“You’re Headed For A One Term Presidency”

Friday, October 21, AD 2011

5 Responses to “You’re Headed For A One Term Presidency”

  • I don’t know that opening schools for longer periods is teh solution – it’s not that enough time isn’t spent in school, it’s that the quality of education sucks. Schools are just too political, too much time spent on foolish subjects, many textbooks are simplypoorly written, etc. That has nothing to do with the amount of time spent.

  • I think longer school hours are a good idea in certain communities. They have worked well in places where kids don’t have any supervision after school like poorer inner cities. Kids can get into a lot of trouble between 3 and 6. I don’t see a one size fits all answer to our education problems. I agree whole heartedly about empowering principals.

  • If the problem is a diminishing ability to produce a globally competitive labor force, longer school days/years is part of the solution.

    As for quality, putting aside the family variable which is a much larger social problem, the biggest factor is teachers. Schools need to attract highly qualified and highly motivated teachers. Jobs is right again here that the ability to fire bad teachers is important. I would also like to see more variability in classroom sizes. At risk students should be in small classrooms. Self-motivated students should have no trouble learning in a lecture hall. This, it seems to me, would be a better way to allocate resources.

  • I heard this weekend that there is an app for iPhones that make Steve Jobs a saint. It’s called iBA fi.

Malaise II

Friday, September 30, AD 2011

On July 15, 1979, after an abysmal time leading the nation, Jimmy Carter, worst President of the United States except for James Buchanan and the present incumbent, gave a speech in which he blamed the ills of the land on the American people.  The problems certainly could not be due to him and his wretched policies, they had to be the fault of everyone else.  The speech became known as the spiritual malaise speech, although Carter did not use the term malaise.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Malaise II

  • Yep, what the American people need are a cheerleader. Bring in the Dallas Cowgals!

  • Throughout our history Joe the American people have responded to good presidential leadership. We do not need a cheerleader; we desperately do need a good leader.

  • The following was posted on Instapundit a short while ago.

    “ . . . Well, I am quite deliberately rubbing it in, as the ridiculously inflated expectations for Obama are regularly and repeatedly exposed as . . . ridiculously inflated. But what’s really juvenile is expecting that an inexperienced former community organizer could successfully execute the office of President of the United States. And if I’m peeing all over the wave of hope-and-change hype that got him into office despite his obvious unsuitability, it’s to help ensure that nothing this disastrous happens again in my lifetime. I realize that it’s painful for those who fell victim to the mass hysteria to constantly be reminded of their foolishness, but I hope it’ll be the kind of pain that results in learning. . . . “

    “UPDATE: Prof. XXX emails:
    ‘Nicely said.
    ‘Many all too willingly wanted to follow the piper and now that it’s proven to have been a disastrous choice, would prefer that all that was forgotten. Well, no it shouldn’t be. Votes matter, and their gullibility, or pursuit of easy absolution, or confirmation of some imagined moral superiority in support of the President’s election has led to the disaster we now face. Many among these people, in particular those with a public voice, bear a large measure of responsibility for having brought us to this point. What is truly juvenile is that among many of these same people there exists a continued denial of the reality we face and of their role in helping to bringing it about.’

    “Indeed. Which is why I continue to rub it in.” Instapundit

  • The Carter Administration made a number of mistakes in policy. Notably, the President reacted to the Federal Reserve’s dysfunctional monetary policy with a series of Potemkin measures, not addressing escalating currency erosion until the appointment of Paul Volcker as chairman thereof in the fall of 1979. Even so, they insisted that Volcker not implement his plan for controlling the growth of monetary aggregates during an election campaign. (Please recall, though, that the Board responsible for the decay in price stability in 1977-79 was largely appointed by his predecessors). There were some decisions made in late 1978 and early 1979 regarding the turmoil in Iran which should be regretted later, but much of his trouble with Iran was largely imposed and would have bedeviled anyone in similar circumstances.

    I think you need to recall that Mr. Carter was operating within constraints imposed by the internal culture of the Democratic Party, that he tried to educate his party on certain matters, and that the Democratic congressional caucus had little use for him because his priorities were so different from theirs. (Hence Ted Kennedy’s presidential campaign).

    It was Mr. Carter who promoted the removal of residual wage and price controls in 1977 (in the teeth of a filibuster run by George McGovern); it was Mr. Carter who promoted the removal of aging and dysfunctional regulatory systems in the transportation sector; it was Mr. Carter who attempted to persuade Congress (with no success) to stop using the tax code to sluice benefits to the oil industry and other favored economic sectors; it was Mr. Carter who attempted (without full success) to persuade Congress to pass a balanced budget for the fiscal year ending in 1980; it was Mr. Carter who began arming the insurrection against the Communist government in Afghanistan.

  • Well, I do think we need to hear something like what Carter said. Donald, if you didn’t think society needed to hear a ‘Carter speech’ about society’s building blocks, waste, sloppiness, loss of nerve, immorality, laziness, etc., you wouldn’t post many of your posts. I do agree that Carter may have been kind of ineffective overall. But when he got up and told us we needed to look at ourselves, he spoke truly. By the 70’s, we needed to hear that.

  • Couldn’t disagree more Pat, unless I tried very hard. The main problem this country faced in the late Seventies was Carter’s idiot policies. His speech was not a serious look at the failings of the American people, and I think such generalized Jeremiads are usually useless execept to make the person on the soapbox feel superior, but was rather an exercise at blame shifting from him to the people who had the misfortune to live under him. The American people gave the appropriate response to this tripe in November of 1980.

  • The main problem this country faced in the late Seventies was Carter’s idiot policies.

    Donald, in 1978, the country had had two decades of escalating rates of social pathology. Carter’s policies did not cause that and, from his post in the federal government, the only components he was in a position to do much about were illegal immigration and the international drug trade. You could likely point to various and sundry disagreeable things emerging from the regulatory state during those years. The thing is, positions in any administration are staffed by camp followers drawn from abiding Democratic constituencies. Carter commonly thought and acted in counterpoint to those constituencies, but he still had to operate in that matrix.

    You really do not say what policies to which you were referring. Monetary policy was poorly conducted. Perhaps critics of Carter have found the memoranda which show that Arthur Burns, et al were taking instruction from the President in these matters. We know from the whole history of the period after 1965 that Burns was quite capable of bollixing things without Mr. Carter’s intervention. Carter should have foregone gimmicks and told Burns, Miller, et al to get the growth rate of monetary aggregates under control. Keep in mind, though, that the Democratic Party’s cognoscenti was populated with characters like James Tobin who insisted that this could not be practically implemented and that the congressional caucus was occupied by characters like Hubert Humphrey and Gus Hawkins who thought you could garner full employment via legislative fiat.

    Iran was a godawful mess, but it is de trop to attribute to Mr. Carter the structural weaknesses of the Shah’s regime or the ruler’s personal failings. It is conceivable that a military coup executed in January of 1979 might have allowed some sort of sensible regime to take control. Then again, it might have failed utterly. You only see the downside of the policies you elect to implement. (The same observations apply to troubles in Central America).

    The military’s skill set had been deteriorating for years. He could have and should have been more vigorous about promoting improvements. That was a sin of omission, and one he sought to rectify as he was leaving office.

  • Art, let me count some of the ways:

    1. A completely ineffective energy policy which involved wearing sweaters and lowering thermostats.
    2. Raging inflation and interest rates. In 1980 inflation hit 13.5% and the prime interest rate charged by banks was 15.26.
    3. Afghanistan-Carter’s intial response was the plaintive cry that Brezhnev had lied to him, a symbol that with him at the helm our foreign policy was truly “Innocents abroad”.
    4. A hollow military-The military despised Carter for producing a weak military. My brother was commanding an armored platoon in Germany on night manueveres when news that Reagan had been elected reached them. Cheers rang out through the column.
    5. Iran-The failure of the rescue mission was a sign of what the military had been reduced to under Carter. His Deputy Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, when the cabinet was being briefed on the mission, asked if the weapons could be shot out of the hands of the Iranian guards rather than harming them. The disbelieving briefing officer told Christopher that shooting guns out of hands was only something that happened on television.

  • 1. Effective energy policy would have required the following: comprehensive removal of controls on the price of petroleum and its derivatives; abjuring the use of general tax revenues and financing of road construction and maintenance with tolls, excises on gasoline, and vehicle registration fees; the imposition of green excises on petroleum and its derivatives; and extension work with builders and architects promoting insulation technology. A federal laboratory investigating alternative energy technology and also improved technologies for disposing of nuclear waste might have been helpful also. Such a policy would also have required time for its salutary features to take effect. Carter fought tooth and nail with Congress (with partial success) to remove controls on the price of petroleum (and Reagan was able to accelerate implementation of decontrol by executive order). To sell the rest, the President would have to tell a truth most people did not want to hear: that they were not paying the full freight for their consumer choices and they needed to do so for reasons of economic efficiency and reasons of state. Aspects of that the President attempted. I cannot think of any of his successors who would have even made the attempt.

    2. I agree with you regarding inflation. I do point out, however, that the President was making decisions in a particular intellectual and political context. You need to ask yourself which of his opponents in 1976 would have made better decisions. This is speculative, to be sure, but that is inherent in evaluating a President because what you are evaluating is a contingent response to circumstances. (I suspect Mr. Ford, Mr. Reagan, and Mr. Brown would have done a better job with this. Messrs. Udall, Church, Wallace et al? Nope.)

    3. This is trivia. (And after what you call his plaintive cry, Mr. Brezhnev got hit with a policy innovation that had never been attempted in a sustained way: equipment of an insurgency intending to overthrow a Communist government).

    4. Carter did not manufacture such a military, he inherited it. Carter should have been far more vigorous about improvements in the military’s equipment and skill set. You have to recall, though, that he was facing a Congress for which this was not, in 1977, a priority. Mr. Reagan would have done things differently, but I think you are forgetting how atypical Mr. Reagan’s views were at the time. (And please note, the Reagan Administrations methods – an arbitrary annual increase in the real military budget – could be somewhat crude.

    5. The President makes 3,000 discretionary appointments. Some of them are bound to be crummy. Warren Christopher and Robert Pastor had no business being any position in the foreign policy apparat and Cyrus Vance was certainly in the wrong position (as the President came to realize). The real problem with the Iranian mess (at that point) is that the Administration allowed ABC News to turn it into a saga and the President appeared to have ruled out pro-active measures (e.g. asking for a declaration of war and then jailing Iranians in the country as enemy aliens – suggested by George Kennan) to resolve the crisis.

    You set yourself a high bar referring to Carter as the worst president since the antebellum. The man’s bad decisions in their consequences do not compare unfavorably to those of Herbert Hoover or Lyndon Johnson and you completely neglect the man’s virtues (such as his allergy to public sector borrowing and his willingness to tackle issues which did not arise from constituency pressure). He had an unpleasant public personality, he could be opportunistic in a disagreeable manner, he was caught up short by events. However, Carter did not stink. The Democratic Party stank. Mr. Carter was more antagonistic to the culture of that political nexus (as manifested in our wretched federal legislature) than any of his Democratic predecessors or successors).

  • 1. As to energy Art, Carter’s policy was rigidly focused on conservation and sponsoring what is now called “green technologies”. They are an economic boondoggle now, even more so in Carter’s time, as the technology to make solar, wind, etc simply isn’t there, even more so in the Peanut Farmer’s day.

    2. Oh Carter was probably no worse on the economy than the Democrats he ran against in 1976, which speaks volumes about the rot besetting that party. To be fair, I also regarded Ford as a poor president and voted two-handedly in November of that year. I think only Reagan had the political guts and the imagination to undertake the stern measures need to wring inflation from our economy.

    3. It’s not trivia Art, it is revelatory. The arming of the Afghan resistance was almost entirely the work of Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, and was hotly opposed by the rest of Carter’s foreign policy team. It was a rare foreign policy success, other than the Camp David Accords, in an administration otherwise noted for American retreat around the globe.

    4. No Art, Carter was content to gut the military. I remember it vividly since I was in the Army at the time. The contempt that most people in the military had for the man is hard to exaggerate. His neglect of the military was part and parcel of his foreign policy which could be summed up in his statement that we were outgrowing our “indordinate fear” of communism.

    5. Warren Christopher and Vance were typical of the appointees of Carter running our foreign policy. National security advisor Brzezinski was very much the exception. (As I recall Brzezinski was booed at the Democrat convention in 1980 by delegates there.)

    I call him the worst president except for James Buchanan Art because the man was a walking disaster in both domestic policy and in foreign policy, all the while being the most sanctimonius president we have ever had. I have never relished a politician’s defeat more than I did his on election night 1980.

  • 1. There is nothing bad about conservation. There are arguments to be made for and against government engaging in scientific and technical research outside its usual book. It gets to be a boondoggle not in the doing but when you create a state-dependent businesses and laboratories – i.e. corporate welfare and higher education pork. Carter faced a problem when he took office generated by public policy at all levels: petroleum products (and hence activities like motor vehicle use) were underpriced. Attacking that problem (and he put a great many chips on the table in so doing) puts you on a collision course with Congress and the general public. He was willing to take these hits. Attacking him for his energy policy is ill-informed and graceless.

    2. Both men who chaired the Federal Reserve Board during the period running from Carter’s inauguration to the summer of 1979 performed wretchedly. Please recall that the first of these men was a Republican appointee who had performed wretchedly for the previous seven years. The academic economist who correctly diagnosed the source of the problems manifest after 1968 was Milton Friedman, whose insight was that the empirically discernable trade-off between inflation and unemployment was crucially-dependent on public expectations of future price trajectories. This insight did not penetrate the Fed during those years nor the business press.

    3. It is trivia and your elaboration on the policy decision – that he over-ruled most of his advisors – undermines your argument.

    4. I am not going to second guess you on the subject of morale in the Army. The man ‘committed to gutting the military’ expended 5.67% of gross domestic product on it during his first years in office as opposed to Mr. Ford’s 6.13%. Please note, the ratio of military expenditure to domestic product saw an almost monotonic decline after the end of the Korean War. There were three reversals in this pattern: one during 1956-58, one during 1965-67, and one extending over the period running from 1979-86. Mr. Reagan’s military buildup antedated Mr. Reagan’s administration.

    5. The salient officials for high politics in any Administration are the Secretary of Defence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of State, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the staff director of the National Security Council. For the trade, development, and monetary component, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the director of the Agency for International Development are salient. The director of what was called the U.S. Information Agency &c. bring up the rear. The chief of mission at the United Nations is quite prominent but not very important (Mr. Carter used that job for political patronage and eventually fired its occupant after repeated reprimands). Dr. Brzezinksi’s conflicts with Cyrus Vance were well known. It was Vance, not Brzezinski, who ended up leaving. I do not recall that Harold Brown, a physicist from CalTech with a previous history in the Defense Department’s research apparat or Gen. David Jones, a military professional, had much of an ideological profile. The Central Intelligence Agency was directed by another military professional, Stansfield Turner. Adm. Turner has been criticized for a number of things – e.g. firing a great many people he should not have and placing too much emphasis on technical collection over espionage. The agency is such a black box and has such a history of dysfunction it is hard to evaluate these claims. Vance and his subordinates aside, I am just not seeing an incorrigible dovecote here. (You recall Carter himself had been a Naval officer).


    C’mon. Herbert Hoover presided over a catastrophic economic implosion largely attributable to wretched monetary policy (and inadequate banking supervision). Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, and William Westmoreland prosecuted a war so ineptly we ended up with 58,000 dead soldiers and we lost anyway. (Did I mention the Office of Economic Opportunity?). Woodrow Wilson promoted the disestablishment of central Europe’s monarchies and assisted in perpetrating the Treaty of Versailles – all in pursuit of his ideological fixations and dippy collective security schemes. The competition is just too stiff for Mr. Carter to win, place, or show in the Worst-President-Evah sweepstakes.

  • “1. There is nothing bad about conservation.”

    There most certainly is when it doesn’t get to the heart of the problem. All of the sweater wearing and theromstat diving in the world didn’t make a dent in America’s energy problem. Carter relied on pie in the sky initiatives rather than implementing policies which would spur domestic American energy production. His legacy has become one of the central core beliefs of his energy-luddite party.

    “2. Both men who chaired the Federal Reserve Board during the period running from Carter’s inauguration to the summer of 1979 performed wretchedly.”

    Wretchedly sums up the performance of the entire Carter administration in regard to the economy Art.

    “3. It is trivia”

    No, it is a simple indication of his world view, a world view he has doubled down on during his career as our most ex-of ex-Presidents. He took the advice from his national security advisor on Afghanistan, a very atypical response from Carter, I think largely due to the fact that 1980, election year, was the next year. Carter was a “useful idiot” otherwise in office for our enemies, just as he has been a “useful idiot” out of office for our enemies.

    4. Hollow military:

    “Joint Chiefs of Staff Break With Carter On Budget Planning for Defense Needs” p. A1: “Right now, we have a hollow Army,” responded Gen. E. C. Meyer, Army chief of staff, in what turned out to be the bluntest response. “I don’t believe the current budget responds to the Army’s needs for the 1980s,” said Meyer of Carter’s fiscal 1981 defense budget. “There’s a tremendous shortfall in the ability to modernize quickly” in response to the Soviet threat.”

    Washington Post, May 30, 1980

    5. “Dr. Brzezinksi’s conflicts with Cyrus Vance were well known. It was Vance, not Brzezinski, who ended up leaving.”

    And outside of Afghanistan it was Vance’s policy of retreat and accomodation in regard to our adversaries which continued to be followed.

    Art, I remember those years vividly. I think Jimmy Carter came very close to derailing the American economy and placed us on a very dangerous path where his weakness and dithering encouraged Soviet adventurism. I can only imagine the shambles that this country would have experienced if he had had a second term. No, for all around bad performance as president Carter will get my vote right after James Buchanan, the man whose tilt to the South helped bring on the secession crisis, and who helped convince the South that the North would not fight.

  • I have Jimmy Carter to thank for making me a Republican. When Carter was elected, I was 13 and I bought into my parents’ view that the GOP was the cause of the nation’s problems and now that the Democrats ran everything in Washington, things would improve.

    Carter cured me of ever believing anything that came out of the mouth of a Democrat.

    Carter was an incompetent, limp-wristed, ineffectual and diastorous president. His overall incompetence did lead us to Ronald Reagan, the greatest president of the 20th century.

    Obama was the second pop culture president. The slimy Bill Clinton was first. As modern pop culture is infested with leftist politics and lack of morality, it has become the religion of far too many young people. I remember Forbes Avenue in Oakland (Pittsburgh) was closed down because it was filled with college students from Pitt celebrating Obumbler’s election. Those fools back in 2008 are now the unemployed and under employed – and that bunch, across the nation, helped put Obumbler in the White House, because it was the “cool thing to do”.

    Sometimes, people have to learn the hard way, more often than not. Perhaps some of the nation’s young people will look elsewhere than Jon Stewart and other late night talk show hosts for their political information next time around.

  • Carter will never get another “shot” at ruining us. Obama may be given four more years to finish us off.

    There were a lot of bad presidents. Obama sets the standard.

    Make no mistake. It’s not only his destructive ideology and incompetence, add dishonesty and ill-disguised calls for violence.

    New Harris poll: 51 – 49: Ron Paul over Obama.

    You can fool some of the people . . .

  • I remember those years as well. So do most of the regulars here. If Darwin or Paul Zummo do not mind an unsolicited suggestion and want a sense of the feel of contemplating public life at that time, the movie Americathon or Ann Beattie’s novel Falling in Place might be helpful toward that end.

    I think one problem people have in recalling the Carter years has to do with a pervasive anxiety that dissipated after 1982. There was tremendous and unanticipated social entropy after 1958 manifest in all spheres. Things fall apart and everything looks absurd. Few people, even very perceptive and intelligent men like my father, had an idea where the bottom was. Around about 1982, the bottom showed up, for the most part. There has continued to be decay in one important sphere (attitudes toward sex and family life), but other than that, we could feel the bottom.

    I think Jimmy Carter came very close to derailing the American economy

    Just what does that phrase mean in terms of measurable results? We had a brief and mild recession in 1980 (in an economy that was otherwise growing); the labor market was not in the best of shape, but unemployment rates never exceeded 7.5%; the troubles in the banking system (savings banks losing money on their loan portfolios and money center banks with uncollectable sovereign loans) were as yet not manifest; there was an eruption in commodity prices in 1979-80, but such eruptions happen without much regard to public policy and households can (and did) adjust; and we had chronic problems with currency erosion, as we had had since 1966. Much of the inflation experienced in 1979 and 1980 was a temporary phenomenon, but there was a baseline of about 8 or 9% in annual consumer price increases. It was a problem that could have been and should have been addressed, but re-stabilizing prices need not cause an economic depression and it was accomplished here without one.

    The man who accomplished that was Paul Volcker, and if you wish to undertake counter-factual speculation as to what would have happened had Mr. Carter been returned to office in 1980, you do need to take account of the fact that Mr. Carter appointed Mr. Volcker.

    and placed us on a very dangerous path where his weakness and dithering encouraged Soviet adventurism.

    I imagine that was part of it. Prestige – your reputation for power – is an asset. Mr. Carter dissipated a certain amount of it. Since leaving office, Mr. Carter has manifested a bourbonish learnt-nothing-and-forgot-nothing aspect to him. However, at the time, he was willing to make adjustments in the face of circumstances and in the face of failures (something Obama does not do). That included putting the military budget on an upward trajectory, planning a commando raid in Iran, unloading first Andrew Young and then Cyrus Vance, and beginning a military aid program to counter the red insurgency in El Salvador. Appointing Paul Volcker, an experienced central banker with a radically different view of monetary policy than his predecessor, was another act of reassessment.

  • Ron Paul over Obama by 51-49? Really?!!? I’d take that one with a boatload of salt…

  • “Expect more blaming of the American people from our Excuse Maker in Chief as his administration …”
    It took him some search time for the word ‘country’ after he said ‘great – uh’ in the video. Symptomatic of malaise, too, considering his title.
    Abominable is his ever so dead-eyed, ‘righteous’ castigation of only certain sectors of the American people, not even the American people as a whole, thus developing good guy-bad guy mentality into a voting block where good and bad become meaningless. The psychic wounds inflicted, one way or the other, on all the American people of whom he is President, will probably be festering by mid-2012. The bandages offered will probably be in shades of gray.

  • President Carter was man enough to sacrifice his presidency for the good of the American economy. No presidency could have survived the bloodletting remedy that Mr Volcker applied. It was the retrenchment of the economy achieved at the tail end of the Carter presidency that gave the US the leaness to spring forward. For Afghanistan, Carter had offered a mere $400 million to Zia-ulHaq, which he derisively dismissed as ‘peanuts’. Ronald Reagan blundered in with his billions and CIA training, thus ensuring that the rise of militant Islam followed the the end of Communism. The Reaganites were played like a violin by the Saudis and the Pakistanis. It cannot be denied that the Communists in Afghanistan tried to make a go of it through education and improved healthcare. The Islamists would have none of it. President Carter was basically a decent man who became embittered in his later years. Now Obama on the other hand is without doubt the least qualified, most vacuous man ever to be President. This is perhaps all for the good, as he has the moral and historic sense of an Alinsky agitator. The saving grace here is that unlike the legendary agitators he lacks the ability to carry through his all plans. As the saying goes, God takes of little children and the USA.

  • Carter sacrificed nothing Ivan. He had absolutely no clue about the economy or what Volcker’s policies would lead to. His appointment of Volcker was done reluctantly and under pressure from Wall Street. His first pick for the Fed, G. William Miller, believed that inflation was a necessary product of “priming the pump” of the economy, and fought against raising the interest rates of the Fed. That Carter had little understanding of the issues involved is demonstrated by the fact that he made Miller his Treasury Secretary as an inducement for him to leave the Fed so that he could appoint Volcker, thereby ensuring that Treasury policy and Fed policy would be at war with each other during the remainder of his administration.

    There is a revisionist view that it was the tax cuts of Reagan, and not Volcker’s policies, that actually produced the reduction in inflation:


    I do not know that I accept that, but it is true that what Volcker was doing had proven counter-productive until combined with the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. Certainly since Reagan tax cuts have not proven to be inflationary in the US, contrary to the dogma of many economists prior to Reagan. Additionally, Volcker did not fully clamp down on the money supply until Reagan had defeated Carter/

    As for Afghanistan, your misreading of history is complete. The Soviet imposed puppet regime was despised by almost the entire Afghani population. The Afghanis were going to be fighting in any case and the US simply assured that they would be doing so with something better than the leftovers from the Anglo-Afghani wars of the nineteenth century. The rise of the Islamic militants has nothing to do with US aid. Bin Laden and his cronies were products of Saudi Arabia and Bin Laden’s involvement in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the US effort. The Taliban came into being just before Soviet withdrawal in 1992, and were a completely indigenous Afghan creation. To blame US aid for them is fanciful.

  • Donald, that the communists were hated is true. The Reaganites clearly saw it as a godsend to create the USSR’s Vietnam. It is perhaps understandable that the Americans were itching for payback. But it does not excuse the Americans of their folly in proping up an evil Islamist military regime in neighbouring Pakistan, which has now metastasised into perhaps the greatest menace to peace. The foundation for all this was laid right under Reagan’s nose by Zia-ulHaq. Any Indian (such as myself) could have told Weinberger and co. even then that the road to peace in Afghanistan runs through Pakistan.

  • No presidency could have survived the bloodletting remedy that Mr Volcker applied.

    Ivan, you seem to have forgotten that Mr. Reagan was returned to office with 58% of the vote. I think that qualifies as ‘surviving’.

    There is a revisionist view that it was the tax cuts of Reagan, and not Volcker’s policies, that actually produced the reduction in inflation:

    The “revisionist view” is nonsense. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon, though the effects of monetary policy are intermediated through the real economy. Unless it is someone’s contention that tax cuts increase households’ propensity to hold cash balances or increase banks’ propensity to hold reserves, I cannot see how tax cuts would promote price stability. That aside, the timeline alone is incongruent with such a thesis. The tax cuts were implemented over a three year span of time with just 20% of the proportionate reduction implemented in the first year. Re-stabilization of prices had been completed by the fall of 1982 and the Federal Reserve was already relaxing monetary policy.

    For Afghanistan, Carter had offered a mere $400 million to Zia-ulHaq, which he derisively dismissed as ‘peanuts’. Ronald Reagan blundered in with his billions and CIA training,

    You are conflating two separate programs. The Carter Administration did offer Zia an aid program, quite publicly and explicitly. It also began a covert program of equipping the extant insurgency in Afghanistan.

    As for Mr. Volcker’s medicine, they began in the fall of 1979 with targets for the growth of monetary aggregates (the monetary base, M1, M2, M3). Mr. Carter insisted in March of 1980 that he replace this with a policy of credit controls because the country was heading into a recession during an election year. He re-imposed the original policy, with Mr. Reagan’s blessing, when Mr. Carter left office.

  • I was in school and learned my (little, paltry amount of) economics before they screwed up everything and decided economics was studying about everyone getting something for nothing, i.e., free lunch/income redistribution.

    Yer second worst POTUS somehow managed the impossible. His fiscal actions (spending and taxation) and whatever influence (full employment with stable prices with social spending) he exerted on the Fed, resulted in rampant inflation and rampant unemployment.

    Obama says we are soft.

    Obama Day-One Today
    Poverty 13% 14%

    Unemploy Really 14% 16%

    Median Income $52,000 $49,400

    Jobs 142,200,000 139,600,000

    Inflation 0% 3.77%

    Gasolinbe $1.82
    It wasn’t Carter’s fault. He couldn’t have done it all by his little self. He had 30 or 40 years of Dem Congresses and the Great Society unproductive additions to money supplies and cost push inflation from the Cold and Vietnam Wars, and it was Nixon’s, no Ford’s, no Eisenhower’s faults . . .

    He signed Humphrey-Hawkins in 1978, that improved the 1946 Full Employment Act. It politicized the Fed and set hard economic goals that run against each other. It confused full employment with price stability with trade balances with halitosis, all of which often move in opposite, uncorrelated or divergent directions and magnitudes.

    And, the global terror war against us would have never happened if he hadn’t “sold down the river” the Shah to be replaced by fanatical terrorists: in the name of fairness?

  • My general sense of Carter was that he was a nice guy. He seemed thoughtful.

  • Carter was and is pat a mean-spirited sanctimonious little twerp. I have written on this aspect of his character before:


  • Ivan is off base regarding the rise of militant Islam. Militant Islam as we face it today was originally fueled by Hitler, who had his mufti, as Rabbi Davis so clearly explained in his book about Pope Pius XII. That mufti was Yasser Arafat’s uncle.

    The USSR was one of the chief sources of funding and support for the PLO. The USSR helped instigate the 1973 Six Day War by providing fake intelligence to Arab states in the hope that they would destroy Israel.

    Past policies from several administrations led to the Shah taking power in Iran and to his brutal holding of that power. What replaced the Shah is far worse. Iran has been a terrorist client state for more than 30 years. Their support of Hezbollah is proof.

    Jimmy Carter was not a nice guy. He is, even today, a mean spirited and spiteful man. Yes, Carter appointed Volcker. Yes, Carter signed legislation to begin deregulation of so many parts of the economy. Yet, Carter and the arrogant beyond belief Democrat Congress wrecked the economy and emaciated the military.

    Reagan was not played by Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. They helped the Reagan Administration get rid of the brutal Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. In retrospect, the Western world did nothing to help Afghanistan after the USSR left. The USSR should have been compelled to pay war reparations to Afghanistan, but the West was too wimpy to back the old Soviet codgers into a corner. The power vacuum that filled Afghanistan should be blamed primarily on the Soviet invasion that caused so much death and destruction.

    Obumbler is truly Malaise, Part II. The four years of the Nancy Pelosi controlled House are four of the worst years economically the USA has ever faced.

  • More revisionism regarding Volcker’s role in defeating inflation:

    It is twaddle from beginning to end.

    Carter was and is pat a mean-spirited sanctimonious little twerp.

    C’mon, Donald. He has managed to stay married for sixty-odd years; his children are among the least embarrassing of presidential offspring; and, other than Gerald Ford, no occupant of that office in the last 40-odd years has been so free from being sliced up by his employees after the fact. He cannot be that bad.

    He has some character and personality defects. He has some virtues as well. Musn’t overdo it.

  • “He has managed to stay married for sixty-odd years”

    I rejoice that he and the “Steel Magnolia” kept each other out of the marital market. I recall her comment that Reagan made people “comfortable in their prejudices”. Considering the history of the Carter family and blacks, I found that rich.

    Carter of course has always been quite willing to accuse political opponents of being racists:


    These comments by former secret service agents are on a par with numerous others who had the misfortune to work under Carter:

    “But the president subject to the greatest scorn is Jimmy Carter.

    Carter is portrayed as a phony according to the agents interviewed by Kessler. Carter would put on a show for the public to convey himself as a common man, but it was never anymore than an act. For instance, we are told that when Carter would make a point of carrying his own luggage in front of the press, he was really carrying empty bags. He expected others to carry his real luggage. Unfriendly, Carter “didn’t want the police officers and agents looking at him or speaking to him when he went to the [Oval] office,” explained an assistant White House usher. “The only time I saw a smile on Carter’s face was when the cameras were going,” one former agent told Kessler.

    After his presidency, Kessler reports that when Carter would stay at a townhouse maintained for former presidents in D.C., he would take down pictures of other presidents and put up more pictures of himself! “The Carters were the biggest liars in the world,” one agent told Kessler of the Carter era.

    Carter, not surprisingly, denied to Kessler through a lawyer many of the allegations in the book.

    The man who sent Carter packing from the White House could not have been more different according to accounts from agents. Ronald Reagan would constantly interact with his secret service agents and other staffers who worked for him. He was apologetic when he would take secret service agents away from their families on holidays. While Carter would make secret service agents pay for any leftover food they consumed after White House parties, we are told Reagan would insist the secret service eat leftover food (without charge, of course).”


  • This fellow Kessler is an ‘investigative reporter’ currently employed by Newsmax. Scandal is what his stock and trade is. He is in scant danger of a defamation suit if he makes stuff up out of whole cloth. (Here he is passing along the anonymous gossip of supposed Secret Service agents). This is the sort of thing properly taken with a large hunk of rock salt.

  • Art Deco, isn’t targeting the M1, M2 and M3 growth simply a fancy and as it turned out a blunderbuss way of achieving credit control? President Carter was a successful businessman and a nuclear engineer. He probably felt that the claims of the monetarists to be able to fine tune a complex plant like the economy were bogus. He re-imposed the original policy, with Mr. Reagan’s blessing, when Mr. Carter left office. Mr Reagan would not have been too unhappy with this seeing that that the next electoral test – the midterm – was a full two years away. I come from a country where elections turn on the price of onions; timing the recovery is everything. The Reagan Democrats were looking for a robust response to the likes of Iran; they were prepared to accept some incidental pain to see it through. Overall President Reagan was a better leader through his sunny optimism and an ability to quickly learn from his mistakes. But he failed bigtime in Afghanistan, though the poor man was probably not even aware of it.

    Penguin Fan, the final cause of militant Islam is the Islamic religion itself. Nonetheless it could have done without proximate American help. Pakistan had giddy dreams over Central Asia which the American sponsored through their naivete. We Indians made matters worse with our sanctimonious lectures and congenital hypocrisy.
    The USSR should have been compelled to pay war reparations to Afghanistan…

    Go easy on this: haven’t they suffered enough already through fatuous and at times cynical American “advice”.

  • The last link does not work. Try this if required:

    Go easy on this: haven’t they suffered enough already through fatuous and at times cynical American “advice”.

  • Kessler is indeed an investigative reporter Art who in his career has worked at the Boston Herald, the Wall Street Journal and fifteen years at the Washington Post. Your sneer at his credentials is unwarranted.


  • The reference to Newsmax was for identification only (though the site has a poor reputation). It is ‘investigative reporters’ of which I am skeptical. What someone pointed out about Richard Clarke applies to anyone who writes this sort of thing – if you have no scandal, you have no book and you do not earn your advance. ‘Investigative reporter’ is a trade for people of dubious ethics for reasons inherent in how these chaps earn their living. The American Spectator and Gary Aldrich were taken to task for trading in gossip about the Clinton’s and their entourage. The thing was, the state troopers who fingered Mrs. Clinton as a terror to work for put their names on it and Aldrich was a witness to much of what he described. This fellow Kessler is trading in what career civil servants supposedly told him. Journalists reviewing the book grant other journalists professional courtesies (which Aldrich did not receive), such as not raising the possibility that much of it could be fabricated by the author or his sources. Trust car salesmen before you trust these guys.

  • Art Deco, isn’t targeting the M1, M2 and M3 growth simply a fancy and as it turned out a blunderbuss way of achieving credit control?


    Targeting interest rates had been the policy of Mr. Volcker’s two predecessors. You can see where that got us. Targeting monetary aggregates succeeded in re-stabilizing prices with 19 months of continuous application. You can say it was not worth the candle (I know a leftoid economist who does). You cannot say it was an unsuccessful policy or that there was a ready alternative to the ends it sought to achieve. James Tobin was of the opinion, ca. 1980, that restabilizing prices would require a process of adjustment of 15 years in duration. The economic recovery from the end of 1982 to the spring of 1985 was so rapid the process was completed in five years.

  • Carter was and is pat a mean-spirited sanctimonious little twerp.

    One of the standard characterizations of Carter is that he was a poor president but a nice guy. As you’ve outlined, he isn’t a nice guy either. His outsized ego was in fact one of the reasons he was such a poor president, as he could never learn to appreciate that he in fact did not know everything, and this contributed to his disastrous management style. He is, simply, a jerk.

    Worst president ever? The pre- and post-Lincoln bunglers still take the cake. Pierce was invisible, Buchanan fiddled while the country tore itself apart, and Johnson’s pigheadedness destroyed any possibility of a real reconstruction effort. Johnson’s sins were in particular egregious as he lacked Lincoln’s ability to mollify the radical Republicans in Congress. So we had two extreme factions – one in the White House and one in Congress – and no clear leadership.

  • One of the standard characterizations of Carter is that he was a poor president but a nice guy. As you’ve outlined, he isn’t a nice guy either.

    I have to say that in 30-odd years of reading newspapers, I have never seen Jimmy Carter characterized as a ‘nice guy’. Mr. Ford and Mr. Reagan and the elder Mr. Bush, certainly; Mr. Nixon and Mr. Carter, no. The toothy grin aside, his public persona was fairly sober and even melancholy. The complaint that he was mean of spirit was heard from time to time as well, though it was a minority view. I do not think his ethics were much questioned, though there was the complaint (from Michael Kinsley, among others) that he had a habit of cynical reversals of policy undertaken without even acknowledging the reversal.

    Lot’s of folk are not affable. That really is not a character defect or worthy of much critical comment except among sales managers. There is no reason to savage Mr. Carter for his common-and-garden human flaws. Messrs. Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, and even Nixon provide ample fodder for that sort of commentary.

  • Worst president ever?

    The functions of the federal government have varied so over time that I am not sure why you would attempt to evaluate them in a common pool.

  • In regard to pre Civil War presidents Paul, Buchanan will always have my top slot for worst President.

    In regard to Carter, he believes that we are currently more polarized than we were during the Civil War, indicating that he must have slept through the American history classes at Annapolis. He also states that he enjoyed a bipartisan relationship with Congress during his term of office which is simply delusional.

  • IIRC, Mr. Carter had rather cold relations with all components of Congress.

    At the time, however, roughly 20% of those in Congress had a set of policy preferences closer to the median of the opposition caucus than to the median of their own caucus. I think the use of Cadillac filibusters and holds was more sparing then, so there were more opportunites for bipartisanship of a sort than the younger Mr. Bush would have had.

Keynesian Twilight Zone

Monday, September 19, AD 2011

There are few things sadder than a one trick pony whose trick fails to work.  Obama, with a faith whose fervency cannot be doubted, believes with all his soul that vast government spending is the mechanism to lift the country out of this never ending bad slump.  That his policies have failed to do anything other than to increase our massive public debt, sways him not at all.  For a true ideologue, and that is what Obama clearly is, a collision between reality and  beliefs merely means that reality is wrong since the beliefs are beyond question.  Thus in economic policy this administration is one endless Groundhog Day where the nation is stuck in a loop of high unemployment, minimal economic growth and ever expanding public debt.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Keynesian Twilight Zone

  • He makes Carter look good.

    Thomas B. Reed, “Every time he opens his mouth he subtracts from the sum of human knowledge.”

    “The Emperor Has No Clothes.”

    I know! I’m a racist.

  • That his policies have failed to do anything other than to increase our massive public debt,

    The last assessment I saw calculated the multiplier of the stimulus spending at 0.6, not at 0.0. (IIRC, there were economists who offered just that estimate going in). Arguably it was not worth the candle but not nothing.

  • At least one study Art asserts that the stimulus cost a net 595,000 jobs:


    Much of the stimulus of course merely allowed the states to use federal money to pay for highway projects instead of state funds. Estimates of the cost of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus range from 287,000 per job from detractors to a “mere” 100,000 per job by supporters. Blue smoke and mirrors is too kind a phrase for 787 billion dollars sent down a rat hole. Obama would have had more of an economic impact if he had just gone from town to town throwing $20,000 checks made payable to cash at random from the presidential limousine.

  • In fairness to the President, he seems to be channeling the Democratic Party’s cognoscenti in matters economic. The new line (propagated by Joseph Stiglitz) is that the stimulus was not large enough, we have a plentiful supply of useful public works, and that we are fools not to borrow at minimal interest rates (as if those rates were set in stone). Thomas Sowell posed the question some time back as to whether Dr. Stiglitz et al could state their propositions regarding stimulus in a manner that was potentially falsifiable. Morning’s Minion, take it away.

  • Arg, Matey!

    It likely isn’t Master Keynes’ fault.

    Nick Gillespie, “Whalen isn’t simply dumping on Keynesianism, he’s bent on pointing out that even its latter-day adherents are straying far from their master’s theory. And in this, he’s surely correct. As Allen Meltzer has argued, Keynes was against the very sort of large structural deficits that characterize contemporary federal budgets and policy, believing instead that deficits should be ‘temporary and self-liquidating.’ And Keynes believed that any sort of counter-cyclical spending by government should be directed toward increasing private investment, not simply spending current and future tax dollars on public works projects. Or, to put it another way: If the federal government had a strong track record of responsible spending, it would mean one thing if it went into hock for a short period of time to goose the economy (again, whether this would work is open to question). It means something totally different when a government that spent all of the 21st century piling on debt and new, long-term entitlement programs responds to an economic downturn first by creating yet another gargantuan entitlement (Obamacare) and taking on even more debt in the here-and-now.”

    Shiver me timbers! I doubt Master Keynes would call class war/demagoguery fiscal policy.

  • “There are few things sadder than a one trick pony whose trick fails to work. Obama, with a faith whose fervency cannot be doubted, believes with all his soul that vast government spending is the mechanism to lift the country out of this never ending bad slump.”

    Why do you hate Catholic Social Teaching?
    Morning’s Minion

  • Catholic social teaching doesn’t say we should abdicate to Caesar what is our own God-given duty as Christians to do. It is NOT Caesar’s responsibility to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, care for the sick, etc. That’s our duty as the adopted children of the Great King, and every time we abdicate our responsibility and evade our accountability to keep the command that God gave us to love our neighbor as ourselves, then we sacrifice on the altar of political expediency our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and the very power of God in our own lives for the temporal “graces” of a secular national socialist democracy and its Obamanation of Desolation. The lesson of Judas Iscariot is clear when he suggested that the proceeds from the oil with which Mary annointed Jesus’ feet could have been given to the poor. Judas said that not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief. That’s exactly what Scripture says in John 12. Government is no different. And by the way, we shouldn’t be seeking the bread that perishes as that crowd did in John 6, but the eternal Bread of Life. Jesus didn’t feed that crowd a second time. He noted exactly what they wanted: another free handout. TANSTAAFL – There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch – not then and not now.

  • The following is a Walter Williams column from 1998. Diverting money from the free productive private economy into the wasteful and destructive government command economy is disastrous.

    New study shows economic growth is inversely proportional to government spending

    20 MAY 98 – James Gwartney and Randall Holcombe, economics professors at Florida State University, and Robert Lawson, an economics professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, have just completed a report for Congress’ Joint Economic Committee. The title is The Size and Function of Government and Economic Growth.

    The report points out, as just about every American knows, the expansion of the U.S. economy has now moved into its eighth year. It’s been 15 years since a major recession. That’s the good news.

    Despite this performance, the real rate of economic growth during the 1990s is less than half that achieved in the 1960s. In fact, our average rate of growth has fallen during each of the last three decades.

    Greater economic stability, but less rapid growth, has also been the pattern of other developed nations. Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson, using data from 60 nations, produce convincing evidence that there’s a strong negative relationship between the size of government, increases in government expenditures and economic growth.

    In the case of our country, the authors conclude: If government expenditures, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), had remained at their 1960 level, the 1996 GDP would have been 9.16 trillion instead of 7.64 trillion. That translates into $23,440 for the average family of four.

    The authors also compared developed countries with the smallest increases in the size of government between 1960 and 1996 to those with the largest increases and looked at their growth rates. In 1960, government spending as a percentage of GDP in the United States, Iceland, Ireland, United Kingdom and New Zealand averaged 28.9 percent. The growth rate for those countries in 1960 averaged 4.3 percent. In 1996, government spending in those countries rose, averaging 39.1 percent, and their growth rates fell, averaging 2.7 percent.

    Developed nations with the largest increases in government size between 1960 and 1996 were Portugal, Spain, Greece, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In 1960, those governments spent an average of 28.1 percent of their GDP, and their growth rates averaged 6.4 percent. In 1996, government spending averaged 54.5 percent of GDP, and their growth rates fell to an average of 1.2 percent. From these statistical estimates, Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson show that for each 10 percent increase in government spending, there’s a 1 percent decrease in the rate of growth.

    The authors are not anarchists; they acknowledge an important critical role for government, namely that of providing the legal and physical infrastructure for the operation of the market and a limited set of public goods to provide a framework conducive to economic growth.

    As governments move beyond these core functions, however, they adversely affect economic growth through the disincentive effects of taxation, diminishing returns as government takes on activities for which it is ill-suited and government interference with the wealth-creation process. Governments aren’t as effective as markets in adjusting to changing circumstances and discovering innovative production methods.

    The Gwartney, Holcombe and Lawson study understates government size because it doesn’t take into account its regulatory burden. But even with this minor shortcoming, will the study’s persuasive argument and evidence lead Congress to reduce government size? I doubt it.

    The reason is that it is impossible for any of us to know or appreciate how much wealthier we would have been had government expenditures remained where they were when John Kennedy was president. In other words, how can a family of four know that it is $23,440 poorer because of Washington and its state and local governments?

  • “Why do you hate Catholic Social Teaching?”

    Do you equate CST with the progressive, Demorat class war? If so, I love more prosperity but love less economic destitution and financial repression.

    It’s not yer mother’s CST, minion matey.

  • It is time we all just understood the stark fact that Obama doesn’t know any better. No, he’s not very bright, doesn’t spend time thinking things over and wouldn’t know an idea if one fell on him. We elected the “Un-named Democrat” who always does so well in polling. We put upon Obama whatever wonderful things we wished to find and we then voted for our dream…but the dream was carried by a man who’s only claim to being worthy is to have two wonderful daughters…which is no small thing, but hardly something that fits a man for the Presidency.

  • Keynes was against the very sort of large structural deficits that characterize contemporary federal budgets and policy, believing instead that deficits should be ‘temporary and self-liquidating.’ And Keynes believed that any sort of counter-cyclical spending by government should be directed toward increasing private investment, not simply spending current and future tax dollars on public works projects.

    The Roosevelt Administration’s largest deficit prior to the War amounted to about 4% of gross domestic product. The president and Congress turned in two balanced budgets during the period running from 1933 to 1941.

  • Friends, Americans and undocumented immigrants, I come to bury Obama not to libel him. The failures men fall into . . .

  • So ten years ago we passed tax cuts lowering the federal tax take to the lowest it has been since before WWII, the result was the worst 10 years of employment growth in the same time frame. The response to the fact that the current President’s policies have not quickly enough repaired the damage of the last President’s policies is to ask for deeper tax cuts. And the Democrats are the one trick ponies.

    To hold true to Keynes’ teachings, President Clinton raised taxes and produced a surplus while during the good times. The president who followed him cut taxes and turned that into a deficit. Tracking from the end of WWII our total debt as a percentage of GDP continually dropped until1981 when we cut taxes on the promise that it would increase revenue. Revenue did not increase until the massive tax increases of the mid 1980’s took effect. Nowhere in historical economic data is there evidence to support tax cutting to produce long term jobs. There is plenty evidence that the government can spend money (even deficit spending) and create infastructure that leads to long term job creation. Two prime examples are the interstate highway system and the internet. This isthe type of spending originally proposed, unfortunately, it was changed to allow it to get through congress.

  • “So ten years ago we passed tax cuts lowering the federal tax take to the lowest it has been since before WWII, the result was the worst 10 years of employment growth in the same time frame. ”

    Get behind me, Satan.

  • Ziggy zoggy!
    Ziggy zoggy!
    Oy! Oy! Oy!

    Look it up. Terrorist attacks 9/11/2001. Recession. Global war on terror. Average unemployment rate during Bush presidency 5.2% (Eurozone average 8.2%). Also, tax reductions were passed to Buffett”s secretary: 50% pay no federal income tax. Stop me!

    Bush’s tax cuts were passed based on the same conservative, private sector growth concepts as another great American President: JFK.

    Employers are not hiring because taxes aren’t high enough . . . Actually, it’s Obamacare.

    You cannot reason with a person that will not agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

One Response to Internet Hitler Mourns Attack Watch

  • Barron’s ran a Book Review by Susan Witty (RIP): Mr. Speaker! The Life and Times of Thomas B. Reed the Man Who broke the Filibuster written by John Grant (of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer).

    Mr. Grant quotes Congressman Reed concerning civil trash like Obama’s low life acolytes, “They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge.”

Attack Watch!!!!!

Thursday, September 15, AD 2011

You know, sometimes I suspect there are forces within the Obama administration attempting to throw the upcoming presidential election race.  The most recent evidence of this is a truly Orwellian website, Attack Watch, at which Obama supporters can report unfair attacks on Fearless Empty Suit.  Go here to view the Attack Watch webite.  Sheesh, I hope the Obama campaign didn’t waste much money on the design of this snitch site.  I guess they aimed for foreboding and hit silly.  I practically expect to hear the Imperial March theme from Star Wars.  Actually, I will supply that for your listening pleasure as you are perusing the site:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Attack Watch!!!!!

  • The twitter responses to this are hysterical:

    Some of my faves:
    Hey #attackwatch, I saw 6 ATM’s in an alley, killing a Job. It looked like a hate crime!

    Obama campaign announces new site AttackWatchAttackWatch.com to stop attacks aimed at discrediting #attackwatch.

    RT @AtackWatch See a new attack on the President or his record? Use #gestapo to report it and discuss attacks as they happen.

  • This whole AttackWatch program would be really funny if I was watching it on the Colbert Report, but unfortunately it is true and the President of the United States of America is behind it. That makes is scarey, bazaar, unsettling, etc…
    If there is anyone out there who still believes that Obama is playing with a full deck they should be evaluated by a shrink also.

  • I’m still considering getting a picture of our youngest daughter with a copy of my Right Wing Conspiracy Handbook and sending it in…

    She drinks raw, uninspected whole milk! And has gained over ten percent of her body weight in two weeks! And is associated with guns, alcohol and tobacco! (…OK, so the first two consist of “living in a house where it is,” and the second one is because cigar boxes are incredibly handy….)

  • “I guess the campaign assumes that anyone supporting the Empty Suit Helmsman is too stupid to think up pro-Obama arguments on their own.”

    -and, by featuring pictures of the fearsome three at the top of the page, inform supporters upon whom to initiate counterattack due to the kneejerk action verb terminology of the watch site, the black background and red lettering giving emphasis to the serious outrage of it all.

  • now, back to twitter …

  • Pingback: Internet Hitler Mourns Attack Watch | The American Catholic

We Are Shackled to a Corpse

Wednesday, September 14, AD 2011

Last night Republican Robert Turner won the special Congressional election in New York 9, the congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner of Weinergate infamy.  Weiner was a pro-abort.  Turner is pro-life and against gay marriage.  How does a candidate, a 70 year old retired executive with no prior political experience, like this win in an icy blue congressional district held by Democrats since 1923?

Turner won by turning the race into a referendum on Obamanomics, and with this strategy he won resoundingly, 54-46.

This race is going to send shock waves through the Democrat establishment.  Already some Democrat leaders were saying privately what most sentient Americans realize:  due to his lousy stewardship of the economy Obama may well lose next year.  With this election, many Democrat leaders may well change from “may well lose” to “probably will lose”.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to We Are Shackled to a Corpse

  • Drudge has this as its top story headlined: “Revenge of the Jews…” which give Obama a 13% approval rating in that district. Notice ‘The Jews’ terminology, which one poster has accused me of using. As a voting bloc, Jews, for all their reputation as liberals, have a solid conservative streak as evidenced by this election and their positions on social issues such as abortion and homo marriage.

  • Orthodox Jews do Joe, and those are the type of Jews which predominate in that district, which has not prevented them from voting for politically liberal secular Jews, up to now. Obama may not have brought the hope, but he certainly brought the change, just not the change his most ardent backers expected.

  • Something will “come up” and Obama will have to make the hard choice between his “whatever” and running for a second term … I think he will not be running.

  • I pray every day Obama loses the White House, the sooner (e.g., by impeachment) the better, but ejection after the November 2012 election would be satisfactory result.

  • Don’t forget the other special election GOP victory in Nevada-2 by Mark Amodei. Evidently President Obama had to rally the troops last night, and here’s some video:

  • Interesting thing about the district is that, though it’s solidly Democrat, it’s one of the more Republican friendly districts in the city outside of Staten Island. It’s a ridiculously gerrymandered district that snakes across the Orthodox Jewish section in Brooklyn to the middle class neighborhoods like Forest Hills in Queens. These are the areas that supported Rudy Giuliani and which will occasionally cross party lines for Republicans in local elections. Still a big shock, though I fear the seat could be swallowed up due to re-districting as NY is due to lose a Congressional seat in the city.

  • I looked up the district map to see if I ever lived in it. The district border looks like it’s crossing the street whenever it sees a black person. I’m generally a fan of gerrymandering (yes, a fan), but I just found the blatant racial districting amusing.

    How Republican-friendly blue state districts are seems to be highly correlated to the immigrant-to-WASP/black ratio. That kind of turns the popular narrative on its head. Blue state WASPs are the most reliably Democrat. First generation immigrants are socially conservative small business owners who don’t care for handouts. They’re natural constituents for the GOP. The only reason they’re still swing voters leaning Democrat is because of the GOP’s immigration problem.

  • The district was intentionally gerrymandered so that the surrounding districts would be more heavily minority, which means it’s a pretty white bread district itself. In fact it snakes through my old neighborhood (Ridgewood), though the district that my mother is in is actually represented by Nydia Velazquez – and said district is itself ridiculously drawn up.

  • I looked up the district map to see if I ever lived in it. The district border looks like it’s crossing the street whenever it sees a black person. I’m generally a fan of gerrymandering (yes, a fan), but I just found the blatant racial districting amusing.

    You’re on to something, but it’s the exact opposite motivation at work. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 has a mandate to maximize African American representation. That’s why you sometimes see truly odd districts, and have seen some intensive litigation over them. The Shaw v. Reno line of cases (involving the infamous I-95 district in North Carolina) at the Supreme Court has really made district drawing a balance beam act.

    You also get to see some very funny arguments by lawyers as a result, in an attempt to evoke the bizarreness of the district shape. The Shaw case had a lawyer arguing that “if you drove down I-95 with both doors open, you’d kill half the voters in the district.” Bush v. Vera was even better: “these districts were not drawn, they were vomited on a screen door.”

    Ironically enough, the Supreme Court initially punted on challenges to majority-minority cases in a case originating out of a New York district that was heavily Orthodox Jewish in population: the United Jewish Organizations v. Carey case back in 1977. While the Supreme Court ultimately rejected the challenge, the justices were so befuddled by the problem that there was only a plurality in favor of the judgment and a lot of half-concurrences which make the Oracle at Delphi look positively forthright by comparison.

  • My day began with a good laugh, as I saw Debbie Wasserman-Schultz say that this district has always been “difficult” for Democrats. Oh yes, what an uphill battle the donks have had in a district that hasn’t had a GOP rep since the 1920’s.

    I’m becoming a big fan of Debbie, really I am. I hope she is on TV flapping her jaw as much as possible between now and Nov. 2012. She’s almost as entertaining as Biden.

  • Debbie does have a true talent for comedy relief. I suspect that her party will need all the comedy relief they can muster after the election results next year.

  • Last night Republican Robert Turner won the special Congressional election in New York 9, the congressional seat vacated by Anthony Weiner of Weinergate infamy.

    That election victory is more evidence that the public holds Republicans to a higher moral standard than Democrats.

Debate With a Liberal

Tuesday, September 13, AD 2011

A humorous, albeit stacked, debate.  The video does illuminate one facet of the American political scene.  Educated conservatives tend to be more familiar with liberal arguments than educated liberals are with conservative arguments.  The reason for this is quite simple.  Conservatives who have been to college have exposed themselves to an institution that is overwhelmingly liberal.  If they read or view the mainstream media, once again they are exposed to liberal ideas from an institution overwhelmingly liberal.  Their entertainment comes to them from sources that tend to be liberal.  Educated conservatives in our society can no more ignore liberal ideas and arguments than they can any other annoying and ubiquitous feature of modern life;   like people having “private” conversations at the top of their lungs over cell phones, liberalism is a constant background feature.

The same is not true for educated liberals.  If they choose, and a surprising number of them so choose, they can lead their lives without ever engaging with conservative ideas and arguments.  The colleges they attend support their political beliefs, the mainstream media presupposes that their arguments are correct and entertainment, if it has political content, will usually flatter their predispositions.  In short, liberals in our society can live their lives in an ideological bubble where conservatives need not be taken seriously.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Debate With a Liberal

  • what ever became of that online test that was supposed to measure how well the other side understood their opponents arguments by trying to pose as one of the others? I think that it was one for Christian vs. Atheist, but this comment reminded me of that – certainly there is one for Lib v. Con.

  • That was a sexist video! 😉

    Loved the dude’s hairdo. 🙂

  • “That was a sexist video!”

    Wait until you see a post I do about Civil War historian Amanda Foreman later this week Don! I will probably have to ban myself from TAC for a time because of it!

    “Loved the dude’s hairdo.”

    Now coming close to looking like Mr. Clean myself, I tend to refrain from casting aspersions on male hairdos (I learned long ago never to say anything negative about a woman’s appearance if I wanted to remain hale and hearty), although his hair does have a certain resemblance to a black candle flame.

  • Excellent insights, Donald. In the late ’80’s and early ’90’s, when I began having doubts about liberalism, it took some effort to ferret out conservative books and magazines in Washington, DC. After digging through magazine racks, I’d find a lone copy of National Review tucked in behind 10 copies of Mother Jones – and when I paid for it at the counter, the clerk frequently would shoot me the same sort of look a good Catholic mom would give a son caught with a Penthouse magazine. Indeed, I soon got tired of the hunt and the accusatory glances and ended up subscribing to NR, the American Spectator, and, later, the Weekly Standard. The Internet has made accessing material that is not the usual secular, liberal “conventional wisdom” so much easier and for that we should all be thankful.

    That’s why I have little patience for complaints that the Internet has created polarizing ideological and religious “ghettoes” I have noticed that the people who do the most complaining about it are those who benefited hugely from a liberal near-monopoly of news sources. They hate the “polarization” because they are not used to being challenged and fact-checked.

  • A humorous, albeit stacked, debate.

    I especially enjoyed the reference to What’s the Matter With Kansas? early in the first minute.

    “But I thought Democrats were in favor of empowering the working class.”

    “It was before the working class became anti-intellectual and began voting against their self-interest.”

    It’s not that the debate is stacked so much as shot full of truth serum.

And a Happy Labor Day to You Too Hoffa

Tuesday, September 6, AD 2011

James P. Hoffa, current boss of the Teamsters’ Union, and son of former boss of the Teamsters, and gangster, Jimmy Hoffa, whose mortal remains no doubt reside in various locations around the country courtesy of his gangland cronies, took the opportunity yesterday to declare his Union members an army for Obama and to spit on the morality of the mothers of those who oppose Obama.

I look forward with eager anticipation to the civility police on the political Left in this country swinging into action and condemning Hoffa’s use of gutter language and apparent confusion of next year’s election with a war.

Obama got the endorsement of the Teamsters in 2008 by suggesting that he was open to less federal oversight of the Teamsters.  The federal oversight has been going on since 1991 as part of an ongoing effort by the feds to rid the Teamsters of mob influence.  The Teamsters’ Union has long been opposed to the federal oversight, for reasons that I will leave to the perspicacity of my readers.

President Obama, at the rally where Hoffa gave vent to his inner thug, immediately condemned the intemperate remarks and renewed his call for greater civility in politics.  Naah!  Actually President Obama praised Hoffa.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to And a Happy Labor Day to You Too Hoffa

  • The only thing missing was the brown shirts.

  • Anthony Provenzano was a gangster and Jackie Presser was as spurious as he was odious. The elder Hoffa was an unscrupulous man (in his work life) and co-operated with the Mafia in a mutual exchange of favors. He was, however, an authentic labor leader.

    In an act of bad taste and nostalgia, the Teamster membership put his attorney son in charge of the union. However, it was the Teamster membership that did that (and they have made worse choices on the local level). The Teamsters as a whole are likely cleaner than they have been at any time since 1927 or therabouts, and more democratic in their internal procedures.

  • “The Teamsters as a whole are likely cleaner than they have been at any time since 1927 or therabouts, and more democratic in their internal procedures.”

    That ain’t saying much Art:


  • “The elder Hoffa was an unscrupulous man (in his work life) and co-operated with the Mafia in a mutual exchange of favors. He was, however, an authentic labor leader. ”

    God save the working man Art from such authentic labor leaders:


  • Oh yes it is. See David Witwer’s history of the Teamsters. They had a chronic problem with mob infiltration from 1928 onward, first in Chicago and then, from 1930, in New York. Nevertheless, there was considerable variation in the character of the men at the union’s apex and core. The rap on the Teamsters, ca 1988 was not merely the presence of the mob and general corruption, but the degree to which the union functioned as a dues collecting machine that did little for its members. Hoffa-pere was recalled fondly because he was unlike his successors in this regard. Both he and his predecessor David Beck were repellant characters in many ways, but they both were successful pavement level organizers in their day (one of warehouse workers, the other of laundry workers).

  • In other news: True to form President Failure and Class Hate refuses to condemn union leaders’ violent threats.

  • The new “civility” at work, post Tucson

  • Bunch of red raggers. Bring on the Revolution.

    How would you like that bunch in the workforce of your business?

    Not on your nellie!!

  • “Bunch of red raggers.”

    Thank you Don! That goes into my little black book of quotations that I stea- er borrow, for future use!

  • Seriously? Disagree with the ideology of his rhetoric all you like, the speech itself was really pretty tame — one okay-for-daytime-TV off-color phrase notwithstanding. The intent was to get the core voters excited, not have a quiet and frank discussion of policy.

  • Very seriously. If Hoffa had been a conservative the Lamestream Press would be shouting about this for days as further evidence of the violent proclivities of those dangerous right wingers. Obama set the rules of the civility game by his speech calling for an end to violent rhetoric earlier this year, and he sits tamely by as Hoffa calls his adversaries sons of female dogs. Hyprocrisy and irony competed for first place in regard to the Hoffa-Obama performance yesterday.

  • Very, very seriously, the Obama propaganda machine went into full gear to advance “civility”, when a GOP judge was assassinated in Tucson, at the same time his evil minions were liberally lying about the dangerous tea party and calling anyone that disagrees violent threats to public safety. When you can’t win the debate you . . .

    PS: Obama on Labor Day – Should have said, “Sorry, I killed your jobs!”

    PPS: The Zero sounded like Al Sharpton.

  • I’m going to regret commenting, but since the Teamsters were discussed, their Local 456 is the Union Local for the Security Guardforce at the Indian Point Energy Center for nuclear power plant units 1 (now decommissioned), 2 and 3. Units 1 and 2 were owned by Con Ed and sold to Entergy Nuclear, and Unit 3 was owned by the New York Power Authority and also sold to Entergy Nuclear. The International Utilities Workers Union of America provides union representation for operators, mechanics, electricians, and other technicals. Teamsters does for the Security Guard Force because regulations prevent the same union representing both sets of people. Anyone feel secure, now?

  • Being on the left means never having to say you’re sorry.

  • In keeping with the “new tone:”

    Authorities are investigating a carjacking and assault that occurred Thursday during protests by union activists concerning their right to work at a Washington state grain terminal at the Port of Longview.

    According to a Cowlitz County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) press release Friday, law enforcement officials with multiple agencies were forced to back off from their defensive position during the ILWU protests over fears for their safety.

    “Our teams of four or five officers were confronted by baseball bat and axe handle wielding protesters.” Cowlitz County Sheriff Mark Nelson said.

    Oh, and another story has this little note:
    Scott Mason, president of the ILWU Local 23 in Tacoma, said some of his members have joined in the Longview effort, but he doesn’t believe they were involved in illegal activity. He blamed the company for provoking the response and warned that more activity could be coming.

    Only reason I heard about it was because the local talk radio this morning was complaining that our worthless Obama-chasing governor hadn’t managed to even respond to any of this. >.<

  • I found it richly ironic Foxfier that the story involving the ILWU and the mass criminal activity they engaged in occurred so soon after Hoffa’s speech. None of this should be news. Violence engaged in by Unions is not a rare event and such incidents are rarely punished by the legal system:



    Too often the political powers that be are completely in the pocket of the Unions and look the other way. Hoffa may not realize it yet, but he may have helped stir up a reaction to this tolerance of Union thuggery.

4 Responses to Laugh For the Day

The Sally Field’s Argument For Obama

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

There are times when I read a blog and slap my forehead and think to myself that I really wish I had written that.  I had one such forehead slapping moment when I read this gem at Creative Minority Report by Matthew Archbold:

Hey, some are saying, Obama’s sagging job approval numbers don’t mean anything because his personal favorables are doing fine.
Hot Airhas this quote from the National Journal but as Ed Morrissey says, they’re far from the only one pushing this meme.

President Obama, whose job-approval ratings are mired well south of 50 percent, has an important factor breaking his way as he seeks another term: Americans still overwhelmingly like the guy.

So we’re supposed to ignore his job approval numbers and focus on whether people like him as a person.

Hmmm. It doesn’t seem that long ago that the exact opposite was true. Remember around the time of Bill Clinton’s impeachment all the media would talk about was that while his personal approval numbers were in the tank, HIS JOB PERFORMANCE NUMBERS WERE SKY HIGH!!!! AND THAT’S WHAT REALLY MATTERS!!!

ABC News had this to say:

You can’t trust him, he’s got weak morals and ethics — and he’s done a heck of a good job… Despite his prevaricating, his sexual misadventures and his impeachment by Congress, a remarkable 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Clinton has done his job —

Even on the weekend of his impeachment trial, CBS News reported:

Throughout most of this year, more than six in ten adults have approved of the way the President has handled his job. Approval has occasionally risen even higher, as the public rallies to Bill Clinton in times of crisis.

So…long story short. Under Bill Clinton all that mattered was job approval numbers but now under Obama all that matters is personal favorability.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to The Sally Field’s Argument For Obama

  • As I wrote on the other thread, personal favorability numbers are going to be misleading because they’re going to be subject to a very strong Bradley Effect.

  • thats the MSM stumping for their guy..

  • Let me get this straight: people who don’t know personally know Obama are being polled on his personable likability and the media talking heads are telling us that anyone who answered something besides “I don’t know/no opinion” know what they’re talking about.

    Obviously, a dark shadow of cluelessness hangs over the U.S. Establishment Media and its audience.

Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

Columnist John Kass, the only good reason to ever read the Chicago Tribune, speculates that Obama is ready for his “Killer Rabbit” moment.

Anyone who thinks Obama is safe from a rabbit attack has forgotten what happened to President Jimmy Carter In 1979. Carter was attacked by a swimming rabbit, and the subsequent “Killer Rabbit” stories helped destroy his presidency. It led to the election of Republican Ronald Reagan in a landslide and an unprecedented economic revival.

There are eerie similarities. Like Obama, Carter was at that point where he was constantly viewed as weak and ineffectual. His fellow Democrats had lost patience with him. Liberal writers who once fawned on him had turned against him.

And like Obama, Carter foolishly left the White House for a “vacation.” Carter went home to Georgia for some fishing. Once his canoe hit the water of a pond, a terrible thing happened. A rabbit swam near with anger in its eyes.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Obama Ready for Killer Rabbit Moment

  • I’m guessing the opinion polls will never show voters disliking Obama personally. If there is one place that a “Bradley Effect” is going to show itself, it’s in opinion polls asking whether voters have a personal like of the first African-American president. While voters might feel free to express their dissatisfaction with the way Obama is doing his job, I’m guessing they will be loathe to ever express dissatisfaction with him as a person.

  • When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won. Not the least of what made Carter loathsome was the way he handled the Iranian hostage crisis. Yellow-bellied, cowardly, incompetent idiot. I am sure that most of today’s nuclear submariners feel the same way about Obama. I realize that that won’t make any difference. But that’s how we all felt.

    BTW, Donald, you write, “Go here to read the rest.” Yet there is no link. Is my computer messing up?

  • I wonder if there isn’t a symbiotic relationship between how we feel about them and how they feel about us.

    GW was hated or loved by the same people from beginning to end – give or take a million or two.

    I wonder if Carter’s malaise speech wasn’t as much about the loss of faith in America. Perhaps Obama doesn’t like us any more. Maybe the constant vacations reflect his distaste for the job and the people he was supposed to serve.

  • “When I was on the submarine, every one of us – all one hundred and twenty men – cheared when it was announced that Reagan won.”

    My brother was commanding a tank platoon in Germany at the time. He said the exact same thing happened in his unit when the results were announced.

  • Thanks, Jay. The appearance of the word “here” wasn’t in the light blue that usually designates a hyperlink at TAC – at least on my PC.

  • I have added the color blue to the word to correct that Paul.

  • The “First African-American” mayor of NYC also was a superlative dud. He didn’t bust NYC and didn’t need to fight off a cotton-tailed, ninja rabbit.

    The West Side Commies haven’t been able to elect a lefty since David Dinkins.

    I apologize if that was “racist.”

  • Well, T. Shaw, people might just ask what the President has to do with the former Mayor of New York given that the latter has been out of office for 17 years and given that what the two have in common (party registration, skin color, a law license, and a passably durable marriage) a great many politicians have in common. Different ethnicity, different generation, different sensibility, different social origin, different kind of education, different work history, different career progression.

  • Not that it makes any difference, but the so-called “killer rabbit” was actually a swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), a more aggressive creature and better swimmer than the typical Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).

    Years later, Carter press secretary Jody Powell described the critter thus:

    “(This was) not one of your cutesy, Easter Bunny-type rabbits, but one of those big splay-footed things that we called swamp rabbits when I was growing up…

    “The animal was clearly in distress, or perhaps berserk. The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind. What was obvious, however, was that this large, wet animal, making strange hissing noises and gnashing its teeth, was intent upon climbing into the Presidential boat.”

  • Perhaps Obama might be advised to watch “Night of the Lepus” before going on any boating or fishing excursions (although as far as I know, Martha’s Vineyard isn’t infested by swamp rabbits)


  • Art,

    That right! Unlike Dinkins, Obama’s “monumental failure” (see yesterday’s WSJ Letters, Bernard Lang, New Providence, NJ) is unsurprising “given the ridiculous system in which he has to contend.” Obviously, here we have one each clueless ivy League moron. What ridiculous system? Congressionally enacted laws? The US Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? Private Property? The evil, unjust private sector?

    NYC survived Dinkins. The US might not survive Obama.

    Add to your “two have in common”: multiple failures, incompetence, inexperience, liberal ideology, misery for the people, political hackhood, . . .

    You are even more correcter: I should not have insulted Dinkins. He did nothing outside NYC’s Charter. Dinkins is not a gangster.

  • David Dinkins, per published reports attended Howard University and Brooklyn Law School. One is a historically black school and the other a component of one of New York’s two public systems of higher education. He never had anything to do with the Ivy League. He is not a moron. His academic degrees were earned in serious subjects (mathematics and law) during the first decade after the war, when there were no mulligans for black students. He had to pass the same bloody licensing examination as did any other aspirant lawyer in New York.

    Dinkins was born in 1927, which is to say into the cohorts where exhibitionism is least valued and least manifested. He grew up in a milieu that was without qualification northern urban black. His father and his father-in-law were old-style bourgeois, one owning a real estate agency and the other a liquor store. Dinkins was a working lawyer. He was a clubhouse politician and rose within those ranks. In none of these respects does he resemble B.O., quite apart from the obvious differences in personality.

    New York City had the problems northeastern cities commonly do, what John Lindsay called the ‘layers and layers of deals’ with rent seeking constituencies necessary to keep the city running. The formal political architecture is not as dysfunctional as that of the federal government, but it had its curios. Obama has to contend with federal institutions that are quite poorly structured, in addition to whatever errors of judgment he makes.

  • Art,

    Thanks for the History lesson.

    Maybe they could find one of them non-human people to run for Prez; and reduce the size and reach of the federal government.

  • Honestly, if there’s an animal acting out of character, it’s a good idea to try to make sure it doesn’t get close enough to bite– unless you really like a bunch of shots through your gut to cure rabies.
    Kind of like how even though people die from being attacked by deer…it’s funny.

    I’d imagine it’s nowhere near as fun to actually be responsible for stuff as it is to give orders when you won’t really be held accountable for it.

    T. Shaw-
    general theory about non-human people is that they’d be fallen, too, so we’d still be vulnerable to the charm of power. ;^p
    Samwise for President!

  • The President confessed to having had limited experience with enraged rabbits. He was unable to reach a definite conclusion about its state of mind.

    Of course, if a crazed rabbit charged Rick Perry while he was out jogging, we all know what would happen…

    (Or if an antlered rabbit attacked Sarah Palin.)

    Still, perhaps all potential chief executives should sit down and watch:

  • By the time the rabbit swam by everybody was sick of poor Jimmy. My dad was a dyed in the wool Dem and even he was relieved when Jimmy lost.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings Provide The Commentary

Tuesday, August 9, AD 2011

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to The Gods of the Copybook Headings Provide The Commentary

  • “when all men are paid for existing and no man pays for his sin”

    I always have a hard time reading poems and I really don’t know why. Well maybe that speaks to something about me. This definately speaks about what is currently going on…

  • This poem needed the date of publication!! So I looked it up:

    Published in October 1919 when the poet was 53 years old, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” has proved enduringly popular, despite the fact that copybooks disappeared from schoolrooms in Britain and America during, or shortly after World War 2. A copybook was an exercise book used to practice one’s handwriting in. The pages were blank except for horizontal rulings and a printed specimen of perfect handwriting at the top. You were supposed to copy this specimen all down the page. The specimens were proverbs or quotations, or little commonplace hortatory or admonitory sayings — the ones in the poem illustrate the kind of thing. These were the copybook headings.

  • “… and the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; …The gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”

    Rudyard Kipling handles the ‘history repeats itself’ idea without going blue in the face.

    This poem so fits the speech above, mixer included. Our problem doesn’t appear to be debt reduction according to the Copybook, because we have to agree to continue to support results of natural disasters, and then there are those high payroll taxes that prevent us from going to market, then … (how unspeakably base to use this) wages of war (for what battery element) in current news as final emphasis.

    I was glad for the mixer problem on the speaker, but not amused for the 10 minutes.

    I worry about long it will be before some handling of debt reduction (balancing the budget for a CHANGE) happens. Would it be forgotten if London’s events (are they related to other 2011 uprisings?) moved across the ocean.

  • Robert-
    I generally have the same issue. Kipling has always been an exception, starting with “Female of the Species.”

  • “Female of the Species.”

    My late formidable mother’s favorite poem!

  • Well said Hank!

    “His vows are lightly spoken,
    His faith is hard to bind,
    His trust is easy broken,
    He fears his fellow-kind.
    The nearest mob will move him
    To break the pledge he gave –
    Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
    Is more than ever slave!”

  • Ouch– well struck, Hank, Donald. The line about Throws the blame on some one else. is especially painful in light of that “look what happens when you type ‘obama blames’ into google” thing.

  • I am most impressed, Don, that you found this poem to epitomise the “ramblings” of the Obamessiah.
    I have never read much Kipling, apart from some of his militaristic writings, and his Indian conection – Gunga Din etc.
    But I find,
    “That a dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to her mire,
    “And the burnt fools finger bandaged goes wabbling back to the fire.”
    particularly poignant.
    I listened to Obama after I had listened to Michele Bachman.
    “WOW” – what a woman. She leaves Obama for dead – and she never had a teleprompter 😉

    The US has to get back to its manufacturing and leading design base that made it famous just a few decades ago. Get the design and efficiency right, the price doesn’t matter. Back in the 60’s 70′ sand 80’s the world loved US products. Sure, the cost of labour is critical, but design, quality and efficiency of scale does make a difference. Get rid af the crazy Union control, take a bit of a dip, and ALL the people will benefit.
    (My 2 cents worth)
    The US rating is now the same as NZ – AA+ – its not all bad. 🙂

2012 Presidential Election: Clouds Are Gathering For Obama

Friday, July 15, AD 2011

The Presidential election is still just over 15 months away, and much can change in that time.  However, as of now the signs are ominous for President Obama:

1.  The Unemployment Rate: Currently the unemployment rate is around 9.2.  Since World War 2 no President has been re-elected when the unemployment rate was greater than 7.2.  Roosevelt won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16. 6 and again in 1940 with an unemployment rate of 14.4.  However, FDR had inherited an unemployment rate of 19.8.  Obama inherited an unemployment rate of 7.8.  If, as increasingly looks likely, the economy remains stagnant or slips back into recession, I find it had to see how there will be much improvement in the unemployment rate prior to November 2012.

2.  Electoral College Shift: The Republicans will see a probable gain of approximately 14 votes in their electoral college votes simply due to red states gaining population and blue states losing population.

3.  2012 ain’t 2008: In 2008 Obama took Virginia, Indiana and North Carolina, a total of 39 electoral votes.  I do not believe he has a prayer of taking any of those states in 2012.  Ohio with 18 electoral votes and Florida with 29 electoral votes went for Obama in 2008, and both went big for the Republicans in 2010.  Unless Obama can take one of those states, the electoral math becomes hard for him, albeit not impossible.

4.  Say Goodby to the Youth Vote: Obama benefited from a high level of support among young voters, precisely the category of voters suffering the highest level of unemployment.  I doubt if a good many of them will be motivated by the promise of four more years of the same to leave Mom and/or Dad’s basement to pull the lever again for Obama, certainly not in the same high numbers.

5.  Polls: Obama is beginning to show real weakness when matched against a generic Republican:

Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for the “Republican Party’s candidate for president” than for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, 47% to 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama’s re-election prospects.

The latest results are based on a July 7-10 poll, and show that the Republican has an edge for the second consecutive month. Obama held a slight edge in May, when his approval rating increased after the death of Osama bin Laden. As his rating has come back down during the last two months, so has his standing on the presidential “generic ballot.”

Gallup typically uses this question format when a president is seeking re-election but his likely opponent is unknown, as was the case in 1991-1992 and 2003-2004, when incumbents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, respectively, were seeking re-election.

The elder Bush held large leads over his generic Democratic opponent throughout 1991, but early 1992 preferences were more evenly divided and Bush eventually lost his re-election bid. The younger Bush also consistently maintained at least a small advantage over the Democrat throughout 2003, before winning re-election in a close contest in November 2004.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to 2012 Presidential Election: Clouds Are Gathering For Obama

The Clothes Have No Barack

Wednesday, July 13, AD 2011

Right you are Klavan on the Culture!  I think that future historians will find the Obama years puzzling in that a large segment of the American population spent them resolutely denying the obvious:  that electing as President a politician from Illinois with little experience, few leadership skills, a reactionary adherence to government as panacea, and a pronounced hostility to the private sector, has been an unmitigated disaster for the country.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to The Clothes Have No Barack

  • That’s the truth! But the lemmings are still drinking the purple koolade and ready for that stampede off the cliff.

  • “Eat your peas and suck it in.”

    IMO history will judge Obama the least experienced, least qualified, and least American POTUS.

    Each day Wrong Way Obama provides evidence that nothing can be accomplished by complaining, criticizing, lying, regulating, spending, taxing, tomfoolery, and eroding the people’s liberties and property.

    An American would have said, “Eat your peas and suck it up.” Or, “Man up.”

  • The one thing that continues to amaze me is that otherwise really smart people (such as certain unnamed pro-nuclear energy bloggers) who know more about science and engineering and technology than I ever will are still in love with Obama! Now most people with whom I work in the nuclear power industry are conservative and realize that Obama is an idiot. But those who blog are invariably liberal, progressive Democrats, and often atheist humanists to boot. I just don’t get it. How can people certainly a whole heck of a lot smarter than me be unable to see through the smoke and mirrors? These aren’t evil people. They do want the best for the country and they are basically decent human beings. But they are ever so wrong and ever so deluded. They buy into that fantasy hook, line and sinker that Andrew Klavan so eloquently describes.

    I just don’t understand it. The country is going down under with abortion, gay sex, contraception, pornography, corruption (ecclesial and political), etc. And people still look at Obama all starry-eyed and gushy-teared. It’s truly the spirit of anti-Christ (no, Obama isn’t the anti-Christ; he’s too stupid to be that; rather, this spirit that so infects people who really are not evil themselves is positively demonic).

  • Paul, you wonder why people who are smarter than you are soooo deceived when it comes to Obama? It’s ideology man. These folks have adopted a pre-concieved set of ideas that does all their thinking for them. They never tested their ideology in the real world, they just accepted it as religious dogma. To get a handle on this, read “Intellectual Morons” by Daniel Flynn, especially the first chapter. BTW, your fellow nuke workers may understand more about science, technology, and engineering than you do, but they know squat about human nature.

  • Obama is trying for the center and getting squeezed from both sides. The Leftists think he’s abandoned them; the right think he’s too far left. The middle is narrow so he has nowhere to go, trying to satisfy both ends. It’s a losing strategy as his base crumbles and the independents move right. But if the GOP puts up another weak sister then Obama could win by default. Too early at this point to count him out. A lot could and will happen before Nov 2012.

  • Center Schmenter . . . Senator Rubio: “Every aspect of life in America is worse since Obama took over.”

  • Joe;

    I am happy to be able to state that we agree on something – it is too early to count President Obama out. Who would have thought Bush I would loose when a year before he had a 90%+/- approval rating.

  • I am happy to be able to state that we agree on something

    uh-oh 😀

  • I knew it was over for Bush 41 when he reneged on the no new taxes pledge. The Gulf War victory raised him to the stratosphere temporarily but it did nothing to repair the deep damage that Bush did to himself by violating the pledge and gave Perot the opportunity he needed to make his run and deep six Bush.

  • Right now the problem for the Repubs is Romney is about the best thing they’ve got going and that ain’t saying much. The media’s marginalization of Bachmann is proving successful; Gingrich never got out of the box, TPaw and Paul are yawn-inducing so, back to my original point, Obama could squeak by again because of weak opposition. Doesn’t help that McConnell is all but waiving the white flag by proposing to give Obama the keys to the treasury.

  • No, no, T. Shaw– don’t look at results, look at what he says.

    Paul W Primavera- I don’t know about civilian nukes, but the Navy guys were very high on intelligence and low on sense, in general. (She says, knowing full well that she was mistaken for a Nuke more than once.) Strong tendency to ignore reality once they’d established, in their minds, what was going on. It’s such a strong stereotype that there’s even a webcomic that uses a version of it– Girl Genius has “sparks,” incredible geniuses (of the mad scientist type) that can warp reality.

  • Foxfier,

    I was both a Navy nuke and a commercial nuke. Served as RO on a 688 class sub back in the late 70s, early 80s. Worked in commercial nuke power ever since. So I am doubly damned with lack of common sense.


    However, most of the actual people I work with (engineers, techs, etc.) in nuclear power are conservative and see through Obama’s idiocy. That was also true back on the sub in the early 80s. We were ecstatic that Reagan defeated idiot Carter. Everyone cheered!

    It’s the pro-nuke bloggers (not all, though) who are generally liberal progressive Democrats. It’s almost as though if one’s time is spent actually doing nuclear work, then one is conservative. But if one’s time is spent talking about doing nuclear work, then one is liberal. I doubt that rule holds fast everywhere, but in my industry that’s the way it seems to be a lot (NOT all) the time.

    And NEI – the Nuclear Energy Institute – goes out of its way to ingratiate itself with Obama because it is dependent on remaining in Obama’s good graces.

    Now I gotta go because “nukes ‘R us.”

  • I think Rassmussen:

    Generic Republican – 48

    Generic Obama – 43

    How can 43% be so stupid- public schools.

    Latest logic launch from the community-agitator-in-chief: “I will not allow half the Americans that pay no taxes to bear the burden of the Americans who don’t pay their ‘fair’ share of taxes, or sumpthin.”

  • ” The magic suit insn’t wearing any president.”

    Priceless 😆

  • Pretty pathetic that you so called “Christians” do not have any memory of the previous 8 years before the 2008 election. I guess it is pretty “Christian-like” to start 2 illegal wars, set the record for most executions, presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world, etc, etc, etc…

    It is pretty obvious you put money ahead of God. A true Christian would help out their bothers and sisters. Try and justify greed any which way your selfish mind may. Remember, all that we have belongs to Him. We were born naked and will die naked. May God save your soul!

  • Ah, another liberal!

    There is NO comparison between Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war Obama is waging on the unborn. There is no comparison between the wrongs of forced interrogation and the filth of homosexual sodomy that Obama supports.


    I love George W. Bush all the more if only because that incenses the liberal left into an apolexy of anger.


  • Pathetic is the word that came to mind phil18 as I read your comment. Really, if you aspire to troll status at this blog we do have standards.

    Here is what is wrong with your comment:

    First: you do not attempt to defend Obama, but you merely give vent to your Bush Derangement Syndrome. That is truly weak after Obama has been in office for over half of his term.

    Second: your use of the phrase “so called “Christians”. Please, if you wish to attempt to insult us you will have to do far better than such unimaginative paint-by-number insults. We do not expect literary brilliance from our trolls, but we do expect them to make some effort. You aren’t even trying!

    Third: Your attack on Mammon is a non-sequitur in regard to this post unless you are arguing that it is a good thing that Obama’s policies are reducing the economy to rubble. Really, even trolls must stay on topic.

    If we are going to hear from you again, you really will have to do much better than this. We expect far more from our trolls.

  • Holy Obamanation, Batman!

    Phil seems to be an Obama-worshiping imbecile . . .

    Phil, Are you better off today than you were before Obama took over?

    Well, he didn’t drop the race card . . .

    Is he one of the 37% that are out to destroy the United States America?

  • You know, Phil’s comment, “set the record for most executions”, isn’t a Bush Administration thing. After all, it’s the Democrats who laud the 60 million baby executions since Roe v Wade. And his hero Obama still didn’t shut Guantanamo down. And we’re still embroiled in “illegal” action, but maybe Libya doesn’t count in Phil’s universe.

    “A true Christian would help out their bothers and sisters.” That’s what Sarah Palin did when she gave birth to her Down Syndrome baby Trig instead of having an abortion.

    The facts never line up with liberals.

  • Liberals are charitable with other people’s money. A “true Christian” would “help out his brothers and sisters.” Multi-millionaire Obama lives in a house that could quarter the 7th Cavalry. Yet his aunt is lives on the taxpayer’s dime. He could bring her into the WH with his mother-in-law who lives with him again on your taxes. Yeah, raise taxes or YOUR grandma gets it!

    Obama is a “true Christian.” He celebrates Ramadan at the WH. And then, refuses to issue the customary (written by an aide) presidential statement recognizing the Feast of the Resurrection: Easter Sunday.

    PS: Obama hates you and me, and Barack isn’t an iota smarter than the ignorant louses that adore him. I know: I’m a racist.

Worse Than Murder, Inc. Can Always Depend on Obama

Thursday, June 2, AD 2011

President Obama continues to live down to his title of most pro-abort president in our nation’s  history.  He is now seeking to block implementation of Indiana legislation to deny funding to Worse Than Murder, Inc., a/k/a Planned Parenthood.    

The Obama administration today denied Indiana’s use of its new state law that would deny millions in taxpayer dollars to the Indiana affiliate of the nation’s largest abortion business.

Governor Mitch Daniels signed the law, which would cut off anywhere from $2 million to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds via the Indiana government through Medicaid.

Daniels said that “any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

However, the Obama administration has told the state it can’t implement the new law, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick denying a request to deny funds saying the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Worse Than Murder, Inc. Can Always Depend on Obama

  • The Republican law says that a person on the Medicaid fee for service program cannot get a covered health care service (abortions not covered in Indiana) at a clinic that also performs abortions. They can get a health care service at a doctor’s office that performs abortions or a hospital that performs abortions.

  • It is not perfect legislation Kurt but it is a big step in the goal of defunding Worse Than Murder, Inc, legislation of a similar nature moving forward in other states due to the Republicans now controlling more state legislatures than any time since the Twenties of the last century. Obama would of course sooner eat ground glass than see Planned Parenthood lose a cent of its blood money. Abortion is the Holy of Holies of the Democrat party, and Obama is the chief priest of the cult.

  • “…forces Planned Parenthood to choose between doing abortions and getting taxpayer funding.” Yes, precisely and the people providing the taxes have every God-given right to force that choice.

  • And you can always depend on Kurt to deflect the attention away from his baby-killing allies and place the blame on “the Republican law”.

    (I REALLY should tone down such rhetoric. After all, we know that Kurt feels “alienated from the Pro-Life movement” because of such things. A pity that he couldn’t bring himself to be similarly “alienated” by his party’s devotion to abortion on demand and its willingness to go to any lengths to protect legalized abortion.)

  • It is not perfect legislation Kurt…

    So why the gutlessness at perfect legislation?

    For that matter, why does the Catholic Church allow it ‘s employee health care to be used at facilities that perform abortions?

  • Obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation. I guess it’s easier to do than look yourself in the mirror and realize you’re a cheerleader for someone who thinks it should be perfectly legal for infants who survive abortions to die on the table.

  • Shows you how worthless his “executive order” was post-Stupak.

  • When I read things like this, I am reminded of how the Lord God allowed the Assyrian king to carry King Manasseh away into captivity for having made his own children walk through fire in worship of the Canaanite gods of death and destruction. Some people don’t like it when that parallel is pointed out, claiming that in these modern times somehow things are different because “we’re a democracy” and we got all this modern science and technology. But God doesn’t change. Defy Him and and His laws, and there will be hell to pay. The economy is beginning to resume its downward spiral. We have had an awful spate of destructive weather in the form of flooding in the mid-west and tornadoes in the south and even one in Springfield, MA yesterday. But all the scientifically-minded people say it’s always been this way; we’ve simply never noticed. Perhaps we will notice if and when God allows the Yosemite caldera to explode, or the San Andreas fault to finally let loose. It took the utter destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the Jewish people into Babylon before they sat up and noticed, and their sins are less than ours with our having once been a Christian nation and now having elected a godlessly wicked president who legitimatizes the murder of the most innocent and helpless every chance he gets.

    Our choice is clear: repent and convert or get destroyed. The wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, His Son. Hmmmm….that’s in Scripture, right?

  • Paul —
    Can’t deal with the fact that the Catholic Church is financing abortion, can you?

  • Kurt,

    Those clerics in the Catholic Church who allow (or worse, aid and abet) Catholic organizations which fund abortion or support gay sex would do well to read Ezekiel 34:1-10. That this occurs, however, does not constitute validation of the supposition that the Catholic Church Herself finances abortion.

    Christ will separate the wheat from the chaff and the chaff will be burned up in everlasting fire. That may begin in this life or be deferred to the next as He wills it. But in the end, Christ will have a spotless Bride. Ananias and Saphira learned that the hard way in Acts 5:1-11. Hymenaeus and Alexander had to also learn that the hard way in 1st Timothy 1:19-20. And Jesus told Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23 that her children of adultery would be struck dead and she would be tortured until she learned to obey Him who is Lord God Eternal.

    As the write of the Epistle to the Hebrews states, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

  • Those clerics in the Catholic Church who allow (or worse, aid and abet) Catholic organizations which fund abortion …

    Those clerics would include Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal Burke. Should I have the opportunity, I will give them your recommendation.

  • Kurt,

    I do see how that might include Cardinal Wuerl. He refuses to put apostates like Nancy Pelosi and the other pseudo-Catholic politicians in Washington, DC in their proper place – outside of receiving Holy Communion until they repent. Oh, he says that’s the responsibility of their local Bishop (in her case Niederauer), but they parade themselves right on up in parishses in his diocese. And Niederauer of course is no better. These people who make a public scandal and flaunt their disobedience right in front of the national news media must be publicly excommunicated. St. Paul did it with Alexander and Hymenaeus.

    As for Cardinal Burke, my understanding is that he is about as orthodox as they get. I can understand how that would enrage the liberal pseudo-Catholics. Good for him.

  • As for Cardinal Burke, my understanding is that he is about as orthodox as they get.

    All the more troubling that, as Archbishop of St. Louis, he financed abortion. Sad day when a man like Burke spends Church money on abortions.

  • How did Cardinal Burke fund abortions? Web link to pertinet news story, please. Or was money diverted from his diocese by liberal laity serving in diocesan offices?

    Interesting that liberal Bishops and peudo-Catholic politicians escape your notice, however.

  • “…a cheerleader for someone who thinks it should be perfectly legal for infants who survive abortions to die on the table.”

    ..Words which came right out of the mouth of our Master of Deceit in Chief.
    It was this adamant belief expressed on three separate occasions while as a congressman which defined Obama to thousands BEFORE he was elected. And still thousands of Catholics voted for this alleged Christian and a man of compassion. If we have reached that level of public morality and are willing to REELECT this proud pompous enabler of Murder Inc. then we need to prepare for the wrath which surely we have purchased for ourselves.

  • “And still thousands of Catholics voted for this alleged Christian and a man of compassion. If we have reached that level of public morality and are willing to REELECT this proud pompous enabler of Murder Inc. then we need to prepare for the wrath which surely we have purchased for ourselves.”

    Sadly there will be thousands of Catholics finding themselves cast out of the Kingdom of Heaven just as many Pharisees and Saduccees saw themselves cast out.

    Now is the day of repentance, for surely wrath is coming. One thermonuclear detonation at the Yosemite caldera by the al Qaeda nuts (and some equally horrific action – asteroid impact, bio-warfare, chemical warfare) is all it would take. Tic tock. Tic tock. Tic tock. “Be not deceived. God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap.” We have sown the whirlwind.

  • How did Cardinal Burke fund abortions?

    The exact same way Indiana is unless the new legislation is allowed to take effect. The exact same way.

    Interesting that liberal Bishops and peudo-Catholic politicians escape your notice, however.

    Oh, I’ve noticed. I originally named two cardinals, one of which seems to meet you standard of a liberal. I’m just following up on Cardinal Burke’s funding of abortion as it seems to be news to you. Almost all of them are probably funding abortion.

  • Kurt,

    So how is Indiana’s new legislation allowing abortions to take place, what Role does Cardinal Burke have in that (if any), and how has anything he has done been remotely similar to what Indiana is doing.

    Link to the Indiana legislation would be helpful, as well as link to reports on any past activities by Burke that are similar to this. In your first response you didn’t provide links as requested. You just made an accusation and then gave reference to Indiana.

  • Kurt is basically just lying to cover his own conscience. In his convoluted world, as long as you can draw the most tenuous connection between Action A and Outcome U he can say he’s no different than any of the Bishops and Priests. Kind of sad, really.

    Then again, what’s a few million dead babies so long as those union coffers remain filled?

  • Paul Z.,

    That’s exactly what I thought, but I wanted Kurt to use dispassionate logic and objective evidence to make his case instead of liberal group-think.

    I thought I was bad in being so emotional and non-objective! Well, I am…..

    Many hate Burke not because of some nebulous and tenous link to abortion (and there isn’t one that I can find), but because he is orthodox, so anything that can be shaded to look like liberal hypocrisy in him they will go all out to expose. In the meantime they ignore the worst of hypocrisy among themselves because Obamessiah promises all hungry bellies will be filled.

  • So how is Indiana’s new legislation allowing abortions to take place, what Role does Cardinal Burke have in that (if any), and how has anything he has done been remotely similar to what Indiana is doing.

    Cardinal Burke financed abortions the same way that the old Indiana law allowed it. As Archbishop of St. Louis, Burke financed abortions in the same way Indiana did until it was corrected by the new law. The financing of abortions by the Archdiocese of St. Louis continues to this day.


  • Kurt,

    Web links to the applicable laws and to the news reports, please. Where’s the evidence?

  • Kurt,

    You have been asked multiple times to provide evidence of your allegations. If you continue to obfuscate the issue by failing to provide a cogent defense of your argument, I will put you on moderation.

  • I would happily walk you through step by step if you could just help me avoid any distractions over terminology by allowing me to totally defer to your use of terminology and standards.

    I would just ask that you describe for me (without the restrictions of the new Indiana law) how abortion was being funded in Indiana. That way I can courteously use the same terminology, standards and measures you use. I will then walk you through how the Archdiocese of St. Louis finances abortions in the exact same way and provide links giving further evidence.

    I’m confident I can do so, but just want to start off by using your description so we are not sidelined or confused by using differing meaning of words.

  • Kurt,

    I work in the commercial nuclear industry. If I make an allegation to the US NRC, they expect me to cite the exact part of the Code of Federal Regulations that was violated (e.g., 10 CFR 50.59, or 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion III or whatever). Then they expect me to specify what procedure or instruction at the company where I work is in violation by alphanumeric identifier and name, as well as the affected procedural steps. Date, time, and setting of the violation is also required. Everything has to be objective. No ranting. The NRC doesn’t listen to rants.

    So do the same. Go to the web page for the Illinois legislative code, find the actual law, bill or state code in question, reference the web link, quote the law, bill or code, and then identify the physical circumstances (date, time and seeting) under which Cardinal Burke did what you said. Use web link to pertinent news reports. Don’t be like me ranting about liberals. Be objective. Get the facts and to the last decimal place. If Cardinal Burke screwed up, then prove it with the facts.

  • A little off-topic, but relevant story: We had a visitor last week in our home, a Catholic childhood Holocaust survivor from Poland who now lives in NY. She requested an appointment with her Congressman who is pro-abortion and also attends Catholic Mass. It took time to call over and over, but she didn’t stop calling. Finally she got the appointment, and once in his office she looked him straight in the eyes and told him that she wanted him to stop taking Communion in front of everyone at well-attended Masses each week. She’s a very direct woman, go straight to the source. I like that!

  • Another Deborah, another Judith doing what too many Catholic men are afraid to do. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for women like the one about whom Stacy wrote. There is hope!

  • From Bill McGurn’s piece yesterday at National Catholic Register:

    “… we surely would have more Thomas Mores if we had more Bishop John Fishers.”


  • “Praise the Lord Jesus Christ for women like the one about whom Stacy wrote.” To them it must be said in all turthfulness “man” was made from the dust of the earth but “woman” was made of flesh and bone to bring him to fulfillment.
    However, speaking of WRATH in conjunction with an Obama regime, if you dare think this to be an extreme or unimaginable perception you might want to recall another “policy change” which der Obamamister told us would be required for him to succeed in fundamentally transforming America. Like murderous abortion is hidden under the umbrella of “women’s health” there is an even more sinister change lurking under the umbrella of “homeland security” which is surely ready to take shape as internal turmoil like we have witnessed in Wisconsin with union thugs and across the nation in public demonstrations against immigration reform and right to work laws.
    Obama knew in his rush to transform us into a European styled socialistic “democracy” as he systematically shredded the constitution there would be strong resistance by those American patriots who realized what was happening. Enter his campaign’s spoken urgent need to protect us from all harm foreign and “domestic”. It went something like this. “We need and internal civilian security force just as well equipped and funded as our military”. You thought of domestic terrorist maybe? Wrong.
    Eric Holder won’t attempt to prosecute militant Black Panthers intimidating voters. Then Obama (sheepishly) vows to stand with the storming army of thugs as they demolish Madison’s capitol.
    The administration files suit against any state trying to enforce immigration laws or prevent taxpayer money from funding abortions. Who do you think is the “domestic” enemy threatening the administration as the transformation proceeds? We have met the enemy and…
    Could it be that we have unwittingly created the hands and fists of the perpetrator of the WRATH about to descend upon us?

  • Actually Kurt is right. Employees of the Archdiocese of St. Louis can get health services at Planned Parenthood clinics, though not abortions. Medicaid recipients in Indiana can get health services at Planned Parenthood clinics, though not abortions.

    There is nothing immoral about paying for non-abortion services at a clinic that provides abortions. Now, you may want to pressure PP into ending abortion services by withholding funding for morally permissible services but not withholding it isn’t immoral.

    As for the politics, doesn’t this prove that elections don’t matter as much as some would like them to matter? Neither a pro-life governor nor a pro-life president can overturn federal law.

  • These aren’t grants to PP so it has nothing to do with fungibility. If you sell bread and pickles and I buy bread, I’m not subsidizing pickles. Paul is confusing this with the inherent fungible nature of grants.

    There’s an unrelated question: Suppose you have an employee who donates some of his income to PP. Should you fire him?

  • RR,

    Kurt’s argument would only begin to have validity if a diocese instead of paying for its small number of employees to have health insurance via some existing health care plan (which is actually the case) was actually running a health insurance plan, which listed Planned Parenthood as an authorized service provider.

    Saying that the Church is at fault for using health care providers is like saying that individual users of Medicaid are at fault for the fact that Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood.

    As for the fungibility issue — clearly it’s of financial benefit to Planned Parenthood to get a few million dollars worth of business from a place that reliably pays its bills like the government, and it’s probably also financially advantageous to them to get their hooks into the sort of low income customers who would come in via Medicaid, since PP can then market non-covered services such as abortions to them. These are, after all, a particularly easily exploited group of customers for a vulture organization such as PP.

    People who are so blithe about insisting that it’s not problematic for the government to be paying for non-abortion services to be provided by Planned Parenthood should consider whether they’d feel similarly if the Aryan Nations opened a “health care” wing and wanted federal funds for providing services to the poor. Anyone with a Catholic moral compass is pretty clearly going to see Planned Parenthood as about as socially respectable as the Aryan Nations, if not less so.

  • DC, I didn’t say the diocese is at fault. I think it’s clearly morally permissible to buy non-abortion services at PP just as it’s morally permissible to buy toothpaste at a pharmacy that also sells birth-control.

    To be clear, it’d be great if PP didn’t get any money for anything. But on the question of whether it’s morally permissible to buy non-abortion services from PP, the answer is clearly “yes.”

  • “To be clear, it’d be great if PP didn’t get any money for anything. But on the question of whether it’s morally permissible to buy non-abortion services from PP, the answer is clearly “yes.””

    Rubbish. Planned Parenthood is in the business of murdering the most innocent among us. Any interaction with that organization other than demanding that they be shut down yesterday is deeply immoral.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I didn’t say the diocese is at fault. I think it’s clearly morally permissible to buy non-abortion services at PP just as it’s morally permissible to buy toothpaste at a pharmacy that also sells birth-control.

    Well, you said that you thought Kurt was right, and Kurt was (disingenuously) arguing that the diocese was at fault for acting in the same way that as Indiana is trying to make Medicaid stop behaving.

    I pointed out that he’s wrong to assert that the dioceses’ behavior is the same as Medicaid’s — this at a minimum seems to pretty clear.

    As to whether it’s “clearly” moral to purchase other services from Planned Parenthood so long as one doesn’t purchase killings — I don’t know if I’d assert that it is in and of itself to buy something completely harmless (say, typing paper) from Planned Parenthood because of the incredible evil of their other acts, but I would say that they are so closely identified with such an abhorrent moral evil that no morally formed person would consent to have anything to do with them. Seriously, we’re dealing with an organization even worse than the Klan here, there is absolutely no reason to have anything to do with them. I’d rather starve than take food from them.

Obama Releases Birth Certificate. Why Now?

Wednesday, April 27, AD 2011

Today President Obama released his long form birth certificate.  Go here to view the video.  This should convince all but the deeply conspiratorial among us, although since I include most of the Birther movement in that category, I doubt if the release of the birth certicate will slow them down one iota.  I have long thought that Obama did not release his long form birth certificate because he secretly loved the Birthers, who allowed his allies to tar all Obama critics as being delusional nutcases.  What I find interesting is why did he decide to release his birth certificate now?

Continue reading...

40 Responses to Obama Releases Birth Certificate. Why Now?

  • “Why now”?

    you answered it in your post.

  • “Donald Trump, the man with perhaps the worst toupe in the history of the world, has claimed credit for this release. I doubt it. I think it more likely that Obama was alarmed by plummeting approval polls.”

    The two aren’t unrelated. Trumps anti-Obama rants were getting a lot of attention because they included Birtherism. Obama may have thought that this would cause the media to stop giving Trump airtime.

  • “Obama may have thought that this would cause the media to stop giving Trump airtime.”

    If that was his intention RR, it was a severe miscalculation. This merely lowers Obama to Trump’s level. “The Donald” has basked in the media limelight for decades, and there is nothing that Obama can say or do to prevent the media from covering intently every foolish syllable that emanates from the Trump that roars.

  • Pingback: Obama Releases Birth Certificate. Why Now? | The American Catholic - Christian IBD
  • Maybe he just wanted to stick it to Jerome Corsi.

  • Another sign of the Apocalypse? Just goes to show the shallowness of American political discourse. BTW, I recommend Eric Hoffer’s “True Believers” to see how mass movements, including Christianity, have managed to sustain themselves.

    Here, Hoffer writes brilliantly of identification with a collective whole:

    “To ripen a person for self-sacrifice he must be stripped of his individual identity and distinctness. He must cease to be George, Hans, Ivan or Tadao — a human atom with an existence bounded by birth and death. The most drastic way to achieve this end is by the complete assimilation of the individual into a collective body. The fully assimilated individual does not see himself and others as human beings. When asked who he is, his automatic response is that he is a German, a Russian, a Japanese, a Christian, a Moslem, a member of a certain tribe or family. he has no purpose, worth and destiny apart from his collective body; and as long as that body lives he cannot really die. To a man utterly without a sense of belonging, mere life is all that matters.”

    Which is why the birther movement survives and will continue because those true believers say they are “birthers” proudly, as part of a collective whole rather than as individuals. In every act, however trivial, the individual must by some ritual associate himself with the congregation.

    Hoffer then quotes Montaigne: “I would not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed,” leaving the reader to sort it out.

  • Post script and memo to Obama: What better way to fan the flames than to say that something is “silly” and the thoughts of a “carnival barker.” Are not these the things that Americans find endlessly fascinating? As Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

  • Dr. Pournelle at Chaos Manor has a reader who reports the following:


    Dear Dr. Pournelle,

    I downloaded the Barack Hussein Obama, II long form birth certificate .pdf file directly from whitehouse.gov. I opened it in Illustrator. Released the clipping mask. Yes, there are multiple layers. The lines of the form are not the same layer as the captions of the form. Individual letters in names and words are in separate layers from the rest of the name or word (i.e., ‘K’ in Kenya, ‘S’ in Stanley, ‘R’ in BARACK, and many more). It sure looks like it has been assembled from multiple elements. I can not think of an innocent reason for these facts. I also find it hard to understand how and why, if it’s a forgery, it’s such a clumsy forgery. Am I missing some reasonable technical explanation for these issues?

    The file has also been scrubbed clean of most meta data. It was created on a Mac using OS X 10.6.7, but I don’t see anything else useful.


    There’s more at:


    I believe nothing that comes from Obama. I’m not a Birther. I don’t go in for conspiracy theories. But Obama himself is a supporter of abortion. So I believe in nothing from him. BTW, for all those liberals out there, I have the same problem with Guiliani who is Republican and supports abortion. If you think it’s OK to murder a baby, then you’ll lie without hesitation.

  • It is very odd that the birth certificate was produced at this late date. I question the authenticity of the birth certificate simply because of the designation of Obama’s father’s race as “African.” Could it be that the narcissistic Obama, unquestionably an unique and special person, would consider it unthinkable and demeaning that he be deemed a descendant of a Negro?

    Also, narcissists must be in the spotlight. Trump was just getting too much attention which forced Obama to call a press conference to obtain his narcissistic supply. What is scary, though, is that if a narcissist cannot get adulation and praise, he will seek to get attention in any deviant and vindictive manner whatsoever.

  • I’m inclined to believe the “why now” is partly due to tanking poll numbers and partly to distract attention from Bernanke’s abysmal press conference today. Inflation, predicted slower growth, and unemployment possibly going back up to 9+%. This is all very bad news for the president.

  • “partly to distract attention from Bernanke’s abysmal press conference today”

    It also succeeded in distracting attention from what may prove to be the biggest U.S. natural disaster since Katrina: a massive tornado outbreak in several Southern states that as of right now (11:39 p.m. CDT) has left more than 70 people dead (a number likely to rise) and nearly half a million people without power.

    Tuscaloosa and Birmingham, AL, were especially hard hit, and violent tornadoes passed awfully close to Hanceville (home of Mother Angelica’s Our Lady of the Angels Monastery) more than once today. I haven’t heard or seen any indication that OLAM or EWTN got hit but I would not be suprised if some of the staff people were affected, so please keep them and all other storm victims in your prayers.

  • Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute offered this hypothesis four months ago:

    … “Obama” is the most tightly controlled brand since Mickey Mouse (and is becoming synonomous with just that), so he is just saving this material (and his law firm billing records, and his college transcripts, and everything else) for his eventual eight-figure book deal.

    Apparently, Donald Trump is now suggesting the President’s college transcripts be released (as were George W. Bush’s, Albert Gore’s, and John Kerry’s – without their consent). The unreleased long-form may prove to have been a bit of earthen embankment after all.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy):
    “‘I also find it hard to understand how and why, if it’s a forgery, it’s such a clumsy forgery.'”
    Paul, I was born on Midway Island in 1958, and my official birth certificate (as opposed to the unofficial one — with goony birds, yet! — from the Naval base hospital there) was issued by the Hawaii Territorial (later State) Department of Health. When I needed a copy of my official birth certificate to get a passport (while I was in college), the one I was sent by the Hawaii State Department of Health was identical in format to the one released this week for President Obama. Obama’s birth certificate does not look like a forgery to me.

  • As predicted, this story has more legs than a centipede. Still want answers to my grassy knoll questions 40-something years later. : )

  • You may very well be correct, Donald. I simply don’t have the ability to determine if a legal document is a forgery or authentic. However, I do note that Obama simply cannot be trusted. That’s all I am saying. As your post points out, the timing of the release of this birth certificate is suspicious. However, even Dr. Pournelle at the link I gave in my previous comment acknowledges what you also think to be the case: the certificate is authentic.

    One thing, however, certain seems to be the case: Obama (whether he is born in the US or is a naturalized citizen) is NOT authentically American. Everything he does is designed for the erection of a secular humanist socialist demokracy.

    This whole thing is so troubling. I confess that I can’t look at the issue dispassionately because I am so totally fed up with the direction that that man has taken this country, and with the way liberal Catholics are still so in love with “The One” if for no other reason than he is the first black president (which shouldn’t matter one way or the other). I am sorry if I am out of line, but my passion gets the best of me. 🙁

  • Paul P.–this is out of line: “One thing, however, certain seems to be the case: Obama (whether he is born in the US or is a naturalized citizen) is NOT authentically American. Everything he does is designed for the erection of a secular humanist socialist demokracy.”

    It never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives treat Obama as if he is some radical lefty. He’s not. From the health care legislation, which was premised on Bob Dole’s proposal in the 90s and not far from what Romney did in MA to the economic and foreign policies inherited from Bush and changed little, he’s truly a mainstream moderate with some left of center policies. Definitely NOT a socialist (ask Bernie Sanders, a real socialist about that).

    For those claiming his approval numbers are “tanking”….ummm…no. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html His numbers have remained pretty steady between 45 and 50% since November. He’s right about where most first term presidents have been in their 3rd year (Nixon in the high 40s, Reagan was in the mid-40s, Clinton was in the mid-40s).

    Few liberals talk about him as “The One”. That’s something made up by conservatives. Most on the far left are mad as hell for his continued efforts to reach out to Republicans and for compromising too much. Quite a few on the left feel like he is a corporate sell out.

    For me, he’s a center-left politician. He’s done some good things and others he’s botched. He’s smart and is a very good orator. He will probably be reelected in 2012, especially as the GOP has yet to find anyone worth voting for at this stage.

    Finally, why do you think he is “not authentically American”? Did you say the same ting about Clinton or Carter or LBJ or JFK? They (maybe with the exception of Clinton) all pushed agendas far to the left of Obama. What makes Obama specifically un-American to you?

  • Joe Green: Seriously? The interesting thing about Catholic saints is that they are so different from each other, so completely individual. They do not submerge their personalities into a whole. As the “biggies” of Christianity, they would seem to disprove either your entire argument or its application to Christianity.

    As far as Obama goes, I have no idea why he announced it now. Maybe he really is just sick of the whole thing. I am far more interested in why he hasn’t released all the other information that every candidate typically releases, why he castigates millionaires but itemizes his own deductions, and so on. I assume he was born in America, as most rational people do.

  • Gail, no need to take me seriously. I just enjoy bantering. I think God must have a sense of humor since He created me and broke the mold. As for Obama, every time he opens his mouth, with or without a TelePrompTer, he confirms that he’s an empty suit in over his head. Forget where he was born. He’s unfit to be president, but then, looking around at the competition, I don’t see anyone worthy. What we need is a good king with a sharp ax.

  • Hi Gail…I like what you had to say about Catholic schools on the other thread. I think the biggest challenge they have to is to keep tuition low while having fewer religious on staff (meaning that payroll costs have to go up). The local Jesuit school near me has gone from having 30 Jesuits on staff in the 70s to 3 today.

    As for the birth certificate thing, I think the answer of “why now’ is that he thought it was a good time to make the GOP look like a bunch of loonies, while also trying to avoid the mistakes Kerry made in handling the swift boat thing. However, many black leaders and average folks whom I’ve heard from on this feel incensed by the whole line of questioning, feeling that it is yet another attempt to undermine a black leader, similar to the attempts to portray MLK as a communist. The GOP has done very little to reach out to the black community, so look for another 98-2 split in Obama’s favor in 2012.

    One area that should be of great concern to people on this forum is the Hispanic vote. Hispanics went for Obama 65-35 in 2008. Most Hispanics are Catholic. The immigrant demonization by conservatives not only alienates Hispanics, but drives them to vote for the Democrats. Seeing a 70-30 or worse split with this growing demographic is not out of the question. I would ask American Catholic readers and commentators to think about this.

  • David W.,

    I defer to the following for a description of the current President of these United States:


    I won’t argue the point further about the man who appoints the GE CEO to his jobs czar position after GE NBC and MS NBC worked tooth and nail to get him elected.

  • PS, every democrat President since and including FDR has been on the fast track to socialism. That includes Carter and Clinton.

  • Illegal immigration is ILLEGAL. David W’s suggests that we think about losing Hispanic votes because of this. I thought about it. Illegal is ILLEGAL. I know a man from Iraq who worked with me at my former employer and he had to go through hell to immigrate. I know a woman from Nigeria who also worked with me. She had to go through hell, too. So we are supposed to have different rules for Hispanics? Why!?

    And no, I am NOT anti-Hispanic. I am anti-illegal.

  • “The immigrant demonization by conservatives not only alienates Hispanics, but drives them to vote for the Democrats. Seeing a 70-30 or worse split with this growing demographic is not out of the question. I would ask American Catholic readers and commentators to think about this.”

    I believe the demonization has been by those who have sought to confuse the issue by making it look like those opposed to illegal immigration are opposed to all immigration. From this the claim is then made that those opposed are anti-immigrant and are thus racist. Thus falsely inciting hate particularly in the Hispanic community.

    I don’t think DavidW is doing this and he is thus not acting contrary to charity. However, he has clearly been confused on the issue by the false accusations and has been taking in by those who are truly demonizing. I ask that he think hard about such irresponsible statements.

  • Well, I would suggest those pushing the “illegal” line to please see what the Vatican has to say:


    As well as the USCCB:


    I’ve spent some time on the border doing service with various religious and they unambiguously were appalled at what states like AZ have been doing on this topic.

    I’m not calling anyone racist, but would suggest that this forum is a way to reflect on what the Church teaches and how this impacts American life, both socially as well as politically. I would ask if “illegal is illegal” is a stance that is consistent with the Church’s teachings?

  • Phillip’s point is excellent. Furthermore, the Nigerian nuclear software engineer for digital instrumentation and controls, and the Iraqi nuclear hardware engineer for digital instrumentation and controls at my former company were OUTSTANDING engineers – among the best I have worked with in the 30+ years of nuclear energy experience that I have. Yet they went with absolute HELL to come into this country. But I’m told that because I point this out and expect the same level of quality work and dedication to duty from a Hispanic that I would from a black skinned Nigerian or a brown skinned Iraqi or a northern European white American, I am racist. I am told I am a racist because I believe in an equal playing field and applying the same rules to Hispanics that are applied to Nigerians and Iraqis. That’s when I get mad. And that’s why sometimes I just don’t say things here at this blog site with the level of equanimity and calm reserve that Phillip and others use. I work with immigrants all the time. I simply insist on following the rules.

    And BTW, I have been a Catechism instructor for 14 year old Spanish kids. I bought each one a Spanish English Bible and taught them as I would anyone else. There parents were mostly illegals, hired on by local white farmers who effectively enslave them by taking advantage of their illegal status. Furthermore, whatever Catholicism these Spanish people had is long gone as often Dad isn’t the father and he’s living with Mom out of wedlock. Half my Catechism class was like that.

    Yup, none of this may be relevant to the birth certificate topic of this post, but what is relevant is that Democrat Party policies support this very kind of thing. I shall hold my nose in the next election and vote Republican not because I think they are the party of God but because that man in the Oval Office has GOT to be kicked out.

  • David W., read Romans 13:1-7. We are called upon to OBEY the law of the land. There is a process for immigrants to become naturalized. FOLLOW the legal process. That’s the BIBLICAL thing to do. Do NOT treat Hispanics differently than Nigerians or Iraqis.

  • DavidW,

    An addition to your links. This time noting John Paul II’s contributions to the thoughts of immigration (legal and illegal):


    One of the more dramatic points for this discussion from this is JP II’s 1995 address refered to in the above link. In this he notes:

    “Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants.”

    Note that JP II says illegal immigration should be prevented. This would be consistent with CST which teaches that states do have the right to limit immigration. JP II goes on to say that we should help the illegal immigrant but that if they are not able to be accepted by the host country they can be returned;

    “Thus it is important to help illegal migrants to complete the necessary administrative papers to obtain a residence permit.

    Social and charitable institutions can make contact with the authorities in order to seek appropriate, lawful solutions to various cases… When no solution is foreseen, these same institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.”

    So illegal immigrants can be deported.

    CST is extremely nuanced and allows a variety of licit opinions in this, as well as other matters.

  • Obamja supports the murder of unborn babies as the right to chose and is using Hillary to export that round the world. Obama supports the equality of the “gay life style” with heterosexual marriage. Obama supports the fatal experimentation on unborn babies as embryonic stem cell research. Yet David W’s contribution is how the right wing opposes illegal immigration.


    Where exactly are your priorities? The problem of illegal immigration will NEVER be solved until we get holy and righteous before the Lord God Almighty. Holiness and righteousness come first BEFORE anything else. Repentance and conversion are first – THEN and ONLY THEN does social justice come about. Matthew 6:33.

  • while also trying to avoid the mistakes Kerry made in handling the swift boat thing.

    The mistakes Mr. Kerry made he made in 1969, 1971, 1979, &c. ‘Twas a bit late in the day when he was running for President.

    I’ve spent some time on the border doing service with various religious and they unambiguously were appalled at what states like AZ have been doing on this topic.

    They’ll get over it.

    His numbers have remained pretty steady between 45 and 50% since November. He’s right about where most first term presidents have been in their 3rd year (Nixon in the high 40s, Reagan was in the mid-40s, Clinton was in the mid-40s).

    It is a matter of scant importance, but it should be noted in the interests of precision that the President’s approval rating averaged 44% during the month of April. You can see here


    that Mr. Ford’s was slightly lower in April 1975, Mr. Carter’s was likewise in April 1979, and Mr. Reagan’s also in April 1983. The thing is, Mr. Reagan and Mr. Ford were near their nadir in public approval and the economy was in both cases near the beginning of a vigorous recovery yet to be acknowledged by the statisticians. Mr. Obama’s recovery began in June 2009 and public finance makes a minefield. I suspect he (and you) will not enjoy the next 19 months.

  • Paul: 1. The “descriptions” you cite from the commentarius article are all either policy issues or verbal gaffes. I disagreed strongly with George w. Bush on policy and he made many verbal gaffes, yet I did not think of him as un-American. Just because you disagree with things like the moratorium on offshore drilling (remember that whole BP oil spill thing?) does not make Obama someone to be demonized. He’s a politician with whom you disagree, not a monster.

    2. “…every democrat President since and including FDR has been on the fast track to socialism.” 70 years does not seem like much of a fast track to me.

    3. I note that in discussing immigration, you emphasize “playing by the rules” in your example and the rule of law, even noting the passage in Romans. OK, fine. Why are you not mad as hell at the businesses that provide the reason for the immigrants to come here? Why aren’t you stomping your feet and demanding that the head of any business that hires illegal immigrants go to jail? Why does this have to be an issue about poor people who are looking for the same opportunities that many of our ancestors had (who did not have to wait 14 years for citizenship, btw) rather than those who are exploiting their labor at the expense of the American worker? Is that putting human dignity first, as the Church states?

  • Hi Art,

    “Mr. Obama’s recovery began in June 2009 and public finance makes a minefield. I suspect he (and you) will not enjoy the next 19 months.”

    I hope for the sake of the country and those suffering from unemployment that the economy takes a turn for the better and companies start hiring again. Coming up with an equitable way to reform health care that is moral and cost-effective is one of the most important issues we face as a people (not to mention ending the wars and addressing climate change). These should not be partisan issues, unless one hopes for more misery for the sake of the political game. Sadly, American politics has become so polarized that many work for the failure of an administration due to political disagreements rather than trying to find common ground.

    Regardless of who is to blame for this situation, it is counterproductive for us all. Claiming that Obama is not American enough, or is not a citizen is counterproductive. Saying that George W. Bush was stupid or a fascist was so as well.

    We may disagree, but there are too many important issues that affect us all as we struggle to do God’s work on this Earth to play such petty games.

  • These should not be partisan issues, unless one hopes for more misery for the sake of the political game. Sadly, American politics has become so polarized that many work for the failure of an administration due to political disagreements rather than trying to find common ground.

    It’s called formulating different opinions on issues. Not everyone agrees about the best ways to address these concerns, and talking about finding “common ground” is just gobbledeygook to gloss over the fact that there are radically different approaches that are often not compatible.

    I also note that ending the abortion holocaust is not one of your pressing concerns. Unsurprising.

  • Thanks Paul Zummo. Your statement is indicative of being part of the problem, not the solution. And yes, I am pro-life and believe that ending abortions by multiple means is a key and pressing issue.

  • Then David W, work for the defeat of liberal Demokracy, Barak Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi. They will not waver from their pro-abortion, pro-gay rights policy. Will NOT.

    Holiness and righteous, repentance and conversion come first before anything else. Don’t think for one minute that God will treat these United States any differently than when He had Assyria deport Israel and Babylon deport Judah for their crimes of wickedness, idolatry and sexual perversion. And think not that Manasseh having his children sacrificed by immolation is any different than what Obama does by his policies to the unborn. Manasseh was led away into captivity by a ring through his nose. God forbid that that should happen to the current child-murderer in charge. But as Scripture says, be NOT deceived; God is NOT mocked for whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap.

  • Your statement is indicative of being part of the problem, not the solution.

    And your reply is indicative of someone who isn’t interested in serious debate but rather the sort of moral preening that is of little value. People have decidedly different approaches to major issues, and to gloss over these difference with blabber about common ground gets us nowhere. In fact, it is this rather humdrum “can’t we get along attitude” that gets us nowhere. And of course the worst part is that it’s pure bs. You talk about common ground, but only insofar as people come to your conclusions.

    And yes, I am pro-life and believe that ending abortions by multiple means is a key and pressing issue.

    But when you listed the most pressing issues of the day, independently and without being called out on it, you completely neglected abortion. So, I take your protestations about being “pro-life” for what they are – hot air.

  • Here’s what David W wrote, “And yes, I am pro-life and believe that ending abortions by multiple means is a key and pressing issue.”

    Note “…a key and pressing issue.”

    Baby murdering is THE issue, NOT an issue. And any man who thinks that evacuating a baby from his mother’s womb is a woman’s right to chose IS a monster. But that’s what the President in effect said by his own policies.

    A woman has the right to be a healthy mother, and obfuscating that with this false “right to choose” endangers the lives and health of countless women while those who do such things murder their babies. We as a nation will therefore NOT have social justice till we STOP murdering our next generation.

    But to David W., that is simply “an” issue, however key and pressing it really is to him. Indeed, we see by his support for the baby-murderer in charge how key and pressing it is to him. Sorry – I simply can’t help myself when I see this kind of stuff that passes for “Catholic thinking” among the “Catholic” supporters of that man in the Oval Office.

    And no, I do NOT believe the Repubs are the Party of God. Do NOT. They aren’t much better, but one plus zero is still one.

    Geez, I gotta calm down. It ain’t worth the blood pressure rise.

  • I just thought of something else concerning what David W wrote, “And yes, I am pro-life and believe that ending abortions by multiple means is a key and pressing issue.”

    There are NOT multiple means to preventing abortion. There is ONE and ONLY ONE. You don’t want a baby, then don’t have sex. Period. No adultery. No fornication. No sexual immorality. What are we? Wild baboons given to the lust of the moment without a bit of sentience to control our behavior? And then we think we can get away with impunity from any consequences for our sexual immorality? Or did God give us brains and does He expect us to use our them. Liberals exhalt man’s reasoning faculties and denigrate Conservatives as unthinking, unfeeling brutes, so why don’t they use their brains here?

    No sex – no unwanted babies. SIMPLE! I’ve been without sex for four years since being without a wife. I am still not dead.

    OBEY the Lord God Almighty. Do that and abortion will go away.

  • Indeed, why now?

    This absolutely makes no sense!

    Now: Unending unemployment hurts the unemployed and inflicts dolorous destitution on their families. But, that’s only (reality) 17% of we the people.

    Now: Soaring food and fuel prices are hurting (despite the fact that they are not in the guvmint inflation formula) about 98% of we the people. Obamissars (must save Mother Gaia!!!) ordered stoppages of drilling and denied coal permits and mishandled foreign policy; we the people won’t fall for the lies about speculators hurting us. Obama did it.

    The release makes no sense. Without 24/7 making fun of Birthers, Obama worsipping liars in the MSM don’t have “news” with which to distract and misdirect the people.

    It wasn’t working anyway.

  • I praise God that Paul Primavera has the courage and passion to defend the defenseless. Indeed, darkness has fallen over two thousand years of Christianity. Much, if not most, of our nation’s populace is not shouting to the glory of God, but praising the Prince of Darkness. And a sick man is in charge of a sick nation.

Palin: “Fight Like a Girl!”

Monday, April 18, AD 2011

One of the hardest things for any orator to do is to give a successful stump speech before a hostile audience, and that is just what Sarah Palin did on Saturday, April 16, 2011, in Madison, Wisconsin at a tea party rally.  Union rent-a-mobs were out in force, drawn like flies to sugar by the presence of Palin, always a mesmerizing target for the denizens of the Left.  During her speech you can hear constantly in the background their continual attempts to shout her down.  Go here to Ann Althouse’s blog to see some of the charming signs carried by the Union mob and her comments on their attempts to drown out Palin.  (The height of courage was shown when the Union thugs attempted to drown out a 14 year old girl who was speaking.)  Palin did not back down an inch, giving a pugnacious, fighting speech, that not only took on Obama and the spend-us-into-bankruptcy-Union leadership, but also the clueless Gop establishment.  It was a bravura performance, and the best stump speech I have seen since Reagan rode off into the sunset.  Here is the text of her speech with my comments:

Hello Madison, Wisconsin! You look good. I feel like I’m at home. This is beautiful. Madison, I am proud to get to be with you today. Madison, these are the frontlines in the battle for the future of our country. This is where the line has been drawn in the sand. And I am proud to stand with you today in solidarity.

Note the use of the term solidarity, and it will not be the only time she uses it.  Palin wasn’t born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and her family members belong to unions.

I am here today as a patriot, as a taxpayer, as a former union member, and as the wife of a union member. What I have to say today I say it to our good patriotic brothers and sisters who are in unions. I say this, too, proudly standing here as the daughter of a family full of school teachers. My parents, my grandparents, aunt, cousins, brother, sister – so many of these good folks are living on teachers’ pensions, having worked or are still working in education.

Not us versus them, but just us.  Palin is talking to union members over the heads of their union bosses.

Continue reading...

38 Responses to Palin: “Fight Like a Girl!”

  • I was not able to make it to Madison on Saturday. I watched Palin’s speech livestreamed and I was extremely impressed.

    As for the leftist idiots who attempted to drown out her speech, they have proved that they care not a whit for free speech, unless it’s speech they agree with. How on earth can you have an exchange of ideas with someone who is screaming in your face and wants only to shut you up?

    The Madison protesters were ladies and gents compared to some other anti-TP protesters across the country – like the mob in Portland. One man screamed that he uses the American flag as toliet paper. When I watched and heard the hatred in that clip my thought was that they were in need of an exorcist.

    Now off into the lovely April snow. Ugh 🙁

  • Watching Sarah in action giving her take on our problems and the way she believes government should resolve them for the sake of saving America for future generations makes you wish every pastor in every church would at least recognize her voice as a solid pro-life, defense of marriage, and faith based governance appeal to the voters in this country. But that won’t happen because far too many fear their right to free speech could be used against them by the PC police and that trumps their obligation to stand along side of a voice for biblical truth from a candidate. Yet there were parishes with doors wide open for Doug Kemeic’s high tributes for Obama during the 2008 campaign and bishops who silently endorsed the proceedings. Are the Church and the voice of truth going to forever be held captive by Political Correctness? Is it not enough that such fear already grips the black community as evidenced by the verbal and even physically brutal attacks on black Tea Party members?
    By the way if you will notice as Palin is leaving the stage at the end a black gentleman in an orange shirt politely kisses her hand.

  • It looks like the Democrat pseudo-Catholics have forgotten the lesson of Judith 14:11-19. It took a woman then to fight the good fight. And so today. I cannot wait till I hear the howl of consternation and see the renting of tunics as another anti-christ lies deposed and headless (speaking figuratively, of course – no physical violence is either encouraged or desired).

    At daybreak they hung the head of Holofernes on the wall. Then all the Israelite men took up their arms and went to the slopes of the mountain.
    When the Assyrians saw them, they notified their captains; these, in turn, went to the generals and division leaders and all their other commanders.
    They came to the tent of Holofernes and said to the one in charge of all his things, “Waken our master, for the slaves have dared come down to give us battle, to their utter destruction.”
    Bagoas went in, and knocked at the entry of the tent, presuming that he was sleeping with Judith.
    As no one answered, he parted the curtains, entered the bedroom, and found him lying on the floor, a headless corpse.
    He broke into a loud clamor of weeping, groaning, and howling, and rent his garments.
    Then he entered the tent where Judith had her quarters; and, not finding her, he rushed out to the troops and cried:
    “The slaves have duped us! A single Hebrew woman has brought disgrace on the house of King Nebuchadnezzar. Here is Holofernes headless on the ground!”
    When the commanders of the Assyrian army heard these words, they rent their tunics and were seized with consternation. Loud screaming and howling arose in the camp.

  • Donna V.,

    Those are not idiots. They are fascist gangsters executing orders issued by the lawless tyrants in the WH.

  • The only thing I take issue with in Palin’s speech is this :

    “And Madison, you defended the 2010 electoral mandate. You are heroes, you are patriots, and when the history of this Tea Party Movement is written, what you accomplished here will not be forgotten.”

    Madison is getting far too much credit here. She should have said Wisconsin instead of Madison. Most present-day Madisonians would make the town’s namesake twirl in his grave. They voted overwhelmingly for Kloppenberg and their mayoral race was Lenin vs. Trotsky. Our ex-governor Tommy Thompson said it best when he described the place as 77 square miles surrounded by reality.

    When Obama wants to preach to a worshipful crowd, Madison is one of his top go-to spots. It’s highly doubtful whether he would venture into hostile territory (Waukesha county, for instance) the way Palin does.

    That’s one reason Prosser’s win (and Walker’s earlier victory) so delighted us conservative cheeseheads – it meant the state is not completely in thrall to the Dane-Milwaukee County Democratic machines.

  • I appreciate Sarah Palin’s honesty in revealing her connections with unions, but because of those connections I will not vote for her. As a public-school teacher who has never belonged to a union I have taken heat for speaking up against the I.B.E.W.’s takeover of our local power co-op, and by the other side have been accused of being a unionist because of my employment.

    What a mess!

    Sarah Palin seems to be standing elliptically on both sides of unions, and that won’t do.

  • Sorry that this is irreverent, PWP. The quote reminds me of a headline in the NY Daily News from many years ago. “Headless Body Found in Topless Bar.”

    More irreverence: The CSJ motto: “Don’t waste any time praying – organize!”

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): Mack, I think Mrs. Palin was trying to distinguish between rank & file union members and their union leadership, and encouraging them to vote according to their own beliefs, as opposed to what union bosses tell them to do. I dare say that many people who are currently union members would choose not to be if it was not required by their employment, and that many more would withhold that portion of their dues which their union leadership uses for political activism, if they were allowed to.
    Bravo to you for staying out of the teacher’s union! My mom (a retired teacher), I believe, had to pay union dues (at least I remember our getting NEA’s magazine in our mail when I was a kid), but refused to go out on strike when the local teacher’s union would call for one. (She was the sole breadwinner in our family sometimes, so we needed the money!)

  • Guilty as charged. I’m a union VP (I was asked to run. I didn’t know I was unopposed!) and am local treasurer – it’s what I do. Plus, annual union training is all-expenses-paid in Las Vegas!

    I have annoyingly commented ad nausem: Voting demokrat is a mortal sin. I donate the money I used to give the commie bishop to right-minded candidates.

    The one thing Obama has accomplished: re-awakening the “Reagan” Democratic voter.

    The GOP merely needs to contrast Reagan’s recovery to peace and prosperity to Obama’s growing evil, gangster nightmare.

  • I agree with T. Shaw: one cannot possibly be Christian and vote Democratic. However, many Christians say it’s wrong to judge Democrats as evil because one doesn’t know the state of their souls. That’s true. Nevertheless, as the old Biblical saying goes, by their fruits ye shall know them, and the fruit of liberal Democracy (i.e., two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) is murdered babies and sanctification of homosexual filth. Now that being said, I utterly oppose physical violence against abortionist doctors and against gay couples. The solution is NOT violence. But sin is sin, and it is the very reason why our nation is today in such peril. This reminds me of 2nd Chronicles 7:14.

    Now while I really liked Sarah Palin’s speech, and while I agree with Donald’s commentary here at The American Catholic blogiste, I do not think we can look to a political solution for what ails our nation. As Jesus said to Pontius Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world…” That doesn’t mean we stop voting or writing our Senators and Congressmen, or being otherwise politically active as befits our station in life. But it does mean that while Sarah Palin and others like her seem to offer hope, our real hope must remain in the Lord. There will be no lasting peace, no real justice on Earth till He returns again in the clouds of glory. We can and should, however, work as laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, but His Kingdom won’t be (and isn’t) a political one – Republican or Democrat. Yes, one can and should vote against the Democratcs and this likely means voting for the Republicans as the lesser of evils. But while the Democratic Party is certainly the Party of Satan, its antagonist the Republican isn’t the party of God. We have to be Catholic Christians first and foremost.

  • That is enough on this thread about Christians not being able to vote for Democrats. My opinion of the current, since 1966, Democrat party, is on a par with my opinion of English cuisine and French stiff upper lip, but I will not contend that my views are the only views for Christians. In regard to politics and religion, I think they are generally separate spheres. Some great moral issues, such as slavery and abortion, cause an overlap, but generally it is best not to confuse politics with religion or religion with politics.

  • Donald’s admonishment is well taken. However, it is quite obvious that the Democratic party and its platform have produced the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Charles Rangel, and many other “distinguished” members of congress along with a host of “intellectual” clergy and prominent individuals who ALL gave their unbridled support (honorary degrees) to the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for president. All of these we could assume would agree with your “separte spheres” but we must ask what does this say for the church in America? Especially when these same people often state and expound that their positions and values don’t conflict with or reduce their standing within the church as they boldly file in line at the communion table.

    Remember when Nancy Pelosi told a reporter that (her) church was not sure when life begins and that it was “debatable” only about 20 of the approximately 150 catholic members of congress willingly signed a letter of admonition to her.( None of the above mentioned). And to realize that these officials are continually reelected by large portions of catholic laity speaks volumes for the guidance the laity are receiving from their shepherds.

    I think Paul in his way is not so much condeming Democtats and their agenda but rather the fact that it seems to thrive in the face of moral reality as defined by the Church and continues with little opposition from Church authority. Paul is knowingly or not taking up the vocal cross which belongs to the bishops in their absence. Perhaps it is somewhat overheated at times but like a cry in the desert for the acknowledgment of neglect and capitulation to the forces of evil in our society by men who wear the garments of faith and good will.

  • Thanks, Bill Sr. The bottom line, I think, is this: it’s a pity that we as Catholics have to be reminded of what truth is by an Assemblies of God Pentecostal woman – Sarah Palin. As Matthew 3:7-12 states:

    When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
    Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance. And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I am baptizing you with water, for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is mightier than I. I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

    If Catholics won’t respond, then God will (and does) use the Pentecostals.

  • Amazing woman. Word is she still had time after her speech to watch a hockey game, kill a moose, ride a snowmobile and buy some new designer specs.

  • Joe Green’s comment reminded me that the reason why modernists don’t like Sarah Palin is because she is a REAL woman, not one of these new age feminists who believe in abortion and lesbianism, and because she is Christian (albeit not Catholic) and Conservative, and most of all, exactly what they are not: beautiful. Now regardless of whatever sarcasm may or may not be in Joe’s Green’s little comment, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least that she might have had time to watch a hockey game, kill a moose, ride a snow mobile and buy new designer specs after her speech. I don’t, however, say that she is my hero. But I do say that she is my heroine. She can’t be a hero because heroes are always male. The female version (Deborah in the Book of Judges and Judith in the Book of Judith) are always heroines. That is a point forever lost on modernists as they continue to obscure, mix up and confuse gender in this false idea that equality in dignity is somehow equality in function – but that’s a discussion for a different day.

    Hooray, Sarah Palin! Never have modernists shown more intolerance of real women in politics than in its villification of Sarah Palin. (But the androgenous feminists – they’re A-OK).

  • Sarah Palin is a very formidable woman who clearly loves being a wife and mother. She reminds me of my wife and mother in that regard. It is good to see a politician who does not come across as plain weird.

  • Obviously I agree, Donald, but I fear that if Sarah runs, many people will buy into the news media’s hatred of her and vote for Obama if only to vote against her. I have talked with many people who aren’t influenced by the purple koolaid, as it were, yet they still would rather have Obama than Sarah. The media certainly has done a bang up job in getting people to see Sarah so negatively.

  • That is why we have campaigns Paul. Prior to Reagan smashing Carter by 10 points in 1980, the polls showed the race neck and neck. Obama and the mainstream media assume that Palin will be easy pickings in 2012. She is severely underestimated and that is not a bad place for a politician to be in what is sure to be a hard fought campaign. Many people currently have low expectations of Palin and have written her off as a low wattage bimbo. More fools they.

  • No meanspiritedness intended. Palin’s easy to parody. Then again, what politician isn’t? I’d wouldn’t want her higher than Sec of Interior. No one on right or left appeals to me. Let’s just put the country on autopilot and hope for the best.

  • Thanks for the note, Joe. Obama is pretty easy to parody, too, but whenever someone does that, he’s accused of being mean spirited, divisive, intolerant and “not nice.” Yet people do it willy-nilly to Sarah and it’s undeserving. If someone treated Geraldine Ferraro during the election of 84 (I think) the way MS NBC and the rest treat Sarah Palin on a daily basis, then the modernists would have been screaming bloody murder.

    For example, I think that those who mistreated Bush with their vile name calling are now getting it back and they don’t like receiving what they so freely gave. So their reaction is to vilify Sarah.

  • Don, Palin would use to Obama, as would Trump, Pawlenty (yawn), Romney (double yawn), Giuliani, Huckabee (imagine a President Huckabee), Bachmann, Gingrich (fill in any GOP candidate’s name here).

    Trump merely enjoying the attention his massive ego craves. He will not run, has too much fun making money and enjoying in celeb status. Chris Christie is a long shot. So who else is going to carry the flag? I thought McCain was weakest but the current crop is even weaker, and the GOP has no identity other than a growing reputation, undeserved perhaps, of being the party of obstructionism. Paul Ryan might make a good Veep choice but still need someone at the top of the ticket.


  • Palin would lose, etc.

  • ‘Thoughts?”

    That it is a long way to 2012 would be my main thought. Secondary thoughts are that the economy is in a mess and shows no signs of improving, that gold has gone up $500.00 an ounce in the last year and today stands at $1500.00, that inflation is beginning to take off, that Obama is now involved in three conflicts and shows no clue as to what to do, that the US credit rating is now in doubt, that we will soon be staring at $5.00 a gallon gasoline. If these conditions persist, I think Obama is rather beatable by anyone with an (R) after their name. Oh, and if the ludicrous polls are adjusted to show near parity between Democrats and Republicans instead of the 10 point spread that they continue to give the Democrats, Obama’s approval would now be under 40%.

    I think it is a given that Palin will be the nominee if she gets into the race. If the conditions I have enumerated persist into the summer of 2012, I would give the general election to Palin with at least 52% of the vote and an electoral college win of 290-300. If the economy worsens between now and election day, and unfortunately I think that is entirely possible, I could see Palin increasing her vote margin to 55% and an electoral college win of 338.

  • Don, I think you’re a bit too sanguine about Palin’s chances and underestimating Obama as a brilliant campaigner, albeit a lousy president.

    Consider: He has the big advantage of incumbency and money, as well as a solid base that includes Latinos (now 1/6th of the population), blacks, homosexuals, younger folks and white libs. That’s a sizable block.

    Plus he has the media on his side, which is a huge difference in a sound-bite world in which issues tend to be oversimplified in a dumbed-down country.

    Despite declining popularity in polls, which vary considerably and which are capricious and subject to sharp fluctuations, Obama is skilled at spin, propaganda and manipulation of the facts, in concert with his lapdog press, and has been able to keep the GOP on the defensive. Even though he and his party took a so-called “shellacking” last November and the Republicans made large mid-term gains, neither Boehner nor his troops have been able to capitalize and, given the parity in the Senate, Obama’s veto pen still holds sway and the Republican agenda (if there is one) is effectively blunted.

    Of course, five-dollar gas, rising food prices and high inflation remain troublesome for Obama, and the economy, as usual, figures to be the top issue come 2012. By then, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull some rabbits out of the hat, selling himself as the Great Compromiser, as the GOP stumbles to look for leadership and someone with star power to take over the party reins and adopt a strong message that will resonate with vox populi.

    Even though Obama’s approval ratings have dipped, in all the other polls matching him against any of the Republicans, he’s ahead by comfortable margins. Trump, by the way, isn’t helping by stealing the GOP’s thunder right now with silly birther talk, and becoming the face of the party in ways that party would not prefer (see Karl Rove, George Will, et al, who have begun marginalizing him.)

    Rove is still a man with considerable political clout as a Fox regular and his frequently disparaging remarks about Palin no doubt would be featured in the Democratic ads should she be the nominee.

    To say that Obama is “beatable with anyone with an (R) after his/her name” may be wishing thinking, Don, and probably too soon to assert at this early stage. By fall, I think our crystal balls will clear up enough to make more certain predictions.

  • “underestimating Obama as a brilliant campaigner”

    I disagree that he is a brilliant campaigner. In 2008, with an economic meltdown to hang around the neck of the Republicans, and every advantage imaginable, he won with 52.9% of the vote. Considering the cicumstances, and also considering that McCain was an almost laughably bad candidate for the GOP, it should have been a blowout between 55-60%.

    “He has the big advantage of incumbency and money”

    Incumbency tends to be a bad thing for a President Joe if the economy is in the dumpster, which this economy is. As for money, I believe Palin would outraise him through massive donations over the internet.

    “blacks, homosexuals, younger folks and white libs.”

    Young folks are over the Obama fling. Not having a job tends to do that. Homosexuals routinely give at least a third of their votes to the GOP. Obama has given libs little, and I expect their enthusiasm level will not match the “He is the Messiah” hysteria we saw in 2008. Even black support for Obama is beginning to decrease.

    “Plus he has the media on his side, which is a huge difference in a sound-bite world in which issues tend to be oversimplified in a dumbed-down country.”

    He has the dying and dead media on his side Joe. New media, what people increasingly watch, is competitive for the GOP.

    “Obama is skilled at spin, propaganda and manipulation of the facts”

    I disagree Joe. I’m beginning to come to Jay Cost’s view that Obama, at least now, is bad at politics.


    ” took a so-called “shellacking”

    Nothing so-called about the massive beating the Dems took last Fall Joe, and I expect much more of the same if the economy is still in the tank next year.

    “I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull some rabbits out of the hat”

    I would. He is doing nothing that will improve the economy, and he is doing much to make it worse. As for him being the “Great Compromise” , I doubt it. I think that Obama has already decided to run to the Left next year.

    “Even though Obama’s approval ratings have dipped, in all the other polls matching him against any of the Republicans, he’s ahead by comfortable margins.”

    Meaningless at this time Joe. Carter regularly trounced Reagan in such polls in 79.

    “Trump, by the way”

    Yeah, “by the way” which I think is where Trump will end up. I don’t see Trump as being another Perot. He will go nowhere in the Republican primaries and I think a third party bid would have nill impact. The man is a complete buffoon and has no issue to rally supporters around.

    “Rove is still a man with considerable political clout”

    Please. This is a man who almost lost two Presidential elections in 2000 and 2004. The most overrated man in politics. Rove is now a man of yesterday and is of no consequence except as a demon figure on the Left. He has now as much political significance as the toe licker, Dick Morris.

    “To say that Obama is “beatable with anyone with an (R) after his/her name” may be wishing thinking, Don”

    I rather think it is sound analysis Joe, based on the current situation. I do agree it is a long way to 2012 at this point.

  • Well, Don, I have your prognostications turn out to be better than mine. Can’t afford another 4 years of this bozo. One guy that gets little mention is Rick Santorum. For his pro-life stance alone, I’d vote for him. I was sorry to see him leave the Senate. Maybe a veep choice. Romney would be a disaster with all that Massachusetts baggage. Maybe Chris Christie will jump in.

  • Well, I hope, etc…. Don, need an edit function so posters can revise, fix their typos; maybe even a delete button for those comments we wish we never made.

  • solidarity. Her use of that term I think is deliberate and echoes Solidarity in Poland

    Bringin Palin in was the conservative’s strong card, yet they still lost the hand.

    The original Walker strategy was to expect Police & Firefighters as well as private sector blue collar workers to back him up. It failed. Wisconsin firefighters and police officers have been in the forefront of opposition to Walker. They didn’t fall for the carve out he put in his bill. And private sector union members have ben equally strong against Walker. The jury might still be out on Wisconsin non-union blue collar workers, though they certainly have not rallied to the Governor over public workers as expected by the GOP. In their favor, the Prosser race did give evidence of strong white collar support for the Governor. If Wisconsin ever had many limo liberals, they certainly didn’t come out in the election.

    The conservatives needed to try to win back non-college workers in Wisconsin and Palin was the best they had. However, ignore the debates about how many rally attendees were on which side. Count all 6,500 as Palin supporters and it still is nothing compared to the 100,000 in support of the unions. The ‘Solidarity’ reference made her look silly (other than the fact that Solidarity was a public sector union when it struck the government owned Gdannsk Shipyards). The Polish Union had just sent a letter to the Wisconsin unions supporting their efforts and publsihed in the newspaper.

    Nice try, no cigar. Keep to Waukesha County; that’s where your hope is.

  • All of you who choose to demonize her must admit whether you will or not that…..
    Millions of Americans along with me know that had Sarah Palin with her courage, experience, and ability to deliver her message had she been a DEMOCRAT instead, she would have been the darling of the media for her beauty, her “audacity”, her special needs child, and rouge hockey mom style. Don’t lie to yourself.

  • I am glad that Palin doesn’t “keep it to Waukesha County,” but brings her message to the entire country, for that is exactly where her hope is, and that is exactly why a certain political class are beside themselves in hurling invective after invective after her. The behavior of this elitist class and their little minions in Wisconsin show exactly what we have to look forward to as we progress from a Constitutional Republic into a national Demokracy (misspelled purposefully). I further am overjoyed that Palin likewise calls the country club Republicans on the carpet, too.

    BTW, the more liberals tell Palin to stay in Wauskesha, the more she won’t and the more money she makes off the clownish criticisms of her adversaries. I think it’s great – she gets money because clowns who are acting like little cry-babies make fun of her. Good for her! Make fun of her some more as she takes the money to the bank. That’s fuel for the election campaign!

  • I also agree with what Bill Sr. wrote. If the Republicans had criticized Geraldine Ferraro (a pro-abortion Catholic – what an oxymoron!) the way Democrats demonize Sarah Palin, there would be hell to pay. Yet a pro-life Pentecostal does what a Roman Catholic in politics opposed, and the Democrats are all over the pro-lifer like stink on manure while they eulogize a baby-murderer. That’s why I get so mad at the left. The hypocrisy is astounding and unbelievable. They would release a convicted serial killer or rapist from prison on humanitarian grounds, but would condemn Sarah Palin’s Down Syndrome baby to death in the womb.

  • I am glad that Palin doesn’t “keep it to Waukesha County,”


    I was unclear. I did not intend that comment to be directed to Gov. Palin but the WI GOP. The Walker initiative has been a political disaster to the GOP among blue collar Wisconsinites. However, I have to admit they may have made up much of the lost ground with an incredible mobilization in white collar and upper middle class parts of the state. I meant that the WI GOP should stick to Waukeha County if they are looking for success, not Gov. Palin.

    When you are tanking with blue collar families, I think bringing in Palin is probably the best you got if the GOP does not want to totally give up on that demographic. Unlike most Republicans who speak of union members as either dolts or Communists, she actually gives some respectful lip service and maybe has half a clue as to what our life is like. She talks about how unions are essential for health care and a decent retirement. In the end, I think she fails in an attempt to identify culturally with blue collar workers and union members while not standing with us on a policy basis, but I give her credit as a Republican that tries and fails over most of her party who do not even try.

    The “Solidarity” reference might have worked had it not come right after news stories that Soldarity has issued a statement praising the Wisconsin workers.

  • Thanks for the clarification, Kurt. I assumed incorrectly – my apologies. But compared to the best that the Dems have to offer (Obama), Palin is a breath of fresh air. That arrogant, snide-full, elitist, narcissic……well, anything else I say about him is unprintable.

  • Paul,

    While I have a somewhat more positive view of the President than you do, I freely admit the best thing he has going for him are not his virtues but the cast of clowns that make up his political opponets. (Though I was looking forward to Haley “Boss Hogg” Barbour on the GOP ticket!)

  • Kurt,

    I find it troubling that the President has surrounded himself with all manner of abortionists and homosexual activists, and you cite his “virtues”. One wonders what they may be outside of being able to follow an electronic teleprompter. It is equally troubling that he has spoken positively about every single Muslim holiday, yet issued no word of thanks to God on Easter (though much was made of his attending a Baptist church on Easter Sunday).

    Now I know nothing about Haley Barbour, so unless you can substantiate the calumny with which you described him, I will reserve opinion. Additionally, exactly what cast of clowns are the President’s opponents who are more evil than his open support of baby murdering as the right to choose?

    I will not speak on this matter again. I shall vote against that man in the Oval Office, even if it means voting for Barbour as President and Palin as Vice President. Furthermore, I do not dialogue with liberals.

  • Kurt and everybody that voted for the Fraud,

    Thanks for ruining our country.

    2012 – Anybody but Obama.

  • Furthermore, I do not dialogue with liberals.

    Lucky liberals.

  • I am not going to respond to the liberal or pollute Donald’s blog with more argument. But a friend of mine has forwarded me a little essay exposing the man in the Oval Office for what he is. That short writing is here::


    How anyone can be so in love with him after all he has done to destroy this country is unfathomable.