Views on the News
Views on the News*
March 1, 2014
The Tea Party movement spontaneously formed in 2009 from the reaction of the American people to fiscally irresponsible actions of the federal government, misguided “stimulus” spending, bailouts and takeovers of private industry, and just as quickly it was attacked by the Leftists. Within the first few weeks of the movement, Tea Party Patriots formed to support the millions of Americans seeking to improve our great nation through renewed support for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economic policies. It has elicited one long howl of lies, reminding vividly that the dependency on untruth is a characteristic of the Left. As the Tea Party prepares to celebrate its fifth anniversary, it’s exactly the moment to note that this is a group of Americans who in fact can lay legitimate claim to being called “Reagan’s Heirs,” the ideological descendants of the ideas identified with the man Americans rank as the nation’s greatest President. The Tea Party is nothing more threatening than groups of like-minded Americans who are deeply concerned their country is being run off the fiscal cliff. Ronald Reagan could easily be called the father of the Tea Party. Fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economic policies, tax cuts, are being re-labeled with the Big Lie because they are threats to statism and the progressive utopia. According to the leftists, Americans who support “fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free market economic policies,” just like Ronald Reagan, are fascists, Nazis, Ku Kluxers, racists, homophobes, and xenophobes. There is something curious going on here in all this business of attacking the Tea Party. Recalling that the National Socialists of 1930s Germany, the Nazis, were, as their name stated, in fact socialists, it should come as no surprise that the American Nazi Party sided with the Left since Nazis were and remain on the Left. The Communist Party USA calls the Tea Party the GOP’s “attack dogs.” What we have here are leftists who are literally taking the side of Nazis, Communists, and racists in supporting Occupy Wall Street, while accusing the Tea Party of being racist, fascist, Nazis, Klan supporters, and all the rest. Once the target was Ronald Reagan; now the target is the Tea Party. Some things never change. One suspects that Ronald Reagan himself would have loved to show up at the Tea Party anniversary to salute the Tea Party for being his heirs.
(“Reagan’s Heirs: The Tea Party” by Jeffrey Lord dated February 25, 2014 published by The America Spectator at http://spectator.org/articles/57917/reagans-heirs-tea-party )
Obamaism spilled out from the college campuses and tony enclaves of Manhattan and San Francisco into the mass public to become first an American and then a worldwide phenomenon. No date was fixed for the fulfillment of all the hopes and promises, extensions were continually asked for under the excuse that “change would never be easy,” but enough time had transpired by the end of 2013 for people to sense that the deadline had come and gone. There are three responses that believers can cope with the trauma of disappointment: acceptance, denial, and deflection:
· Accepters are those who conclude that they have succumbed to an error or perhaps been victims of a hoax. Such recognition may come with powerful feelings of pain, a sense of emptiness, the despair of lost hope, or the embarrassment of having been “had” by a confidence man. Poll data shows a loss of confidence in the leader, as more and more erstwhile followers have come to accept that “the change” was pure fiction.
· Deniers are those who refuse to accept disconfirmation and go on believing. Some followers have invested so much in their adherence that they cannot eliminate the dissonance by adjusting to reality. They instead “effectively blind themselves to the facts” and band together, fortifying their beliefs by the support of others who agree. Evidence of deniability inside of Obamaism is strong.
· Deflectors admit that the anticipated outcome did not actually occur, which is their concession to reality, but they go on to say that the failure was not the result of a hoax or a falsehood. The prophecy would have been fulfilled but for the existence of a countervailing force that canceled it out. The promise in a sense was kept, only its effects were nullified. Among the remaining Obamaites, deflectors seem to outnumber deniers, though the overlap between the two groups makes measurement difficult. Deflectors began to caution that the change might be thwarted by the racism of the American public. The failure of the advent must be a result of “polarization” and “dysfunctionality.”
Barack Obama’s reaction to the Great Disappointment of 2013 remains a matter of much speculation, and his position seems to depend less on the day than the time of day. Obama follows the predicted model of resolving dissonance by being a denier and deflector. He is still asking followers to have patience, going to the extreme of fighting Providence with executive orders that extend crucial deadlines. Obama appears at his most natural and sincere in the role of deflector-in-chief. All the great things would have happened but for sinister forces working against the change. Yet the time is quickly arriving when the thoughts and feelings of Barack Obama will matter little for American politics. As the full impact of the Great Disappointment sinks in fascination with the leader of a dying sect is waning. The enthusiasm is gone. For political analysts, the post-disappointment conferences are already underway. A part of the American populace was dubious from the start of the Obama awakening, viewing its religious overtones as a dangerous aberration from normal politics. For victory, Republicans will need to win the votes of some of those who were previously adherents of the faith. Deniers and deflectors will not switch, which means the future of American politics is in the hands of accepters. It is accepters, more than independents, who form the critical swing group. Winning any particular election is a matter of a party finding the right fit between message, candidate, and mood. The GOP’s champions are those whose judgments of Obamaism have been vindicated. The key to GOP success will be selecting a candidate in 2016 of steady disposition who has a track record of competently handling the public’s affairs.
(“The Great Disappointment of 2013” by James W. Ceaser dated March 3, 2014 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/great-disappointment-2013_782748.html )
As the President and Secretary Kerry do their part to misdirect attention from the real issues of our time to the fake ones, the nation and the world reap the increasingly rotted fruits of progressivism. Progressivism is merely the current euphemism for centralized power vested in a class of people who believe their own propaganda, or know it is a lie but tell it anyway. It is not enough merely to note that it has failed every time it has been tried. It must also be said that it has done irreparable damage to humanity wherever it has been practiced. Progressivism is human vice incarnate, the indulgence and celebration of the erasure of the constraints that human experience and wisdom have devised to limit evil. Historically, the quest by elitists for unlimited power over their fellow men, pursued initially under the guise of peaceful change, has usually progressed from societal "improvements" and the well-intended promise of social benefit, to oppression, persecution, and murder. The time line may vary, some are more sudden and violent, some more gradual and subtle, but the outcome has always been the same: the dominance of rulers over the ruled, with all rights and possessions, including life, sacrificed to appease to the insatiable hunger of a soulless state and its foolish enablers. Human freedom, the right of each individual to live a life determined by his own needs, skills, and choices, bounded by laws which recognize the need of ethical limits on our interactions, dissolves or, more accurately, is banned. The progressive understands that the usurpation of total control cannot be achieved where humans are permitted to make informed decisions based on accurate information. Thus, it is necessary first to alter the flow and content of the information on which individuals make decisions which directs events that promote one outcome over another. Those who seek or know the truth are the real enemy of any repressive state. Thus, assuming they still intend to exercise judgment, they must have their choices taken from them in the name of some greater good. Should they still demand freedom, they must be humiliated, imprisoned, and ground into the dust. To achieve this, the progressive will warp and twist every established truth to make truth seem ugly and defective, under the guise of "progress". Global warming is merely the latest scientific straw man to walk the stage, dressed in invisible clothes and armed with self-righteous indignation and the power of the state. It's always about control, and is always based on lies. The problem is that there is nowhere else we can go if progressivism completely destroys freedom here. For generations, others have fled here when like-minded zealots destroyed their countries, because this was someplace else to go, a haven of freedom left on Earth in which a person could not only survive, but advance, on hard work and merit. Progressives intend that the "land of opportunity" shall become the land of servitude. Look what has already been lost because we have failed thus far to defuse the destructive power of progressivism, and the historic malice or complicity of its proponents, both left and right. The hour is late and the opportunities are shrinking rapidly. It is our time to defeat progressivism, or it will surely destroy all we hold dear as free Americans.
(“Progressivism as a Weapon of Mass Destruction” by Jeffrey T. Brown dated February 26, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/progressivism_as_a_weapon_of_mass_destruction.html )
Barack Obama calls it the "fundamental transformation," but by whatever term you prefer for the post hope and change lie, it is now a reality and yes, it crept up on us... but we were busy. Some of the damage was done before my time, but my parents were busy then. When FDR was dragging the nation through an extended depression recovery, my parents were busy raising children and praising the President for his handouts. They were busy, but in their defense the prevailing Socialist ruse seemed a logical solution to those in the depths of poverty. Because of the world war that followed that globally depressed economy, FDR and his social reforms were spared immediate accountability for his contribution to our current predicament. Many of my generation and my parents' generation were just as oblivious, and besides, we were busy. Fascism became a dirty word during and following WWII, but socialism in all its aspects was openly advanced. With the Cold War, Communism quickly became a dirty word and it became necessary for them to hide their agenda. Not that it mattered because we were busy. Barry Goldwater warned us about the consequences of socialism, but we were caught up in Camelot. We were busy. I was busy during LBJ's Great Society, which wasn't socialist enough for the radical left. While they were making bombs and blowing people up, I enjoyed the culture of free love and unaccountability. I was way too busy to adhere to the values taught me while growing up in a large blue-collar family in the 1960s. In the 70s, Tricky Dick was crucified for corruption, but I was oblivious at the time because I was busy. I was discovering that free love and unaccountability wasn't free at all. I was busy trying to make a living and raise a family. If that involved supporting union leadership to keep my blue collar pay commensurate with the economic times, then that is what I did. After all, it was a union, a brotherhood of workers, not a communist organization. So I was busy. Slick Willie entertained us. He messed around on Hillary, but he was cool. Maybe that behavior didn't adhere to the values we were taught in our youth, but those teachings were just not up with the times. A little indiscretion wasn't all that important. Besides, we were busy. In the first decade of this century some of us were awakening to the realization of the consequences of thinking we were too busy to live the principles and values that were the standard when we were children. We were too busy to see what the decline of those values was doing to the future of our nation. Now the declining moral values that we ignored, and even embraced to some extent, were coming home to roost. Vice and corruption won the day in those elections because for decades we disregarded the warnings of the founding fathers. We were too busy. For a country that was founded upon the values and principles that are necessary to provide liberty and freedom and justice, the only thing that can preserve that country is by adhering to those values and principles. The ill will that is held for our country by our current President is obvious, but if you are too busy, don't worry about it.
(“We Were Busy Then” by Steve Holleman dated February 22, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/we_were_busy_then.html )
Of all the disappointments of the Barack Obama Presidency, probably the greatest disappointment was his inability to honor his campaign commitment to change the political culture in Washington. No one can credibly argue that things are better now, but there remains widespread and intense disagreement on who bears the blame for the ongoing rancor of our national politics some five years into the Obama Presidency. Looking at it from the standpoint of how American politics works, the blame rests with Obama. There’s no doubt that this lofty aspiration and Obama’s eloquence in expressing it contributed to Americans’ positive response to his candidacy. The aspiration to create a post-partisan politics gave a special lift to his candidacy and created an outsized expectation for his presidency. Obama’s failure to redeem that promise has generated abundant commentary over the years, and it has generally fallen into three categories:
· First, Obama supporters have placed the blame squarely on Republicans. This is lame because Obama didn’t promise to change the political culture in Washington if the Republicans would let him.
· Second, many in the news media have simply dismissed the promise as impossible to fulfill in our time of polarized politics and hence not something to fret much about. This is a cop-out because it might have some resonance had Obama made a serious and sustained effort to operate in a new political style, searching for a new political paradigm to replace the tired old nostrums contributing to governmental gridlock, but he didn’t.
· Third, Republicans blame Obama for not reaching out to them at the start of his presidency, when he was pushing for a stimulus package to combat the recession that then had the nation in its grip. Republicans were prepared to work with Obama on that legislation but were stiffed in favor of a partisan approach in which Democrats took exclusive control of the process.
If Obama truly had been serious about improving the political culture of Washington, he certainly had to find a way to work with Republicans, and the stimulus was a good place to start. Gridlock and political rancor occur when the parties cling to old ideas that no longer work, when events have moved beyond old political paradigms but politicians can’t bring themselves to shed them. Instead of crafting new paradigms for a new era and seeking to sell it them the American people, he doubled down on the tired old Democrat notions of income redistribution, class conflict and governmental aggrandizement. His greatest accomplishment in this realm was the Affordable Care Act, and this injected more rancor and political poison into the body politic than any other legislation of the past generation. Obama was blessed with a grand opportunity to break up the deadlocks and lance the boils of rancor and nastiness, given his winning political style, his significance as the country’s first black president, the goodwill he enjoyed at that time, and the nation’s hunger for new solutions to new threats and challenges. Obama failed to redeem a promise he made, with apparent solemnity, to the American people when asking for their votes.
(“Barack Obama’s Biggest Failure” by Robert W. Berry dated February 24, 2014 published by The National Interest at http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/barack-obamas-biggest-failure-9921 )
Most likely future historians will be amazed by the size and the endurance of the wall surrounding the truth about the disastrous results of the Obama’s errant strategy and diplomacy in the Middle East. The first brick in the foundation of this wall was laid personally by the President of the United States, who from the very beginning of his mandate explicitly forbade the use of the term "radical Islam". It could be assumed, that Obama entered the White House well familiar with Islam and its extreme variety, and consequently able to deal with the Islamic challenge. At a practical level, however, the reality turned out to be very different. Obama's view seems to be that Islam is just a religion, devoid of any political dimensions except for its use by a relatively insignificant group of "extremists." The White House and the State Department failed to recognize the danger represented by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. As a result, in July of 2011, the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not only recognized the legitimacy of the largest Islamist organization in Egypt, but also made public the decision of the U.S. Government "to work with the Muslim Brotherhood." The victory of the Islamists during the presidential elections was predetermined by the passivity of the White House and the mistaken actions of Clinton's Department of State. President Obama and Secretary Clinton both assured the Muslim Brotherhood of unconditional American financial and military assistance after the electoral victory of the Islamists. This incorrect interpretation of the essence, the purpose, and the strategy of radical Islam by President Obama made inevitable the conduct of a mistaken policy dutifully executed by Department of State under Hillary Clinton, and currently under John Kerry. The administration took the same approach in Egypt when it lavished Morsi's regime with a billion dollars' worth of financial assistance and military supplies and turned a cold shoulder on the Egyptian military who extracted their country from the merciless grip of the Islamists. The world still remembers the blood of the young protesters shed on the streets of Teheran in the aftermath of the rigged elections that brought about the second mandate of President Ahmadinejad in Iran. The majority of the world's statesmen expressed their condemnation of the Iranian regime and their support of its victims. Regretfully, the White House and the Department of State under Clinton remained silent.
(“What is Behind the American Fiasco in the Middle East?” by Georgy Gounev dated February 24, 2014 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/what_it_behind_the_american_fiasco_in_the_middle_east.html )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections: