Views on the News
August 27, 2011
Views on the News*
Obama is not incompetent or a failure - he is an intelligent anti-American President whose job is the failure of our country. Every American must judge Obama and his ideas and understand he does mean what he says, and realize there is no excuse, save one: Barack Obama is an anti-American in thought and deed. Barack Obama is a product of his upbringing: he gets dreams from his socialist father; his mother was a fellow traveler; he lived in anti-American Indonesia as a child; later, granddad decided Obama needed a Communist mentor; he got into Harvard on the recommendation of anti-Semitic Khalid al Mansour, an adviser to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal; and in college he chose his friends carefully -- "the more politically active black students, foreign students, Chicanos, Marxist professors and structural feminists." He then built on his early learning: as a professor he taught Marxist Saul Alinsky tactics, and as a constitutional teacher he believed that there are fundamental flaws in the Constitution, such as restraint on governmental power; as a community organizer and counsel he pushed sub-prime mortgages which helped buckle our economy. He surrounded himself with like-minded people: he worked with voter-fraudsters ACORN and quasi-commie SEIU; he had house parties and sat on boards with an unrepentant, revolutionary communist, who probably ghostwrote one of Obama's autobiographies; and he attended the social-justice church of Jeremiah Wright, where he was preached at on collective salvation and black liberation. He then gravitated towards “fellow travelers” in politics: he was picked as chief of staff to Illinois state senator and communism-lover Alice Palmer; as a U.S. senator, he had the most leftist voting record; he was endorsed by the Communist Party in 2004, and in 2008 Obama got CPUSA's endorsement again, basically running on the CPUSA platform, and this was before the campaign for President. How many Marxist groups will he share agendas with before it's apparent? How many times will he say he wants to change, remake, or fundamentally transform America before we believe he wants to? Almost everything Obama says and does is a scripted, controlled, and choreographed event. The man causes relentless instability, yet it is all planned. We know where his ideas come from: the George Soros-funded, Hillary Clinton-founded Center for American Progress and Joel Rogers' Apollo Alliance with help from its ex-Weather Underground co-founder, among others. SEIU president and Marxist Andy Stern and the AFL-CIO's Dick Trumka are/were two of the most frequent White House guests. His TEA Party mockery, the takeover of industries, the contortions of ObamaCare, the slow response to BP's oil spill, the tens of thousands of new regulations, the aggressive deficit spending, the Fed's printing sprees, bowing to and borrowing from anti-Americans -- all are part of the blueprint. Obama has never stood for individualism, capitalism, or liberty. On the contrary, everything he does has the reek of statism, collectivism, and tyranny, but not because he is an incompetent bumbler, it's because Obama is a statist and a collectivist and the citizens of our country naïvely gave the reins of power to a tyrant.
(“The Anti-American President” by Boyd Richard Boyd dated August 19, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/the_anti-american_president.html )
A basic problem for liberals is their rejection of and discomfort with reality and that attitude, unfortunately, creates a number of problems for them as well as for the rest of us. They do not like the fact that self-interest is the prime motivator in human decision making. This is at the root of why they speak so disdainfully of profits. For liberals "profits" is a four letter word. Rather than recognizing that being motivated by self-interest is a necessary survival tool, liberals conflate self-interest with greed and then blame greed for many of society's ills. There are a number of features of a market economy liberals do not like, and they do everything they can to suppress or eliminate them. In their minds a market economy leads to an unacceptable level of inequality. Because it results in an unequal distribution of wealth, liberals are willing to essentially scuttle the entire market economy. A critical component of the market is competition. Competition results in winners and losers, but liberals don't want anyone to lose. Of course, competition isn't unique to the market; it occurs almost everywhere and bestows profound benefits. Competition is quite literally a fact of life and as Darwin made clear, it's a key component in the process of evolution. Because intentions govern their policies, liberals show no interest in looking at evidence. Evidence is about reality; intentions are about fantasizing and self-indulgence. Another clear example of the liberal rejection of reality is their absolute dislike of budgets. Living within a budget is a form of living in reality. Humanity is another part of reality that liberals aren't particularly happy about. They're convinced that humans should be far less plentiful, and in terms of global population, the smaller the better. Many of them feel that in most instances an abortion is preferable to a live birth. Environmentalists consider humans to be much more a curse than a blessing. The problem with the liberal dislike of reality is how it's affecting the rest of us. From a practical standpoint, this means behaving as if consequences don't exist or don't matter. This country will have to deal with the damage done by Democrat naïve good intentions for many years to come, and repairing what is broken will take generations.
(“The Liberals’ Reality Problem” by Ron Ross dated August 23, 2011 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/the-liberals-reality-problem )
Politics is a form of parasitism: an organism that spends a significant portion of its life in or on the living tissue of a host organism and which causes harm to the host without immediately killing it. The definition of a parasite sounds like a perfect description of what government has become. The political class, its cronies and its dependents are parasites. The host is the productive sector of the economy. One lives at the expense of the other. One is "taking," the other "making." The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. In the US, as in Europe, parasites have increasingly drained vitality from the productive class. This process began virtually from inception of the country. Initially the efforts and effects were imperceptible. Over time the boldness and number of parasites increased. Today, under the guise of social welfare and military adventurism, the productive host's survival is in jeopardy. Economic death is looming unless current trends are reversed soon and dramatically. Rejuvenation of the host is possible, but it will not happen. The reasons are not economic but political. Even if control of Congress and the Presidency shifts to the Republicans, it will not matter. Both political parties are composed of career parasites. Only their genus differs, and that is more marketing rather than substantive differences. Politicians, unlike actual parasites, generally understand the ramifications of decisions. Self-interest in government is especially troublesome because constraints imposed by markets are absent in government. If self-interest conflicts with public service and laws are ineffective, self-interest is served. Nothing is more valued to the political mind than attaining and retaining office. Political parasites rationally choose to continue the economic plunder and exploitation knowing that it ensured long-term death of the host. The decision to destroy the host may not seem rational to the rest of us, but it is clearly in the best interest of the current parasites. Death for them at some future uncertain date is a better than death at the next election. These professional politicians chose what was in their best interest but not the country's. These professional politicians have chosen a form of Kevorkian economics, managed suicide for the host economy, but unlike Kevorkian, they intend to keep the government host alive as long as possible enabling them to maximize their time in the trough.
(“Political Parisitology” by Mony Pelerin dated August 19, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/political_parisitology.html )
Election of our nation's first black President is delivering an unexpected message to our black population - what a man or woman does, their actions, is what matters, not the color of their skin. It seems ridiculous to point out that this was supposedly the point of the civil rights movement to purge racism from America, but blacks themselves have been the ones having the hardest time letting it go. Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States because it was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America. But for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics for not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Black Americans assumed that more black political power, defined by more blacks holding office, would mean that blacks would be better off. In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability. Now blacks have a dilemma because we have a black President and blacks are worse off, and not just a little, but a lot worse off. Blacks now grapple with two possible conclusions:
· One, our black President is a traitor to his race. Our struggles put him in power and now he's not taking care of his folks.
· Or, two, that the man's performance reflects his views and his capability, not his race. He's not delivering for anyone and blacks are hurting more because they were already in worse shape when Obama got elected.
It happens that the bad policies that have always failed are the big government liberalism that has defined modern black politics. Maybe now blacks will take seriously Dr. King's dream that we judge men by their character and not their color and they should blame Barack Obama, not because he is black, but because he is a liberal and when government grows big enough the oxygen necessary for freedom and prosperity is being squeezed out of our nation.
(“Black’s Dilemma with Obama” by Star Parket dated August 22, 2011 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/08/22/blacks_dilemma_with_obama )
If the notion that we are merely living through the aftereffects of a mere “recession” that ended in 2009 sounds somewhat ridiculous, that’s because it is because if we were being honest with ourselves, we would call this a “depression” which would certainly better convey both the severity of our problems, and the fact that those problems have no evident solutions. The American economy currently has both a short-term problem and a long-term problem. The short-term problem is that the economy is depressed; it is growing more slowly than the population, with the result that per capita income is declining. The high rate of un- and underemployment is a factor, but is itself the product of other factors, having mainly to do with the reluctance of over-indebted consumers (over-indebted in major part because of loss of equity in their houses, the major source of household wealth) to spend, the reluctance of the impaired banking industry to make risky loans, and the reluctance of businesses to invest and to hire, which is due in part to weak consumer spending and in part to profound uncertainty about the nation’s economic future. The roots of this catastrophic situation began in the incompetent economic management of the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve. The persistence of the depression, however, is due to surprising failures of the Obama administration such as poor leadership, poor management, the sponsorship of incomprehensibly complex health care and financial regulation laws that have created widespread uncertainty that has discouraged consumption and investment, and the inability to explain the nature of the economy’s problems to the general public. These failures caused the stimulus enacted in February 2009 to be botched both in its design and its administration, resulting in the discrediting of deficit spending as a response to depression. The long term problem is not the federal budget deficit per se, huge as it is. The public debt of the United States, which is what the federal government owes to persons who have lent money to the government (mainly purchasers of Treasury securities), and thus excludes debt incurred to finance entitlements and discretionary spending, is currently $9.7 trillion, with 46% of it owned by foreign governments and other foreigners, but we can roll it over more or less effortlessly and at very low interest rates, at least at present and in the immediate future. The problem is not the level of the debt but its growth. In the seven years between 2000 and 2007 (the last year before the financial crisis that triggered the current depression), the public debt grew in real terms by 56%, the consequence of reckless spending and tax cuts by the Bush administration. Between 2007 and 2012, a shorter period, the nation’s public debt will have grown by another 134%. The ANNUAL increase from 2009 to 2010 and the annual increase from 2010 to 2011 are both 17%, and the estimated increase for 2012 is another 18%! These annual rates of growth vastly exceed the rate of the nation’s economic growth even in prosperous times, and if they continue will bankrupt the federal government. Unfortunately, even when the economy recovers, and tax revenues increase, the federal deficit will continue to rise because of the rapid growth of entitlement expenditures, primarily Medicare and Social Security and, because of the health-reform law, Medicaid. Efforts to curb increased entitlement spending will be painful and fought by many special interests, but critical if this country is to survive.
(“Let’s Be Honest: We’re in a Depression, Not a Recession, and There’s No End in Sight” by Richard A. Posner dated August 23, 2011 published by The New Republic at )
Events are spinning out of control with the result being fast developing market chaos on account of President Obama's economic policies, since the economy never really recovered from the last recession. Now it may go back into full scale recession before any recovery occurs. We may soon be living through a reenactment of the 1930s, not the 1970s. If we do not change course, there will be a double dip recession by 2013, directly caused by the economic policies Obama already has in place under current law. Rapidly increasing producer price inflation is now spilling over into the consumer price index with the CPI soaring in July at an 8% annual rate, up close to 4% over the past year. The sad truth is that continuing to pump up the money supply could push inflation into double digits, and stopping it then will be even worse, throwing the economy into a bigger recession, just like in the 1970s. The Fed is committed to pumping up the money supply right through the election, to prevent any downturn from darkening Obama's magical Dupe America reelection tour. That is why the Fed is so committed to keeping interest rates near zero until 2013. Inflation may well climb into double digits next year. That inflation will force the Fed to turn off the spigot right after the election, with the contractionary effect coming in 2013, just when all the tax rate increases from ObamaCare and the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will become effective. There will be a whopping recession then unless the voters remove Obama from office next year and quickly replace Obamanomics with Reaganomics, which solved a very similar problem in the early 1980s. Another contributor to national events spinning out of control is President Obama's abusive, deceptive rhetoric. According to Obama, the credit rating downgrade could have been entirely avoided if there had been a willingness to compromise in Congress. It didn't happen because we don't have the capacity to pay our bills -- it happened because Washington doesn't have the capacity to come together and get things done. Obama is saying that the downgrade resulted because the Tea Party had the temerity to debate and question his policies and not Obama's record smashing national debt and first-time-ever trillion dollar plus deficits every year in office that caused the debt downgrade. The debt limit debate demonstrated precisely that Congress has the ability to compromise and come together and get things done because once the left-wing extremist Obama got out of the way, the Republican House and the Democrat Senate quickly came to agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Obama wants to forget that the GOP House acted to resolve the debt crisis twice previously, first by passing the Ryan budget, and then by passing Cut, Cap and Balance resolution. If the Democrat Senate had acted on either of those, and Obama had supported either one, there would have been no credit rating downgrade, and the long term deficit and debt problem would have been solved. Now Obama's poor leadership is having violent and dangerous consequences - Race riots. That is the only accurate way to characterize the actions of mostly minority flash mobs suddenly appearing from Chicago to Philadelphia to the D.C. suburbs to loot white-owned retail stores and even violently attack white citizens. These race riots are more modest versions of the violence and mayhem we have seen in London recently. If the flash mob riots don't stop, sooner or later a legally armed citizen is going to shoot someone in self-defense. Then the issue will explode in the national media. Apparently if you disagree with Obama, then you're just bickering, but the GOP House has undeniably done what the people sent them to do: shut down Obama's agenda, and the people are going to take care of the gridlock next year too, by voting the Marxist infiltrator out of office.
(“The Downward Spiral” by Peter Ferrara dated August 24, 2011 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/24/the-downward-spiral )
* 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:
· Education at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/education.php