Moral Courage and National Security

On 9/11 it is impossible to not stop and meditate on the images, both terrifying and heartrending, of people who woke up on a morning just like any other, trundled off to work convinced that their most crucial decision that day would be to either buy or sell, or perhaps where to have lunch, and wound up having to decide whether to die in flames or jump out of a window, or to decide whether to risk one's own life while rushing up a set of stairs in a blind hope of saving someone else, or to decide whether, and how, to rush the terrorists attempting to run an airplane into a target unknown.

John O'Sullivan recently wrote in National Review:

There are such creatures as heroes of prudence. In general, the prudential hero is someone in a position of power or authority. His courage consists of making the right decisions in difficult circumstances and sometimes against fierce opposition or in contrast to his interests and alliances. This is known as moral courage, and though it ought to be easier to summon up than physical courage, it has often been in very short supply. As Charles Peguy once said, "It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of looking insufficiently progressive."

Statists, socialists, progressives, liberals, or Democrats - whatever moniker you affix to them, they are all, in fact, the same (and add fascist to the list), are certainly not people of moral courage. In an eternal quest to expand power, they find the vulnerable underside of the opinion of the uneducated masses and simply appeal to it, telling them, as it may suit their purpose, that "all will be just fine if you trust me" or "things are really going to explode unless you trust me." Appealing to the irrational fears of the intellectual cripples that constitute their constituency, the statist alternately stokes those irrational fears or soothes them with a Marxist tonic guaranteed only to irritate the problem and lead to governmental expansion, once again, in the indefinite future.

Whether the statist is a feminist, pacifist, or communist (or some other -ist) - ultimately he cares nothing about truth or his own constituency. The feminist destroys women by convincing them that they are enslaved to their husbands, convinces her to destroy her own family, and then weds her in eternal slavery to a new husband: a Fascist government. The Communist, of course, tells us of a new world coming in which social distinctions caused by wealth will be erased, but fails to tell us that his juvenile understanding of economics cannot ensure widespread wealth, but rather that all will be equalized in poverty.

Nowhere is the populist snake oil salesman more dangerous than in the field of foreign policy, however. The pacifist convinces the cowards among us that hate-filled, violent demagogues motivated by warlike ideologies can be convinced, through "dialogue," to make peace with all nations. Outrageously encouraging his cowardly constituents to trust such warmongers as Hitler and a succession of Soviet leaders or to reason with such lunatics as Kim Jong Il or Sadaam Hussein, he defunds the military, promises to use the "peace dividend" to ensure a chicken in every pot, tells us that warlike actions are best handled in the criminal courts, and leaves those with even moderate levels of understanding to await the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Barack Obama is a fool. Everyone in his administration is a fool. All of his supporters are fools. Nothing is more certain than that Barack Obama is in over his head. He promises that, if only we give him his desires, unemployment will not exceed 8%. It is currently tracking 10%, unless you believe those who assert that it is in excess of 20%. His court jester, Joe Biden, comes along with a heavily-salted crow and slightly grimaces before swallowing it whole and, beaming, telling us, "Oops! We guessed wrong!"

Guessed? The most powerful economy in the world and the grandest political experiment in human history is now at the mercy of those whose solution to solving massive, life-changing problems is to flip a coin? Dear foolish Obama supporter, if these paragons of buffoonery can muster no better solutions than a healthy guess about the issues that you, their supporters, actually care about - the economy - what makes you think that they have a better response planned for the issue that you ignored when you voted for him? You remember? National security?

This same team of empty suits will warble on about a "national day of service" today - giving the impression that all is well. It is fine to come out of your bunker now. There is no threat. After all, why would our primary focus be encouraging the marginal development of volunteerism if, in fact, there was still the danger of vicious attack by Islamofascists?

Barack Obama is an empty suit, an illusion (if a striking one) from beginning to end. Like all successful Democratic politicians, he is more effective running for office - a position that merely requires the painting of a picture, not the skill to actually fix a problem - than he is in actually governing. This is because the modern Democratic party is completely divorced from reality. The neurosis that causes Democrats to be able to paint such pretty castles in the air also impedes them from actually picking up necessary tools and using workable blueprints to build something stable on the ground. Their political philosophy has devolved from the various mental illnesses contrived during the 60s in America: either they are engaged in the eternal wishing of juveniles who are first beginning to notice the world around them and hope for a change in its imperfections, but who correspondingly lack the worldly wisdom to think concretely enough to actually solve the problems, or their minds really were blown by all those drugs and, in addition to seeing pink elephants walking on the wall, they really do think that disarming the nation is a certain way to attain peace and that crazed Islamofascists who have nothing to gain on earth and nothing to lose in Paradise can be convinced through simpering, pedantic "dialogue" to lay down their arms and be nice boys.

I was no fan of George W. Bush. As a domestic president, he was far too comfortable with the expansion of governmental power for someone whose libertarian stripe runs as deeply and as widely as mine. But every 9/11, I thank my blessed Lord that George W. Bush was the president when the United States of America came under attack by the politico-religious philosophy of Islamofascism. For all of his weaknesses in the domestic arena, his presence as the leader of this country was an act of divine mercy not to be overlooked. He was a man - something very much lacking in the Obama administration, the Democratic party, and the nation today. He was a man of moral courage, whose compass pointed constantly toward that great north star of preventing further attacks against innocent people on American soil. And because he was willing to refuse to compromise with the neurotic left, the United States has stayed safe, and avoided attacks on our own soil, for eight years.

Because Barack Obama is in over his head and is a coward, the same will not remain true through the entirety of his administration. Because Barack Obama is a fool, the United States is no longer safe. Because Barack Obama's administration has replaced the wise decision with the haphazard guess, Americans are in danger of terrorism on their own soil once again.

To all those who died on 9/11, 2001, I apologize on behalf of this country that your blood will not be the last, because so many of your countrymen are fools.

ACORN on Tax Evasion, Prostitution, Pimping, and Running for Congress (All Undoubtedly Related)

Well, at least the ACORN employee shows some insight when she says "anything the government ain't getting money from is illegal."

See the videos as ACORN employees, funded with taxpayer money and supported by Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama, encourage tax evasion, prostitution, child sex slavery, and even telling a self-proclaimed prostitute who claims to make $8,000 per month that, with expenses written off, she shouldn't have to pay any self-employment tax! One ACORN worker is so helpful as to advise the supposed pimp on how to instruct the underage Salvadoran children being imported for prostitution purposes on how to teach them to behave so as to avoid detection by the cops.

Most importantly, of course, is that the pimp remember to keep the child sex slaves in school! Way to show that civic-mindedness, ACORN! We wouldn't want our child sex slaves growing up illiterate, would we (else they might become supporters of Barack Obama!)? And lest our faux hooker become too uncomfortable with all of this intrigue and lying (after all, folks have been known to go to jail for this kinda stuff!), our imperious ACORN worker leans forward in a sympathetic manner and says, "Don't worry -you're fine." Now that's what the world needs more of - compassionate, sympathetic co-conspirators!

Perhaps the height of insanity is when the counselor encourages the pimp to claim a child tax credit for each of the 13 Salvadoran underage girls who will be held as sex slaves. But then, not to be outdone, these "community organizers" offer to give a 67% discount on tax preparation for the pimp! Good folks, these. I am gonna let them do my taxes.

Only in Barack's America....

Your tax money at work. Barack Obama's friends in their element.

How's that whole hopey-changey thingy workin' for ya'll these days?

The ONE Thing Edward Kennedy Got Right.

"The problems of our economy have occurred not as an outgrowth of laissez-faire, unbridled competition. They have occurred under the guidance of federal agencies, and under the umbrella of federal regulations."

Credit Where the Credit Crisis Is Due

I have demonstrated previously on the hallowed pages of Obama Watch that the economic crisis as it now exists is fully the fault of the Democratic party in the United States. Their semi-retarded politics designed it and, while it is certain that some Republicans cooperated with and facilitated their (always) hare-brained ideas, it is also true that Democrats intentionally stepped over the bodies of protesting Republicans to enact the policies that have brought on the current economic morass.

A crisis of the magnitude of that which the country now faces has the interesting consequence of producing stark honesty where one would not necessarily expect to find such honesty. In reading the book, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers, author Lawrence G. Mcdonald, who seems generally very sympathetic to Bill Clinton personally and to his administration, nevertheless writes (from the historical perspective of an industry insider - Mcdonald was a Vice President at Lehman Brothers):

Roberta Achtenberg, the daughter of a Russian-born owner of a Los Angeles neighborhood grocery store, was plucked by President Clinton from relative obscurity in 1993 and elevated to the position of assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Roberta and Bill were united in their desire to increase home ownership in poor and minority communities.



And despite a barrage of objections led by Senator Jesse Helms, who referred to Achtenberg as that "damn lesbian," the lady took up her appointment in the new administration, citing innate racism as one of the main reasons why banks were reluctant to lend to those without funds.

In the ensuing couple of years, Roberta Achtenberg harnessed all of the formidable energy on the massed ranks of the United States bankers, sometimes threatening, sometimes berating, sometimes bullying - anything to persuade the banks to provide mortgages to people who might not have been up to the challenge of coping with up-front down payments and regular monthly payments.

Between 1993 and 1999, more than two million such clients became new homeowners. In her two-year tenure as assistant secretary, she set up a national grid of offices staffed by attorneys and investigators. Their principal aim was to enforce the laws against the banks, the laws that dealt with discrimination. Some of the fines leveled at the banks ran into the millions, to drive home Achtenberg's avowed intent to utilize the law to change the ethos of providing mortgage money in the United States of America.

Banks were compelled to jump into line, and soon they were making thousands of loans without any cash-down deposits whatsoever: an unprecedented situation. Mortgage officers inside the banks were forced to bend or break their own rules in order to achieve a good Community Reinvestment Act rating, which would please the administration by demonstrating generosity to underprivileged borrowers even if they might default. Easy mortgages were the invention of Bill Clinton's Democrats.

However, there was, in the mid- to late 1990s one enormous advantage: amid general prosperity, the housing market was strong and prices were rising steadily. At that point in time, mortgage defaults were relatively few in number and the securitization of mortgages, which had such disastrous consequences during the financial crisis that began in 2007, barely existed.

Nonetheless, there were many beady-eyed financiers who looked askance at this new morality and privately yearned for the days when bank policies were strictly conservative, when credit was flatly denied to anyone without the proven ability to repay.

And at the center of this seething disquiet, somewhere between the persuasive silken-tongued members of the banking lobby and the missionary zeal of Roberta Achtenberg, stood William J. Clinton, whose heart, not for the first time, may have been ruling his head.

Emphasis added throughout. But catch the specific wording: "innate racism" is the reason that loans were not extended to "those without funds"? The Clintonistas were willing to do "anything to persuade the banks to provide mortgages to people who might not have been up to the challenge of coping with up-front down payments and regular monthly payments"? Achtenberg's intent was to "change the ethos of providing mortgage money"? Banks and mortgage companies were "forced to break their own rules"?

Now hear this: "Easy mortgages were the invention of Bill Clinton's Democrats." And all those mortgage companies, investment banks, and community banks that are now getting the blame were nonetheless peopled by "beady-eyed financiers who looked askance at this new morality."

Remember, the same people who designed this economic earthquake are in the process of taking over large swathes of American business, the energy industry, and health care - and in the case of Congressional Democrats, it is not merely the same party, but actually the same people involved.

The Democratic party is either populated by the largest concentration of morons in the universe, or is populated by an exceedingly large contingent of wholly evil individuals who are bent on pursuing their utopian political goals in the face of reality and at the expense of their constituents. What idiot actually believes that racism is the reason that banks won't lend money to people who can't pay? What fool thinks that it is a positive step forward to compel banks to forsake their own rules and extend loans to those who have not even demonstrated an ability to regularly and fully pay rent? Only Democrats are capable of these anti-intellectual paroxysms into mental disease. Or at least they are the only ones who can do it and escape being committed....

Are these the people that you really want to trust to do what is best for you and the country in regard to your health care? Have these same individuals not already demonstrated their inarguable inability to get anything right? Look around....

Democrat, thy name is guilty. See what thou hast wrought.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Card Check

Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama promised during his empty-suit campaign for president, "I'll make [card-check] the law of the land" after the election. This was, of course, a promise to one of his largest en banc constituencies - labor unions - whose perceived best interests do not necessarily coincide with the best interests of business, the economy, or the country.

The woefully-named Employee Free Choice Act, or EFCA (perhaps the only conceivable analogy would be to name abortion-on-demand legislation "The Rights of the Unborn Act") would necessarily infringe upon the free choice of employees all over the nation by mandating that voting for unionization of companies, and ultimately of entire industries, no longer be done by secret ballot, but rather by a process known as "card check." Card check would make every individual employee's vote on the issue of unionization a public matter and would open employees up to harassment, intimidation, and pressure from labor goons everywhere.

Don't let the irony escape you here: liberal Democrats, who do not even want voters to have to give any objective evidence of their identity (in my home state Democrats have said that asking a voter to present a driver's license, other state ID, or voter registration card on election day is "racism" and "intimidation") in national and state elections, nevertheless want votes for unionization to be matters of public information. As long as "public" is defined as "union."

Liberal Democrat, Obama, and Union, thy very name is liar and hypocrite. Let's take a look at how important secret ballots have been to these bedwetting socialists in the recent past....

Rep. George Miller (D -CA), the sponsor of the EFCA, wrote a letter cosigned by other congressional Democrats to Mexican officials demanding that secret ballots be respected in 2001 Mexican union elections. He wrote

"We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose."

Get it? Mexican employees need to be protected from "intimidation" in union elections by the secret ballot. Apparently, American workers are not due the same consideration.

Even the egregiously corrupt AFL-CIO has lobbied for the secret ballot - when it served their interests to do so. In a 2001 brief filed by the union with the National Labor Relations Board, the AFL-CIO stated that a secret ballot

"provides the surest means of avoiding decisions which are the result of group pressures and not of individual decisions."

And of course, these bedwetting socialists are more than happy to hide behind the secret ballot when things get sticky for themselves. Asked whom she would support in an interparty vote for the chair of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York said, "It's a secret ballot, thank the Lord."

EFCA has nothing to do with worker rights. It is a final, last-gasp attempt to resuscitate a (thankfully) dying center of corruption in American politics - trade unions. Since workers are no longer fool enough to vote for unionization out of their own free will - only to later watch the unions destroy their jobs, towns, and lives; just ask Detroit - unions are seeking governmental license to engage in intimidation, pressure, and harassment that they would reject for Mexican workers and themselves in one final attempt to preserve this center of Democratic party corruption.

Hypocrisy and lies - now that's change only Democrats can believe in!

Source: "Fairness Demands Secret Votes" by John Boehner in U.S. News & World Report, March 2009.

Barack Obama: Teleprompter Whore

The Messiah was elected to office, not based on any of his accomplishments, but based on the fact that he is "hip," and "the greatest orator of our time."

Ahhhhh, but now the truth is out. Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama is actually a much better READER than a SPEAKER.

His addiction to teleprompters, and his consequent revelation that he is not a man whose words emerge from an inner, burning conviction, but rather a man whose words are inserted into him by his handlers, continues.

Yesterday, before the National Academy of Sciences, Obama started to reintroduce some luminary that he had already introduced, then realized he was ahead of his teleprompter, and had to request that the teleprompter be fast forwarded a bit....

"In addition to John.... sorry... the, uhhhhhhh, I just noticed that I jumped the gun a little bit. Go ahead and move it [the teleprompter] up. I had already introduced you guys."





This, of course, is not the first time that this has happened to The Messiah. It seems that his innate knowledge of politics doesn't extend very far beyond, "See Jane run."



And without a teleprompter to begin with, the man is positively an embarrassment.




Gaffe, thy name is Obama - with or without his trusty teleprompter.

Poll on Obama's First 100 Days

MSNBC.com is hosting an unscientific poll as to how Americans think that Obama's first 100 days have gone.

As of 8:30 a.m. on 4/24/2009, 36% give him an "A" and 39% give him an "F." That is with nearly 3 million responses thus far. Approximately 12% give him either a "B" or a "C" while 13% give him a "D."

It is interesting that a majority of Americans give him a grade of below average. Yet a Politico.com story from 4/23/2009 uses such superlatives as promise-keeper, game changer, FDR, and one cool cucumber to sum up his first 100 days. This article's purpose was to survey the attitudes of the press regarding Obama, and examine the story that is being pushed by insiders in the Obama administration.

The disjuncture between the common man and the chattering class has perhaps never been wider.

See the MSNBC poll here. The MSNBC page carries a disclaimer that it is an ongoing, unscientific poll. However, even a Gallup poll found decidedly mixed results, as 43% of Americans gave Obama a rating for his first 100 days as Just OK, Poor, or Terrible.