined earlier.
Perry, on the other hand, was always appealing to me with his defiance of Washington and free market ideals he has been espousing. Two issues, however, have bothered me greatly about him. The less significant issue is that of forced HPV vaccinations for Texas teens. It smacks of government interventionism in people's private lives and has no place in a free society. The more significant issue is his immigration stance - especially his support for giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. This, to me, is unacceptable. I realize that the governor is looking at it as the lesser of two evils: he'd rather have educated illegals than uneducated and unproductive ones.
This is a fallacy; or a Hobson's choice, if you will. First, even if the illegals are educated, they are still illegal and shouldn't be working in the U.S. anyways. So, why do the good citizens of Texas have to subsidize higher education for illegals, many of whom do not even pay taxes? Second, his objection to the building of a border fence shows weakness.
Taken in its entirety, Perry is looking more and more like he is Bush V. 2.0 (well not that bad since he adheres to free market principles more than Bush family could even dream of).
Perry's Democrat roots are showing. Yes, Reagan was also a Democrat but that was in early 1960s (until 1962) when Democrat party did have a few conservative adherents to the U.S. Constitution. As he said, he did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him (just like Zell Miller did 40 years later as he explained in his excellent book "A National Party No More"). Perry, on the other hand, was a Democrat through 1992. He chaired Gores presidential campaign in Texas. Enough said.
Perry is no Reagan: he does not have the oratory skills of the Great Communicator, nor does he have the passionate conservatism Reagan so proudly displayed.
Like a puzzle whose pieces slowly come together, Perry's credentials as a constitutionalist are looking weaker by the day, thus I am no longer an enthusiastic Perry supporter. The only other candidate with realistic chance of winning the nomination is Romney - one of the other RINOs in the race.
Is this what it was going to come down to: Choosing the lesser of the two evils?
I like Bachmann for her passionate belief in a small constitutional government. On the other hand, she is not a strong candidate because of her style (which at times can sound kooky); after all style usually wins over substance in the modern age.
I like Newt for his bold ideas that highlight American exceptionalism. On the other hand, he holds views, especially on man made global warming, that bother me a great deal.
I like Caine, Pawlenty, and even Ron Paul for various reasons but for one reason or another they are all off my list.
Finally, although I like the oratory skills and the presidential demeanor of Romney on the upside, but his defense of Romneycare in Massachusetts screams "I am a RINO" as I opined earlier.
Perry, on the other hand, was always appealing to me with his defiance of Washington and free market ideals he has been espousing. Two issues, however, have bothered me greatly about him. The less significant issue is that of forced HPV vaccinations for Texas teens. It smacks of government interventionism in people's private lives and has no place in a free society. The more significant issue is his immigration stance - especially his support for giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. This, to me, is unacceptable. I realize that the governor is looking at it as the lesser of two evils: he'd rather have educated illegals than uneducated and unproductive ones.
This is a fallacy; or a Hobson's choice, if you will. First, even if the illegals are educated, they are still illegal and shouldn't be working in the U.S. anyways. So, why do the good citizens of Texas have to subsidize higher education for illegals, many of whom do not even pay taxes? Second, his objection to the building of a border fence shows weakness.
Taken in its entirety, Perry is looking more and more like he is Bush V. 2.0 (well not that bad since he adheres to free market principles more than Bush family could even dream of).
Perry's Democrat roots are showing. Yes, Reagan was also a Democrat but that was in early 1960s (until 1962) when Democrat party did have a few conservative adherents to the U.S. Constitution. As he said, he did not leave the Democrat party, the party left him (just like Zell Miller did 40 years later as he explained in his excellent book "A National Party No More"). Perry, on the other hand, was a Democrat through 1992. He chaired Gores presidential campaign in Texas. Enough said.
Perry is no Reagan: he does not have the oratory skills of the Great Communicator, nor does he have the passionate conservatism Reagan so proudly displayed.
Like a puzzle whose pieces slowly come together, Perry's credentials as a constitutionalist are looking weaker by the day, thus I am no longer an enthusiastic Perry supporter. The only other candidate with realistic chance of winning the nomination is Romney - one of the other RINOs in the race.
Is this what it was going to come down to: Choosing the lesser of the two evils?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
More Videos of the Week (with Commentary)
Normally I try never to pass up on opportunities to demonstrate progressives' true colors (being Marxism) but these days there are just too many examples of such displays and I am a busy man with a job, family, and other interests. This clip, however, was too good to pass up.
I was one of those who said that Elizabeth Warren, an attorney at Harvard faculty, was a Marxist when Obama appointed her to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010. A little research in to her background makes that amply clear. Of course, the progressives I know would have none of it.
Here is a video of Elizabeth Warren, who is running against Scott Brown in Mass, stating that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on their own".
She cites an example of a factory having to use the federal highway system to move their goods. So, their demented rationale goes: the factory owner is indebted to the rest of the society for building the roads that enabled him to become rich. I don't know about you, but as much as I expect this kind of Marxist drivel coming out of their mouths, I never cease to be amazed. By their logic, everyone owes everyone else their good fortune. If this clip does not define what philosophically lies at the core of communism, I do not know what does:
Next, I have another treat for you. An AIM (Accuracy In Media) project on Solyndra:
I don't know what us bloggers will do when these guys are kicked out of office in 2012.
Remaining progressives, including RINOs, and their shenanigans will never be able to supply us with daily scandals and hilarities that the current crop is.
I was one of those who said that Elizabeth Warren, an attorney at Harvard faculty, was a Marxist when Obama appointed her to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010. A little research in to her background makes that amply clear. Of course, the progressives I know would have none of it.
Here is a video of Elizabeth Warren, who is running against Scott Brown in Mass, stating that "there is nobody in this country who got rich on their own".
She cites an example of a factory having to use the federal highway system to move their goods. So, their demented rationale goes: the factory owner is indebted to the rest of the society for building the roads that enabled him to become rich. I don't know about you, but as much as I expect this kind of Marxist drivel coming out of their mouths, I never cease to be amazed. By their logic, everyone owes everyone else their good fortune. If this clip does not define what philosophically lies at the core of communism, I do not know what does:
Next, I have another treat for you. An AIM (Accuracy In Media) project on Solyndra:
I don't know what us bloggers will do when these guys are kicked out of office in 2012.
Remaining progressives, including RINOs, and their shenanigans will never be able to supply us with daily scandals and hilarities that the current crop is.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Perry Ad: President Zero
Great stuff but Perry better perform better in the next debate if he is to stop Romney from gaining on him!
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Would the MSM Ever Investigate Obama Scandals?
Shame is an alien concept to our exceedingly progressive media. For example, the same media that refused to vet Obama during his 2008 campaign by ignoring his troubling background and associations, as well as the undisclosed mysteries of...........
1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
5. Medical records — Not released and not sought after by the media
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
7. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’ and noy questioned by the media
8. Law practice client list — Not released and not sought after by the media
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released and not sought after by the media
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None and ignored as an issue by the media
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None and ignored as an issue by the media
12. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
13. Multiple other issues surrounding him (such as his real estate dealings with Tony Rezko) and his wife (such as the covering up of the patient dumping scandal she was involved with in Chicago)
...rediscovered its investigative capabilities last month. Yes, the same media that sent a small army to Alaska during the 2008 campaign as well as when former governor Palin's e mails were released while not bothering to question any one of the many irregularities with Obama, scored another coup in August by unearthing Governor Perry's college transcripts.
This may not be a fresh news item, but it makes the point. Just don't ask them to investigate Obama and his minions' scandalous involvements in:
1. Solargate (Solyndra, Evergreen, and other cronies who took billions and then closed shop or are about to
- to be fair, this is the only scandal that has garnered some attention by ABC News)
2. Pigford, which has cost the tax payers over $2 billion in what amounts to be reparations
3. Operation Fast and Furious that cost two U.S. government agents their lives
4. Carbongate where EPA supressed climate study and internal critique to further the green agenda
5. Racial quota scandal at the DOJ forcing Dayton to lower standards for hiring fire fighters
6. Illegal job offer scandal where Rep. Sestak was offered a job to get out of the primary race
7. DOJ harassment of non-union workplaces like Gibson Guitar, Boeing, etc. and refusal to investigate
union violence in dozens of cases
8. Overseas donors to Obama campaign
9. Walpingate (or IG Walpin firing) scandal to protect cronies
10. BP oil spill memo scandal to justify the drilling moratorium in the Gulf
11. Acorn funding by the DOJ after the congress voted to cut of funding for wide spread election fraud
12. Black Panther prosecution scandal
13. Radical czars and other non Senate confirmed appointees who are avowed Marxists
14. Any one of several occasions when the Administration disregarded the Constitution by ignoring the
Separation of Powers Act (DISCLOSE Act, net neutrality, stealth amnesty, etc.)
15. Or any other of over 270 scandals of varying importance many of which would have caused a
Republican to either resign or be impeached.
They'll become deaf, dumb, and blind again in a New York minute!
1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released and not sought after by the media
5. Medical records — Not released and not sought after by the media
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’ and not questioned by the media
7. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’ and noy questioned by the media
8. Law practice client list — Not released and not sought after by the media
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released and not sought after by the media
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None and ignored as an issue by the media
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None and ignored as an issue by the media
12. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
13. Multiple other issues surrounding him (such as his real estate dealings with Tony Rezko) and his wife (such as the covering up of the patient dumping scandal she was involved with in Chicago)
...rediscovered its investigative capabilities last month. Yes, the same media that sent a small army to Alaska during the 2008 campaign as well as when former governor Palin's e mails were released while not bothering to question any one of the many irregularities with Obama, scored another coup in August by unearthing Governor Perry's college transcripts.
This may not be a fresh news item, but it makes the point. Just don't ask them to investigate Obama and his minions' scandalous involvements in:
1. Solargate (Solyndra, Evergreen, and other cronies who took billions and then closed shop or are about to
- to be fair, this is the only scandal that has garnered some attention by ABC News)
2. Pigford, which has cost the tax payers over $2 billion in what amounts to be reparations
3. Operation Fast and Furious that cost two U.S. government agents their lives
4. Carbongate where EPA supressed climate study and internal critique to further the green agenda
5. Racial quota scandal at the DOJ forcing Dayton to lower standards for hiring fire fighters
6. Illegal job offer scandal where Rep. Sestak was offered a job to get out of the primary race
7. DOJ harassment of non-union workplaces like Gibson Guitar, Boeing, etc. and refusal to investigate
union violence in dozens of cases
8. Overseas donors to Obama campaign
9. Walpingate (or IG Walpin firing) scandal to protect cronies
10. BP oil spill memo scandal to justify the drilling moratorium in the Gulf
11. Acorn funding by the DOJ after the congress voted to cut of funding for wide spread election fraud
12. Black Panther prosecution scandal
13. Radical czars and other non Senate confirmed appointees who are avowed Marxists
14. Any one of several occasions when the Administration disregarded the Constitution by ignoring the
Separation of Powers Act (DISCLOSE Act, net neutrality, stealth amnesty, etc.)
15. Or any other of over 270 scandals of varying importance many of which would have caused a
Republican to either resign or be impeached.
They'll become deaf, dumb, and blind again in a New York minute!
Friday, September 16, 2011
Turkey: Influence of Media, Intellectuals, and Religion on Public Opinion in a Quasi Modern Republic
On this tenth anniversary of the unspeakably evil and tragic event that we ought never forget, a facebook posting regarding 9/11 commemorations in the U.S. by my nephew in Turkey grabbed my attention. Loosely translated, it alluded to the 'murderers crying over their own act not fooling anyone else, not even little children' - an obvious give away of a 9/11 truther. He happens to be a well educated, professional, non-religious, modern thirty some year old - and he is not alone in his convictions!
This same sentiment is one that is scarily prevalent among most Turks - educated and ignorant alike as reflected by results of a poll conducted by Pew Research:
The most puzzling observation is how Turks view other religions and the culprits for 9/11 attacks compared to other Muslims. By the results of this poll, they appear to be more radicalized than Arabs themselves; at least on the surface. Immediately, several questions come to mind: What are the reasons for their propensity to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Furthermore, despite being relatively more secularized than Muslims in other countries polled, why do they hold significantly more unfavorable opinion of Christianity than even Arabs? Finally, can the U.S.A. count on Turkey as an ally any longer?
First, we must undertake a quick overview of who the Turks are if we are to understand the impetus behind the answers to the questions I posed above.
Turks are a highly mixed race of people whose ancestors were essentially nomadic warriors from the steppes of Central Asia. After migrating to Asia Minor in a rather disorderly fashion just over a millenia ago - between 6th and 11th centuries -, they established the Seljuk Dynasty, followed by the House of Osman (the Ottoman Empire) about two centuries later. During the long and glorious reign of the Ottomans that featured conquests of eastern Europe, southern Caucasus, the Middle East, and north Africa, Turks gradually mixed with local populations. The pragmatic side of Ottoman sultans also furthered the process of integration as many minority groups within the empire were favorably treated and given prominent positions in the government. After dissolution of the empire, the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1922 by Ataturk on principles of western secularist democracies. This was the decisive process that eliminated many of the cultural traces of Islam (which the Turks had converted to by the end of 7th century) by forcing western alphabet and attire on the Turkish people (among other reforms). It is also critical to note that Turks have never been, nor presently are, fundamentalist/radical Muslims though Islam plays an important role in the lives of many.
So, if historic tolerance of Turks is legendary and they have gone through a westernization process that other Muslims including the Arabs have not, why does religious intolerance exceedingly exist as indicated by the Pew poll? My answer to that question is ignorance.
Although Turkey today is a contrast between a modern western style society and a typical Middle Eastern society, and the Turkish economy being the 17th largest economy in the world, Turks remain on the whole rather ignorant. For example, the average Turk does not read despite a high literacy rate (as in book sales are dismal in Turkey among a large segment of the society). Logic as well as empirical evidence shows that people who are ignorant and relatively poor are more easily manipulated by outside sources. This can be exploitation by religious or ideological forces, both of which are prevalent in Turkey.
The less educated segment of the society in Turkey is currently largely influenced by the Islamists who are in power. Erdogan and his AKP party have been steadily transforming Turkey back to its old days before Ataturk. Today, there are far more mosques and religious schools in Turkey than there are libraries and secular schools. With the impetus provided by the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Turks have decidedly become more sympathetic to the Islamic cause. For example, the recent rumblings by the Erdogan government, outright threatening Israel, is atypical for Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey was the first predominantly Muslim country that recognized the Jewish state and until recently, maintained close diplomatic and military ties with Israel. This is the segment of the society that would also reject leftist ideology as much as they reject Christianity as a symbol of western culture.
Many Turks who are highly educated and cultured also prescribe to such nonsense as 9/11 truthism because they are predisposed to believing such conspiracy theories as a result of years of brainwashing by the media as well as the intellectual class. Many of the so-called intellectuals are hard line Marxist-Leninists who are still fighting the cold war as far as they are concerned. As with ideological blindness of progressives in the U.S., this segment of the society stubbornly remains close minded about 9/11 despite volumes of technical reports, facts on the ground, and common sense that thoroughly dismisses conspiracy theories. This should be expected since many belonging to this group are also progressives who feel at home with the collectivist ideology and dismiss the U.S. as representation of free market capitalism. As much as we may be convinced logic and evidence based classical approach to the argument would carry the day, I have found that there is little, if any, hope of breaking through to these otherwise well meaning people. It is my opinion, as also backed by a recent University of California research finding, that there are genetic differences between those with progressive and classical leanings; but I digress.
While one might find such rampant anti-Americanism ironic in a country that has been a steadfast ally of the United States, that is also exactly the reason why such reactionaries exist in Turkey. These intellectual reactionaries' influence is quite apparent in most news papers as well as literature. Over time, lacking strong philosophical immunity, many educated Turks who read their work fall under their influence.
Ever since the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, Turkey's alliance with the west has galvanized its Marxist communist movement, which on the most part was suppressed by the military. I still remember the "Yankee go home" signs from my youth in the 1960s. This movement was periodically suppressed by the Turkish military, which is the guarantor of the secular republic. In those years, religious extremism did not exist in Turkey. Back then, Turkey was an up and coming country with wide spread relative poverty. Far left ideology incubates best under such conditions. The scapegoat is there - the U.S. - to blame the shortcomings regardless of fundamental reasons for the real problems. The same movement has also been active in Greece - a neighbor with somewhat similar economic and societal conditions.
In conclusion, Turkey is a study in societal contrasts in a quasi modern society. The ultra modern and the devout Islamists coexist uneasily side by side, united in their distrust - and at times distaste - for the West, especially the United States. These Islamists and progressive leftists have formed an unholy alliance to undermine the free society that Ataturk envisioned eight decades ago. As such, Turkey is travelling on the same road that countries experiencing Arab Spring like Egypt and Libya are: a road that leads to disaster and terrible consequences that may well reach well beyond Turkey's borders.
The question whether Turkey can be relied upon by the U.S. will only be answered affirmatively if the next U.S. Administration can exert smart leadership that treats Turkey as more than the model of moderate Islam as the Bush Administration did, or foolishly as an intermediary of sorts to gain favor among the Muslim world as the current Administration is doing. Along with honest and co equal treatment, this smart leadership must also invariably restore the confidence of the Turkish military as the guarantor of the secular republic by clearly signalling our willingness to diplomatically stand behind them should periodic interventions be required as most socially unstable societies require. It is not a pretty picture but it may be the only way to avert the coming disaster rest of the world may be drawn in to.
This same sentiment is one that is scarily prevalent among most Turks - educated and ignorant alike as reflected by results of a poll conducted by Pew Research:
The most puzzling observation is how Turks view other religions and the culprits for 9/11 attacks compared to other Muslims. By the results of this poll, they appear to be more radicalized than Arabs themselves; at least on the surface. Immediately, several questions come to mind: What are the reasons for their propensity to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories? Furthermore, despite being relatively more secularized than Muslims in other countries polled, why do they hold significantly more unfavorable opinion of Christianity than even Arabs? Finally, can the U.S.A. count on Turkey as an ally any longer?
First, we must undertake a quick overview of who the Turks are if we are to understand the impetus behind the answers to the questions I posed above.
Turks are a highly mixed race of people whose ancestors were essentially nomadic warriors from the steppes of Central Asia. After migrating to Asia Minor in a rather disorderly fashion just over a millenia ago - between 6th and 11th centuries -, they established the Seljuk Dynasty, followed by the House of Osman (the Ottoman Empire) about two centuries later. During the long and glorious reign of the Ottomans that featured conquests of eastern Europe, southern Caucasus, the Middle East, and north Africa, Turks gradually mixed with local populations. The pragmatic side of Ottoman sultans also furthered the process of integration as many minority groups within the empire were favorably treated and given prominent positions in the government. After dissolution of the empire, the Republic of Turkey was founded in 1922 by Ataturk on principles of western secularist democracies. This was the decisive process that eliminated many of the cultural traces of Islam (which the Turks had converted to by the end of 7th century) by forcing western alphabet and attire on the Turkish people (among other reforms). It is also critical to note that Turks have never been, nor presently are, fundamentalist/radical Muslims though Islam plays an important role in the lives of many.
So, if historic tolerance of Turks is legendary and they have gone through a westernization process that other Muslims including the Arabs have not, why does religious intolerance exceedingly exist as indicated by the Pew poll? My answer to that question is ignorance.
Although Turkey today is a contrast between a modern western style society and a typical Middle Eastern society, and the Turkish economy being the 17th largest economy in the world, Turks remain on the whole rather ignorant. For example, the average Turk does not read despite a high literacy rate (as in book sales are dismal in Turkey among a large segment of the society). Logic as well as empirical evidence shows that people who are ignorant and relatively poor are more easily manipulated by outside sources. This can be exploitation by religious or ideological forces, both of which are prevalent in Turkey.
The less educated segment of the society in Turkey is currently largely influenced by the Islamists who are in power. Erdogan and his AKP party have been steadily transforming Turkey back to its old days before Ataturk. Today, there are far more mosques and religious schools in Turkey than there are libraries and secular schools. With the impetus provided by the U.S. involvement in Iraq, Turks have decidedly become more sympathetic to the Islamic cause. For example, the recent rumblings by the Erdogan government, outright threatening Israel, is atypical for Turkish-Israeli relations. Turkey was the first predominantly Muslim country that recognized the Jewish state and until recently, maintained close diplomatic and military ties with Israel. This is the segment of the society that would also reject leftist ideology as much as they reject Christianity as a symbol of western culture.
Many Turks who are highly educated and cultured also prescribe to such nonsense as 9/11 truthism because they are predisposed to believing such conspiracy theories as a result of years of brainwashing by the media as well as the intellectual class. Many of the so-called intellectuals are hard line Marxist-Leninists who are still fighting the cold war as far as they are concerned. As with ideological blindness of progressives in the U.S., this segment of the society stubbornly remains close minded about 9/11 despite volumes of technical reports, facts on the ground, and common sense that thoroughly dismisses conspiracy theories. This should be expected since many belonging to this group are also progressives who feel at home with the collectivist ideology and dismiss the U.S. as representation of free market capitalism. As much as we may be convinced logic and evidence based classical approach to the argument would carry the day, I have found that there is little, if any, hope of breaking through to these otherwise well meaning people. It is my opinion, as also backed by a recent University of California research finding, that there are genetic differences between those with progressive and classical leanings; but I digress.
While one might find such rampant anti-Americanism ironic in a country that has been a steadfast ally of the United States, that is also exactly the reason why such reactionaries exist in Turkey. These intellectual reactionaries' influence is quite apparent in most news papers as well as literature. Over time, lacking strong philosophical immunity, many educated Turks who read their work fall under their influence.
Ever since the 1960s, at the height of the cold war, Turkey's alliance with the west has galvanized its Marxist communist movement, which on the most part was suppressed by the military. I still remember the "Yankee go home" signs from my youth in the 1960s. This movement was periodically suppressed by the Turkish military, which is the guarantor of the secular republic. In those years, religious extremism did not exist in Turkey. Back then, Turkey was an up and coming country with wide spread relative poverty. Far left ideology incubates best under such conditions. The scapegoat is there - the U.S. - to blame the shortcomings regardless of fundamental reasons for the real problems. The same movement has also been active in Greece - a neighbor with somewhat similar economic and societal conditions.
In conclusion, Turkey is a study in societal contrasts in a quasi modern society. The ultra modern and the devout Islamists coexist uneasily side by side, united in their distrust - and at times distaste - for the West, especially the United States. These Islamists and progressive leftists have formed an unholy alliance to undermine the free society that Ataturk envisioned eight decades ago. As such, Turkey is travelling on the same road that countries experiencing Arab Spring like Egypt and Libya are: a road that leads to disaster and terrible consequences that may well reach well beyond Turkey's borders.
The question whether Turkey can be relied upon by the U.S. will only be answered affirmatively if the next U.S. Administration can exert smart leadership that treats Turkey as more than the model of moderate Islam as the Bush Administration did, or foolishly as an intermediary of sorts to gain favor among the Muslim world as the current Administration is doing. Along with honest and co equal treatment, this smart leadership must also invariably restore the confidence of the Turkish military as the guarantor of the secular republic by clearly signalling our willingness to diplomatically stand behind them should periodic interventions be required as most socially unstable societies require. It is not a pretty picture but it may be the only way to avert the coming disaster rest of the world may be drawn in to.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Beyond Being Out of Touch
The big political news of Tuesday was the major Republican upset for the seat of scandal ridden former Congressman Anthony Weiner in the heavily Democrat NYC district that has never sent a Republican to the Congress in its nearly 100 year history.
What makes this story even more significant is that Bob Turner, the novice Republican, was opposed by a career politician who was backed by heavy duty financial support by the DNC. Despite the odds presented by a congressional district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3:1 margin, this stunning defeat for the Democrat party is a clear rebuke of Obama policies.
So, how do you save face when confronted by such a rebuke? If you are the Obama White House, you claim that your candidate lost the election because he ran away from Obama policies. And then, you have the president say "Americans reject Tea Party ideals".
The spin is so hard that I am getting dizzy. I am glad that the President and his party think that way. In less than 14 months, the electorate will be running away from the progressive bunch whose elitist delusions are blinding them to reality of their policies. This is not the 1930s anymore. Americans will not re-elect those responsible for creating unparalleled poverty and misery since the Great Depression.
What makes this story even more significant is that Bob Turner, the novice Republican, was opposed by a career politician who was backed by heavy duty financial support by the DNC. Despite the odds presented by a congressional district where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 3:1 margin, this stunning defeat for the Democrat party is a clear rebuke of Obama policies.
So, how do you save face when confronted by such a rebuke? If you are the Obama White House, you claim that your candidate lost the election because he ran away from Obama policies. And then, you have the president say "Americans reject Tea Party ideals".
The spin is so hard that I am getting dizzy. I am glad that the President and his party think that way. In less than 14 months, the electorate will be running away from the progressive bunch whose elitist delusions are blinding them to reality of their policies. This is not the 1930s anymore. Americans will not re-elect those responsible for creating unparalleled poverty and misery since the Great Depression.
Solargate: The Albatross Around Obama's Neck
Among the many media squashed scandals surrounding this Administration, Solyndra is proving to be quite stubborn. Even the MSM - well at least ABC News - is finally getting in on the action.
Unlike Pigford, multiple DOJ scandals (including Operation Fast and Furious, the racial quota scandal, and the infamous voter intimidation case), ACORN funding scandal, a laundry list of improprieties surrounding the passage of Obamacare, or any one of numerous constitutional scandals where the Administration has ignored the Separation of Powers Act (such as the ones involving net neutrality, amnesty, and card check legislation) all of which have been successfully supressed, Solyndra is the symbol of corrupt green energy cronyism that just won't die. Had the company name been Haliburton or Exxon Mobil, and the party in the White House Republican, impeachment hearings would have been long started and the media skewering relentless. But alas, it is the Democrats and their money bundlers, therefore move on, there is nothing to see here.
Now, I would not deny the fact that any past administration has knowingly or unknowingly endorsed crony capitalism in its day. Usually, however, the relationship between the government and the corporate giants have been at an arms length and never to benefit the President or his party financially. That is until now.
Solyndra recently joined the long and sordid list of green energy companies that recieved billions of tax payer dollars from the Obama Administration and have already either declared bankruptcy or moved their operations to China. The FBI has been on the case since pretty much the beginning.
Here are the troubling details concerning Solyndra in summary format:
On September 7, the DOE announced its plan to guarantee 80 percent — or $275 million — of a $344 million private loan taken out by the firm SolarCity. The company installs rooftop solar systems that harvests electricity SolarCity then sells. The Chairman of SolarCity, Elon Musk, is a major financial supporter of the president. On April 15 of this year, Musk donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also gave an additional $5,000 to the Obama campaign. Like Solyndra officials White House visitor logs show Musk has visited the Administration at least four times since 2009.
The second company is Solexel. On September 2, the solar energy company announced a $13 million award from the DOE as part of a program to make solar energy systems more affordable for homeowners. Solexel is financially backed by venture capitalist Steve Westly - the same guy who was instrumental in financing the operations of Solyndra.
Aside from the above three cases, other Obama backed solar companies have been failures including Evergreen among others. Is the madness over? No, not when an ideologically driven, corrupt Administration is in power. The evidence of that allegation can be found in the news that the Obama Administration is now backing another solar company, Mojave Solar, to the tune of $1.2 billion. As the LA Times puts it: "Not all of those investments pan out". The problem is when the investor is financially tied to the President of the country - an ocurrance that usually occurs in banana republics only - we hopefully still call it corruption.
On a related note, General Electric just announced that they are scaling back their wind turbine operations globally citing profitability reasons. Solar and wind energy are nothing but pipe dreams with current technologies as the Europeans have been finding out the hard way. The energy that they provide is unreliable, insufficient, and extremely costly. Despite their unfeasibility, this Administration keeps on pouring money in to front companies that have been failing at an alarming rate.
The common thread among many of these green energy companies being their troubling financial connections to this administration, this is nothing short of a money laundering scheme just like much of the stimulus money that found its way back to the Democrat party via the unions. In my opinion, impeachment would be too good for this bunch - a nice prison cell is far more appropriate!
Unlike Pigford, multiple DOJ scandals (including Operation Fast and Furious, the racial quota scandal, and the infamous voter intimidation case), ACORN funding scandal, a laundry list of improprieties surrounding the passage of Obamacare, or any one of numerous constitutional scandals where the Administration has ignored the Separation of Powers Act (such as the ones involving net neutrality, amnesty, and card check legislation) all of which have been successfully supressed, Solyndra is the symbol of corrupt green energy cronyism that just won't die. Had the company name been Haliburton or Exxon Mobil, and the party in the White House Republican, impeachment hearings would have been long started and the media skewering relentless. But alas, it is the Democrats and their money bundlers, therefore move on, there is nothing to see here.
Now, I would not deny the fact that any past administration has knowingly or unknowingly endorsed crony capitalism in its day. Usually, however, the relationship between the government and the corporate giants have been at an arms length and never to benefit the President or his party financially. That is until now.
Solyndra recently joined the long and sordid list of green energy companies that recieved billions of tax payer dollars from the Obama Administration and have already either declared bankruptcy or moved their operations to China. The FBI has been on the case since pretty much the beginning.
Here are the troubling details concerning Solyndra in summary format:
- Founder George Kaiser and green bundler and financier Steve Westley are big money bundlers (fund raisers) for Obama.
- Solyndra officials visited the White House (not the DOE) over 5 times in 2009.
- White House closely monitored the loan to Solyndra as internal e-mails show.
- The OMB auditors expressed serious concerns about backing Solyndra's faulty business model.
- Obama officials sat at Solyndra Board of Directors meetings for months
- Despite internal objections, Solyndra recieved $535 million in loan guarantees from the DOE
- About a year later, the company laid off its workers and declared bankruptcy, costing the tax payers over half a billion dollars.
- Congressman Cliff Stearns, who is investigating the scandal in the House of Representatives, has been stonewalled continuously by the Administration since the beginning of his investigation.
On September 7, the DOE announced its plan to guarantee 80 percent — or $275 million — of a $344 million private loan taken out by the firm SolarCity. The company installs rooftop solar systems that harvests electricity SolarCity then sells. The Chairman of SolarCity, Elon Musk, is a major financial supporter of the president. On April 15 of this year, Musk donated $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund. He also gave an additional $5,000 to the Obama campaign. Like Solyndra officials White House visitor logs show Musk has visited the Administration at least four times since 2009.
The second company is Solexel. On September 2, the solar energy company announced a $13 million award from the DOE as part of a program to make solar energy systems more affordable for homeowners. Solexel is financially backed by venture capitalist Steve Westly - the same guy who was instrumental in financing the operations of Solyndra.
Aside from the above three cases, other Obama backed solar companies have been failures including Evergreen among others. Is the madness over? No, not when an ideologically driven, corrupt Administration is in power. The evidence of that allegation can be found in the news that the Obama Administration is now backing another solar company, Mojave Solar, to the tune of $1.2 billion. As the LA Times puts it: "Not all of those investments pan out". The problem is when the investor is financially tied to the President of the country - an ocurrance that usually occurs in banana republics only - we hopefully still call it corruption.
On a related note, General Electric just announced that they are scaling back their wind turbine operations globally citing profitability reasons. Solar and wind energy are nothing but pipe dreams with current technologies as the Europeans have been finding out the hard way. The energy that they provide is unreliable, insufficient, and extremely costly. Despite their unfeasibility, this Administration keeps on pouring money in to front companies that have been failing at an alarming rate.
The common thread among many of these green energy companies being their troubling financial connections to this administration, this is nothing short of a money laundering scheme just like much of the stimulus money that found its way back to the Democrat party via the unions. In my opinion, impeachment would be too good for this bunch - a nice prison cell is far more appropriate!
Friday, September 9, 2011
Why the President Is Not "Just One Man"
I am writing this post in response to what a well meaning, socially conservative friend of mine has now repeated several times. Although he is not a Obama fan by any means, he has said several times that he doesn't see why Obama (or any other president for that matter) should be held responsible for policy failures. After all, he is just one man, representing one of the three branches of the government, right?
The answer is obviously not. Although it is true that a president cannot pass legislation on his own, and is at the mercy of the Congress for laws that he chooses to sign, he can (and often does) affect the nation greatly. It is called an imperial presidency - one in which the executive branch usurps Congress’ role, which is the only branch with authority to make laws, and asserts power not granted to it by the Constitution.
The key here is constitutional fidelity. As it should be, a president who strictly adheres to the U.S. Constitution would be limited in his impact on society in general. One who treats his office as the means to subvert the constitution and achieve his own ends, not so much!
The dirty secret to those who do not follow politics closely is that most policy implementations do not come about as a result of legislation. They come as a result of regulations and presidential executive orders. Yes, regulations carry the weight of laws and by most estimates, cost several trillions of dollars each year to our economy, not to mention social costs. Some of these regulations are essential but most are mere reflections of the political ideology occupying the White House - usually progressive since the collectivist ideology clashes with laissez faire. That is a whole different subject I will write about in a dedicated article later.
Within this framework, there are several ways that a president who just might be intent on "fundamentally transforming" (sarc.) America affects change.
The most obvious is his appointments to high offices within the Executive branch including cabinet secretaries (15); heads of powerful independent agencies (70) such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); boards, commissions, and committees (over 70 at last count); quasi-official agencies (4); and the unaccountable czars (41) that even the old Russian Empire would envy (for their sheer numbers).
Now, consider if the heads of key cabinets and so-called independent agencies are committed ideologues, for example.....oh, say Lisa Jackson, the incompetent, enviro-Marxist head of EPA; Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom - a former DSA member; Carol Browner, until recently the former White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy czar who just happens to be a former a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International; or any one of other radicals (upwards of two dozen) that adorn this Administration....... (A Marxist convention never had it this good!)
Well, you get the point. Appointing ideologues that agree with your radical ideology to posts where they can subvert the constitution by imposing regulation after regulation to achieve ends like driving the cost of energy to unsustainable levels kills jobs in cases of Secretary Chu and Lisa Jackson. Appointees like Craig Becker circumvent the constitution and tilt the scale towards the unions at a great cost to the rest of the society (see Boeing case and the new unionization rules that are de facto passage of the Card Check Act that the congress voted down as the prime examples). Examples are too numerous to list under this regime. The game plan is predictably collectivist and Alinskyite.
Then, there is the judiciary. President gets to appoint federal judges and SCOTUS justices to the judicial branch. Although the adversarial relationship between the branches is supposed to assure that these appointees are all acceptable to congress, that happens rarely because of either one party control of the Senate Judiciary Committee or simple lack of time to scrutinize each appointment before confirming them. This is not only how social change is affected by judges deciding on everything from school curricula that includes LGBT history appreciation to tax payer funding of abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood, but how America is put on a trajectory towards socialism as FDR accomplished in 1933-4 (and Obama may have with his two appointments if Obamacare is not eventually found to be unconstitutional).
Finally, you have the ever-so-popular presidential executive orders. Like regulations, these EOs carry major policy implications. Instead of coming from an agency head, it is essentially presidential regulations that can only be undone by a future president. Again, like with regulations, their constitutionality has been questioned but since they serve presidents well, nothing has changed.
In their great wisdom, the framers of the constitution saw fit to establish the separation of powers doctrine just to avoid the possibility of future imperial presidencies. The checks and balances system is no longer a working one as the past century has witnessed repeated assaults on what sets America apart: our Constitution.
That, in a nut shell, is the power of an imperial presidency in the hands of a president whose ideology tramples the spirit of our founding principles as well as the substance of the U.S. Constitution.
And this concludes this civics refresher we all need from time to time.
The answer is obviously not. Although it is true that a president cannot pass legislation on his own, and is at the mercy of the Congress for laws that he chooses to sign, he can (and often does) affect the nation greatly. It is called an imperial presidency - one in which the executive branch usurps Congress’ role, which is the only branch with authority to make laws, and asserts power not granted to it by the Constitution.
The key here is constitutional fidelity. As it should be, a president who strictly adheres to the U.S. Constitution would be limited in his impact on society in general. One who treats his office as the means to subvert the constitution and achieve his own ends, not so much!
The dirty secret to those who do not follow politics closely is that most policy implementations do not come about as a result of legislation. They come as a result of regulations and presidential executive orders. Yes, regulations carry the weight of laws and by most estimates, cost several trillions of dollars each year to our economy, not to mention social costs. Some of these regulations are essential but most are mere reflections of the political ideology occupying the White House - usually progressive since the collectivist ideology clashes with laissez faire. That is a whole different subject I will write about in a dedicated article later.
Within this framework, there are several ways that a president who just might be intent on "fundamentally transforming" (sarc.) America affects change.
The most obvious is his appointments to high offices within the Executive branch including cabinet secretaries (15); heads of powerful independent agencies (70) such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); boards, commissions, and committees (over 70 at last count); quasi-official agencies (4); and the unaccountable czars (41) that even the old Russian Empire would envy (for their sheer numbers).
Now, consider if the heads of key cabinets and so-called independent agencies are committed ideologues, for example.....oh, say Lisa Jackson, the incompetent, enviro-Marxist head of EPA; Manufacturing czar Ron Bloom - a former DSA member; Carol Browner, until recently the former White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy czar who just happens to be a former a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society (CSWS), which is a formal organ of the Socialist International; or any one of other radicals (upwards of two dozen) that adorn this Administration....... (A Marxist convention never had it this good!)
Well, you get the point. Appointing ideologues that agree with your radical ideology to posts where they can subvert the constitution by imposing regulation after regulation to achieve ends like driving the cost of energy to unsustainable levels kills jobs in cases of Secretary Chu and Lisa Jackson. Appointees like Craig Becker circumvent the constitution and tilt the scale towards the unions at a great cost to the rest of the society (see Boeing case and the new unionization rules that are de facto passage of the Card Check Act that the congress voted down as the prime examples). Examples are too numerous to list under this regime. The game plan is predictably collectivist and Alinskyite.
Then, there is the judiciary. President gets to appoint federal judges and SCOTUS justices to the judicial branch. Although the adversarial relationship between the branches is supposed to assure that these appointees are all acceptable to congress, that happens rarely because of either one party control of the Senate Judiciary Committee or simple lack of time to scrutinize each appointment before confirming them. This is not only how social change is affected by judges deciding on everything from school curricula that includes LGBT history appreciation to tax payer funding of abortion mills run by Planned Parenthood, but how America is put on a trajectory towards socialism as FDR accomplished in 1933-4 (and Obama may have with his two appointments if Obamacare is not eventually found to be unconstitutional).
Finally, you have the ever-so-popular presidential executive orders. Like regulations, these EOs carry major policy implications. Instead of coming from an agency head, it is essentially presidential regulations that can only be undone by a future president. Again, like with regulations, their constitutionality has been questioned but since they serve presidents well, nothing has changed.
In their great wisdom, the framers of the constitution saw fit to establish the separation of powers doctrine just to avoid the possibility of future imperial presidencies. The checks and balances system is no longer a working one as the past century has witnessed repeated assaults on what sets America apart: our Constitution.
That, in a nut shell, is the power of an imperial presidency in the hands of a president whose ideology tramples the spirit of our founding principles as well as the substance of the U.S. Constitution.
And this concludes this civics refresher we all need from time to time.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Misdiagnosis
First, I must regretfully admit that my diagnosis yesterday of Obama and his entourage as being:
1. Dumb (somewhat)
2. Delusional (more so), and...
3. Radical (mostly)
was not complete. I must add a fourth:
4. Hysterically hypocritical.
Although this newly added diagnosis can sometimes be mistaken as a regular symptom of number 3, this Administration has continually taken it to new heights, and must therefore be added as a seperate diagnosis.
I was listening to the White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the radio earlier and he succeeded in amusing me greatly. Mr. Pfeiffer, in his usual delusional state, said that it is not the President's obligation to distance himself from Mr. Hoffa's statements on Monday. Uncivility is a purely personal issue and others cannot be held accountable for not speaking up against it. It simply is not the President's responsibility to denounce such language.
But, but, but...... wasn't Mr. Hoffa introducing the President? And, isn't he the President of the U.S. (rather than the labor unions)? And how about the President's lectures to Americans on civility and acting like the grown up in the room, blah, blah, blah....
My, my, have we come a long way since 2002 when incidents like a benign, back handed compliment to Senator Thurmond by Trent Lott caused such an uproar. But, oh wait, that was a Republican, therefore the standards by which the incident was judged had to be different.
Surely not comparable to the shooting of Gabriel Giffords by a right wing lunatic that triggered months of lecturing by the president, right? Or the crazed Holocoust museum or Ft. Hood shooters!
What? They were all crazed left wing lunatics? Why wasn't I informed about this the way Democrats and the media jumped on the conclusion that it had to be right wing lunatics (and even carried the charade on once the true persona behind the shooters were revealed - which got almost no press coverage)?
The same thugs who have used their dispicable Alinskyite techniques against bankers, health insurance companies, oil executives, and Tea Party supporters among others, have also been the biggest whiners about civility in public discourse. Yet, not a day goes by that these slimy progressives do not verbally assault those who oppose their collectivist vision of America.
The people who shamefully used the incidents I described earlier to portray the peaceful Tea Party protests made up of millions of seniors, families, and hard working Americans as being racists and radicals (what mind-numbing hypocrisy since it is only, and just about every, left wing protest - from IMF to anti-war to you name the protest - that ends up in violence and property destruction) suffer from hysterical hypocrisy - another malady that ravages progressives.
1. Dumb (somewhat)
2. Delusional (more so), and...
3. Radical (mostly)
was not complete. I must add a fourth:
4. Hysterically hypocritical.
Although this newly added diagnosis can sometimes be mistaken as a regular symptom of number 3, this Administration has continually taken it to new heights, and must therefore be added as a seperate diagnosis.
I was listening to the White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on the radio earlier and he succeeded in amusing me greatly. Mr. Pfeiffer, in his usual delusional state, said that it is not the President's obligation to distance himself from Mr. Hoffa's statements on Monday. Uncivility is a purely personal issue and others cannot be held accountable for not speaking up against it. It simply is not the President's responsibility to denounce such language.
But, but, but...... wasn't Mr. Hoffa introducing the President? And, isn't he the President of the U.S. (rather than the labor unions)? And how about the President's lectures to Americans on civility and acting like the grown up in the room, blah, blah, blah....
My, my, have we come a long way since 2002 when incidents like a benign, back handed compliment to Senator Thurmond by Trent Lott caused such an uproar. But, oh wait, that was a Republican, therefore the standards by which the incident was judged had to be different.
Surely not comparable to the shooting of Gabriel Giffords by a right wing lunatic that triggered months of lecturing by the president, right? Or the crazed Holocoust museum or Ft. Hood shooters!
What? They were all crazed left wing lunatics? Why wasn't I informed about this the way Democrats and the media jumped on the conclusion that it had to be right wing lunatics (and even carried the charade on once the true persona behind the shooters were revealed - which got almost no press coverage)?
The same thugs who have used their dispicable Alinskyite techniques against bankers, health insurance companies, oil executives, and Tea Party supporters among others, have also been the biggest whiners about civility in public discourse. Yet, not a day goes by that these slimy progressives do not verbally assault those who oppose their collectivist vision of America.
The people who shamefully used the incidents I described earlier to portray the peaceful Tea Party protests made up of millions of seniors, families, and hard working Americans as being racists and radicals (what mind-numbing hypocrisy since it is only, and just about every, left wing protest - from IMF to anti-war to you name the protest - that ends up in violence and property destruction) suffer from hysterical hypocrisy - another malady that ravages progressives.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
The Dumbest, The Most Delusional, Or The Most Radical President In U.S. History?
You would think that a President whose approval rate is in the gutter, whose policies have accomplished nothing but almost 32 months of misery, and is currently losing to the generic Republican candidate by almost double digits would be playing it smart. After all, being the pragmatist that he was, that is what Bill Clinton did under much more favorable circumstances. After trying to ram through a left wing agenda during his first two years that the voters rebelled against at the polls in 1994, Clinton moderated his stance and joined hands with the congressional Republicans in 1995, and was duly re-elected the following year. Despite his ideological convictions, he declared that the "era of big government" was over. He went on to back the Republican tax cut plan the following year and, at least economically, left a legacy that will treat him much kinder than what he really deserves.
Obama, on the other hand, is an anomaly for a typical politician (who would arguably sell his soul to the devil just to get re-elected). For the past two and a half years, we have been treated to a steady stream of head-scratching moves that only ideologically blinded political consultants would advise the President to make. After all, it does not take great foresight to know the disastrous impending political outcomes when poll after poll (as well as electoral history) shows Americans to be self-identifying conservatives by a healthy 2:1 margin.
Obama's appearance at the AFL/CIO sponsored labor day rally in Detroit over the week-end cemented his disregard for political outcomes once again. Just in case you were incommunicado over the past two days, Obama gave a speech to a gathering of labor unions in Detroit, MI. He was introduced by none other than Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa - the son of the famed gangster union boss who was dispatched most likely by the syndicate. As would be expected, Jimmy did not hold back:
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
As outrageous as Hoffa's remarks were to the crowd, he could be excused as a Marxist labor leader. But what about the President's response? Obama followed Hoffa's incendiary speech by saying how proud he was of the labor union movement. The same Marxist goon friendly sentiment was later repeated by Vice President Biden,the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Administration officials.
This latest episode was really nothing more than the continuation of a non-stop three year long assault on the Tea Party by enemies of a constitutional government.
There are really only three possible explanations for the president's (and his party's) behavior in the face of pending political annihilation for himself and his party.
1) The President is dumb. He thinks that appealing to a very narrow base consisting of progressives (20% of the population), the LGBT crowd, avowed feminists, certain minority groups who historically are politically unmotivated, and various other fringe groups will net him and his party a victory come November 2012. The math absolutely does not work when one considers that 42% of the electorate are self-identified conservatives and the rest moderate independents. Therefore, we can rule out the possibility of the President and rest of the Democrats being dumb. No one is that dumb! Not even Democrats.
2) The President is delusional. This explanation is closer to the truth. Any casual observer of the President over the past 31+ months (and earlier) with a cursory knowledge of psychology should be able to see the ego driven personality that seems completely divorced from reality. I call it the Caligula complex minus the sexual aspect. Just like the infamous emperor of Rome, watching and listening to the President makes it quite apparent that there is an unmistakable God complex. Egged on by his media sycophants, he is full of himself, arrogant beyond reason, and with Mussolini like (chin up with a smirk on his face) mannerism, he continuously absolves himself of all blame while conveying images of the miracles he will bring about such as stopping the rise of sea levels and other nonsense. It is the dictionary definition of a megalomaniac.
Although there is a good case to be made for the President's tenuous mental health, the Democrat party as a whole could not all be suffering from mental disease despite many of our convictions. So, that brings us to....
3) This is the most radical president we have had the misfortune of electing. The same goes for many of the Democrats who have taken over their party over the past couple of decades. Obama does not care about whether he is re-elected or not. His mission, as he himself said, is the fundamental transformation of our society. Amazingly enough, not one reporter has ever asked the President what he meant by that infamous statement back in October of 2008. To the rest of us who are familiar with the president's background and ideology, there is absolutely no mystery. I had documented Obama's Marxist tendencies here and elsewhere in my blog.
The same Marxist tendencies have been building up in the ranks of the Democrat party for decades now. The party has been admittedly and demonstrably taken over by communists of all types. Complimenting the socialist trajectory that we have been on for almost a century, today's Democrat party and Obama are natural extensions of reasonable expectations considering the cultural Marxist assault on (and taking over of) the educational system, media, and entertainment. There is a lot of work to be done if we hope to pull America back from the brink of disaster.
Obama, on the other hand, is an anomaly for a typical politician (who would arguably sell his soul to the devil just to get re-elected). For the past two and a half years, we have been treated to a steady stream of head-scratching moves that only ideologically blinded political consultants would advise the President to make. After all, it does not take great foresight to know the disastrous impending political outcomes when poll after poll (as well as electoral history) shows Americans to be self-identifying conservatives by a healthy 2:1 margin.
Obama's appearance at the AFL/CIO sponsored labor day rally in Detroit over the week-end cemented his disregard for political outcomes once again. Just in case you were incommunicado over the past two days, Obama gave a speech to a gathering of labor unions in Detroit, MI. He was introduced by none other than Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa - the son of the famed gangster union boss who was dispatched most likely by the syndicate. As would be expected, Jimmy did not hold back:
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
As outrageous as Hoffa's remarks were to the crowd, he could be excused as a Marxist labor leader. But what about the President's response? Obama followed Hoffa's incendiary speech by saying how proud he was of the labor union movement. The same Marxist goon friendly sentiment was later repeated by Vice President Biden,the DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Administration officials.
This latest episode was really nothing more than the continuation of a non-stop three year long assault on the Tea Party by enemies of a constitutional government.
There are really only three possible explanations for the president's (and his party's) behavior in the face of pending political annihilation for himself and his party.
1) The President is dumb. He thinks that appealing to a very narrow base consisting of progressives (20% of the population), the LGBT crowd, avowed feminists, certain minority groups who historically are politically unmotivated, and various other fringe groups will net him and his party a victory come November 2012. The math absolutely does not work when one considers that 42% of the electorate are self-identified conservatives and the rest moderate independents. Therefore, we can rule out the possibility of the President and rest of the Democrats being dumb. No one is that dumb! Not even Democrats.
2) The President is delusional. This explanation is closer to the truth. Any casual observer of the President over the past 31+ months (and earlier) with a cursory knowledge of psychology should be able to see the ego driven personality that seems completely divorced from reality. I call it the Caligula complex minus the sexual aspect. Just like the infamous emperor of Rome, watching and listening to the President makes it quite apparent that there is an unmistakable God complex. Egged on by his media sycophants, he is full of himself, arrogant beyond reason, and with Mussolini like (chin up with a smirk on his face) mannerism, he continuously absolves himself of all blame while conveying images of the miracles he will bring about such as stopping the rise of sea levels and other nonsense. It is the dictionary definition of a megalomaniac.
Although there is a good case to be made for the President's tenuous mental health, the Democrat party as a whole could not all be suffering from mental disease despite many of our convictions. So, that brings us to....
3) This is the most radical president we have had the misfortune of electing. The same goes for many of the Democrats who have taken over their party over the past couple of decades. Obama does not care about whether he is re-elected or not. His mission, as he himself said, is the fundamental transformation of our society. Amazingly enough, not one reporter has ever asked the President what he meant by that infamous statement back in October of 2008. To the rest of us who are familiar with the president's background and ideology, there is absolutely no mystery. I had documented Obama's Marxist tendencies here and elsewhere in my blog.
The same Marxist tendencies have been building up in the ranks of the Democrat party for decades now. The party has been admittedly and demonstrably taken over by communists of all types. Complimenting the socialist trajectory that we have been on for almost a century, today's Democrat party and Obama are natural extensions of reasonable expectations considering the cultural Marxist assault on (and taking over of) the educational system, media, and entertainment. There is a lot of work to be done if we hope to pull America back from the brink of disaster.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Solyndra: Symbol of Failed Green Cronyism
Founder of Solyndra announced last week that he is calling it a day. This comes at he heel of the news that Seattle, which got $20 million from the government for green (weatherization) jobs created only 14 jobs (and temporary ones at that) and upgraded - are you ready for this? - all of 3 homes despite promises of many more. The same program, nationwide, has spent over $500 million, creating or retaining only 600 jobs!
About a month ago, Evergreen Solar Inc. - another one of Obama's green darlings propelled by taxpayer money, filed for bankruptcy and shipped about 2,000 U.S. tax payer funded jobs to China.
All told, there have been at least half a dozen green investment company failures over the past year; not counting green program failures by states and municipalities.
In sum, green energy is a pie-in-the-sky as Europeans as well as Canadians have been painfully learning.
None of the previous failures, however, were as high profile as Solyndra which recieved over half a billion ($535 million) in federal loans and guarantees. What makes the Solyndra saga, which is thankfully currently being investigated by the congress despite roadblocks by Democrats and the Administration, more outrageous than any other is the circumstances surrounding some of its founders. If you guessed that at least one backer of this project was an Obama fund raiser, go to the head of the class! You are right on.
Suffice it to say that it stinks to high heaven when the president's big money bundlers end up with billions of taxpayer dollars and bankrupt or otherwise barely surviving companies.
A scandal? Not if the media can help it (like they did in the case of Pigford, and several other cases over the past two years).
Obama keeps on touting green jobs (all-the-while killing conventional energy, as well as other, jobs through run away regulations/interventions issued by the EPA and other agencies like the NLRB). Has anyone in the media wondered what the connection is between the man made climate change hysteria, examples of cronyism (as with Solyndra), and progressive policies in general? A blind man could connect the dots - but not our whorish lap dog media!
Green energy - whether solar, on-shore wind, or whatever - will not work for simple reasons. There exists no feasibility for such projects. They are extremely expensive and technologies required are simply non existent to render them profitable at this point in time.
As such, they must be heavily subsidized (approximately 4.5 times more subsidies per KWh produced than fossil fuels) by the government, which the high profile failures show to be insufficient by itself. The solar sector, especially, is in trouble worldwide.
In fact, for those who may not be aware of this outrageousness, current federal mandates for power companies to buy 10-15% of their energy from alternative sources like wind and solar is the only reason why any such companies exist at all. So, next time you take a look at your electric bill, you can thank uncle Sam for doing its share to drive your costs up.
About a month ago, Evergreen Solar Inc. - another one of Obama's green darlings propelled by taxpayer money, filed for bankruptcy and shipped about 2,000 U.S. tax payer funded jobs to China.
All told, there have been at least half a dozen green investment company failures over the past year; not counting green program failures by states and municipalities.
In sum, green energy is a pie-in-the-sky as Europeans as well as Canadians have been painfully learning.
None of the previous failures, however, were as high profile as Solyndra which recieved over half a billion ($535 million) in federal loans and guarantees. What makes the Solyndra saga, which is thankfully currently being investigated by the congress despite roadblocks by Democrats and the Administration, more outrageous than any other is the circumstances surrounding some of its founders. If you guessed that at least one backer of this project was an Obama fund raiser, go to the head of the class! You are right on.
Suffice it to say that it stinks to high heaven when the president's big money bundlers end up with billions of taxpayer dollars and bankrupt or otherwise barely surviving companies.
A scandal? Not if the media can help it (like they did in the case of Pigford, and several other cases over the past two years).
Obama keeps on touting green jobs (all-the-while killing conventional energy, as well as other, jobs through run away regulations/interventions issued by the EPA and other agencies like the NLRB). Has anyone in the media wondered what the connection is between the man made climate change hysteria, examples of cronyism (as with Solyndra), and progressive policies in general? A blind man could connect the dots - but not our whorish lap dog media!
Green energy - whether solar, on-shore wind, or whatever - will not work for simple reasons. There exists no feasibility for such projects. They are extremely expensive and technologies required are simply non existent to render them profitable at this point in time.
As such, they must be heavily subsidized (approximately 4.5 times more subsidies per KWh produced than fossil fuels) by the government, which the high profile failures show to be insufficient by itself. The solar sector, especially, is in trouble worldwide.
In fact, for those who may not be aware of this outrageousness, current federal mandates for power companies to buy 10-15% of their energy from alternative sources like wind and solar is the only reason why any such companies exist at all. So, next time you take a look at your electric bill, you can thank uncle Sam for doing its share to drive your costs up.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Outrageous News of the Week
Here are the latest news capsules from these past few days. Laugh, cry, whatever...but it is what it is! Sometimes I feel like I am living in an alternate reality; but no one is waking me up! Did any of this crap happen during other recent presidencies and I was asleep all the time, or am I right that all the nuttiness started in earnest with Obama?
Just on the labor front, we had:
- A bill in the California legislature would force parents to pay state-level minimum wage to babysitters, as well as provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated time card/paycheck
- State of Illinois started to pay violent offenders and sex criminals to baby sit children. (and no, I am not making any of this up - I wish I were!)
- President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board has issued two more rulings that will carpet-bomb employers with “micro-union” organizing drives and repeal one of the last protections employees had if they wanted to choose a union by secret ballot election
- Just days before, the NLRB issued a rule that will force millions of employers to post advertisements for employees to join a union shuttered the comment period for a rule that will ensure employees only hear the union side of a sales pitch
- Union bosses told a businessman that, because he had the audacity to appear in a video discussing the impact Big Labor has on business and the economy, “there’s going to be a price to pay for that”
- The EPA has a handful of new regulations that will cost $125 billion — per year — as “factories, hospitals, universities, power plants and even churches are in the cross hairs of hyper aggressive regulators” (ex: a dry cleaner in Pennsylvania says the regulations will cost him $50,000 for new equipment)
- And, of course, all these new regulations disproportionately harm small businesses who are forced to “spend 36% more per employee than large Corps complying with new federal rules” Hmm...I wonder why no jobs are being created?
- Affirmative action is back as the Administration declared that the federal workforce will be "diversified". What else would you expect from this gang that has introduced LGBT sensitivity training in to the CIA and the military!!
- And, of course, don’t forget the owner of the non-union electrical contracting co. who got shot last week while a perpetrator was looking to slash his tires, having already completed the word “scab” into the vehicle
- Solyndra, one of Obama's green technology cronies which secured over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the government (by the way, one of the founder was a big Obama fund raiser as reported by ABC News) filed for bankruptcy. This was not the first, nor will it be the last green energy company to go belly up in a matter of 2 years or less. This shovel ready project was obviously so....ready for the shovel of the grave digger!
- Of course, those Keynesians who think that governments can create markets for unwanted, financially unfeasible services/goods, or productive jobs are nowhere to be seen as the house of cards start coming down.
- Again from the land of fruits and nuts (California), a bill has been sponsored to fund college for illegal immigrants. I would suggest all who live near CA to move away. The vortex might just pull you under when the state inevitably goes down.
- On the education front, a secret NEA document unearthed recently shows that only 4% of the union dues goes to improving teaching despite the organization's mission statement that says: “we will focus the energy and resources of our 3.2 million members on improving the quality of teaching, increasing student achievement and making schools safer, better places to learn.”
- The other 96% goes to.....you guessed it, supporting Democrat party candidates.
- In the foreign policy arena, we've been discovering the money pipeline U.S. has to the Taliban as well as Marxist and Islamist rebels in the mid-east and Afghanistan.
- The new Chair of the WH Council of Economic Advisors is an avowed progressive who has defended preferential treatment of minorities. Another Princeton pin head. Geesh.. It cements it in my mind that we are going nowhere economically until all these people are thrown out of the government!
- This week we found out another one of Obama's classy tribal family, uncle Onyango, was arrested in Massachusetts. Like aunt Zeituni, he is also illegal and on welfare. He also owes back taxes to the IRS (surprised he hasn't been offered a position in the Administration - he has the perfect qualifications) Care to bet that he will not be deported? I didn't think so. Hey, I've got an idea. Lets give Onyango citizenship and deport Barack instead.
- It is baaack...the Administration is pushing for preferential lending once again. I'll have a post on this soon.
- Dream Act is being unconstitutionally implemented as we speak. Obama last week signed an executive order effectively stopping all deportations. The next day, Hilda Solis said that e must assure illegal workers get paid a living wage. Congressional refusal to pass this legislation should have killed this measure, but like with several other defeated legislation, the Administration is forging ahead in violation of separation of powers act. Will no Republican have the balls to start the impeachment ball rolling?!
- ACLU is outraged that students cannot access gay web sites. No more needs to be said about this.
- The NLRB orders unionization elections at a catholic school in Illinois this week for not being religious enough.
- Federal Judge in Texas struck down the provision of the law that requires sonograms before an abortion. God forbid that we may convince a mother to be to save the life of their unborn child. Ahhh, the compassion of progressives knows no bounds.
- And finally, as you are probably aware, the race war is on. Democrats are primed and ready. First targets are Tea Party members like Congressman Alan West, but it is likely to spread to anyone who is not a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)