Oops!

The Obama Administration just stumbled. No, I don't mean stumbled in the sense of those normal cock-ups that occur in every Administration. The modern American Presidency is just too complex an institution to be handled by mere mortals without committing the occasional dumb mistake.

When an Administration really stumbles, however, there are significant and lasting historical consequences. To name just a few, Neville Chamberlain's appeasement strategy in the 30's, John Kennedy's disastrous first meeting with Khrushchev, Lyndon Johnson's ineptness in waging the Vietnam War, and Jimmy Carter's studied blindness to Soviet intentions in the 70's, are all good examples of the kind of thing I am talking about when I say the Obama Administration has just stumbled.

I am referring to the current Administration's decision to cancel deployment of the missile defense systems in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This singular decision, made apparently unilaterally without any concessions of note from Putin's Russia, decisively violates almost all of the major foreign policy initiatives developed since World War II to maintain the peace of the world in perilous circumstances, initiatives that have been consistently (if often ineptly) promoted by every Administration since that of Harry Truman. The result, despite the edge of disaster that seemed to loom time and again over the years, has been almost 60 years of peace and prosperity for all.

This continuity of purpose is now broken. Reneging on our agreements with Poland and Czechoslovakia to install missile defense systems - agreements they courageously signed in the face of Russian saber rattling - is and can only be understood as bald capitulation to the Russian bully, and signals clearly that our unwavering commitment to our European allies is at an end. Our clear resolve to defend Europe against aggression has been a paramount deterrence to Soviet expansionism over the years, and the weakening of our resolve in this respect will only embolden Putin's Russia to ever greater delusions of grandeur.

Continue .....
Perhaps even to imagine that it can formally annex its old Eastern European slave-states back into the fold? Perhaps, but at the very least, Putin will assuredly seek a Balkanization of those countries.

But the repercussions are wider than just Europe. America's resolve these last number of decades to keep the peace in a turbulent world has contained all sorts of madness. An emboldened and careless Russia will in turn embolden it's ally, Iran, into ever greater destabilization efforts in the Middle East, with the probable result that there will one day be a mass scramble for nuclear weapons by the Arab countries most affected by Iran's provocations. Venezuela is already negotiating with Russia for nuclear technology; the Taliban is as close as zealots have ever been to taking over Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal; and North Korea has explicitly threatened to lob nuclear bombs at Japan. The Obama Administration's stumble has tossed fuel onto these fires, and others as well.

The world has been kept from boiling up into war by such tensions as these by the tight-lid of American and its Allies resolve. Now, the lid is off, and the turbulent waters will begin boiling in earnest.

If adults can get back into the White House, can all of this be reversed? Perhaps, but probably not. The genie can sometimes be talked into going back into the bottle, but if the metaphor is eggs, then once broken they cannot be put back into the shell.

As in all historically important matters, only time will tell. But it is clear that the Obama Administration has set history on a course of grave uncertainty, and the number of possible bleak outcomes have increased exponentially.

Re: Racists

Click the title for other posts on this topic.

Easy, as you assert, it is undeniable that the recent charges by the Left of racism are transparently made up out of whole cloth. The question we have to ask is, why? If there is no evidence whatsoever of actual racism, what is driving these people? Is it just a particularly ham-handed attempt to stifle debate and win political points? Or is it something deeper?

I would submit it is something deeper. Below the belt politics is the natural recourse of your average partisan, but most politicians and political commentators who are among the leadership of any party or movement refrain from such things, if not for any other reason than they are sophisticated enough to know that it is usually counter-productive. And yet, in this case, we have a former President, Jimmy Carter, as well as Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, various and sundry Congressman, and eminent columnists in The New York Times, all weighing in with the racism charge. Indeed, it has been so pervasive and consistent a charge from all levels of the Left as to make it seem as if it is a formal Talking Point distributed among the faithful. But that would mean that the White House was involved in directing this crude campaign, and I just can't believe they would be that stupid.

There is another factor important in all of this. And that is the way the Left, so quick to label anyone criticizing blacks as a racist, has no problem at all attacking blacks who might happen to be conservative. Michael Steele has had to put up with such race-baiting tactics as being called an "oriole," ie, black on the outside, white on the inside, along with other more subtle smears, for years, with nary a peep of protest from the self-righteous mavens of race relations. In their time, Condoleeza Rice, Janice Rogers Brown, Ward Connerly and Alan Keyes have been the subject of scathing, crude attacks. And the most onerous example of all, Clarence Thomas was subjected to what he rightly termed "a high-tech lynching" in his Supreme Court confirmation Hearings, a lynching joined in by a wealthy, privileged white man, Ted Kennedy, with feverish intensity. And yet, Senator Kennedy did so without any fear that he might be excoriated for racism. How did he know that he would be immune from the racism charge?

The answer to that question, I think, points us to the deeper reason for these racism charges.

Continue .....
I do not intend to charge the Left with Marxism, at least not in the gross sense of that term. But it is undeniable that Marxism is a root or ground of the modern Left, and in many ways the Left thinks in Marxist analytical terms.

In the popular imagination of those on both the Left and the Right, Marxism is all about the inevitable clash between the Rich and the Poor, with the ultimate goal being the synthesis of the two into a classless society of pure economic equality. This is clearly influential on the Left, with its incessant harangues of Capitalists, the Rich and the Powerful, in common cause with the Poor and the Weak of society.

But Marxism also contained a third class of people within the societal struggle, the so-called bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie were the middle class. In Marxian thinking, they were a dull, unimaginative group, living dull, unimaginative lives. The burgermeisters, the fat uneducated shopkeepers, the frumpy dithering wives, all going about their humdrum daily lives with no passion, no cause, no consciousness of the grand drama of society's struggles for betterment. In contemporary terms, think of the vapid, alienating culture of 1950's suburban America, as depicted in so many Hollywood movies (Pleasantville, The Graduate, etc.).

In this simplistic picture, clearly the Poor is Good and the Rich are Bad. But what is the bourgeoisie? It is the despised, because by the very inertia of their frumpen culture they support the Rich Bad People and prevent the Poor from winning the great class struggle. Picture the Rich as a humongous, ugly statue in the public square. The bourgeoisie is the even bigger base upon which it stands. If the statue is to be pulled down, the base must first be destroyed.

Pull this analysis forward into contemporary Leftism, and you have, I believe, a reflexive revulsion of our contemporary bourgeoisie, the middle class, aka average Americans. President Obama's famed "bitter clingers" remark captures this wonderfully. He said that average Americans cling to their Bibles and their guns out of ignorant fear in times of stress, disclosing in a stroke his contempt for the middle class. The middle class is just not down with the struggle, as they say, and so they must contain any and every odious characteristic humans are capable of.

Which brings us to racism, the preeminent odious characteristic in American culture today. The Left sees racism where there is none because they see average Americans as incapable of any higher aspirations at all. So when the middle class appears to be demonstrating for political purposes, genuinely passionate about a cause, well, that can't be true, because the middle class by definition (that is, Marxian definition) has no passion for any higher ideals. If they had such passions, then they would not be the middle class, but in fact fellow travelers of the Left, struggling against the Rich in the grand drama of history.

So, these protests by average Americans can only come from something dark and unseemly, and the darkest, most unseemly motivation in contemporary America is racism, QED.

In essence, for the Left, middle class center-right conservatism is not a political position that might be held by some racists, it is in fact racism, and an integral part of the existing racist structure of society which serves, as the old bourgeoisie did in Marx's time, to support the Rich and Powerful at the top at the expense of the Poor at the bottom. So, all average Americans are at base racists, even if, be it noted, they happen to be black. In fact, black conservatives are natural targets for an especial venom from the Left, because their skin color marks them as traitors to their own kind.

As in most analysis by the Left, this sort of thing does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the recent protests were motivated by racism. And in a more general context, conservatism as expressed in the American culture is not motivated by racism either, but in fact is an aspiration for freedom for all peoples. The American society that has grown and matured under its founding conservative principles is the most free, open and egalitarian society ever achieved by Man. It is not perfect in this respect, of course, but nothing in this world ever is. It's only the best Man has been able to do thus far.

The Left, blinkered by its own ideology, cannot see this and never will. For the rest of us, we best just get used to the spurious charge of racism, until such time as the Left slinks back to the obscurity of the fringe of American culture where they belong.

Racists

I'm getting a little tired of the defenders of the 912/Tea Party protesters prefacing their remarks with something like "while there are certainly some racists involved in these protests ... " The latest example of this is Roger Clegg, posting on The Corner, wherein he begins his defense with:

I don’t deny that there are SOME racists out there, but I do not believe that it is an appreciable part of the opposition to President Obama’s policies.

and then ends the same with the near sycophantic conclusion:

Again, I don’t deny that there are racists out there, but I don’t think it’s helpful to blame the heated opposition the President Obama on racism.

Some defense. Defense Lawyer: "I don't deny that my client is capable of murder, and had the motive and opportunity, but I do deny that he committed the murder." At this point the Jury starts checking their watches to see if they can't decide this case and get out in time for the Mets game that afternoon.

Any group engaging in public debate will have some fringe people involved. That is simply a law of statistics and of no particular relevance one way or the other. You might as well say, "I don't deny that there are some butchers and bakers (or candlestick makers, or accountants, or saints, or sinners, or ...) involved in these protests, but I don't think these protests are about butchering or bakering."

Human groups are endlessly diverse, but it is the reason diverse people come together that is of the essence. If some old Democrats show up in white hoods and robes burning a cross, well, it's pretty clear their purposes are at bottom racist, and the fact that they may otherwise be average citizens is irrelevant to the issue.

But if average people show up for the express purpose of opposing bigger government, massive debt, monstrous bureaucracies, and creeping socialism, well, it's very clear that is what they are all about, and the charge of racism is an absurdity and should be treated as such.

You conservative defenders of these American protests need to Man Up! These people deserve greater moral clarity in their defense than you have been giving them.

Where's Charlie?

In an interview Tuesday morning, Charlie Gibson, the amiable anchor of ABC News, admitted he had not heard about the Acorn scandals that have been broiling around for the last week since videos surfaced of Acorn employees giving out tax and other advice on the best ways to set up a child prostitution brothel.

Let see, last Friday, USA Today ran Associated Press reports detailing the Acorn story. The New York Times ran Associated Press reports on Saturday about Acorn, and followed up with original stories on Monday on the Senate vote to deny Federal funds to Acorn due to the recent allegations. And The Washington Post ran stories about Acorn's problems beginning Saturday.

As Katie Couric would most certainly ask, if not USA Today, The New York Times or The Washington Post, just what newspapers does the head and public face of ABC News read?

IT WAS A LANDSLIDE!

According to an internal Democrat memo, the Dems were expecting 2 million people would show up at the 9/12 Washington protests.

2 million is a lot, I mean A LOT, of people, and it also appears the Dems were hoping the memo would leak so as to raise expectations so high as to deflate the political value of the protests - when it proved to be much smaller.

The results are in on the 9/12 protests and it turns out the Democrat spin-meisters got it right the first time. The Daily Mail of the UK reports that 2 million real people, grass-roots Americans, flooded Washington, D.C. today.

In other words, IT WAS A LANDSLIDE!

Courtesy of the Daily Mail, here is a picture:

The Big Nothing

President Obama gave, by all accounts, the Big Speech last night, to a joint-session of Congress, to 300 million Americans, to a watching world. It is rumored the Heavens above paused to consider the enormity of the occasion. This Speech was to be a game-changer on National Healthcare that would reverse the President's plummeting polls, and sweep America into the 21st Century and back to greatness.

Jim Geraughty of The Campaign Spot summarizes the promises made by the President (link not available at this time) after 48 minutes:

[The Healthcare bill] will keep everything the same for those who have health insurance through their jobs, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA; mandate coverage of pre-existing conditions; ban caps on coverage; mandate coverage of routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies; offer health insurance to 30 million uninsured; provide tax credits for small businesses; painlessly mandate coverage for the young healthy uninsured; provide hardship waivers; provide choice and competition; keep insurance companies honest; avoid taxpayer subsidies for public option plans; keep out illegal immigrants; not pay for abortions; and not deny care to the elderly because of cost-benefit analyses, all while not adding one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future.

After achieving all of this it is not clear whether the Seventh Day will have arrived and the President and his Party can rest, or they will have another day or so to tackle more mundane matters like World Peace and Poverty.

I am sorry, my fellow Citizens, but it is an invariable rule that a politician's promise of everything is the same as a promise of nothing.

This was no game-changer, just the same old, same old, bribe-the-voter style of politics immortalized in the line "A Chicken in every pot!" The Speech was a whole lot of Nothing masquerading as Something.

I can't imagine the American people will buy this kind of clap-trap anymore. National Healthcare, RIP.

Van Jones

Van Jones, White House Green Jobs high muckety-muck, resigns in the dead of night, stating the following:

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide

The arrogance of these people is appalling. Publication of actual videos of his speeches, articles he has written, and documents he has signed constitutes a "vicious smear campaign ... lies and distortions."

In a sane world, he would first have to explain his past statements and behavior so as to negate the obvious, that he is a radical, self-described Communist and neo-racist who seeks to bring down American society via "direct militant action," albeit through a new, less grating style.

But this is no longer a sane world. Arrogant ideologues like this get a pass from the Main Stream Media, who studiously refuse to report the story as it develops, and then get in as Mr. Jones resigns to "report" that a resignation of a major White House player was a mere partisan "victory for Republicans."

Atrocious. Simply atrocious.

FREE HONDURAS!

Click the title to see other blog posts on this topic.

That's not "Free Honduras!" as in a call to action to free Honduras. That's "Free Honduras" as in a celebration of the current state of freedom in that tiny country, and a call to arms to preserve its freedom against the idiocy of our State Department.

Rick Richman of Commentary's Contentions Blog reports the current state of affairs in Honduras.

In the face of the stunning success of Honduran political institutions in preserving the rule of law of a democratic society, what is our State Department's rallying cry? Something like "Reinstall Zelaya now, to complete his remaining 2 months in office until the next election!" That's right, the Whiz Kids at State believe Freedom demands that ex-President Mel Z. be reinstated to complete his Constitutional term as President, even though he has been removed from office in accordance with that same Constitution.

Why was he removed from office? As we reported previously (click the title to this post above), because he violated the Constitution by trying to extend his term as President; and then violated lawful orders of the Supreme Court to desist from violating the Constitution; and then violated the law again by firing the head of the military for refusing to follow his illegal orders to violate the Constitution.

Honduras is, today, a free country, with a vibrant and strong Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch who are all in agreement that Mel Zelaya is a criminal under Honduran law, a judgment agreed to by a consensus (that's more than a majority) of members of Mr. Zelaya's own political party and the major institutions of civil society as well.

Why would Mr. Zelaya want to return to power for a mere couple of months of Presidential power? Mr. Richman reports a quote from a September 4th article in the Nation, in which it states that Mr. Zelaya "has only one purpose, the transformation of Honduras, including deep structural changes."

I.e. Mr. Zelaya still seeks to overthrow the Constitutional system of Honduras through extra-Constitutional means.

In the face of this clearest of intentions by Mr. Zelaya, Phillip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State, and apparently the Secretary herself, Hillary Clinton, still believe that Mr. Zelaya needs to be reinstated.

If this is not a world turned upside down where the greatest exemplar of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, America, seeks to dictate lawlessness to a tiny neighbor to our south, then I don't know what is.

Free Honduras! And while we're at it, shackle the State Department. These people have no business negotiating anything bigger than Hillary and Bill's plane tickets to Bermuda.

Headlines You Won't Ever See

DEMOCRATS STEP UP WAR
ON POOR AND MINORITIES
-----------------------------------------------------
Obama to give nationwide address on
Wednesday hoping to revitalize National Healthcare,
which most American's believe will reduce the
quality and availability of Healthcare for all
---------------------------------------------------
"Bush could never have attacked the poor and minorities
in this way," exults White House staffer. "But Obama is
not Bush."

Actual Major Media headline and story here.

What Can We Do?

David Horowitz gave an interesting answer tonight when asked by Glenn Beck what we can do to oppose the gathering power of the radical Left in the halls of our government.

He said Republicans need to start going into the inner cities. The major metropolitan inner cities have been controlled 100% by Democrats and their Leftist policies for a Century. In every case, in every instance, the very people they say they are trying to help are the very ones that have been the most harmed. Blacks, Hispanics, the Old, the Young, pick a victim, any victim that the Democrats have championed, and in every case, the result has been to establish a permanent underclass of victims.

And a permanent voting block for Democrats. Which, of course, is why the Left promotes the obviously destructive policies they do. Once they get whole peoples to imbibe their political narcotic, those people and their children can do nothing except stay with the pusher that got them there in the first place.

Continue .....
This is an important point. Conservatives need to start going after the Democrat base in the inner cities, as well as every other jurisdiction where Democrats seem the most solidly entrenched (can you say, New York State? California?). Not on some abstract "Freedom!" agenda, or a "Balanced Budget!" slogan, which often sways the more mainstream American electorate, but has little resonance with traditional Democrat constituencies. But on the same grounds the Democrats attracted their base in the fist place: "Republicans are the Party that can help you and your children. Our policies will work to give you a job, true self-esteem, and a future for you and your loved ones. The Democrat policies have failed you year after year after year."

It was little noticed, but Ronald Reagan actually set the stage for this sort of thing. In the 60's and 70's, the Republican domestic agenda for less regulation and taxes was justified with various mantras about balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility, and limited government, all grounded in a very solid philosophy of liberal democracy and the appropriate role of government in society. But these sorts of arguments had little appeal in the face of the sycophantic assurances that the Democrats would protect the little people with ever greater government programs and gushers of money.

As everyone knows, Ronald Reagan pushed through an historic reduction in tax rates. But what has not been commented on to my knowledge was the primary rationale he offered: across the board tax cuts would help everybody, not just those who had income. Thus, he did not justify returning people's money to them on any principle, theory or Constitutional argument; he did so on an explicitly empirical basis: as he put it, a "rising tide lifts all boats."

When I noticed this in the 80's, I remember being quite thrilled. Because now, the acrimonious Left-Right philosophical battles could be fought on common ground: empirical studies. Everyone will either benefit more than they would have in the absence of tax cuts, or they wouldn't. We could all quit arguing and fighting and just let the 1,000's of research assistants in economic departments across the land polish up their pocket protectors, compile the numbers and give us the answer.

Of course, this was a naive dream. What has become abundantly clear to me ever since is that the Left is not interested in their victims becoming non-victims, precisely because theirs is a moral position, not an economic one. They don't like capitalists or capitalism. Tax cuts might benefit the poor with jobs and opportunities and a future of self-reliance for them and their families, but that would only make the poor into pale imitations of capitalists. The Left does not want the poor to be self-reliant; they want them self-dependent, on government largess and the Democrats who control that largess.

The Left has an ideological agenda in which all societal victims are but tools to their larger purpose. America's Seniors are starting to understand this; Republicans have an historic opportunity to put a wedge between the Democrats and their other large constituencies, constituencies which Democrats have so savagely brutalized with their de-humanizing policies.