Saturday, February 28, 2009

Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

I am so very glad to know that someone other than American conservatives noticed! I was truly afraid that the world was enthralled.


London Daily Mail
10th November 2008
The night we waved goodbye to America...
our last best hope on Earth
Peter Hitchens

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

It already has all the signs of such a thing. The newspapers which recorded Obama’s victory have become valuable relics. You may buy Obama picture books and Obama calendars and if there isn’t yet a children’s picture version of his story, there soon will be.

Proper books, recording his sordid associates, his cowardly voting record, his astonishingly militant commitment to unrestricted abortion and his blundering trip to Africa, are little-read and hard to find.

If you can believe that this undistinguished and conventionally Left-wing machine politician is a sort of secular saviour, then you can believe anything. He plainly doesn’t believe it himself. His cliche-stuffed, PC clunker of an acceptance speech suffered badly from nerves. It was what you would expect from someone who knew he’d promised too much and that from now on the easy bit was over.

He needn’t worry too much. From now on, the rough boys and girls of America’s Democratic Party apparatus, many recycled from Bill Clinton’s stained and crumpled entourage, will crowd round him, to collect the rich spoils of his victory and also tell him what to do, which is what he is used to.

Just look at his sermon by the shores of Lake Michigan. He really did talk about a ‘new dawn’, and a ‘timeless creed’ (which was ‘yes, we can’). He proclaimed that ‘change has come’. He revealed that, despite having edited the Harvard Law Review, he doesn’t know what ‘enormity’ means. He reached depths of oratorical drivel never even plumbed by our own Mr Blair, burbling about putting our hands on the arc of history (or was it the ark of history?) and bending it once more toward the hope of a better day (Don’t try this at home).

I am not making this up. No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff.

And it was interesting how the President-elect failed to lift his admiring audience by repeated – but rather hesitant – invocations of the brainless slogan he was forced by his minders to adopt against his will – ‘Yes, we can’. They were supposed to thunder ‘Yes, we can!’ back at him, but they just wouldn’t join in. No wonder. Yes we can what exactly? Go home and keep a close eye on the tax rate, is my advice. He’d have been better off bursting into ‘I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony’ which contains roughly the same message and might have attracted some valuable commercial sponsorship.

Perhaps, being a Chicago crowd, they knew some of the things that 52.5 per cent of America prefers not to know. They know Obama is the obedient servant of one of the most squalid and unshakeable political machines in America. They know that one of his alarmingly close associates, a state-subsidised slum landlord called Tony Rezko, has been convicted on fraud and corruption charges.

They also know the US is just as segregated as it was before Martin Luther King – in schools, streets, neighbourhoods, holidays, even in its TV-watching habits and its choice of fast-food joint. The difference is that it is now done by unspoken agreement rather than by law.

If Mr Obama’s election had threatened any of that, his feel-good white supporters would have scuttled off and voted for John McCain, or practically anyone. But it doesn’t. Mr Obama, thanks mainly to the now-departed grandmother he alternately praised as a saint and denounced as a racial bigot, has the huge advantages of an expensive private education. He did not have to grow up in the badlands of useless schools, shattered families and gangs which are the lot of so many young black men of his generation.

If the nonsensical claims made for this election were true, then every positive discrimination programme aimed at helping black people into jobs they otherwise wouldn’t get should be abandoned forthwith. Nothing of the kind will happen. On the contrary, there will probably be more of them.

And if those who voted for Obama were all proving their anti-racist nobility, that presumably means that those many millions who didn’t vote for him were proving themselves to be hopeless bigots. This is obviously untrue.

I was in Washington DC the night of the election. America’s beautiful capital has a sad secret. It is perhaps the most racially divided city in the world, with 15th Street – which runs due north from the White House – the unofficial frontier between black and white. But, like so much of America, it also now has a new division, and one which is in many ways much more important. I had attended an election-night party in a smart and liberal white area, but was staying the night less than a mile away on the edge of a suburb where Spanish is spoken as much as English, plus a smattering of tongues from such places as Ethiopia, Somalia and Afghanistan.

As I walked, I crossed another of Washington’s secret frontiers. There had been a few white people blowing car horns and shouting, as the result became clear. But among the Mexicans, Salvadorans and the other Third World nationalities, there was something like ecstasy.

They grasped the real significance of this moment. They knew it meant that America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war. Forget the Cold War, or even the Iraq War. The United States, having for the most part a deeply conservative people, had until now just about stood out against many of the mistakes which have ruined so much of the rest of the world.

Suspicious of welfare addiction, feeble justice and high taxes, totally committed to preserving its own national sovereignty, unabashedly Christian in a world part secular and part Muslim, suspicious of the Great Global Warming panic, it was unique.

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on Earth?

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A Letter From a Granddad

I received this from my mother and thought it deserved posting:

Guess you heard that 68% of the youth vote went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them. I replied with this e-mail:


Dear Susan,

The election of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother, and other productive, wage-earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income left over. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.

What is the economic effect of Obama's election on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc. ... call 202-456-1414. That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States. I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts, as we have, or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door for you, as we have.

It's like this. Those who vote for the President of the United States should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, stimulus checks, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families.

Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.

To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts, write to:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Love you Susan, but call the number listed above when you need help.

Granddad

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Leaders of Black Community infer President Obama is a monkey

Considering the controversy and who is pushing it to the forefront, there is no other logical conclusion.

As I pointed out the other day, Sean Delonas was obviously making reference to the adage that, given a typewriter and enough time, even a monkey will produce the Encyclopaedia Britannica. That being the case (I have seen nothing that would convince me otherwise), it is apparent that the so-called leaders of the Black Community are grasping at straws.

From all that I have read and heard, it is obvious the individuals who believe they are the true leaders of the Black Community are in a pitched battle with President Obama for control of that community.
  • The Rev. Al Sharpton apparently believes that all references to monkeys are references to "african-americans" and, as such, are racist. I guess that makes a, ummm, clown out of him.
  • Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP, apparently thinks the cartoon is a call to arms; a call to assasinate President Obama. While I can sympathize with any disappointment in the segment of the electorate that did not vote for Barack Obama, I certainly don't think any police officers are going to run down to D.C. with their guns blazing because of this cartoon.
  • Director Spike Lee apparently believes that his call for a boycott of the NY Post will somehow impact the right-of-center paper. Yeah, right. My guess would be that the Post's circulation will, at a minimum, take a temporary "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" jump.

My guess (well, it has to be a guess since I am certainly not an insider when it comes to the Black Community) is that President Obama isn't 'left' enough for those who have heretofore been considered the leaders of the Black Community and this is their attempt to make themselves relevant. In the past they have always screamed "Racism!" to sieze the spotlight, but that is a little more difficult since our president is not white.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

somehow I missed the controversy

Apparently a number of people are upset about Sean Delonas' cartoon (at right). They seem to believe that his intention was to depict President Obama as the chimp.

In investigating this allegation, I printed this cartoon on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper and hung it on my wall. Even at that size and using a magnifying glass, I have been unable to find any indication of this alleged reference. No subtext, no overt reference, no nothing.

Without any direct reference, I guess I missed the controversy. To the best of my knowledge, the authors of the 'stimulus' bill (ya gotta love the pompous new name - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) are Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid and their minions. In fact, President Obama did not take credit for the bill, even when he had an opportunity to do so, in his op-ed piece on February 5th.

If anyone has a right to be upset with Mr. Delonas' cartoon, it is obviously the 28 Democrats who authored / sponsored the stimulus bill (11 in the House and 17 in the Senate; the 29th sponsor was an Independent). I believe that Mr. Delonas' statement was quite simple and straightforward: it only takes 29 monkeys playing with a computer to write a bill that can pass the 111th Congress.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

rotation in office

This morning I was listening to Brian Sullivan and Dagen McDowell argue about President Obama's guidelines for executive compensation and the billions in bonuses paid in the various firms that received TARP funds. During the course of his tirade Brian mentioned term limits. His remark was in passing, but it reminded me of the issue – a frequent subject of debate in my family.

While I have always been in favor of term limits, I have also inevitably succumbed to the "people deserve to elect whomever they want to represent them" argument. No longer. It has reached the point where the logic of "they are all bad; other than my representative" is hurting us all. In fact, we passed that point years ago.

In 1947 the United States Congress passed the 22nd Amendment which sets a term limit for the President. It was ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The text of the Amendment reads as follows:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

In essence, the Amendment prohibits anyone from serving as President for more than 10 years (two elected four-year terms after succeeding to the Presidency for two years). Historically speaking, this Amendment only codifies what had been accepted convention, although some presidents did seek a third term.

In 1880 President Grant was the first to seek a third term, eschewing the two-term principle. Then, in 1912, Teddy Roosevelt sought election to a third term (although it would have been his second elected term and those two terms would have been non-consecutive). Finally, Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to a third term in 1940 and then a fourth term in 1944.

Although the practice of rotation in office, what we now call term limits, dates back to ancient Greece and was addressed in the Articles of Confederation, it was omitted from the U.S. Constitution. American culture of the day, however, perceived political power as corrupting and believed in civic duty. Essentially, these cultural beliefs proscribed returning incumbent representatives to office.

It seems American culture has changed since 1776, especially in the last 100 years.