Views on the News
May 28, 2011
Views on the News*
For years, the leftist propagandists have pushed the false notion that those elected to government are our leaders, instead of the public servants the Constitution intended them to be. The fundamental premise that our republic was built on is that government derives its authority, and only exists, through consent of the governed. Those who physically make up the government, individuals elected, appointed, or hired, are there not to tell us, the citizens, what we must do, but the exact opposite. They are not there to lead us, but to follow our wishes as to what we believe are our best interests, and to act accordingly. In a republic, we are supposed to elect people whom we trust to be intelligent enough to listen to us, their constituents, and then use their judgment as to how best to accomplish our goals. They are never intended to lead us, but only to act as our representatives. That government officials are our leaders is a leftist, statist, totalitarian concept that assumes all rights are granted by the state. This denies our founding principle that certain rights, codified in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, are granted by God, and cannot be taken from us by government. Thus, those whom we have given permission to act in our behalf have absolutely no authority to limit our rights, or to create new ones, or really, a whole lot else, without our clear and unequivocal consent. He is not there to dictate how we must behave, nor what products and services we must, or must not, purchase, e.g., healthcare, “green” cars, fatty foods. They are our servants, not our leaders. Leaders, in terms of government, are figures whose orders also must be obeyed. The President is the chief executive officer of the corporate entity that is the federal government and his job is to manage the government so that it acts within the bounds set by the Constitution and in our best interests.
(“Leaders and Liars” by Michael Obemdorf dated may 23, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36782 )
Barack Obama stood for a repudiation of race and ethnicity as qualifying factors for political success in American society, yet this promise of racial unity could not have been farther from the truth. Obama presented himself as the unifying, transcendent consensus leader of all Americans, while simultaneously holding himself out as the standard-bearer and kinsman of America's historically disempowered minorities carrying the promise of "redistributive justice." The white middle-American voters who put their faith and trust in Obama in 2008, and without whose support Obama could not have won, lost that faith almost immediately after Obama took office. White Americans did not suddenly wake up to the realization that they had voted for a black man; rather, they were confronted with the unavoidable fact that Obama was not the "post-racial" President of all Americans that he promised to be. Instead, it turned out, Obama was committed to reinventing America in order to address perceived past injustices at white Americans' expense. Believers in identity politics, however, always knew what they were getting: a man dedicated to the inversion of America's social order. This is one of the great tragedies of Obama's caustic and divisive political strategy; at the precise moment when we as a society were poised to move beyond race as a relevant social and economic issue, race was forcefully injected back into the national consciousness. Rather than healing old wounds and developing a cohesive sense of national identity independent of race or ancestry, Obama instead has rubbed salt in those wounds. The success of non-white political candidates in both broad-based and predominantly white electorates in states below the Mason-Dixon Line contributes to a growing body of evidence that the embrace of core conservative values is a viable, powerful, and uniquely American alternative to race-based politics. But history will judge Obama harshly. Rather than leaving the United States stronger, more unified, and more resolute in its commitment to the founding principles of liberty and self-determination, Obama will leave behind the bitter fruits of class warfare, racial identity politics, and a redistributive economic policy that will fundamentally alter the American social compact. Rather than leading America to a bright, glorious, and transcendent future, Obama will leave us with a legacy of anger, increased mistrust, and the dream of American cultural unity even farther from realization.
(“The Dead End Street of Identity Politics” by Dean Malik dated May 23, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_deadend_street_of_identity.html )
House GOP leaders unveiled their “Plan for America’s Job Creators” to kick-start the growth portion of the party’s “Cut and Grow,” agenda outlined last November. Having spent the last several weeks defending themselves from Democratic attacks on their proposal to reform Medicare, Republicans are going on the offensive in an effort to hit the other side where it hurts: jobs and the economy. The one side of the painting is about spending reductions and managing down the debt through expenditure reduction. The other is about growth.” The plan includes a package of proposals calling for lower taxes, fewer government regulations, increased domestic energy production, and the ratification of pending free-trade agreements. Many of the ideas are taken directly from the GOP’s “Pledge to America” and reflect the ongoing efforts of the various House committees. Republicans say their plan stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s “top-down” approach to the economy. The GOP proposes to encourage free enterprise by lowering the corporate- and individual-tax rate from 35% to 25%, eliminating many federal regulations on businesses, requiring congressional approval of any new regulations with a “significant” impact on the economy, streamlining the nation’s patent system, providing tax incentives for domestic energy production, and “fundamentally” reforming the tax code to increase the country’s competitiveness in the global economy. The plan also calls for the immediate ratification of stalled free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, which Republicans say would create up to 250,000 new jobs. Even if their proposals fail to make it past the Senate, Republicans are hoping to “further define the choice” for voters in 2012, because essentially, the choice is going to be more taxes and more government, versus more growth and more jobs.
(“The Case for Growth” by Andrew Stiles dated May 26, 2011 published by National Review Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268241/case-growth-andrew-stiles )
Ever since the United States government got involved in energy policy, Democrats and liberal Republicans, acting at the behest of groups hiding behind environmental cover to push policies giving government more power, are directly responsible for our current situation of lower supplies and higher prices. It is no coincidence that U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, the year after President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act and the Environmental Protection Agency was established, just the beginning of a decade of laws that have made the United States the hardest place in the world to produce energy. When the federal government started taking over roles traditionally held by the states and expanding its reach into every corner of every economic activity in the country, those who love more government had the perfect proxy for justifying more power over the economy and over the way Americans live their lives. The entire Washington-based debate over energy is not really about energy - it’s about power - the coin of the realm in D.C. The fact that the 20th century was the American Century in large part due to our energy consumption, certain groups that are uncomfortable with U.S. economic, military and political power set out to cut off the fuel to our nation’s economic engine. Those in politics who love more power and suffer from the fatal conceit that they alone should be able to dictate the future of the nation found in the green groups the perfect justification for their obsession. By shutting off almost all of the government-owned lands and making it harder, more expensive and more time-consuming to produce energy, they have forced the U.S. to import well over half of the oil it consumes. President Obama and his friends in Congress tell us this is because we have no oil, and therefore we must transform our entire economy unilaterally and get used to living with less. They are lying about the economics of the alternative energy forms. They are lying when they complain that energy prices are too high because, in truth, they like higher energy prices. They are lying when they say that the U.S. does not have sufficient energy resources. Meanwhile the Congressional Research Service said that the U.S. has the largest energy resources of any nation on Earth. Four decades of terrible policy have made the United States weaker and the government richer and stronger. As a result, we now transfer $400 billion or so every year to foreign governments to create jobs in foreign lands so they can supply us with energy that we could supply ourselves. Meanwhile the Alaskan pipeline now runs at less than one-third capacity, which means we import more than $50 billion a year of un-American oil to replace the American oil which used to fuel the West Coast. For 40 years, Congress has passed laws pretending to protect the environment or animals or lands in exchange for the support of left-wing green groups that have gladly championed more power for the government because they understood that if the government got involved in energy, there would be less energy, it would be more expensive and more un-American, and the growth and power of the United States would be diminished. The green groups don’t expect the government to have much impact on the environment, but they know that the government is the best means of screwing up America’s energy policy and our capacity to do more work. They have accomplished many of their goals. Despite the fact that the U.S. has the largest energy supplies in the world and energy consumption is absolutely necessary for economic growth, our government tells us we have none, and that the answer to our energy problems is to use less and to live with less while they live with more - more power, more money and more say over the lives of those in the future in the greatest country on Earth.
(“U.S. Energy Crisis a Liberal Power Grab” by Daniel Kish dated may 23, 2011 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43659 )
If there is such a thing as an Obama Doctrine, it might be this: React slowly to a foreign crisis and, in a conflict, pick a side hostile to U.S. interests. Here are the Top 10 Obama foreign policy flubs:
1. Libya: NATO’s Obama-backed Libyan excursion is entering its third month with no end in sight, as Muammar Gaddafi and the ill-trained and ill-equipped rebel forces battle to a stalemate. What an ill-conceived effort, with no real leadership and no clear goals.
2. Iran: In 2009, when Tehran protesters looked to Washington for help, Obama offered little support as he believed his magical words could sway Iran’s Islamist leaders. His naive stance snubbed the masses of people hoping for democratic reform while ensuring that President Ahmadinejad continues his march to becoming a nuclear power.
3. Egypt: First, Vice President Biden says longtime U.S. ally President Mubarak is not a dictator, then the administration calls for him to step aside. By withdrawing support for Mubarak, Obama gave an opening for the Muslim Brotherhood to rise to power.
4. The Dollar: Fed Chairman Bernanke’s policy of qualitative easing is eroding the dollar while encouraging inflation. Along with the Obama deficits, America’s creditworthiness is in question.
5. Israel: Obama's speech seeking a return to Israel's 1967 borders undercut America's only reliable ally in the region. His attempt to broker any kind of accord between Israel and the Palestinians is in disarray.
6. Global organizations: By ceding power to the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Obama is undermining U.S. sovereignty.
7. Brazil oil: It was bad enough when Obama pulled the plug on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but after oil companies sent their drilling rigs to Brazil, Obama said, "We want to be one of your best customers," and announced plans to lend billions to the state-owned oil company to drill off the coast of Brazil.
8. Pakistan: This supposed U.S. ally has consistently undermined U.S. anti-terror efforts, as its intelligence service seemingly is supportive of anti-American jihadists. Pakistan either allowed safe harbor for Osama bin Laden or was totally incompetent despite billions of dollars of U.S. aid.
9. Russia: Obama’s clumsy attempt to push the reset button with Russia had the U.S. making concessions on missile defense and nuclear arms without gaining anything in return.
10. Apologizing: Obama’s apology tour shortly after taking office sent the message that he didn’t really think all that highly about America.
Obama has done just about everything possible wrong that he could, but his latest speech may have finally opened people’s eyes to his disconnect with reality.
(“Top 10 Obama Foreign Policy Flubs” dated May 21, 2011 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43631 )
There's a howling disconnect between the President's Pollyannaish narrative of an 'Arab Spring' and the reality on the ground in beneficiary countries such as Egypt, where religious intolerance and human-rights abuses are on the rise. Obama wants to reward "democratic Egypt" with $1 billion in debt relief, but "democratic" Egypt is torching churches and slaughtering Christians left and right. In his speech calling for a Mideast Marshall Plan, he failed to mention increasingly violent attacks against Coptic Christians throughout post-Mubarak Egypt. An estimated 3,000 Muslims have joined in these attacks. They've done this while Egyptian troops and police did little or nothing to stop the violence. A Pew Research poll found a whopping 89% say laws under a post-Mubarak government "should follow the values and principles of Islam." Nearly two-thirds want laws to enforce Shariah, the barbaric legal code practiced in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban. In a separate survey last spring, Pew found that a startling 84% of Egyptians favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith. Clearly, Muslim hatred for Christians (as well as Jews) has not thawed with the "Arab Spring." In fact, a pogrom against Copts may have begun in the absence of Mubarak's protections. Human-rights groups say the persecution of this religious minority has become systemic, yet Obama remains deafeningly silent about it. Despite the facts on the ground, and post-Mubarak polls showing otherwise, he believes Muslims want a secularized and pluralistic society. So now he's planning to reward Egypt with an economic package of direct aid, debt relief and export credits on top of the billions of dollars in aid we already give the nation, to help stabilize a flowering democracy there. Until Egypt stops attacks on its Christian citizens, the U.S. must not give them one more dime in U.S. aid.
(“’Arab Spring,’ Christian Winter” dated May 20, 2011 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/572936/201105201846/Arab-Spring-Christian-Winter.htm )
President Barack Obama’s speech on Middle East policy did more damage to U.S.-Israel relations than anything said by any previous President during the almost forty-year alliance between the two countries. Yet, ironically, the speech wasn’t intended to be on Israel at all; Obama apparently thought he was being friendly toward Israel; and the point that created the biggest controversy was something that the President didn’t even say. The crisis, then, was caused by three factors: The ignorance of the Obama Administration over the issues involved; Obama’s chronic lack of friendliness toward Israel; and his refusal to recognize the threat from revolutionary Islamism. His speech mainly focused on a totally uncritical evaluation of the current upheavals in the Arab world. Obama is asking Israel to make risky concessions at the very moment when its security situation is potentially at its worst in the last thirty years. The fact that the President blithely sees no danger whatsoever from the Egyptian situation or the current upheavals in the region, a point that was the main theme of his speech, reduces his credibility with Israel to zero. A second factor that makes Obama’s timing dangerously thoughtless is that he is rewarding the Palestinian Authority (PA) after it made a cooperation deal with the revolutionary Islamist group Hamas. Hamas is an openly anti-semitic organization that makes no secret of its refusal to recognize Israel, its pride in committing terrorism, and its intention to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews. Obama accepts the entry of Hamas into the PA government, just as he accepts that of Hezballah into Lebanon’s government, and the Muslim Brotherhood into Egypt’s government. This fiasco, which destroys even the chance for any Israel-PA talks in 2011 and perhaps for far longer, is partly the result of American passivity. Obama also proposed a plan that totally tramples on Israel’s interests. Obama’s idea was that Israel would withdraw from the remainder of the West Bank and turn it over to the PA in exchange for unspecified security guarantees. Palestine could become a state and the issues of Jerusalem and refugees would be postponed. The effect of such an outcome would be to throw away all of Israel’s leverage on the remaining issues; free the Palestinians to do what they wanted; and exchange real strategic assets (land) for promises written on paper (security guarantees). If Obama refuses to acknowledge, much less reward, Israeli cooperation and concessions in the past, Israelis and Israeli leaders know that he won’t do so in future. If Obama refuses to maintain past U.S. pledges to Israel, then Israelis have no faith in any promises including security guarantees he offers in the future. Israel is not going to allow a President with no credibility, who clearly doesn’t understand what’s at stake, fails to support his Arab allies, is soft on his Iranian and Syrian enemies, is sacrificing U.S. interests in the region, and pays no attention to what’s happening in Egypt, to determine its future.
(“Hear No Middle East, See No Middle East” by Barry Rubin dated May 21, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/21/hear-no-middle-east-see-no-middle-east/ )
An informed and involved electorate can pick the right Republican candidate, rather than waiting for a winner to be crowned by the Party leadership. We have as divisive a political environment as has ever existed, short of another War Between the States. The majority of the media have taken sides, so they cannot be counted upon to act as a moderating force, or to keep the conflict on a level playing field. The most difficult aspect of this situation is that the best and most qualified candidates are often the most difficult to draft. They have their own lives and careers, which they are not generally willing to give up. It may be a matter of personal choice, or they may be unwilling to put up with the abuse that will be heaped upon them by hostile entities bent on keeping them from office. Recall the faked memo that Mike Wallace attempted to use against George Bush. The Media failure to properly investigate Barack Obama and the outright ignoring of his glaring character and ability defects will be nothing compared to what the 2012 Republican candidate will likely have to undergo. We can expect everything from faked stories to more forged documents if the opportunities present themselves. It is fairly obvious that the current crop of Republican candidates consists of Washington insiders and outsiders; traditional mainstream Republicans who are mostly career politicians, and on the other side Tea Party activists whose position I frequently refer to as "populist conservative." They see, as President Reagan did, that government is the problem, and not the solution. They don't want to spread the wealth around; they want to spread the opportunity around. They oppose democratic socialism because it opposes the opportunity society. What the 2010 elections showed us was an opportunity approach to politics as well as to economics. This is where the "outsiders" fit in. They would create the possible elimination of the old guard power structure and replacing it with a citizen government that is more in line with what the founders had in mind. It may be too late to draft someone for 2012, but that doesn't mean that the Tea Party / Republican coalition cannot field a winning candidate for the November 2012 election who will focus on core values and refuse to support the old guard retreads.
(“Waiting for Ronald Reagan II” by Steven D. Laib dated May 22, 2011 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2011/05/21/waiting-for-ronald-reagan-ii/ )
* 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:
· Bibliography at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/welcome/bibliography.php
· Philosophy at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/philosophy.php
· Health Care at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/healthcare.php
· Homeland Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/homelandsecurity.php
· Social Security at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/socialsecurity.php
· Terrorism at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/fp/terrorism.php