We noted early on that BO does not understand America or Americans. How could he, restricted to the faculty lounge crowd, mixed in with the Chicago machine? But that’s ok, he was elected anyway. “Was” elected. Not a chance now as most of his flock see that they have been fleeced.
What is it that really bothers these types? They’ve got plenty of faults - a dismal lack of scholarship of current events is one of them; a complete lack of sense of history another, yet even they, handicapped as they are can’t stomach whiners. They’ve just realized they’ve elected one.
BO complains incessantly about what Fox, Rush, Republicans, others say about him. He gets upset when his bogus facts are challenged - health, C-SPAN, transparency and bipartisanship. He figures the dark side is after him and wants all of us to believe it.
Peter Wehner points out in a recent article that at a fund-raising event for Boxer, BO whined as follows: “Let’s face it. This has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930's.” What?!
Read this my friends, those of you who may have pulled the trigger for this clown. Now think back. Worse that Dec /7/1941? No? Yes? Worse than what Reagan faced after Carter? Worse than ‘68, with Bobby Kennedy and King both dead, turmoil on the streets? My, my. Worse than what FDR faced when he nearly single handedly provided support for the Brits? Worse than what Truman faced after the war? No? Yes?
Wehner notes that in his autobiography "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote about the immensity of the task the Truman administration faced after war ended in 1945, which "only slowly revealed itself. As it did so, it began to appear as just a bit less formidable than that described in the first chapter of Genesis. That was to create a world out of chaos; ours, to create half a world, a free half, out of the same material without blowing the whole to pieces in the process." Oh, thank you Dean, forgot all about that.
Come on. This Obama guy, this self-indulgent little man thinks he’s got it tough?
Robert Craven
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Nowhere To Hide
Listening to Obama in the Rose Garden we must admit to a moral lapse in the man, something which cheers many of his detractors but simply saddens those of us who look to the interests of America before politics.
As Peggy Noonan observed, "When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way."
Obama, deer-in-the-headlights fashion blamed the oil mess on Bush by noting that, "...these problems have been around for a decade or more..." The fact is that is was bo's Interior Dept which gave BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in '09. Obama administration officials last year short-circuited the process; thus Transocean and BP drilled this well without full environmental and safety review. Oh, that.
In Obama we have an individual ill equipped to do most anything except talk and seek cover. Is that why his ratings are in the tank? Suppose so. Most folk, even Democrats expect a president to get things done, not spend all of his time blaming his predecessor and feeling sorry for himself.
Just for amusement's sake, let's take a look at Excuse Number One: "He's a war criminal," screech the Marin left. The favorite T-shirt of this bunch - "Bush lied / thousands died" This type, an embarrassment to normal folk. You know, if you're with friends and one of the chatterers chirps up, you move out of range to check the oil, whatever. You might have to acknowledge knowing the guy.
In fact, the day after 9-11 consensus in Congress, including that role-model-of-a-man Ted Kennedy believed Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and for the simple reason that in 1998 he gave a long list of both chemical and germ components to the UN. Was he lying? Ask the Kurds about an earlier time. He may have lied about his arsenal in 1998; that doesn't make Bush out to be a liar. And most of the left have come to understand this fact. They have also come to understand, at least most of them, that they were used, made out to be dupes.
There are plenty who still take DNC talking points to heart, just a whole lot less of them nowadays. Folks don't want to be made out to be fools, certainly not twice.
BO depended on this group's loyalty for nourishment, for his support and he courted them without fail. As the excuses grow older and the stalwarts grow fewer our dear leader finds he has nowhere to hide.
Robert Craven
As Peggy Noonan observed, "When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way."
Obama, deer-in-the-headlights fashion blamed the oil mess on Bush by noting that, "...these problems have been around for a decade or more..." The fact is that is was bo's Interior Dept which gave BP a "categorical" environmental exemption in '09. Obama administration officials last year short-circuited the process; thus Transocean and BP drilled this well without full environmental and safety review. Oh, that.
In Obama we have an individual ill equipped to do most anything except talk and seek cover. Is that why his ratings are in the tank? Suppose so. Most folk, even Democrats expect a president to get things done, not spend all of his time blaming his predecessor and feeling sorry for himself.
Just for amusement's sake, let's take a look at Excuse Number One: "He's a war criminal," screech the Marin left. The favorite T-shirt of this bunch - "Bush lied / thousands died" This type, an embarrassment to normal folk. You know, if you're with friends and one of the chatterers chirps up, you move out of range to check the oil, whatever. You might have to acknowledge knowing the guy.
In fact, the day after 9-11 consensus in Congress, including that role-model-of-a-man Ted Kennedy believed Saddam was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and for the simple reason that in 1998 he gave a long list of both chemical and germ components to the UN. Was he lying? Ask the Kurds about an earlier time. He may have lied about his arsenal in 1998; that doesn't make Bush out to be a liar. And most of the left have come to understand this fact. They have also come to understand, at least most of them, that they were used, made out to be dupes.
There are plenty who still take DNC talking points to heart, just a whole lot less of them nowadays. Folks don't want to be made out to be fools, certainly not twice.
BO depended on this group's loyalty for nourishment, for his support and he courted them without fail. As the excuses grow older and the stalwarts grow fewer our dear leader finds he has nowhere to hide.
Robert Craven
Friday, May 21, 2010
Marketing The Left
For the first time in US history an extremist group has control of the executive branch.
How can we distill this experience, secure an anchor through the noise and bullets? What then has it meant or may it mean for each of us individually, or for all of us, collectively, for our fortunes, for our children, for our security?
We think there is such an anchor. It is this - those at the helm have set out to effect a great leveling - domestically in the dilution of a meritocracy, internationally through the chiseling away at American leadership.
This is the common denominator. Are we not all impacted, or potentially impacted by this programming? We highlight examples below that demonstrate that we are. (We could just as easily highlight BO’s intentional leveling off shore - his appeasement of Syria, slap at Lebanon; his humiliating effort to appease Iran and coddle Russia while insulting Israel and ignoring our great allies in E Europe, all of which have corroded US security.)
We have examined in past blogs the now well known statist emblem in fashion with the majority. In terms most pedestrian it is this - the more government control the better. But are we at the core issue, or merely surface feeding? Is there something freighted with more horsepower, something which will give timbre and profundity to the thing? We think there is: The left cannot accept the variance of fortune which goes with free markets. They look to effect on all of us a sameness. Why? Because it sells, or did.
For example, the other day at the nursery the conversation was tagged to high Wall St salaries. "That outa be a crime," came the shout from a woman at the counter. That outburst may reflect envy, it may reflect the admission of a poor career decision but it most certainly does not reflect economic literacy. As Tom Sowell notes, "The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago. The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued." Most of us understand this yet to the left it calls for a leveling. Why? Because it sells.
Or, consider Obama’s recent statement that, "... at some point, you have made enough money." There is obviously a moral bankruptcy to BO’s notion that others can decide what is good for you. Most normal people understand this but we are more interested in the core issue - the base instinct of the left to level society; it could be by the way of education; in this case, it is by the way of income (unless of course it is their income).
Another example is the health-care plan. There are those in our society who are self-insured, who are prudent and thrifty and have put away $ for medical emergencies. They don’t need insurance. They stand out as role models. And, they will be punished because of it, tamped to the level of their less prudent neighbors. These Americans must pay a yearly penalty of $695 per individual, or up to 2.5% of their income if they cannot show they have bought a gov’t insured plan; the family penalty is $347/child up to $2250 per family. Pay or go to jail.
A meritocracy is an anathema to the left. This is a true thing. There are always enough folk like the woman at the nursery who seek shelter, a soft vengeance against achievers; always enough who demand the easy way; it is these upon whom the left depends for its sustenance, it is these from whom operatives of the left extract their nourishment.
A land of only Trumans and Reagans and Teddy’s would mean an end to that malignancy which we know to be today’s Democratic party.
Robert Craven
How can we distill this experience, secure an anchor through the noise and bullets? What then has it meant or may it mean for each of us individually, or for all of us, collectively, for our fortunes, for our children, for our security?
We think there is such an anchor. It is this - those at the helm have set out to effect a great leveling - domestically in the dilution of a meritocracy, internationally through the chiseling away at American leadership.
This is the common denominator. Are we not all impacted, or potentially impacted by this programming? We highlight examples below that demonstrate that we are. (We could just as easily highlight BO’s intentional leveling off shore - his appeasement of Syria, slap at Lebanon; his humiliating effort to appease Iran and coddle Russia while insulting Israel and ignoring our great allies in E Europe, all of which have corroded US security.)
We have examined in past blogs the now well known statist emblem in fashion with the majority. In terms most pedestrian it is this - the more government control the better. But are we at the core issue, or merely surface feeding? Is there something freighted with more horsepower, something which will give timbre and profundity to the thing? We think there is: The left cannot accept the variance of fortune which goes with free markets. They look to effect on all of us a sameness. Why? Because it sells, or did.
For example, the other day at the nursery the conversation was tagged to high Wall St salaries. "That outa be a crime," came the shout from a woman at the counter. That outburst may reflect envy, it may reflect the admission of a poor career decision but it most certainly does not reflect economic literacy. As Tom Sowell notes, "The rest of the country is not poorer by the amount of Bill Gates' fortune today and was not poorer by the amount of John D. Rockefeller's fortune a century ago. The fortunes that the sellers amassed were not a deduction from the buyers' wealth. Buyers and sellers both gained from these transactions or the transactions wouldn't have continued." Most of us understand this yet to the left it calls for a leveling. Why? Because it sells.
Or, consider Obama’s recent statement that, "... at some point, you have made enough money." There is obviously a moral bankruptcy to BO’s notion that others can decide what is good for you. Most normal people understand this but we are more interested in the core issue - the base instinct of the left to level society; it could be by the way of education; in this case, it is by the way of income (unless of course it is their income).
Another example is the health-care plan. There are those in our society who are self-insured, who are prudent and thrifty and have put away $ for medical emergencies. They don’t need insurance. They stand out as role models. And, they will be punished because of it, tamped to the level of their less prudent neighbors. These Americans must pay a yearly penalty of $695 per individual, or up to 2.5% of their income if they cannot show they have bought a gov’t insured plan; the family penalty is $347/child up to $2250 per family. Pay or go to jail.
A meritocracy is an anathema to the left. This is a true thing. There are always enough folk like the woman at the nursery who seek shelter, a soft vengeance against achievers; always enough who demand the easy way; it is these upon whom the left depends for its sustenance, it is these from whom operatives of the left extract their nourishment.
A land of only Trumans and Reagans and Teddy’s would mean an end to that malignancy which we know to be today’s Democratic party.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
