Here in Marin County a news sheet called the Pacific Sun ran a story on a local opera composer, one Ron MacFarland. Seems MacFarland’s last work was based on the Donner Party. Well, Mac Farland shopped his creation to all the likely candidates - the JC College of Marin, the upscale Dominican College, all the elite of education. All he got was rejection. The Sun’s writer Jason Walsh marvels at what happened next. "Oddly enough," he writes (then with regrettable diction continues), "the relatively conservative-leaning students at Chico State were known for their openness to modern opera and after digesting the idea of a Donner Party opus, the university agreed to stage the world premier."
"Oddly enough"?! This is not only profiling, it reflects a profound lack of original scholarship on the part of Walsh. But rare? Not by a long shot.
We have been the target of similar profiling, a friend from the left wondering how in the world we could have such an interest in nature, animals, how we could approach the world in a gentle way, and yet be a conservative? What?
Naive in the case of Walsh? Probably. As to our friend, well......
Let’s return again to Marin County and its San Geronimo Valley, a area simply infested with lefties, and then to its Lagunitas Creek, were there has been a 10- fold decline in the salmon population, past 30 years. Seems the county proposes the creation of a 35 ft no-build zone between the creek and homes nearby with the welfare of one of nature’s most beautiful creatures in mind. The so-called Salmon Enhancement Plan is simply a series of voluntary recommendations for locals to contribute to restore habitat for migrating fish. The locals, most all rabid Democrats and all self-proclaimed environmentalists, will have none of it, fearing it may become law, and prevent them from paving driveways, repairing docks, enlarging their homes, and otherwise seeing to their self interest. They’re outraged!
Phonies? Definitely.
Or again to Marin - an acquaintance, a major lefty who pumps water all summer out of a creek which is home to endangered salmon and steelhead. Now that doesn’t seem a fit to the average guy. But we’re likely missing something. He does it legally (grand fathered) or he would have long ago begun taking his meals through a slot. The individual and creek will remain unnamed in the interest of retaining my health.
Can we catagorize this guy? No, better not, he’s a friend. But it’s clear why he is a card carrying member of the chattering class.
Or again to blatant profiling, and again to San Anselmo; this time to the long-time companion of a well known song writer / performer; he, a one-time member of the Kingston Trio, then on to his own creations. I spent some time this week with Buffy in her garden, reminiscing about the songs and the man - John Stewart. He was a major lefty but a great artist. He worked with Bob Kennedy and was there when he died.. We never judged him; we never profiled him. Not so for the left. Buffy marveled as we walked through her garden, that "even Bob Bennet loved John’s stuff," as if to say, this is an amazing achievement for neanderthals.
All the oddities of behavior noted above, all from the local left, reflect the following: 1) a lack of scholarship, 2) a vulnerability to group-thought and the accompanying lack of original insight, 3) the use of words as ornaments, tokens, and finally 4) a demonstrated vacuity of follow through or commitment to the spoken word, that which most of us associate with our pronouncements or positions.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Judgement
The stars aligned perfectly for BO. He became president.
The stars are no longer in formation. Beyond grand announcements and slick speeches, he has yet to accomplish anything of substance. Obama has done nothing, past nine months, but disappoint his followers and cheer his critics.
Obama has demonstrated that which we highlighted early on as his critical flaw - a chronic lack of judgement.
For starters, he misjudged his mandate. He is an extremist, an inexperienced far-left ideologue elected 75% on political correctness and 25% on a sour economy. He figured that somehow a country that is just a tad right of center gave him some kind of go-ahead on deficits, spending, nationalized health care, cap-and-trade, voting "present" of Afg., etc. He figured Congress would pass his bills redefining America. He figured he’d stay in campaign mode, berating Bush for all his problems. But while campaigning could center around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier. It involves tough, unpopular choices. It requires doing things rather than talking about them. BO has shown little appetite for this.
Now, BO’s ratings have tanked.
Next, in response, and again demonstrating a lack of judgement, he has resorted to cynicism and slander, a real live sycophant residing squarely in the WH.
In just nine months the phrase "Chicago style" has gone from something old-time that evokes Al Capone or Mayor Daley to something very real, contemporary, and scary — David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and BO. As Kim Strassel noted in the WSJ, "a White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side."
BO’s administration tries to strong-arm the opposition, demonize the media, and manipulate government largesse to either penalize or reward recipients on the basis of their degree of support for Obama.
But are we surprised? When a man has spent his entire adult life as a community organizer in the precincts of Chicago, it should hardly be news, as Mark Steyn notes, "that much of his Rolodex is made up of either loons or thugs." The trick is identifying who falls into which category. Anita Dunn, the Communications Director commending Mao Zedong as a role model to graduating high school students, would seem an obvious loon. But the point about Mao, as Charles Krauthammer noted, is that he was the most ruthless imposer of mass conformity in modern history: In Mao's China, everyone wore the same clothes. Steyn continues, "So when Communications Commissar Mao Ze Dunn starts berating Fox News for not getting into the same Maosketeer costumes as the rest of the press corps, you begin to see why the Chairman might appeal to her as a favorite 'political philosopher'". My, my.
And most of the rest are nuts too. There might be one statement like Van Jones’s slander of "white people," or Sonia Sotomayor’s "wise Latina" boast, or Anita Dunn’s lengthy praise of the mass-murdering Mao, but not an entire series of them? At some point, the American public snaps out of it, and sighs, "Whoa now, three more years?"
Finally, he’s tough with his domestic opponents, sure. What a man. But the strange disparity between the heavy-handed community organization at home and the flaccid representation abroad risks making the commander-in-chief look like a weenie — like "President Pantywaist," as Britain’s Daily Telegraph has taken to calling him. Exactly so. Our point all along folks.
This week WH communications director Dunn extolled that the Obama image is intact. "He's who he has always been."
Indeed he is.
Robert Craven
The stars are no longer in formation. Beyond grand announcements and slick speeches, he has yet to accomplish anything of substance. Obama has done nothing, past nine months, but disappoint his followers and cheer his critics.
Obama has demonstrated that which we highlighted early on as his critical flaw - a chronic lack of judgement.
For starters, he misjudged his mandate. He is an extremist, an inexperienced far-left ideologue elected 75% on political correctness and 25% on a sour economy. He figured that somehow a country that is just a tad right of center gave him some kind of go-ahead on deficits, spending, nationalized health care, cap-and-trade, voting "present" of Afg., etc. He figured Congress would pass his bills redefining America. He figured he’d stay in campaign mode, berating Bush for all his problems. But while campaigning could center around soaring rhetoric, governing is altogether messier. It involves tough, unpopular choices. It requires doing things rather than talking about them. BO has shown little appetite for this.
Now, BO’s ratings have tanked.
Next, in response, and again demonstrating a lack of judgement, he has resorted to cynicism and slander, a real live sycophant residing squarely in the WH.
In just nine months the phrase "Chicago style" has gone from something old-time that evokes Al Capone or Mayor Daley to something very real, contemporary, and scary — David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and BO. As Kim Strassel noted in the WSJ, "a White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side."
BO’s administration tries to strong-arm the opposition, demonize the media, and manipulate government largesse to either penalize or reward recipients on the basis of their degree of support for Obama.
But are we surprised? When a man has spent his entire adult life as a community organizer in the precincts of Chicago, it should hardly be news, as Mark Steyn notes, "that much of his Rolodex is made up of either loons or thugs." The trick is identifying who falls into which category. Anita Dunn, the Communications Director commending Mao Zedong as a role model to graduating high school students, would seem an obvious loon. But the point about Mao, as Charles Krauthammer noted, is that he was the most ruthless imposer of mass conformity in modern history: In Mao's China, everyone wore the same clothes. Steyn continues, "So when Communications Commissar Mao Ze Dunn starts berating Fox News for not getting into the same Maosketeer costumes as the rest of the press corps, you begin to see why the Chairman might appeal to her as a favorite 'political philosopher'". My, my.
And most of the rest are nuts too. There might be one statement like Van Jones’s slander of "white people," or Sonia Sotomayor’s "wise Latina" boast, or Anita Dunn’s lengthy praise of the mass-murdering Mao, but not an entire series of them? At some point, the American public snaps out of it, and sighs, "Whoa now, three more years?"
Finally, he’s tough with his domestic opponents, sure. What a man. But the strange disparity between the heavy-handed community organization at home and the flaccid representation abroad risks making the commander-in-chief look like a weenie — like "President Pantywaist," as Britain’s Daily Telegraph has taken to calling him. Exactly so. Our point all along folks.
This week WH communications director Dunn extolled that the Obama image is intact. "He's who he has always been."
Indeed he is.
Robert Craven
Thursday, October 22, 2009
There's Nothing There
Obama’s half black; he’s a slick speaker. That delivers in this society. He became a cult figure - coeds swooning in the aisles. Political correctness and a sour economy propelled this guy to the presidency. The swooning coeds voted for him, but so did a lot of very reasonable people. And now? Now they find that they have - right, just another politician. Or worse. Not even that - a void.
We find him almost boring. His presidency represents a distillation of the time-worn ideas of the northeastern liberal aristocracy/media confab - Stalin’s "useful idiots". Obama is nothing more than a cliche’ of all their pathologies.
His speech and demeanor - simply a mask for his lack of substance. Worse, he is petty. Joining for example in the skirmish between race profiler Bates and the law. Or trying to intimidate a news agency. Or just yesterday, telling his money-giver fans that Republicans "just kinda sometimes do what they are told." (Recall Bush ever criticizing Dem’s?)
Some leaders find BO personally engaging, but, they no longer believe what he says. Foreign powers don’t take him seriously. Abroad, there is the same commonsense intuition that most of us have, that something about the president’s talk does not quite seem right. From our neighbor Vic Hansen, "One or two apologies might convey magnanimity; three or more reveal obsequiousness. Apologizing to a cranky neighbor for mowing on a Sunday morning is wise; apologizing to the entire block for an array of past sins does not just ensure ridicule, but could prove downright dangerous."
His performance for example before the UN was an embarrassment. (Our lefty friends would agree with John Bolton's indictment – that this was a post-American speech by a post-American president – but mean it as high praise. Hah!) As one UK observer noted, "He can inspire crowds in Berlin but - sad to say - he also needs to show that he can pack a punch." There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing. He is the subject of jokes and derision back stage, world politics. As well he should be. He sounds good but carries no heft.
Now, even liberal columnists are sounding increasingly skeptical about the individual they once supported. Witness Richard Cohen in the Wash Post, who wrote that Obama, "inspires a lot of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the later, though, that matters most in international affairs where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama." Those who understand the makings of diplomacy understand that the president of the United States needs to show, at least sometimes, that he can inspire fear as well as affection.
Even his strengths have begun to look like weaknesses. His eloquence from a public platform has begun to contrast with his failure to get things done behind the scenes. There is no there there.
BO was greeted like a rock star by the Olympics delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and was a major blow for BO at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance. See what we mean?
Meanwhile, America and its allies are being forced to witness a very public agonizing by Mr Obama and his advisers over his Afghan strategy — six months after it was set.
This has all added to the growing perception that Obama’s soaring rhetoric — which captured the imagination during last year’s election — is simply not enough. It's almost sad to witness the left continue to fish for excuses for behavior which they know in their collective little heart, is not defensible.
Three more years? We are in trouble.
Robert Craven
We find him almost boring. His presidency represents a distillation of the time-worn ideas of the northeastern liberal aristocracy/media confab - Stalin’s "useful idiots". Obama is nothing more than a cliche’ of all their pathologies.
His speech and demeanor - simply a mask for his lack of substance. Worse, he is petty. Joining for example in the skirmish between race profiler Bates and the law. Or trying to intimidate a news agency. Or just yesterday, telling his money-giver fans that Republicans "just kinda sometimes do what they are told." (Recall Bush ever criticizing Dem’s?)
Some leaders find BO personally engaging, but, they no longer believe what he says. Foreign powers don’t take him seriously. Abroad, there is the same commonsense intuition that most of us have, that something about the president’s talk does not quite seem right. From our neighbor Vic Hansen, "One or two apologies might convey magnanimity; three or more reveal obsequiousness. Apologizing to a cranky neighbor for mowing on a Sunday morning is wise; apologizing to the entire block for an array of past sins does not just ensure ridicule, but could prove downright dangerous."
His performance for example before the UN was an embarrassment. (Our lefty friends would agree with John Bolton's indictment – that this was a post-American speech by a post-American president – but mean it as high praise. Hah!) As one UK observer noted, "He can inspire crowds in Berlin but - sad to say - he also needs to show that he can pack a punch." There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing. He is the subject of jokes and derision back stage, world politics. As well he should be. He sounds good but carries no heft.
Now, even liberal columnists are sounding increasingly skeptical about the individual they once supported. Witness Richard Cohen in the Wash Post, who wrote that Obama, "inspires a lot of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the later, though, that matters most in international affairs where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama." Those who understand the makings of diplomacy understand that the president of the United States needs to show, at least sometimes, that he can inspire fear as well as affection.
Even his strengths have begun to look like weaknesses. His eloquence from a public platform has begun to contrast with his failure to get things done behind the scenes. There is no there there.
BO was greeted like a rock star by the Olympics delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and was a major blow for BO at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance. See what we mean?
Meanwhile, America and its allies are being forced to witness a very public agonizing by Mr Obama and his advisers over his Afghan strategy — six months after it was set.
This has all added to the growing perception that Obama’s soaring rhetoric — which captured the imagination during last year’s election — is simply not enough. It's almost sad to witness the left continue to fish for excuses for behavior which they know in their collective little heart, is not defensible.
Three more years? We are in trouble.
Robert Craven
Thursday, September 17, 2009
RACE
Well folks, told you so. (Don’t you hate that?) Recall our earlier comment - The Big Gun - that if things went poorly for the president or other prominent blacks he/they, his handlers, his party, the media, academics and sophisticates everywhere would retreat to race? Presto! Carter and Clinton were just the latest to pull that trick. But right here in Marin (surprise!), in an email from the left we are instructed that the Republican party, "...is being hijacked by small minded racists who are terrified by the concept of a black man calling the shots." Naturally. Who are these racists? And terrified of what? And why from an otherwise reasonable individual, this blatant profiling (the same individual, profiling like no other, marveled that the guy in the ACORN sting was white and the staff fell for it - oh, all pimps are black?)?
Suddenly our society is polarized over race (meaning blacks). Witness the following from one Gerald Ensley, writing for a Tallahassee paper, "So know that when you call Barack Obama a ‘socialist,’ the rest of us are thinking: ‘There goes a racist.’ Because that's what all this is about. There is a segment of the population that simply can't accept a black man was elected president of the United States. So they express their contempt by calling him a socialist because they know they can't say the N-word in public. And they think the rest of us don't know the difference.’" This is laughable; Ensley has the makings of a moron.
We don’t personally know any racists. For folks we know, including blacks, race is incidental. It’s not a big deal. Who cares? That’s true for most Americans, most of whom are sick and tired of this topic, who simply want to get on with key issues in their lives. Quit the whining. We’re all created just about the same, no better nor worse than the other guy. You’re a black, Latino, Indian or white, have a problem? Fine, look within, then get your butt in gear. You’re capable. You think you need special treatment? You think folks are picking on you cause of your color? Come on. Take a look at the color of our president. Get a life.
There is an element however which by its very need to survive must convince a segment of our society that it in fact does need help, that it is handicapped, persecuted and that only this element can provide succor. This element has just kicked its operation into high gear. This element is the Democratic Party. Our view is that Democratic party policy is key to understanding this "problem" of race.
DNC policy is racist. Not of course the in-your-face variety but in a sickly-sweet, obsequious, pandering sort of way. In singling out the black community as one in constant need of protection and dumbed-down standards, as a community which gets a pass on bad behavior for something that happened 150 +/- years ago, the DNC is practicing the most insipid, the most nefarious form of racism imaginable. They are using blacks as pawns. The "problem" is manufactured by the DNC. They lose blacks as a constituency and they’re out of luck. Unfortunately - many blacks fall for it.
Some moderate Democrats see through this nonsense, but adherents from the far left (Marin County for example) simply parrot what’s fed them by a party owned by extremists.
Naturally the left will deny such a thesis, that it is absurd and a lie on its face, that it is the Democrats which have husbanded the black population all along. How dare we? Well, let’s take a look at this good ‘ol party.
The truth can be difficult. The Democratic party’s racism through the 19th century was not abstract at all - slavery was literally part of the platform (The Republican party was formed as the anti-slavery party.). These slavers were up front, not phonies as they are now. One of these was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slaver but also the most brilliant cavalryman of all time. He was a Democrat; he got rich trading slaves; and, he darn near saved it for the South (he would have if Jeff Davis had listened). Then slavery would continue to be part of their platform.
To distinguish Forrest from modern day Democrats - he was honest. Forest has been replaced in the party structure by the likes of Pelosi, Bates, Carville, Rangell, Wright and now - Carter and Clinton. These clowns know that race provides a great backstop in case all else goes wrong - our Big Gun. And these types also know that they enable, and then fetch a good portion of the black population by taking this stand. Thus, in the fine style of J. Jackson, they proceed.
Forrest and Calhoun are gone now, only to have been replaced with race baiters. For them, blacks provide the vehicle. They have a higher purpose. And, they’re disgusting.
Robert Craven
Suddenly our society is polarized over race (meaning blacks). Witness the following from one Gerald Ensley, writing for a Tallahassee paper, "So know that when you call Barack Obama a ‘socialist,’ the rest of us are thinking: ‘There goes a racist.’ Because that's what all this is about. There is a segment of the population that simply can't accept a black man was elected president of the United States. So they express their contempt by calling him a socialist because they know they can't say the N-word in public. And they think the rest of us don't know the difference.’" This is laughable; Ensley has the makings of a moron.
We don’t personally know any racists. For folks we know, including blacks, race is incidental. It’s not a big deal. Who cares? That’s true for most Americans, most of whom are sick and tired of this topic, who simply want to get on with key issues in their lives. Quit the whining. We’re all created just about the same, no better nor worse than the other guy. You’re a black, Latino, Indian or white, have a problem? Fine, look within, then get your butt in gear. You’re capable. You think you need special treatment? You think folks are picking on you cause of your color? Come on. Take a look at the color of our president. Get a life.
There is an element however which by its very need to survive must convince a segment of our society that it in fact does need help, that it is handicapped, persecuted and that only this element can provide succor. This element has just kicked its operation into high gear. This element is the Democratic Party. Our view is that Democratic party policy is key to understanding this "problem" of race.
DNC policy is racist. Not of course the in-your-face variety but in a sickly-sweet, obsequious, pandering sort of way. In singling out the black community as one in constant need of protection and dumbed-down standards, as a community which gets a pass on bad behavior for something that happened 150 +/- years ago, the DNC is practicing the most insipid, the most nefarious form of racism imaginable. They are using blacks as pawns. The "problem" is manufactured by the DNC. They lose blacks as a constituency and they’re out of luck. Unfortunately - many blacks fall for it.
Some moderate Democrats see through this nonsense, but adherents from the far left (Marin County for example) simply parrot what’s fed them by a party owned by extremists.
Naturally the left will deny such a thesis, that it is absurd and a lie on its face, that it is the Democrats which have husbanded the black population all along. How dare we? Well, let’s take a look at this good ‘ol party.
The truth can be difficult. The Democratic party’s racism through the 19th century was not abstract at all - slavery was literally part of the platform (The Republican party was formed as the anti-slavery party.). These slavers were up front, not phonies as they are now. One of these was Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slaver but also the most brilliant cavalryman of all time. He was a Democrat; he got rich trading slaves; and, he darn near saved it for the South (he would have if Jeff Davis had listened). Then slavery would continue to be part of their platform.
To distinguish Forrest from modern day Democrats - he was honest. Forest has been replaced in the party structure by the likes of Pelosi, Bates, Carville, Rangell, Wright and now - Carter and Clinton. These clowns know that race provides a great backstop in case all else goes wrong - our Big Gun. And these types also know that they enable, and then fetch a good portion of the black population by taking this stand. Thus, in the fine style of J. Jackson, they proceed.
Forrest and Calhoun are gone now, only to have been replaced with race baiters. For them, blacks provide the vehicle. They have a higher purpose. And, they’re disgusting.
Robert Craven
Monday, September 14, 2009
Swept Away
Many of our acquaintances are Democrats. These friends are hard workers, good citizens, good people, and patriots. As patriots they love their country; they would never entertain a notion of doing her harm.
Nor is there any umbrage directed towards their neighbor. They don’t for example feel an obligation to email their neighbor’s thoughts on health care to the White House. Instead, they believe - to each his own.
To them, color and creed are incidental. They are not racists and cannot imagine any system or party platform based on subjugation of a race or religion. They are not race baiters. They believe, as Lincoln said, that, "You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred."
They accept responsibility for their lives, its errors and successes and expect others to do likewise. They have learned to make tough decisions. They are not victims and do not respect those who pretend to be. They’re honest; they pay their taxes. They are not union thugs, felons or community shake-down artists.
They believe in a strong national defense. They support the US military’s role.
Most believe in personal liberty and initiative. Most understand that, as Lincoln said, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich," and that, "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." Thus, they do not believe in strong-arming free enterprise to meet quotas set by Washington.
They want control over their prodigy; they love their kids and feel it is their responsibility, not some bureaucrat’s, to parent. Being parents, they have learned to respect life.
What then for goodness sake do they have in common with what has become the Democratic Party!? Are they confused? Are they naive? If not, the only other answer would be that they are phonies. We can reject that. Truth is they are caught in a rip tide, a gentle tugging but something stronger than they are, even though they don’t realize it yet; their fate, unless they are smart enough to call for help, is to be swept away.
Their party was hijacked years ago by the far left. Most with any sense of history whatsoever acknowledge that. Yet there is a disconnect. They are in denial. The present Democratic party machine is arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans - people just like them. They pretend it is their party. This is a fantasy. It is the party of an upper class elite, top heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers who believe in big government solutions to every problem, and, KEY - all of whom know better than the unwashed.
From our own personal experience, it is clear that these middle class Democrats are complacently servile toward this group, toward DNC party authority; they automatically believe, or pretend to believe everything party leaders tell them. That may have worked before when the Democratic president governed from the near center. With an extremist at the helm, they had better know how to swim.
Robert Craven
Nor is there any umbrage directed towards their neighbor. They don’t for example feel an obligation to email their neighbor’s thoughts on health care to the White House. Instead, they believe - to each his own.
To them, color and creed are incidental. They are not racists and cannot imagine any system or party platform based on subjugation of a race or religion. They are not race baiters. They believe, as Lincoln said, that, "You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred."
They accept responsibility for their lives, its errors and successes and expect others to do likewise. They have learned to make tough decisions. They are not victims and do not respect those who pretend to be. They’re honest; they pay their taxes. They are not union thugs, felons or community shake-down artists.
They believe in a strong national defense. They support the US military’s role.
Most believe in personal liberty and initiative. Most understand that, as Lincoln said, "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich," and that, "You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." Thus, they do not believe in strong-arming free enterprise to meet quotas set by Washington.
They want control over their prodigy; they love their kids and feel it is their responsibility, not some bureaucrat’s, to parent. Being parents, they have learned to respect life.
What then for goodness sake do they have in common with what has become the Democratic Party!? Are they confused? Are they naive? If not, the only other answer would be that they are phonies. We can reject that. Truth is they are caught in a rip tide, a gentle tugging but something stronger than they are, even though they don’t realize it yet; their fate, unless they are smart enough to call for help, is to be swept away.
Their party was hijacked years ago by the far left. Most with any sense of history whatsoever acknowledge that. Yet there is a disconnect. They are in denial. The present Democratic party machine is arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans - people just like them. They pretend it is their party. This is a fantasy. It is the party of an upper class elite, top heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers who believe in big government solutions to every problem, and, KEY - all of whom know better than the unwashed.
From our own personal experience, it is clear that these middle class Democrats are complacently servile toward this group, toward DNC party authority; they automatically believe, or pretend to believe everything party leaders tell them. That may have worked before when the Democratic president governed from the near center. With an extremist at the helm, they had better know how to swim.
Robert Craven
Monday, September 7, 2009
Vetting and Obama
This young administration has been plagued with vetting problems. (Webster defines vet the verb or vetting as,"to inspect or examine with careful thoroughness.") The latest in a long line, the appointment of the racist and fruitcake Mr. Van Jones certainly failed that criteria. But where resides the most glaring vetting failure of all? In the lap of those who voted for Obama. NOW WAIT. My cousin usually has to edit out these parts but this time, stay with us friends of the left, don’t change pages, hang on for just a sec. You’re up to the challenge. None of us is perfect. You can handle it. No offense intended but you screwed up royally and got us all in a hell of a mess.
Obama’s behavior has been entirely consistent with his past. He is no charlatan in that respect. The problem is that most who voted for him failed to do their homework, or, willfully blind in the voters both, did not care. It is crystal clear now that these types simply made someone of whom they knew very little, into someone else - a fictitious character the press ushered to market with the help of a sour economy and political correctness - a someone they wanted him to be.
It is the duty of every citizen of age to vote responsibly; it is an affront to the Constitution, the XV and XIX Amendments and an insult to the Founders if they do not. But how could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing his surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist? How could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing that Obama served as a committed trainer for Community activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky? How could most vote for Obama when they knew he sat for nearly two decades at the feet of the racist "Rev" Wright, an angry anti-American? How could any American vote for Obama knowing his close relationship with 1) convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, or 2) with PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi?
How could anyone not a mobster vote for Obama when they knew he was in league with the Chicago community shake-down machine? And before, he and his wife as one observer put it, were nothing if not quintessential Ivy League "Oppression Studies majors" with (carefully concealed) "attitudes." Is that what they voted for?
How could anyone vote for Obama knowing Obama's voting record in the Senate, and as part of that, knowing he stonewalled intended reform of the twins (Fannie/Freddie) which would have prevented our financial crisis? How could anyone but a socialist vote for Obama when Obama has demonstrated he is a socialist through and through, or as Vic Hansen observes, "When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed ‘spread the wealth’ comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,’ we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others."
Did they know? A slim few who voted for Obama did know, did know what they were doing but socialists and anarchists thank goodness are still a rare commodity in these United States. The rest, maybe 85%? They failed to vet, our guess.
Robert Craven
Obama’s behavior has been entirely consistent with his past. He is no charlatan in that respect. The problem is that most who voted for him failed to do their homework, or, willfully blind in the voters both, did not care. It is crystal clear now that these types simply made someone of whom they knew very little, into someone else - a fictitious character the press ushered to market with the help of a sour economy and political correctness - a someone they wanted him to be.
It is the duty of every citizen of age to vote responsibly; it is an affront to the Constitution, the XV and XIX Amendments and an insult to the Founders if they do not. But how could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing his surrogate father figure was Frank Marshall Davis, an avowed Communist? How could any American pull the switch for Obama knowing that Obama served as a committed trainer for Community activist and Marxist Saul Alinsky? How could most vote for Obama when they knew he sat for nearly two decades at the feet of the racist "Rev" Wright, an angry anti-American? How could any American vote for Obama knowing his close relationship with 1) convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, or 2) with PLO apologist Rashid Khalidi?
How could anyone not a mobster vote for Obama when they knew he was in league with the Chicago community shake-down machine? And before, he and his wife as one observer put it, were nothing if not quintessential Ivy League "Oppression Studies majors" with (carefully concealed) "attitudes." Is that what they voted for?
How could anyone vote for Obama knowing Obama's voting record in the Senate, and as part of that, knowing he stonewalled intended reform of the twins (Fannie/Freddie) which would have prevented our financial crisis? How could anyone but a socialist vote for Obama when Obama has demonstrated he is a socialist through and through, or as Vic Hansen observes, "When one collates that revelation with Obama's own off-handed ‘spread the wealth’ comment, his 'fair share' sermons, and his 2001 public radio interview thoughts on ‘the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society,’ we begin to see a pattern in which one’s income and wealth do not properly belong to the earner, but are seen as illegitimate and thus legitimately can be redistributed to others."
Did they know? A slim few who voted for Obama did know, did know what they were doing but socialists and anarchists thank goodness are still a rare commodity in these United States. The rest, maybe 85%? They failed to vet, our guess.
Robert Craven
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Health "Reform" - As The Dust Settles
All but the far left (those who hijacked the Democratic party 35 years ago) are now running from Obama’s beast, many of these claiming they never really were fond of the now-infamous "public option" in the first place. Hah! What we have just witnessed folks, that demonstration from the masses that they don't like being taken - a truly magnificent event. There are many features of BO’s bill voters don’t like but the stealth single payer option was too much. Obama’s effort was such an obvious lie that its perfidy palled after it ceased to be amusing. The American people have done a tremendous job in educating their elected leaders of the fact that they have no desire for government-run health care. The unwashed, bless their hearts, knew BO’s attempted end run would do exactly that. Distilled to the core - THEY DON’T WANT RATIONING.
As the dust settles around this issue we find a changed America, both in the general sense, and the specific. As to the first, from the David Brooks Op-Ed column in the NYT’s : "The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."
As to the second, more and more Americans simply want an improvement on what they’ve got. Few claim we have a problem with the quality of health care for the simple reason that we don't. They do want better insurance prices and better availability - competition for goodness sake will see to that in a jiffy. There are a legion of observers who have suggested ways that the delivery of insurance can be improved (detailed in earlier blogs). And any fool knows that the first step to better cost control is tort reform, always blocked by the Democrats. Don’t take our word for it. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC and an enthusiastic backer of Obama's health reform initiative, gives us this, "The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on," Dean said at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week. Too much.
Sure, the Democrats will try another way to get government between you and your body; they can’t help it. This stuff is pre-programmed in them. Some fear they will be successful. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Robert Craven
As the dust settles around this issue we find a changed America, both in the general sense, and the specific. As to the first, from the David Brooks Op-Ed column in the NYT’s : "The public has soured on Obama’s policy proposals. Voters often have only a fuzzy sense of what each individual proposal actually does, but more and more have a growing conviction that if the president is proposing it, it must involve big spending, big government and a fundamental departure from the traditional American approach."
As to the second, more and more Americans simply want an improvement on what they’ve got. Few claim we have a problem with the quality of health care for the simple reason that we don't. They do want better insurance prices and better availability - competition for goodness sake will see to that in a jiffy. There are a legion of observers who have suggested ways that the delivery of insurance can be improved (detailed in earlier blogs). And any fool knows that the first step to better cost control is tort reform, always blocked by the Democrats. Don’t take our word for it. Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC and an enthusiastic backer of Obama's health reform initiative, gives us this, "The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on," Dean said at a town hall meeting in Virginia last week. Too much.
Sure, the Democrats will try another way to get government between you and your body; they can’t help it. This stuff is pre-programmed in them. Some fear they will be successful. I wouldn’t bet on it.
Robert Craven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
