HEARTLAND MURMURS
Heartland Murmurs
God & Country, Right & Left; pt 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- First Amendment United State Constitution
Granted, I’m no constitutional scholar, but the brilliance of that document is the plain language that facilitates an easier understanding of the citizenry it guides. As a writer I also have deep appreciation for the 6001 words (original text and declaration) that, inarguably, has had the most consequential impact on humanity than any in history. Sorry Bible lovers, that’s just how I see it. Brevity wins.
It confounds many as to how, of all issues addressed in the writing of that masterpiece, religion was given top billing, the very first item in the very first amendment. I have often wondered about that myself.
I have also noticed that questions of religion in politics always get moved to the front burner in election years. This exposes an enigmatic quality about religion in America; while it was a prime motivator in establishing our independence it is also a time-tested weapon in the arsenal of division, a key tactic in manipulating electoral advantage.
The tired old lefty canard that extremist right-wingers want to replace the constitution with the New Testament will be resurrected and replayed ad-nauseam in various versions.
Of all the left’s conservo-phobias I have always found that one the most comical. The idea that a strict constitutionalist would prioritize replacing the constitution is patently absurd because a true conservative’s most fervent desire is to restore, not replace, the constitution.
I can’t speak for the religious but in my view better adherence to the limits of the constitution would provide sufficient overlap to satisfy most Christians. Leaving religion out of it, as the constitution demands, is inherently more consistent with the tenets of the fiscal conservative and libertarian factions.
It is not my intention to malign my social conservative friends but only to offer a more neutrally religious viewpoint. That said, let’s get another thing straight; there is no refuting we are a nation populated by a majority of Christians, but conflating that to say we are a Christian nation is also divisive. It’s not the same thing. There is one Christian Nation and it’s called the Vatican.
“Christian Nation” connotes a government-religion nexus that our constitution expressly forbids. Founders could not establish a Christian nation and at the same time cement into its foundation a clause that prevents doing exactly that.
Christianity, like all religions, implies an exclusivity of belief, if you do not believe you cannot belong. The constitution was made deliberately flexible to allow for any belief systems. Therefore it is neutral on the subject other than to prevent a state religion.
What the constitution doesn’t do explicitly enough is prevent the state from establishing itself as a religion, which we will discuss in part 2.
Parting question; how can mandating a religious organization to defy it’s doctrine NOT be construed as “prohibiting the free exercise” of that religion?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
-Thomas Jefferson
Murmur Endorsement; Santorum Safest Bet
Still Anybody But Obama...the prime directive...
Nothing about this Republican primary has swayed me from my first impressions, first my contention that anyone in the race would be a massive improvement over the incumbent, and second, a flat rejection of the media narrative that this is a particularly weak field. The only adjustments to those points might be a caveat making Ron Paul an exception on both counts, more on that later.
This really is a pretty straight forward winnowing process; the primaries force a choice from a pool of evils to be the lesser of two evils in the general election. That is to clarify, not to diminish the process. Bottom line is there will only be two choices in the end (all third party or otherwise wasted votes being a rubber stamp on the incumbent) and we already know one of them.
So then, the best we can possibly do is find the candidate with the least dangerous combination of imperfections, who can also survive that process with enough dignity to look better than the other lesser of two evils. Regardless of who prevails some of us will have to get the clothes pins from 2008 apply firmly, and vote accordingly. It will be as stark of choice this November as it was then, except now the stakes are higher. Never before in history has an election offered a starker contrast or clearer choice between freedom and tyranny. So let the winnowing commence.
Romney: In 2008 I supported Romney over McCain because he was the more conservative option. This time he is the least conservative of many options. His electability is trumped up by the mainstream media because they see him as the easiest to beat, or if he does win is the most like Obama.
He may also be their favorite because he is less inclined to call out the press on their water-carrying for Obama. If he unwilling or unable to challenge the liberal narrative during the campaign we have no reason to expect he would do so in office. I am not the only one who believes that sort of passiveness is what doomed the Bush Presidency as much as anything. If one truly intends to beat back socialists it cannot be done while abiding their propagandist handmaidens. I suspect a big part of Sara Palins appeal, and to some extent also that of Newt Gingrich, is their willingness to aggressively call the media to account.
My other problem with Romney is a fundamental departure of philosophy on the role of government. Regardless how far he walks back his stance on health care he still considers it his single most important achievement as Governor. I have to conclude that deep down inside he really does see health care as a right to be distributed via government rather than a consumer product more efficiently distributed through market forces, a particularly disappointing stance for someone who so readily touts his private sector experience.
Gingrich; One of the more conservative options, despite the mewling of Dick Morris and Ann Coulter, is Newt Gingrich whose intellect and bravado I have appreciated for many years. With that bravado, unfortunately, comes a pretty serious case of rhetorical promiscuity, many bits and pieces of which can and will be mined and contorted to irreparable harm. Of those the most troubling of all to me is his insistence, both as an historian and as a politician, that the greatest President of modern times is FDR.
Seriously? I would be open to the possibility that with enough time, in view of his considerable argument and debate skills, and depth of historical knowledge, he could probably make a convincing case on why he believes this, but he would never convince me. FDR, more so than Wilson, Johnson, or even Obama, is the antithesis of conservatism personified. To hold him out as the greatest American President is an insult to the office and the constitution. To do so while claiming to be the most conservative candidate is a stretch beyond my grasp, and brings to mind the old Orwell quote that only an intellectual could believe such a damn fool thing. Sorry Newt, as much as I’d relish the prospect of you wiping the debate floor with Teleprompter Breath, you’re out. On the other hand, the the highly respected Dr Sowell endorses him here ...
The recent negative ad onslaught in Iowa is a mere sampling of how the general election would look, and probably even benign compared the knives and hatchets Axelrod and company would wield. But its effectiveness is an accurate foreshadowing as well.
Ron Paul; Speaking of rhetorical promiscuity Ron Paul has come up with some that not only disqualifies him but costs him my respect. Aside from the blame America first stance he seems all too ready to assume on foreign policy issues the fact that he called Wikileaks traitor Manning a hero was way too over the top. Libertarians, more so than most, based on their severe constitutionalism believe in the rule of law, not men. Manning broke the law, one which, I might add, would get him in front of a firing squad in earlier times. In making this traitor out to be a hero Paul is suggesting the intentions behind his actions, the rule of a man, trump the rule of law. Whether it be for sincere reasons of philosophical empathy or a cheap applause line is irrelevant. I can’t trust anyone who preaches constitutional purity in one breath and throws it out the window in the next, all for political whimsy. The line between promiscuity and prostitution is only as thick as that between the rule of men and anarchy.
This is not a lone incident but a pattern. There was also a case where tax scofflaws in New Hampshire refused to pay to the point where they took up arms against the IRS. Again Paul hailed them as heros, putting his opinions on tax laws above the laws themself. I get the anti-tax position as much as anyone but that requires a change from within the system, not gunfire.
To his credit I am thankful that someone is finally bringing the whole topic of limited government back to the debate. That the first debate included not one but two libertarians is a remarkable advance for the cause. Now all it needs is a torch bearer who can be taken seriously by more than recreational drug advocates and 9/11 truthers. Goldstein on Paul
As for the rest the imperfections are probably not as pronounced but then again if they were contending stronger the scrutiny would have revealed more. While I like Perry I don’t think the country is ready for someone who followed George W Bush’s path to the White House. The damage to that brand hasn’t healed yet, and no, it isn’t fair, but that matters little if at all.
Michelle Bachman is an admirable conservative firebrand but was too quickly branded and demonized as Sara Palin light. The prospect of the novelty of the first woman president is not strong enough to compensate for her lack of executive experience. That could be the result of party misogyny but I doubt it. More likely it’s a lesson learned on the damage that can result from electing a President primarily for reasons of novelty. The bloom of that rose has faded but the thorn prick damage persists.
That leaves us with Rick Santorum, the defacto candidate with the least glaring imperfections. He will do well in Iowa, whose record in picking eventual nominees isn’t exactly stellar, three times since 1979. If he places or shows the scrutiny he has not been subject to will commence in force, followed quickly by media smears and Romney PAC attacks.
This process is grueling enough for an observer. I can’t imagine how tough it must be to endure in person. They all command a large degree of respect if only for subjecting themselves to the meat grinder.
Thoughts on Campaign 2012
It wasn’t that long ago I was genuinely concerned that Obama was doing such a horrible job he would destroy the chances of a black ever being elected President again. Then along came citizen Cain who emerged and provided the left with the opportunity to teach us that the only thing more repugnant, vile, and unacceptable than a pro-life woman is a black conservative.
Democrat strategists making the assertion that conservatives back Cain because they are racist moves this campaign from regular political theater to theatre of the absurd. Such convoluted and wild accusations are so far fetched and desperate one could reasonably conclude they must believe Obama is such a disaster he’s also ruining future chances, including 2012 down ticket campaigns, for all liberals. Now that’s what I call progress.
Thomas Sowell points out that if Obama’s 90% black vote from 2008 shrinks 15 points to a still very impressive 75%, and all other categories hold steady, he loses. That’s gotta be a sobering reality even to the most hopeless kool-aid drunkard. Far be it from me to quibble with the math of an Economics PhD.
I am beginning to believe the overriding consideration on the GOP side is evolving from who can beat Obama to how big do we want our landslide. Historians tell us that a second term election is a referendum on the incumbent. By that measure Obama should be booking lecture gigs by next Christmas. Now there is a change I can believe in!
Not six months ago no one, I mean no one, gave Newt Gingrich a shot, at all. He is now leading the pack, ahead of Mitt Romney, establishment GOP and Democrat favorite. Think about that. In spite of my exceedingly accurate predictions, even in my deepest cynicism I did not fathom that Obama would be so bad that Gingrich, the only Republican out there who exceeds Sara Palin’s unfavorable ratings, would represent an obvious improvement. This would be an interesting match-up, facilitating a center stage demonstration of the difference between sounding smart and being smart.
I have held from the get go, despite the mainstream medias mindless gibberish about a weak field, that any one of the GOP hopefuls would be a vast improvement. This, while acknowledging many better choices, Daniels, Christie. Ryan, and yes, Palin, decided not to run.
What has become more apparent is that the GOP doesn’t necessarily need a strong field because the Democrat field is empty, even, or especially, with Obama in it. You have to field a team to win. Judging by all the Democrats deciding not to appear with their defacto party leader when he visits their home districts it looks like no one even wants to admit being on his team. The self-preservation instincts of the lowly incumbus politicus can be so cold at times. OneDemocrat running for Congress is attacking his Republican rival by accusing him of supporting Obama.
This is not say it won’t be a vicious battle. Democrats, their billion-dollar war chest, a ready army of big labor foot soldiers, and the party steno pool known as the mainstream press are absolutely going all in for the win, every bit as wholeheartedly devoted to salvaging their investment in Obama this time as they were in the initial product offering. The institutional ego of the knee-pad media won’t allow for admitting the possibility they were wrong. Why waste time belaboring the obvious when there are conservatives to destroy?
Domestically we have record long-term unemployment, record home foreclosures, green energy and Wall Street cronyism, border gun-running scandal, first ever lower credit rating, and a seemingly incurable addiction to spending to accompany and exacerbate record deficits. It is also approaching 1000 days since the incumbent Democrat presented a budget. Aside from the astonishing display of constitutional duty shirking it also lays bare their indifference to actual solutions. It is bad enough to prioritize maintaining the status quo, but even worse when they make continuing deterioration the new status quo.
Overseas we are supposed to believe two dead terrorist leaders somehow comprises a serious anti-terrorism strategy, a growing nuclear threat in Iran, growing anti Americanism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and an Arab spring fast morphing into an Islamist winter making Israel more vulnerable than ever. Meanwhile we are so in hoc to the other world super power they show as much respect to our intellectual property and trade laws as they would any dead-beat.
Okay then, rephrase the preceding two paragraphs into referendum format with a closing question asking whether a majority would vote to either stay on this track or try something different.
Now you see why I remain hopeful. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, and all the agendized propagandistic snake oil spin in the world, cannot put a shine on the turd that is the Obama presidency. If they can, and a majority swallows it, the fundamental transformation Obama originally campaigned on will be realized, along with the death of American exceptionalism.
Yes, the stakes are that high, and no, this did not happen overnight. This is the obvious culmination of the trajectory we have been on since Eisenhower. This is "A Time For Choosing" 2.0
I almost said we get what we deserve if we let this happen, but we don’t. What we deserve is a President with a modicum of competence who takes the oath of office to heart. What we need is President who does not view the constitution as a hindrance to his agenda but rather one who gets that his agenda is the constitution.
It wasn’t so long ago something that basic was a good-faith assumption, no matter which side won. Another taste of change offered up by the tyransformational one.
Reconsidering Patriotism
"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon." - - Winston Churchill
A recent Facebook thread got me thinking a little deeper about the capitalism patriotism nexus. I'll start by stipulating that being pro capitalist does not necessarily make you a patriot, and also allow that one can be neutral on capitalism and still be patriotic. But being against capitalism while claiming to be an American patriot is tantamount to claiming one is a fan of sex, except for intercourse.
Anti capitalism suggests a couple of things; first, a rejection of the economic principles on which this country was built, and second, by inference, that there is a superior alternative. While I defy anyone to cite a single example, now or anywhere in history, let's just say there might be, but if so, it isn't American. Capitalism is as much a part of American DNA as freedom itself.
The whole reason we declared independence in the first place was to escape the system that gave the king claim to everyone's property. By extension any fruits borne of that property also belonged to the king as it was only through his benevolence that citizens were allowed to produce in the first place. Socialists seem not to notice, or are keeping it secret, that the wealth redistribution system to which they aspire is remarkably similar, except theirs is to be ruled by an enlightened panel of Ivy League technocrats instead of a king.
Capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, or free choices, between equal parties. Conversely, socialism is based on top-down distribution. Today's fight isn't all that different than that of the revolution; and for the statist it isn't about the distribution, it's about the control.
There is also widespread confusion on the difference between freedom and free. We've all heard the adage that freedom isn't free but the fact of the matter is free isn't free either. Because someone got it free doesn't render the costs of production non-existent.
Milton Friedman's admonishment that there is no such thing as a free lunch is more than a trite cliche from Econ 101, it's fundamental, unamendable, irrefutable, economic law. So, when someone demands "free" healthcare, or that their mortgage or student loans be "forgiven" it may sound like "I want this for free" but what it means is "I want someone else to pay for it".
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."
Winston Churchill
Apparently too many occupiers took that scene from the Wizard of OZ to heart when the great and mighty one awarded the Scarecrow a diploma conjured out of thin air.
I have, to the chagrin of some, suggested maybe the TEA Party and Wall Street Occupiers have something in common. They do, but it is limited only to the fact that are both separate vents of steam from the same populist boiling pot. In both cases the frustration is justified but in only one case is the behavior. Writer Andrew Klaven suggests...
" Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today." (see link below)
While I am not so certain you can equate occupiers goals with the appearance of their encampments I would absolutely believe that to be the case of the TEA Party movement, having witnessed one of those first hand. The Capitol grounds were cleaner after we left than they were when we got there.
TEA parties protest the wretched excesses of big government. Occupiers protest the wretched excesses of big business. They can both be right. But the real crux of the problem is the unholy marriage of the bigs, in a nutshell; crony capitalism, which, on closer inspection should be re-labelled crony socialism.
Both movements seem to be missing that big business and big government are so intermingled they have become one big fat sow coming ever closer to crushing us by the shear unmanageability of it's size and weight. The worst part is that it can go about its self-serving business of maintaining the status quo so long as each group of malcontents focuses on each other. Political distractions, with the aid of establishment press, have evolved from quaint nuisances to tactical survival ploys. Should we expect change when one half of this power duopoly controls all the wealth and the other half makes all the rules?
Farrowing crates were developed to prevent the unwitting sow from crushing its offspring. The government is supposed to be the farrowing crate dispensing limited resources only to the genuinely dependent. TEA partiers get this and want to restore it. Occupiers seem to be of the belief that the government is some sort of all powerful and limitless multi-million-titted sow. (BTW 98% of those suckers went through government schools. Just sayin...)
When you consider the similarity in structure to the two-party system the parentage of this deformed sow is no mystery. The mini me has grown into a maxi mess....and Napoleon lives.
An Autumnal Exhilaration of Symmetry
A facebook friend got me pondering fall. I recently came to the conclusion that, at least here in Wisconsin, the last month of each season is the best. Maybe it's the feeling that the worst is behind us because something mellower is already here and something very different is coming, very soon.
The last month of fall is bracketed by holidays. June at the end of spring is a relief from the coolness and a welcome opportunity for all sorts of outdoor adventures. March at the end of winter feels like your first pain free breath recovering from a hangover.
But the end of summer is particularly special for some reason. Somehow the feelings of sadness at the departure of the passing season and anticipation of the coming season are more acute when fall rolls around.
My friend exalts in the thrill of the seasons. I agree there is a certain heightened exhilaration induced by seasonal symmetry. This time of year we go from t-shirts and shorts to pants and hoodies, salads and garden veggies to root vegetables soups and stews, summer vacation to school year, and, of course the libational adjustment from the whites, vodka and gin, to the amber bourbons and scotch, color change of another sort. I wonder if football isn't some sort of contrived event designed to give us an outlet to celebrate and exalt in the thrill of the seasonal transition. If not, it certainly seems to have become so.
The extremes have relaxed, the cold of winter, dampness of spring, and heat of summer. So what's the extreme of fall, beauty maybe? That or there isn't one, and that too makes it special. Having attended a wedding recently I was reminded I have always considered fall more romantic than spring. Perhaps it's the allure of a form fitting sweater on the fairer sex, warm fires, blankets and all that. Both of my weddings were in the fall.
The canning is in process, freezers and pantries are being stocked and we savor the late harvest of zucchini, squash, and are blessed with a straggling tomato, unarguably the singular best thing August has to offer. Mentally we are not quite yet in hunkering down mode, because we don't have to be, but we know it's coming. For now though friends the seasonal extremes are in abeyance. Enjoy your fall.
Here is the recipe of wafting aromas I endured while writing this. I mean seriously, how can you possibly go wrong with any recipe that starts with bacon, includes beer, cheese, onions, and beef? Really?
Threshers Stew
(hat tip Savoring the Seasons of the Northern Heartland, Beth Dooley and Lucia Watson)
2 strips bacon
3 tablespoon butter
3 onions, peeled and sliced thin
pinch salt
2 pounds leans, boneless stew meat, or upgrade to sirloin tip if you please
vegetable oil for saute`ing
1 1/2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 (12 oz.) bottle strong dark beer
1/2 teaspoon salt
3 grinds fresh pepper (3? yeah right)
2 bay leaves
1 sprig thyme (I use 1/2 to 3/4 tsp dry)
2 sprigs parsley ( 1 to 2 tsp.dry)
1 quart dark stock (beef broth) Note: I never used even half of that when following this recipe to the letter. Any more than 2 cups makes it way too soupy in my book.
2 tablespoons good quality red wine vinegar
1 cup crumbled blue cheese for garnish
Fry bacon in heavy skillet to render the fat. Remove bacon, add butter, melt, add sliced onions with a pinch of salt and a sugar and caramelize (medium/low heat at least a half an hour, stir occasionally, you CANNOT hurry this step, relax, have one of the other beers. Like the name implies they have to be at least as dark as caramel before they are ready)
Meanwhile pull out your favorite stewing pot and saute beef chunks in the veggie oil until completely browned. Sprinkle with flour coat and stir. Add the beer and be sure to scrape up yummy bottom clingers. Add caramelized onions to the stew pot along with the herbs and salt. cover it all with dark stock, reduce heat and simmer about 1-1/2 hours stirring occasionally. prior to serving add the vinegar. Serve and bowls and top off with the blue cheese.
This, a good hearty bread, and green salad makes a great fall meal. Enjoy.
No Escape from Lefty Jerkitude
I'm just a guy trying to unload some construction waste. Following letter to my alderman and the DA has fallen on deaf ears. What's a guy gotta do to hear from his elected official, pour beer on him? (note: I do not have a Walker bumper sticker or any political messages on my vehicle)
Sincerely,To: Wille C. Wade, 7th District Alderman, Milwaukee
CC: District Attorney John Chisholm
On Sunday August 28th at approximately 1:30 p.m. I made a trip to the city self-help salvage yard on Industrial Ave on the north side.
An employee at the gate greeted me. As is the practice he verified my residency and checked the type of waste I intended to dicard, which in this case was approximately 11 feet of old picket fencing.
I was informed that disposal of construction waste now required a $15 fee. I showed disappointment.
With virtually no verbal complaint on my part the comment I got was “I know, it’s all Scott Walkers fault. He f***ed it all up. That’s why we gotta get rid of him”.
I proceeded to leave my lawn waste and while unloading heard at least 3 more comments about the importance of getting rid of Scott Walker, although peppered with equally colorful language.
It is my understanding that public employees are forbidden by law to engage in political activities in the work place. It was unmistakably clear to me this person was agitating for the recall of Governor Walker on work time, and on that basis a violation had occurred.
A resident should be able to partake of a city service without getting a face full political partisanship from a public servant.
This was so blatant and pointed I am left wondering if the union leadership has issued orders for rank and file to trash talk the Governor at every opportunity when dealing with the public. If it happened to me virtually unprovoked is it happening as a matter of routine among all city, county, and state workers? I kindly request the Alderman and District Attorney investigate to that end.
In the mean time please consider this letter a formal complaint as it pertains to statute prohibiting state employees from engaging in political activities in the workplace.
Frank Byrne
Milwaukee Resident
Ten Years After, Thoughts on 911
Ten years already. Many of us will be reliving that fateful Tuesday morning, 8:15 a.m. central time, where we were, what we were doing, what we were feeling. It was a gorgeous day, not unlike our recent weather. I was in the middle of my morning drop-off routine, hearing about the first plane in the middle of an interview about something else, probably Chandra Levy, remember her? After walking the kids into pre-school I returned to and started the car, and with it the radio, which resumed it's regular program. By the time I got back home the second plane had not yet met it's target.
When I got home I immediately turned on the TV to see what was going on, and saw the second plane collide. I was sitting on the floor, mouth agape, feeling like someone just kicked me in the chest.
As a rule I don't consider myself all that outwardly emotional, the most recent display of which was crying like a baby at my Mothers funeral more than ten years prior. I remembered that because the weeping that ensued when the second tower fell was so familiar.
I wept for grief on so many levels, the largest at the realization that in this day and age the civilization we had been lulled into believing was so advanced really, truly, wasn't. When a group of people, even if only the tiniest fraction of a major religion, was of the mindest that an act such as this was in any way justifiable all of mankind must have, in some way, failed.
I wept at the massive lost of innocent life at the hands some fanatic sect hell bent on destroying my country. I wept in knowing life as we knew it had changed, forever, not likely for the bettter. I wept knowing somehow, some way, war was inevitable and possibly for admitting I was all for it.
I remember talking with a friend on the phone, needing someone to calm me down as much she did. I remember doing an ammo inventory in my head, not knowing what the follow up to the air attack might be.
As the next few days dragged on the emotions ranged from despair to rage and everything in between. As a form of therapy I began to articulate my emotions in writing mostly as a way to sort them out. The following essay is the result of that sorting which I sent to my email list. The reaction was heartfelt and wide ranging. Most of my conservative friends were totally on board but the most encouraging responses came from some of my most liberal friends.
As I reread this September 2001 missive I find my resolve has not changed much but has actually stiffened. Even though we have not suffered a similar domestic assault on Amercican soil rogue elements have tried and succeeded elsewhere, and on a smaller scale in the case of Hassan's Fort Hood massacre. Reports of threatened anniversary attacks are todays news.
That tiny fraction presented itself as a malignancy requiring eradication. It took almost all of these ten years to remove the source tumor. As I stated then and since a massive dose of self policing within the religion that spwaned this scum would be most welcome.
All due apologies if there has been any, but if there has been they must have the worst public relations ever. One would think leadership of a major religion who has any regard for its standing in the world would make a great display of cleaning its house but, as a news junkie, I haven't seen much. Most noise from the so called religion of peace is of complaints of bigotry or that we infidels blame the actions of their tiny fanatical sect on the entire religion, apparently oblivious to the possibility that their lack of aggressive internal cleansing can justifiably be construed as complicity.
The mystery of how they could have let it fester to the point of mass murder in their God's name then is only surpassed by the mystery of why they are not the front line in the war on terror now. Subsequently I don't think it unreasonable to equate inaction with complicity.
from September 2001
Oh That It Could Be So Simple...
Recent poles show a groundswell of support for a military response to the recent atrocities in New York and Washington DC. Oh that it could be so simple. If only this could be handled like swatting an annoying bug. Unfortunately, this particular bug is viral and if there is a cure it will be eventual rather than swift. I am afraid my four-year old son will reach recruitment age before this is over.
In Madison and other liberal strongholds they're organizing peace rallies. We can’t blame the students. Society has traditionally afforded them this time for enlightenment and to ponder various ideologies to form their worldview. If the events of September 11 didn't do it, perhaps the body bags of their non-student contemporaries will help them see the difference between the world we have and the world we want. Rally to your bleeding hearts content but ignoring reality will not help. Our soft underbelly is those without the stomach to respond with force. If that mentality prevails we might as well replace Old Glory with a white flag.
They are in school to learn so let’s urge them to study the lessons of contemporary history. The original World Trade Center bombing was our wake up call and the attack on the USS Cole was a shot across the bow, though deliberately low. The tepid responses to those events brought us the events of September 11. The painfully clear lesson is that our unwillingness to render harsh consequences escalates terrorism. Given this lesson it is easy to see why this enemy considers us a paper tiger.
If, like many believe, this is an attack on our national psyche, it is not paranoid but practical to believe that this enemy is relying on the pacifist movement as an unwitting collaborator. It is also prudent to note that both targets may well have been chosen because they were icons of conservatism, capitalism and military might.
At the very least, a deepened political chasm works to their advantage because divisive rhetoric compromises our unity and diffuses our focus. Right wing nut Jerry Falwell’s claim that we deserved this because of God’s displeasure is no less damaging than left wing nut Michael Moore’s open question, “why bomb the blue states, they didn’t vote for Bush”? For the good of the country this brand of rhetorical rubbish should be shelved until we regain the luxury of debating relatively petty concerns like social security.
For the time being we have bigger fish to fry. Liberals should note that their fear of reckless retaliation decreases with each passing day and new coalition ally. Conservatives should not confuse patience with a lack of resolve.
We have no quarrel with the majority of Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, but at what point do we hold the citizenry of a country accountable for the actions of their government? Oh that it could be so simple to carpet bomb terrorism out of existence.
We need the maturity to accept that difficult problems do not have easy solutions and keep our obsession with instant gratification from justifying excessive force. It was the killing of innocent people that awakened this country from the dreamy slumber of complacency and to respond in kind would make matters worse. More of the same would help the recruitment of brainwashed zealots and alienate more countries.
Conversely, we cannot let the fear of a tarnished reputation compromise our resolve. Our response must be fierce but measured, lethal but precise. Anything less would be tantamount to surrender and an invitation for more. Terrorism unanswered makes it perpetual and allowing it to continue is equally immoral.
Steeping TEA
What a lot of folks forget, or don't know, is that the origins of the TEA party movement began in 2005 while George W Bush was still President. The right blogosphere started pork busters as a means to track and expose wasteful government spending. This is only typical of much misinformation about the movement who many insist on portraying as some sort of anti-Obama crusade. As mom used to say that's a bunch of piffle diffle.
(Rubes, racists, terrorists, take your pick)
So when we hear, over and over and over again, how at his debt mess was inherited a reasonable response could be, yeah, and your point is?
As the debate rages on the stereotype about left liberal tactics and mindsets become ever more apparent. None more so than the charge that a liberal only hurls insults because they are incapable of articulating a coherent argument.
We've heard Rush, Ann Coulter and others level this charge time and again and never gave it a lot of thought. You really don't have to when a bevy of lefty loudmouths, Begala, Ed Schulz, Olberman et. al. keep proving the point with an endless stream of examples. (too many links to provide, just tune in randomly and you'll see what I mean in a mater of minutes)
What's also become more apparent is the proportionate relationship between movement strength and reactionary vitriol, that is to say as the TEA party strengthens so does the nastiness of the corresponding insults.
At first, when the TEA party movement was a non-threatening murmur out here in flyover country we were derided as rubes and rednecks, owing to the fact that we haven't the good sense or judgement to just shut up and accept the liberal tax and spend spoils system of government prevalent since FDR. Nancy Pelosi (D) Bug-eyed sack, in her effort to marginalize the movement assured it was not an actual grassroots effort by real folks but rather artificial astroturf organized and funded by corporatist boogeymen.
T-E-A stands for Taxed Enough Already. The fundamental tenets are 1) fiscal responsibility; which would accommodate both lower taxes and lower spending, 2) constitutionally limited government, and 3) free markets, which would be a natural result of tenets 1 and 2.
Proving from the start they have no interest in arguing against those principles they resort to broad brush insults of the whole movement, from the sexually tinged slur of teabagger to the innuendo we are just a bunch of rube, hick, hillbillies. I don't know about you but to me the Mark Twainish wisdom of Jed Clampett is looking a lot more attractive than the alleged brilliance of the affirmative action ivy leager these days.
I suppose I can't blame the left in a way though, I mean if they didn't busy themselves demonizing political adversaries they'd actually have to build a case for fiscal recklessness, unlimited unconstitutional government, and a command economy ala Marx. Insult is so much easier. That and arguing on principle usually requires that you have some.
But the TEA party persevered, grew, and inevitably, began to organize politically. True to form as the strength began to manifest itself at the ballot box the derision escalated commensurately. Clearly it was time to play the race card. Actor activist Janeane Garofolo provides a pretty crude example of the narrative, along with her amazing depth of knowledge on the neurological, psychological, and political sciences. (I apologize for providing that link but it has become a classic. Hearing it again reminds me that it does take a certain talent to speak with such certitude and authority on a subject you know nothing about, especially when the words they confidently spew prove it all the more. I guess those acting lessons paid off. (And I still wish Jack Bauer would have offed her in 24, as hers was a totally unlikable character [typecast much?])
So the TEA party movement, champions of fiscal restraint, constitutional governance, and free markets sally forth, and the left, rather than considering any comparisons to the founding framers, likens them to the KKK. Well, it is almost inevitable, even obligatory, seeing how much of that powdered wig bunch owned slaves and all. Still, the logical connection between Tea Party tenets and Presidential pigmentation somehow eludes and is anyone's guess. Remember, these are the folks who think fairness and social justice are real, like unicorns.
So time passes. The movement congeals, grows and is behind the biggest power shift in Congressional history. The people have spoken. The TEA Party has talked the talk and elected a number of new representatives who promised to walk the walk.
Again, true to form, the left liberal establishment, rather than explain, justify, or rationalize higher taxes as the prudent alternative to cutting spending they likened the TEA party to terrorists. Really. They did.
And it wasn't all loony lefty fringe dwellers, it was the Vice President of the United States and U.S. House Representative, who couldn't muster the imagination required to differentiate between cutting spending and cutting peoples heads off. Frightening. With that kind of thinking one wonders why the Democrat brain trust hasn't come up with idea of ending terrorism by writing a check.
Where Biden is concerned, and factoring in his renowned intellect, it's probably a sincere assessment. Poor thing. I am beginning to think all those hair plugs are actually connected across the inside of his head, where normal people have grey matter.
In the recent debt ceiling debate, as only one third of the three part power structure, these new reps held their ground as best they could against establishment Republicans and the flailing leaderless Democrats. Yes, the end result was was kicking the can down the road, but they did manage to change the debate. For the first time in decades the focus was on how to cut rather than increase spending. This is so much more than rearranging syllables in a sentence. In terms of governing philosophy it is a massive sea change.
The status quo liberal elite, far from even acknowledging there's a shift afoot at all, incapable or unwilling take your pick, has no idea on how to deal with a breed of politician with the audacity to legislate according to their campaign promises. Because as anyone inside the beltway will tell you, while looking down their aristocratic noses of course, that's just not we do things here.
We are witnessing an historic transition in the balance of power, a restoration. The people are reasserting their role as masters of their government. The entrenched government that fancied itself the masters doesn't know how to respond so the natural inclination is to resist. My own debate is which will be more entertaining, the continued slaughter of the government pig, or the squealing.
Meanwhile, fueling the transition is an alternative media providing an unprecedented avalanche of information which up until recently was tightly controlled by the kneepad media, concubine to big government.
It's all good.
Me? I'm just developing a taste for TEA. The stronger the better.
The Marxist Strategy to Destroy America
Posted by Winks
Not sure its quite that dire.. There are many millions..and growing daily...who realize that Obama has to go and Washington has to be forced to operate within the Constitution again. The question is, do we have the momentum yet?
August 2, 2011 We The Stupid
Ann Barnhardt
I stand here in abject stupefaction. The so-called "right" or "Tea Party" in this republic is being so thoroughly rolled and defeated that I am struggling to come up with an adequate violent submission metaphor that does not involve prison rape . . . and they honesty think that they're "winning." Really? You call this winning?
• - Obama gets over $2 Trillion to spend before the 2012 election
• - There are no real spending cuts
• - There is a massive tax increase effective January 1, 2013
Obama is going to be handed something in excess of $2 Trillion -- and he has made it perfectly clear that he will spend every penny of it before the November 2012 election. That's why he kept saying, " . . . so we don't have to do this again", meaning raise the debt ceiling again. The debt ceiling would only need to be raised if all of the money had been spent. Therefore, he has stated very clearly that he will spend every penny of any debt ceiling increase. He is going to burn through $2 Trillion-plus in the next sixteen months. This was the Obama regime's plan from day one. Geithner appeared before Congress in early May and told them this in no uncertain terms. This outcome has been a known quantity all along.
There are no spending cuts in this plan. It is all accounting fraud. Saying that you are not going to spend money in Afghanistan ten years from now is not spending cuts. Even if you accept the $1 Trillion in cuts over ten years propaganda, that is only $100 Billion per year, which is essentially meaningless relative to the size of the problem. Furthermore, even a miniscule uptick in interest rates, which given the massive debasement of our currency is now a mathematical certainty, will completely consume that $100 Billion per year. It's all a joke.
Back to the $2 Trillion that Obama is being handed. I honestly think that most people in this country have no understanding of simple counting numbers. Do you not understand how much a trillion is? Where do you think this money is going to come from -- who has two trillion dollars to loan us? China? Nope. Not even close. China's entire GDP is only $6 Trillion. Do you honestly think that China is going to loan us one third of their total annual economic production? China was a huge creditor to us back when $100 Billion was considered a staggeringly large amount of money - which was four years ago. Now $100 Billion is literally a rounding error. Do you realize that there are only a handful of nations of this planet that even have a GDP in excess of $2 Trillion? If these countries loaned us every penny of their GDP, it wouldn't even be $2 Trillion:
Canada ($1.57 T)
India ($1.54 T)
Russia ($1.46 T)
Are you starting to understand the scope of what we are talking about now? Obama is going to embezzle considerably more than the entire economic output of Canada, India or Russia to his cronies before the 2012 election -- and that is just counting this round of spending. This doesn't include the other $5 Trillion he has already burned through since 2009.
China is not going to lend us this money because they simply don't have anything close to that much money to lend. This $2 Trillion is going to come from the Federal Reserve. Where is the Federal Reserve going to get $2 Trillion? They are going to print it out of thin air . We are in the midst of the largest currency debasement ever seen in human history. There is only one result that can come of currency debasement: hyperinflation and total economic and societal collapse.
Have you also forgotten the so-called "Bush tax cuts"? Yeah. Those rates are going to expire on January 1, 2013. Obama will presumably still be occupying the Oval Office at that time assuming that he is not forcibly removed or that the Republic is still intact at that time. Taxes will increase significantly at that point, and the Congressional Budget Office has scored everything put before them given the fact of the massive tax increases on 1/1/2013. Do you understand that? When these Republicans and even these so-called "Tea Party Freshmen" tell you that there are no tax hikes in their "plan," they are consciously, willfully, knowingly lying to you through their teeth.
Finally, I do not understand how it can possibly be that conservative writers are still addressing Obama as if he is actually trying to help the economy, but his well-intentioned policies are failing.
Obama is the enemy. Obama is a Marxist-Communist usurper and puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Communists who are actively trying to destroy the United States of America. Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has the single goal of collapsing and destroying the U.S. economy, military, constitutional government and culture. What part of "Marxist Revolution" do you not understand?
The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade.
The Obama regime has no interest whatsoever in "stimulus" or "getting folks back to work." How can you not understand this? How can we possibly win this war if we refuse to come to terms with the fact that we are in fact fighting a war. God save the United States of America, because the people are far too stupid to do it themselves.
Not sure its quite that dire.. There are many millions..and growing daily...who realize that Obama has to go and Washington has to be forced to operate within the Constitution again. The question is, do we have the momentum yet?
August 2, 2011 We The Stupid
Ann Barnhardt
I stand here in abject stupefaction. The so-called "right" or "Tea Party" in this republic is being so thoroughly rolled and defeated that I am struggling to come up with an adequate violent submission metaphor that does not involve prison rape . . . and they honesty think that they're "winning." Really? You call this winning?
• - Obama gets over $2 Trillion to spend before the 2012 election
• - There are no real spending cuts
• - There is a massive tax increase effective January 1, 2013
Obama is going to be handed something in excess of $2 Trillion -- and he has made it perfectly clear that he will spend every penny of it before the November 2012 election. That's why he kept saying, " . . . so we don't have to do this again", meaning raise the debt ceiling again. The debt ceiling would only need to be raised if all of the money had been spent. Therefore, he has stated very clearly that he will spend every penny of any debt ceiling increase. He is going to burn through $2 Trillion-plus in the next sixteen months. This was the Obama regime's plan from day one. Geithner appeared before Congress in early May and told them this in no uncertain terms. This outcome has been a known quantity all along.
There are no spending cuts in this plan. It is all accounting fraud. Saying that you are not going to spend money in Afghanistan ten years from now is not spending cuts. Even if you accept the $1 Trillion in cuts over ten years propaganda, that is only $100 Billion per year, which is essentially meaningless relative to the size of the problem. Furthermore, even a miniscule uptick in interest rates, which given the massive debasement of our currency is now a mathematical certainty, will completely consume that $100 Billion per year. It's all a joke.
Back to the $2 Trillion that Obama is being handed. I honestly think that most people in this country have no understanding of simple counting numbers. Do you not understand how much a trillion is? Where do you think this money is going to come from -- who has two trillion dollars to loan us? China? Nope. Not even close. China's entire GDP is only $6 Trillion. Do you honestly think that China is going to loan us one third of their total annual economic production? China was a huge creditor to us back when $100 Billion was considered a staggeringly large amount of money - which was four years ago. Now $100 Billion is literally a rounding error. Do you realize that there are only a handful of nations of this planet that even have a GDP in excess of $2 Trillion? If these countries loaned us every penny of their GDP, it wouldn't even be $2 Trillion:
Canada ($1.57 T)
India ($1.54 T)
Russia ($1.46 T)
Are you starting to understand the scope of what we are talking about now? Obama is going to embezzle considerably more than the entire economic output of Canada, India or Russia to his cronies before the 2012 election -- and that is just counting this round of spending. This doesn't include the other $5 Trillion he has already burned through since 2009.
China is not going to lend us this money because they simply don't have anything close to that much money to lend. This $2 Trillion is going to come from the Federal Reserve. Where is the Federal Reserve going to get $2 Trillion? They are going to print it out of thin air . We are in the midst of the largest currency debasement ever seen in human history. There is only one result that can come of currency debasement: hyperinflation and total economic and societal collapse.
Have you also forgotten the so-called "Bush tax cuts"? Yeah. Those rates are going to expire on January 1, 2013. Obama will presumably still be occupying the Oval Office at that time assuming that he is not forcibly removed or that the Republic is still intact at that time. Taxes will increase significantly at that point, and the Congressional Budget Office has scored everything put before them given the fact of the massive tax increases on 1/1/2013. Do you understand that? When these Republicans and even these so-called "Tea Party Freshmen" tell you that there are no tax hikes in their "plan," they are consciously, willfully, knowingly lying to you through their teeth.
Finally, I do not understand how it can possibly be that conservative writers are still addressing Obama as if he is actually trying to help the economy, but his well-intentioned policies are failing.
Obama is the enemy. Obama is a Marxist-Communist usurper and puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Communists who are actively trying to destroy the United States of America. Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has the single goal of collapsing and destroying the U.S. economy, military, constitutional government and culture. What part of "Marxist Revolution" do you not understand?
The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade.
The Obama regime has no interest whatsoever in "stimulus" or "getting folks back to work." How can you not understand this? How can we possibly win this war if we refuse to come to terms with the fact that we are in fact fighting a war. God save the United States of America, because the people are far too stupid to do it themselves.
A Message From President Obama
As presented in USA Today, annotated (in red) for your edification and entertainment... ed.
President Obama: Go "big" on debt deal:
For years now, America has been spending more money than we take in. (especially since I’ve been in office , 4 times Bush’s debt in one 4th the time, am I good er what?) The result is that we have too much debt on our nation's credit card — debt that will (has already) ultimately weaken our economy, lead to higher interest rates for all Americans, and leave us unable to invest (i.e. increase dependency and/or buy votes) in things (i.e. voting blocks) like education (18 to 28 year old voters), or protect vital programs like Medicare (Senior voters).
Neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this debt, (but some are more to blame than others, rubes, what do you think that (D) stands for?) but both parties have a responsibility to come together and solve the problem. That's what the American people expect of us. (at least the idiots who think we are here to serve their interests rather than our own) Every day, families are figuring out how to stretch their paychecks a little further, sacrifice what they can't afford, and budget only for what's truly important. It's time for Washington to do the same. (by time I mean after the next election after we kick this debt ceiling can down the road, only one more time, promise)
Why cuts are necessary
In the short term, my No. 1 focus is getting our economy back to a place where businesses can grow and hire. (no, I’m not announcing the repeal of that god awful healthcare act, even though that would kick start the economy faster than anything) That's why I want to take a number of steps right away, like extending tax relief for middle-class families (i.e. liberalspeak for wealth redistribution) and putting construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and highways (it’s a mystery to me how people keep falling for this golden oldie but it still tests well with focus groups).
But over the last few months, I've also said that I'm willing to cut historic amounts of spending in order to reduce our long-term deficits.(even though I dismissed those suggestions from the debt reduction commission I authorized, and submitted my own budget to congress which actually increases spending, but never mind that) I'm willing to cut spending on domestic programs to the lowest level in half a century (but I’ll be damned if I will actually name one before an election) . I'm willing to cut defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars (always have been, damn corpsemen vote Republican most of the time anyway). I'm willing to take on the rising costs of health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, so we can meet our obligations to an aging population. (more debt commissions ideas I dismissed, good thing I saved a copy) Some of these cuts would eliminate wasteful spending, weapons we don't need, or fraud and abuse in our health care system. (why they have been acceptable up to now is anybody's guess, maybe waste, fraud, and abuse is the necessary grease for the big government machine) Still, some of the cuts would target worthwhile programs that do a lot of good for our country. (the ones that swell Democrat vote turnout for example) They're cuts that some people in my own party aren't too happy about (Bill Clinton once told me that stuck pigs always squeal the loudest, but that may have been a sexual reference, you can never tell with that guy) and frankly, I wouldn't make them if we didn't have so much debt. (pay real close attention folks, I almost actually accepted responsibility just then)
But the American people deserve the truth from their leaders
(sorry, but in the meantime all you got is me, leading from behind with
lies). And the truth is, you can't get rid of the deficit by simply
eliminating waste and fraud, or getting rid of pet projects and foreign aid,
like some have suggested. Those things represent only a tiny fraction of what
we spend our money on. (99% of government spending is essential)
At the same time, it's also true that if we tackle our
deficit with spending cuts alone, it will likely end up costing seniors and
middle-class families a great deal. Retired Americans will have to pay a lot
more for their health care. Students will have to pay a lot more for college. (that
cradle to grave welfare state plan will be derailed and we can’t have that) A
worker who gets laid off might not have any temporary help or job training to
fall back on. At a time of high gas prices, we'll have to stop much of the
clean energy research that will help free us from our dependence on oil. (let’s
see, scare seniors – check, scare young voters - check, promote a green
industry fantasy while denomizing big oil-check, promise even more unemployment
compensation-check, all good)
That's why people in both parties (not
including the large majority in the House of Representatives, evil, racist,
ignorant, extremists that they are, just ask anyone at MSNBC) have
suggested that the best way to take on our deficit is with a more balanced
approach (tax and spend status quo, only with a new label). Yes,
we should make serious spending cuts. (and by cuts I mean slow the rate
of growth, you know Washington DC cuts, not actual cuts) But we
should also ask the wealthiest individuals (i.e. evil rich) and
biggest corporations (i.e. small business owners making over $250K per year) to
pay their fair share (i.e as determined by government depending on how many votes we need to buy)
through fundamental tax reform. Before we stop funding clean energy research,
we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks
that other companies don't get. (one more jab at the evil rich and
oil companies, amazing how many fall for this schtick)
Before we ask college students to pay more, we should ask hedge fund managers
to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Before we ask
seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask people like me to give up tax
breaks they don't need and never asked for.
The middle class hasn't just borne the brunt of this recession; they've been dealing with higher costs and stagnant wages for more than a decade now. (like I keep telling you, it’s all Bush’s fault) It's just not right to ask them to pay the whole tab — especially when they're not the ones who caused this mess in the first place.
Raising revenues: a bipartisan position
(tax
increases, the ruling class solution to everything every time)
A balanced deficit deal that includes some new revenues
isn't just a Democratic position. (yeah, remember we are in bed with their
handmaiden the establishment GOP, also known as Democrat lite) It's
a position that has been taken by everyone from Warren Buffett to Bill
O'Reilly (like 2 guy rich white guys represents some kind of spectrum). It's
a position that was taken this week by Democrats and Republicans in the Senate,
who worked together on a promising plan of their own. And it's been the
position of every Democratic and Republican leader who has worked to reduce the
deficit in their time, from Ronald
Reagan to Bill Clinton. (Never
mind that I failed to acknowledge anyone remotely aligned with or sympathetic
to the TEA party movement. Hey, just
because they won the biggest house of representatives turnover in 70 years in
2010 doesn’t mean you get a seat at the cool kids table)
There will be plenty of haggling (i.e after
hours back room deals) over the details of all these plans in the days ahead. But
right now, we have the opportunity to do something big and meaningful. (providing
of course that you believe a revised version of the status quo is not the
opposite of big and meaningful, which I
admit, may require a degree from Harvard, so sorry if you just can’t get it, peasants) This debate shouldn't just be about avoiding
the catastrophe of not paying our bills and defaulting on our debt. That's the
least we should do. (and in the end doing the least is about all we can manage,
even if not so smoothly) This debate offers the chance to put
our economy on stronger footing (which we will steadfastly avoid by
continuing the same tax and spend policies) restore a sense of fairness in
our country (fairness as defined by equal poverty for everyone, except us
Harvard educated rulers of course. I’ll
be damned if I’m giving up my plane, staff, golf, and extravagant vacation,
knaves) and secure a better future for our children (only
$88k debt burden per child instead of $90K). I want to seize that
opportunity, and ask Americans of both parties and no party to join me in that
effort.
President Obama wrote
this column exclusively for USA TODAY.
