Category Archives: Barack Obama

Somewhat gratuitous Dana Delany photo, but since the show's title is the same as this post why not.

Body of Proof

Leave a reply

It should embarrass the American traditional media industry when a liberal British newspaper does a far better job of covering domestic news than they can be bothered to muster. Yet, such is the case:

Eric Holder argued that using lethal military force against an American in his home country would be legal and justified in an “extraordinary circumstance” comparable to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

“The president could conceivably have no choice but to authorise the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland,” Mr Holder said.

His statement was described as “more than frightening” by Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, who had demanded to know the Obama administration’s position on the subject.

Couple of thoughts, one specific and one overall. First, the specific observation. Early in its first term, the Obama administration was hellbent for leather to bring Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, he of Al Qaeda, 9/11 and Daniel Pearl murder infamy, to New York for a civilian trial in lieu of the military court in Guantanamo for which he had originally been slotted. Eventually it begrudgingly changed its mind and consigned Mohammed to a military tribunal at Guantanamo while administration officials blasted Congress for imposing roadblocks to their original plan. All in the name of fairness, due process and “see we’re not like them”-ism; never mind they guaranteed conviction and execution which seems somewhat contrary to the standard notion of what constitutes a fair trial (but I digress). The administration is now taking another shot at this with Osama Bin Laden’s son-in-law. Meanwhile, it took a Rand Paul filibuster to get the administration’s written declaration that it did not have legal authority to summarily use drones to kill an American citizen not engaged in combat against America while they were on American soil. In another meanwhile, debate still rages as to whether the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2012, signed into law by President Obama, permits the government to hold an American citizen indefinitely without trial. The 2013 edition of the bill has not lessened the argument. A side note to this is that much of the disagreement centers on the bill’s ambiguous language concerning whether it permits the aforementioned infinite detention. The bill is 681 pages long. You’d think with the trillions of dollars Washington spends each year, someone there would use some of that money to hire one or two people who can write in clear English. Apparently it’s not a priority.

Now, the more general observation which is derived from the above.

It is a dangerous thing to either deify or demonize a politician. To believe that someone in office can either do no wrong or no right is a fool’s paradise. Even as each of us has our own strengths and weaknesses, every politician will do those things with which we agree and that which we cannot abide. If we close our eyes to this, we close them very tightly.

Going silent when a favored political figure goes against our philosophy and platform should be an embarrassment. Do we select our elected leaders on deeds or personality cult status? We are immediate in lambasting those we generally oppose for any transgression perceived or real. Do we treat our side with the same level of critical analysis?

Even as it is nonsensical to classify a politician as all right or all wrong it is equally, if not more, nonsensical to cast one out of the kingdom with whom we almost always agree because they did one or two things we did not like. An example is how Rand Paul was heralded for his filibuster by many who earlier had told him to hit the highway when he voted to approve Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be the next Secretary of Defense.

For far too many, ideological purity trumps all. It is very easy to be a keyboard warrior pounding out thunderous denouncements of anyone and everyone who fails the least little litmus test. Actually being the newsmaker, the one who makes the speeches, writes the bills and casts the votes, is an entirely different matter. They know things we will never know, things that explain actions otherwise inexplicable. Plus, they have their own philosophy, practices and policies. No politician is under any obligation to follow our every whim. We can always vote them out if they are too far out of line.

We need to view politics and politicians with a wide angle lens, not a microscope. We need to consider their entire body of work, not cherrypick random instances and hold them up to be a body of proof. We need to be honest about them even as we need to be honest about ourselves and to each other. They will do things we like and things we loathe. Throwing them out for the least little transgression, or turning a blind eye when a preferred officeholder does something that makes our skin crawl, does neither them nor us any favors.

See the whole picture, and respond accordingly.

To Choose Wisely

Leave a reply

If wisdom is the ability to discern between deliberate lies and uninformed non-truths, then higher wisdom possesses among other noble traits the ability to discern between what we perceive and/or believe to be true and what is genuine. The four most lethal words in the English language are not “I already know that,” fraught with peril as they may be. No, the four most lethal words in the English language are “I don’t believe it!” They declare our preference for clinging onto what we wish to be true, by this rejecting what evidence, logic and reason declare to be factual.

Rejecting truth in favor of what we believe to be, or wish to be, true follows much the same pattern as grief’s stages, or at least parts thereof. This is only fitting, given the often intense level of grief woven throughout the process. There is the initial shock of perceived/desired truth colliding with what is authentic truth, followed by denial of the authentic truth, anger against whoever has informed us of the truth and/or the truth’s originator(s), bargaining with ourselves that somehow we can transform the authentic truth into our perceived/desired truth, depression as we come to grips with the authentic truth, testing to see what we can do to better acclimate ourselves with the authentic truth, and finally acceptance of the authentic truth as we relegate our perceived/desired truth to the trash can of previously believed mythology.

Sometimes, though, people skip a stage or four.

A current case in point involves veteran investigative reporter Bob Woodward, of Woodward and Bernstein fame — look up Watergate in your 20th century US history books if the names don’t ring a bell — and a host of Washington online reporter/commentator types, all of far more recent vintage than Mr. Woodward. Now Mr. Woodward, being old school, is pure honey badger: tenacious, fearless and don’t care with a capital D. He pursues the story regardless of what it is, who is involved or its potential repercussions. It is the story that is sacrosanct. This trait alternately endears him to people and enrages the selfsame people depending on whether he’s goring the other side’s sacred cow or theirs during his current story’s unfolding.

A few days ago, Mr. Woodward wrote a story in which he reported the sequester originated with the Obama administration, not Congress. He subsequently reported being verbally harangued, with follow-up email doing much the same, by a White House staffer who, in Mr. Woodward’s words, “threatened” him. What is more, Mr. Woodward went on to say some less than complimentary things about the Obama administration’s policy decisions as related to the sequester.

At this point the diapers, in the presence of pundits and reporters who either were in diapers or the embryo stage when Mr. Woodward first started breaking world-changing stories, hit the fan. This led to conservative sites that previously held Mr. Woodward at arms length out of respectful fear suddenly embracing him, taking great delight in detailing who in the media said what against the veteran reporter:

It began with Politico itself, which downplayed the entire incident, even as it acknowledged that Woodward’s “play-by-play is basically spot on” with regard to reporting the sequestration. “White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward,” said official Obama buddies Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Allen and VandeHei merely suggested that the battle with Woodward was “a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.” They added, “Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him.” Poor Obama, having to deal with such issues.

Next, the White House went to its favorite outlet, Buzzfeed, and their favorite BenSmithing reporter, Ben Smith, to leak the source of the Woodward “regret” email. It’s clear why they did it – Smith spun the entire incident for the White House. After announcing that the email came from Gene Sperling, director of the White House Economic Council, he proceeded to pretend that the threat email wasn’t a threat email at all – actually, Woodward was making a rookie mistake by misinterpreting a kindly tip as a threat: “Officials often threaten reporters that they will ‘regret’ printing something that is untrue, but Woodward took the remark as a threat.” Nothing to see here. Move along. Just to clarify, Smith later added via Twitter, “Am I crazy to read ‘regret’ here as ‘regret being wrong’? This is something flacks yell at reporters a lot.”

That meme was picked up by the White House’s favorite palace guards, including Dave Weigel at Slate (he retweeted Smith, tweeted, “Theory: Woodward is trolling,” then added via retweet that the whole situation was “boring”); BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, who mockingly tweeted, “Every reporter who deals with flacks/campaign advisors/politicos/ on a daily basis finds that less than threatening”; Justin Green, who edits David Frum’s blog at The Daily Beast, tweeted, “I rarely rarely report, and I’ve had flacks say worse. Not that rare”; Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic tweeted, “As a reporter, I don’t think this was a threat”; Dylan Byers of Politico tweeted, “tweets, I’m no Woodward but broadcast/cable TV PR reps use that ‘regret’ tactic a lot”; Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo tweeted, “Who goes birther first, Scalia or Woodward?” The messaging was universal from the leftist Obama-supporting media: Woodward hadn’t been threatened, and was an amateur or a crazy old coot to think he was being threatened. Matt Yglesias of Slate summed up the general Palace Guard Media take: “Woodward’s managed to make me suspect Nixon got a raw deal.”

Others took up the battle cry both for and against Mr. Woodward. One of the more astonishing negative pieces came from Ryu Spaeth at the Week, who as part of his complaint included this amazing bit of pretzel logic from that legendary even-keel non-partisan site Talking Points Memo:

But the entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to make sure that the enforcement mechanism is never triggered.

Uh, no. The entire purpose of an enforcement mechanism is to enact change that otherwise would never be enacted, be it preemptive to avoid the enforcement mechanism being triggered or by default, thus triggering the enforcement mechanism. Cognitive thinking seems to be in rather short supply at TPM (please pardon the redundancy).

These anger outbursts were not based on the journalism truism that declares if your mother says she loves you check it out. They were knee-jerk reactions at the perceived affront Mr. Woodward had perpetrated. Not only had he contradicted the meme by stating the sequester was created at Obama’s request, he had gone on to say the White House, specifically a member of the White House staff, had attempted to strong-arm him into silence on the matter and as a final blow criticized administration policy. That so many would immediately jump all over Mr. Woodward, a man whose legendary reporting brought down the Nixon administration, speaks volumes about their blind devotion to President Obama trumping any and all adherence to proper journalistic practices. First you investigate, then you corroborate and only then, should you have both of these elements in place, do you speak publicly. And always be truthful along with accurate.

This all duly noted, the lesson here is not strictly one of liberal rage against one of their own for failing to toe the party line. It also illustrates the danger of blind obedience to what one believes to be true, evidence to the contrary be cursed. Be it politics, or personalities (be they of another or ourselves), or a definition of God not in accordance with His Word it is on us to choose wisely by choosing truth no matter how it plays out. To do otherwise is destructive delusion. The truth remains the truth no matter how we choose to approach its unflappable content. The more we accept this, the more enlightened we become. No matter how painful it might be.

PS: Speaking of pretzel logic…

Untitled-1d

Can You Hear Me Now?

4 Replies

In reading all the handwringing and mournful cries about how could we have possibly lost this election, the overriding theme is that there is no overriding theme as assorted pundits cry every which way. We didn’t address social issue enough. We’re too socially conservative. People are still scared to not vote for the black guy for fear of being labeled a racist. We were too soft on Obama. We weren’t clear with our message. And on and on and on.

Despite the multiple gallons of electronic ink that has been poured into the postmortems, one point has been either missed altogether or given short shrift. This stems from the “can’t see the forest for the trees” phenomenon mentioned yesterday. Pundits and political junkies are so overly wrapped up in Beltway thinking they forget that for the vast majority of Americans politics is not the be-all and end-all of their lives. They’d rather think about something else. What little political knowledge they have is far more likely to be of the hand-me-down variety from those who actually do watch the news than watching or reading the news themselves. Simply put, they do not care. The bulk of people in this country do not pay attention to a public political event unless it is catastrophic, one of such power such as 9/11 it can’t help but to be noticed, or is a moment personally affecting them.

An illustration of this from the state y’all love to hate, namely California. Remember when Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected governor in 2003? It was when then-governor Gray Davis was recalled. Why was Davis recalled? Because his ineptitude in handling the state’s electricity crisis led to rolling blackouts throughout the state. But for this, there never would have been a recall. Davis was kicked out of office because an event transpired directly affecting people, namely their power going off and on, under his watch. There was no other reason. None.

Taking this to the just-concluded election, even with chronic deep unemployment and underemployment, massive debt, the looming trainwreck that is Obamacare and a hot mess of a foreign policy most Americans are sufficiently untouched by these things to pay them much heed. Certainly the entitlement class, those who believe that by birthright, be it skin color, inherited economic status (which by the way includes middle to upper middle-class suburban kids who have no grasp of what a work ethic looks like) or what have you are owed a living, are feeling no pain and will continue to feel no pain as long as Uncle Sam keeps cutting them checks. For the rest, while they have a feeling that despite what the filtered media reports they may be catching are telling them things aren’t quite right, there is no sense of urgency; certainly not enough of one to warrant changing presidents.

One can detail the fallacies of the left’s financial policies – the belief “they” have an inexhaustible supply of money and rich people can not only afford to, but pay for everything everyone else needs — until they drop. They can explain the broken window fallacy in action, using government as the hoodlum throwing a brick through the baker’s window, to the nth degree. They can demonstrate how money spent on taxes does not go to create jobs or be spent on goods and services provided by others, but instead stifles job creation and economic growth through free enterprise, all the day long. It will not matter to others until it hits them directly.

Economically, there will continue to be no sense of urgency until either Obamacare’s reality in the form of slashed Medicare coverages starts adversely affecting a multitude of families, the tax burden for all who actually pay taxes becomes onerous or the government stops handing out money. If the first two happen, they happen. The latter is far less likely to take place unless it is forced, and the only way that can happen would be if House Republicans refuse to pass any more appropriation bills, thus shutting down the government, until a genuine deficit reduction program is installed. That said, it’s doubtful the GOP has the guts to turn off the money spigot and shut government down, no matter the pain it causes, until Obama and the Democrats agree to genuine financial reform. However, nothing else short of another massive terrorist attack or full blown war on American soil will get the public’s attention.

One way or another, it’s going to take a storm before the general public listens to reason shouting, “Can you hear me now?”

Untitled-1a

“… perchance to dream”

Leave a reply

I had a dream last night. I was a journalist doing a special with the Obamas. In the dream, we talked at great length about our different backgrounds growing up and how they’ve influenced us, discussing our political and philosophical differences in the light of from whence they came. The entire conversation was relaxed, respectful and warm. At the end we hugged each other as friends.

Yes, I am voting for Romney when I get home from work. However, the dream stays with me; the notion of seeing past political differences, the belief that the power of Jesus Christ in a person’s life can overcome unfortunate upbringing and incorrect, even evil influences to turn a person’s heart not necessarily toward conservatism, but toward Him, casting aside all malice and duplicity.

It was an intellectual, gentle dream. I pray today and tomorrow will be the same.

Untitled-2a

I Was Nowhere Near Last Night

I probably should be prepping for a recruiting agency interview I have tomorrow, but before refreshing my memory as to my utter awesomeness and refining my spiel focused on me being genius personified — not to mention painfully modest — a brief comment about an event I didn’t attend. I’m getting pretty good at this sort of thing.

Earlier this week, the Romney campaign along with Republican National Committee chairperson Reince Priebus held a meeting with assorted high flyer conservative bloggers. Presumably to avoid the appearance of collusion (like you could ever get two or more conservative bloggers to collude on anything… but I digress), attendees were requested to keep the meeting contents, as well as the meeting itself, under their fedoras. This secrecy went away faster than summer snow as the Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, neither exactly known for their warm feelings toward conservatives, both reported the get-together.

Since the cat was out of the bag, Stacy McCain saw no harm in having a little fun with the whole thing. Please note he was invited. I wasn’t; a status in which I was not alone. And me with a Romney support icon on my blog since the day Rick Santorum withdrew from the race. Harrumph! But again I digress; back to Stacy’s post.

Now, bear in mind by the time Stacy wrote his post, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, the meeting had everything but a transcript available for all to see. Other attendees, such as Ace, had written about it. Therefore, nothing to get worked up over, right? If the left should try to revive the Ted Nugent tack by attempting to smear Romney by associating him with one or more of the invited bloggers and any outrageous thing they might have said in the past, insinuating Romney supported this and demanding he denounce the blogger in question for being an extremist wacko whatever, it would be very easy to remind one and all that President Obama has met with leftist bloggers and media before, and Media Matters routinely met with White House officials, so do you really want to go there? Bit of a mutually assured destruction scenario, where the only winning move is not playing the game at all.

Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped people from piling on Stacy as though he broke the sacred seal and/or code of silence, which as already noted worked about as well in this case as the cone of silence. It seems odd to assail someone for talking about something everyone already knew, apparently for the sole reason of it having been initially designed to be a secret, long after the secret has been spilled. But there it is.

I’m wondering if the real reason for people’s high dudgeon is because the invitee’s list left them high and dry.

Actually, I’m not wondering that in the least.

P.S. Maybe next time Stacy should try this approach:

This night never happened
If it’s all right with you
Not a word of our weakness
So much as a clue
There’s a place outside
I’m glad to play no part
The fairest arms can tally up the faintest stars
Wash away my weekend
Shatter my sight
C’mon sweet amnesia
You’re needed here tonight
Take a seat in the shadows
Forget it as it goes
Dissipate in the morning air
All you know
If you find out
You’ll find every lie you might
I was nowhere near last night
Whitewash everything in sight
These suspicions have been long drained dry
Our persistence holds them here
A maze of bars and rented rooms remain
Enough to make you almost look away
This night never happened
If it’s all right with you
Another for the collection of things we didn’t do
That private party is over
Thank God we get new starts
The fairest arms still tally up the faintest stars
When it comes down
In a clear and certain light
I was nowhere near last night
I was nowhere near last night
Whitewash everything in sight…

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Stacy McCain, Zilla Stevenson and Paul Lemmen for the link love.

pl

We’re Yelling About This? Really?

Yup, that's where I worked for fifteen years.

Back in my retail days, a lesson oft taught was what really hurts in terms of losing customers. It wasn’t the chronic complainers and yellers, always ranting and raving about how they’re never coming back and they’re going to tell all their friends (like they have any) to do the same. Annoying to be sure, but despite their loudly voiced threats they always came back. Always. No, it’s the people who say nothing, yet never return, that do the most damage to a store’s bottom line. That’s the truth.

Nothing hits harder than the truth. It knows no agenda, serves no one’s purpose and pays no attention to any side of any given issue. It’s the truth. It stands on its own, unapologetic and unafraid. Either we get with it, or we get lost.

This came to mind a few days ago when Mitt Romney was severely criticized in conservative circles for saying that President Obama was a nice man. Here’s the full quote:

Now I happened to have met him four or five years ago at a dinner in Washington DC where we were both invited to tell some jokes about our respective parties. And I found him to be a nice guy. I think he’s a nice person. I just don’t think we can afford him any longer. I don’t think the American people can afford to have Barack Obama as their President.

Now, he points out he did not cause the recession. But, he did made it worse. And he says, “Well, look; things are getting better.” And I sure hope they’re getting better. Gosh, I hope they’re getting better. But that’s not because of him. That’s in spite of him. He has made this recession harder to come out of.

And for people who say, “Well, why do you say that, Mitt?” Well, you go through his so-called signature achievements and ask yourself which of those that are causing employment to rise right now. Gosh, I hope it’s right. But what are the things that would encourage employment? How about his stimulus? Well, that was three and a half years ago. Remember that stimulus, where he borrowed all that money and said he would hold unemployment below eight percent with that stimulus? Hasn’t been below eight percent since? Thirty-eight straight months? If we’re seeing any job increase now — and I sure hope we are — and a slow reduction in unemployment — I hope it’s coming down — it’s not because of the stimulus that was three and a half years ago. It’s in spite of that stimulus, and it’s thanks to the entrepreneurship of the American individual.

And then look at the other pieces of legislation. Does anyone really think Obamacare has encouraged businesses to hire people? Just the opposite. I go across the country. I get the chance to talk to small businesspeople. The number one thing they mention time and time again is their fear of Obamacare. It’s one reason why businesses have held back on hiring.

Then there are his labor policies. Does anyone think that stacking the National Labor Relations Board with labor stooges encourages businesses to go out and hire people? Just the opposite.

There was much more to the speech, but you get the drift. Romney was detailing Obama’s policy failures. Other than the people in attendance, no one seems to have heard that. The couple of sentences when he didn’t personally demonize Obama? Front page news.

Why?

What possible benefit is there in personally attacking your political opponent? Now, remember that this is something Obama has done in past campaigns, albeit through surrogates and not personally. When he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois, his campaign managed to convince the courts to unseal his opponent’s divorce agreement. Recently we saw Democratic power player Hilary Rosen say Ann Romney, a stay at home mother of five who raised her children without a nanny or other assistance, had never worked a day in her life. When that backfired big time, everyone from Obama on down ran for cover. There is no reason to think Obama, through his surrogates (i.e. the media), will not personally attack Romney on everything from his religion to whatever else they can invent… er, drag out of the swamp.

Romney isn’t going that route. He’s staying on message, that message being Obama’s policies are utter failures.

So how do conservatives respond?

Correct. Hyperventilation because he didn’t wield a flamethrower with one hand while tossing raw meat into the audience with his other.

Really, people? Really?

Perhaps Romney believes in treating others as he himself would like to be treated, although he did run brutal attack ads on his primary opponents.

Or, perhaps Romney is of the mindset that the Prince of Peace trumps politics every time, and that perhaps if you treat other people properly it’ll assist in reaching them with Christ’s message of salvation and changed lives.

Or perhaps he honestly thinks Obama is a nice guy, which is why he said it.

In any case, why are we screaming about it when 99 44/100% of what Romney said is dead on accurate? Why aren’t we focusing on that? Why are we letting the media drive the agenda by highlighting one thing Romney said, knowing what it would make hit the fan so once again we conservatives can be portrayed as hate-filled knuckle-draggers and in all likelihood raaaaacists?

C’mon, people, Quit yelling. You’re scaring off the shoppers we need to win this election.

P.S. Yes, we did use to go around the store singing this, albeit somewhat sardonically:

No, I am not running a picture of Presdient Obama petting Bo to be snarky. There is a reason. Read the post, please.

It’s About To Get Real

No, I am not running a picture of President Obama petting Bo to be snarky. There is a reason. Read the post, please.

Last Friday (March 16th), President Obama issued an Executive Order titled National Defense Resources Preparedness. The order is rooted in the Defense Production Act of 1950.

As summarized by FEMA on its website:

The Defense Production Act (DPA) is the primary source of Presidential authorities to expedite and expand the supply of critical resources from the U.S. industrial base to support the national defense and homeland security. In addition to military, energy, and space activities, the DPA definition of “national defense” includes emergency preparedness activities conducted pursuant to title VI of the Stafford Act and protection and restoration of critical infrastructure.

Title VI of the Stafford Act is (again quoting from the FEMA website):

Title VI of the Stafford Act – The purpose of this title is to provide a system of emergency preparedness for the protection of life and property in the United States from hazards and to vest responsibility for emergency preparedness jointly in the Federal Government and the States and their political subdivisions. This title states that the Federal Government shall provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance, and shall provide necessary assistance, as authorized in this title so that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for all hazards.

The order issued by President Obama outlines its policy:

The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

It defines its general functions in this manner (emphasis mine):

Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

(a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

(b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

(c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

(d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

(e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

The order directs various Cabinet members as to their specific duties. It also reiterates the provision of the Defense Resource Act for these Cabinet members to, as deemed necessary for the procurement of necessary goods and supplies, guarantee loans by private institutions for the purchase of said goods and supplies.

The order also establishes, under the control of the executive branch, the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER). As defined in the order:

In accordance with section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), there is established in the executive branch a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of persons of recognized expertise from various segments of the private sector and from Government (except full time Federal employees) for training for employment in executive positions in the Federal Government in the event of a national defense emergency.

Please read the entire order.

Now, commentary, starting with NDER. If this sounds like something from the Cold War fallout shelter days… you’re right. In 1950, the same year that the Defense Production Act became law, an additional bill titled the Federal Civil Defense Act was passed and signed into law by President Truman. It outlined, initially without providing funding for, the organization of local citizen defense actions in case of nuclear attack.

NDER has a far greater reach than the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 in that it provides funding and organization under the federal rather than local level. This noted, NDER as of yet is not fully defined. From the executive order (emphasis mine):

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program.  The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Shouldn’t determining periods of national defense emergency, unless the President is unable to do so, be the sole responsibility of the President?

Setting NDER aside, a look at the executive order’s general function. The “in peacetime” bit troubles me. While I am not a member of any conspiracy theory crew, it takes no dip into the nut squad pool to note the current administration’s track record is one of continued, deepening reach into the private sector as evidenced by the government takeover of General Motors & Chrysler, Obamacare, the stimulus and so on. Will “evaluate” morph into increased control of the private sector under the banner of preparing for a potential national emergency?

Finally, there is the executive order’s policy outline.

I used the picture of President Obama petting Bo to illustrate a point about how regardless of the sharpness of the political divisions in this country, or the difference between my philosophy and Obama’s which is a large one indeed, he is still the President.

We live in a strained time. It is becoming increasingly apparent that in its self-defense Israel will soon strike Iran with the intent of eliminating its nuclear weapons program before a weapon is developed, employed and then deployed against Israel. This will not be a local skirmish. It will certainly plunge the world into a deep economic crisis as the flow of Middle Eastern oil will doubtless be curtailed if not completely shut off. It will draw the United States into a hostile position against both Russia and China, which support Iran. It will be used as an additional rallying cry by Islamic terrorists bent on destroying the United States and its freedoms. If Israel attacks Iran, no one in this country will escape the consequences. No one.

We need President Obama to govern wisely, to not abuse his position and to be the man who pets his dog and takes his daughters to church. Sooner rather than later he could be faced with a situation not unlike what faced President Bush after 9/11. For his sake, that of his family, and for all of us he will need to make wise decisions.

One can only pray this will be the case, because it’s about to get real.

mas

Whatever Happened to the Mutual Admiration Society?

You know… the one where conservative bloggers and pundits actually praised each other?

First, this morning there a lengthy and thoroughly unpleasant Twitter exchange between John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine and columnist for the New York Post, and Dana Loesch of Big Journalism fame. It started when Mr. Podhoretz wondered aloud:

I note that a certain anti-Romney tweeter is calling Romney supporters “prog lites.” She supported Romney in ’08. Why was that?

To which Ms. Loesch, she who is loathe to acknowledge supporters but will fight to the death anyone who looks at her cross-eyed, replied:

I made a differentiation that you apparently chose, either by accident or obtuseness, to ignore.

The response:

You mean the distinction between your support for Romney in ’08 and your detestation of him in ’12? I missed that.

And it was on, with Ms. Loesch repeatedly accusing Mr. Podhoretz of name-calling and other assorted crimes against nature for reminding one and all that Ms. Loesch did indeed support Romney in ’08. She, in-between temper tantrums, insisted it was solely because she disliked John McCain so much she found Romney to be the lesser of two evils. Which may well be. But you still supported him, Ms. Loesch.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m thinking a simple, calm “yes I did support Romney in ’08 and here’s why” rather than striking a pose as the put-upon, perpetually outraged, poor poor pitiful me, “I’m just a girl” girl. But no. We must be outraged! We must defend our virtue (no comment)! We must attack! We must maintain our carefully contrived… er, controlled image as the mucha macha sexxxy albeit unavailable sista! Or something.

Later in the day, Ms. Loesch PMS’d with Ace, who has been known to do the same. This time, it was in reference to an interview with Romney. From the looks of it, he misunderstood, or misheard, the reporter’s question in regard to the Blunt-Rubio amendment, which would insert into Obamacare an exemption for organizations whose principals prohibit artificial birth control methods from being forced to provide said artificial birth control methods, through whichever health care plan they offer, to their employees. First Romney said he was against the bill, then said later in the day he was for the bill.

In dashed Dana, flicking spittle every which way as she railed against Romney’s obviously fatal flaw and/or deliberate disingenuousness. Ace, who was on the Rick Perry bandwagon until it finally crashed and burned, then jumped aboard the Romney ride, was quick to defend his chosen one. Naturally, given the two participants it wasn’t long before they butted heads on Twitter.

And I thought I could be contentious.

I’d say it’ll all be better once a candidate is finally selected, but no. The lessons of 2010 about continuing the fight the primary after it’s over by trashing the person the voters in said primary selected (ask Christine O’Donnell how that feels) have not been learned. Regardless of who wins the nomination, or if it comes to a brokered convention who is selected, the friendly fire will continue unabated. And if the Republican nominee loses in November, woe be unto his or her supporters as the rest of the right will vent their full fury against them for, as they will be accused, single-handily condemning us to four more years of Obama.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Conservative Commune and The Daily Beast for the links.

elp

“… if you’ve the stomach for a broadside…”

I love Emerson, Lake & Palmer, the ’70s progressive rock supergroup that delighted fans and irked critics with their mix of classical music, edgy rock and penchant for pushing it as close to being over the top as possible. Their music still oft finds its way onto my playlist.

One of my favorite tunes by ELP, as they’re usually called, is “Pirates” from their Works Vol. 1 record (yes, this was back when they were still records). Its music was originally slated to be the soundtrack for a movie version of Frederick Forsyth’s book The Dogs of War. However, the film was scrapped and the band decided to add lyrics about pirates, which given that the movie would have been about modern-day mercenaries was a wise choice. Somewhat ironically, a movie based on the book was made a few years later with music written by the late English classical composer Geoffrey Burgon.

Said all that to say this. One of the lyrics, set in the opening stanza where the pirate captain is recruiting his crew, goes “if you’ve the stomach for a broadside / then come aboard, my pretty boys.”

Which reminds me of politics.

Earlier today, the story broke about how the Republican National Committee is urging a path by GOP candidates of avoiding personal attacks on President Obama. This while at the same time a slew of attacks, many personal in nature, are being launched against current Republican presidential nominee frontrunner Newt Gingrich…

… by conservatives.

The aforementioned items make it apparent that conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular, have learned nothing since the 2008 campaign in which every personal attack imaginable was launched against Sarah Palin and, by association, John McCain. McCain himself was smeared by the New York Times with utterly baseless accusations of an affair. Yet he, and the GOP in general, maintained to the end a philosophy of bring Marquis of Queensberry rules to a street fight, then wondering why they were losing.

Maybe because the other side declined to adhere to the “rules?”

It is guaranteed the 2012 campaign by Obama and the Democrats will feature the politics of personal destruction front and center regardless of who ends up being the Republican nominee. The Democrats have no choice. They can’t run on Obama’s record, which is a seemingly endless string of failures on domestic economic and foreign policy issues. Unemployment, no matter how the Labor Department attempts to twist the facts, is abysmal. Home foreclosures are rampant. No one is hiring. Few are buying save the government, which is spending fast and furious on unsustainable entitlements that have driven the country into crushing debt. Iran is on the verge of making nuclear weapons. Got more if you want. You get the picture.

The only — only — available path for the Democrats is to play off of whatever little personal appeal Obama still has combined with a non-stop assault on the personality and character of the GOP nominee. Which, with the help of their mainstream media lapdogs, they will do. Any and every flaw, foible and failing, be they genuine or ginned up, will be hurled against the Republican candidate with zero concern for truth, accuracy or fairness. This will come from a media which to this day has never made so much as a cursory examination of any element of Obama’s past. Not once.

Since the 2012 election is going to be a street fight, the GOP needs a street fighter who can take whatever is thrown at them and turn it around. Looking over the field of candidates, the only two who strike me as having that level of intestinal fortitude are Gingrich and Michele Bachmann no matter how often the media attempts to belittle her. Right now, they don’t have to go after Gingrich. Why should they when the George Wills and Ann Coulters of this world are doing it for them?

It’s like the Republicans want to lose rather than admit they’re too gutless to fight.

[jwplayer mediaid="4125"]
jethrotull

Living in the Past

Several years ago, I watched a brief televised interview with Ian Anderson, leader of veteran progressive rock band Jethro Tull. The band has just released a new album, and he was commenting on the difficulty of marketing something fresh when you’ve been around a while. Anderson noted how his audience had only a limited amount of money to spend on music after the mortgage and alimony, thus was faced with a choice: try something new, or pick up the remastered CD of “Thick as a Brick” or one of the other classic albums in Jethro Tull’s catalog that will remind them of happier youthful days. He concluded his observation by commenting how his competition for the entertainment dollar wasn’t whoever was flying high on the pop charts at the time. It was his own previous work.

This came to mind when looking at President Obama’s announcement this morning — and I do mean this morning, since it was 3 AM when it was released out here on the left coast — that he would run for re-election. The story around the story that the campaign’s expected price tag could well reach one billion dollars is staggering only in that with as much free PR as Obama receives from the mainstream media the conversation between God and Noah as told by Bill Cosby comes to mind:

GOD: I’m going to destroy the earth.

NOAH: Well, how are you going to do that?

GOD: I’m going to make it rain for a thousand days and a thousand nights.

NOAH: Wait, I’ve got a better idea. Make it rain for forty days and forty nights, and then wait for the sewers to back up.

GOD: R-i-i-i-ght!

In other words, overkill kills.

Since as of yet my unicorn has yet to arrive, I’m assuming that Obama won’t be spending any great amount of time running on fulfilled promises from the 2008 campaign. Sarcasm aside, Obama’s greatest obstacle to re-election isn’t whoever ends up the GOP nominee. It’s his own record since taking office. More specifically, the lack thereof.

Obama took the bad economic policies of his predecessor and made them worse by dramatically increasing the national debt with nothing to show for his profligate spending. He has demonstrated zero capacity to accept the fundamental of any successful military operation, namely going all-in for victory by utterly destroying (i.e. killing) the enemy and then going home. Instead of effecting genuine, needed health care reform he gave us a bloated, bureaucracy-saturated mess that costs much and delivers little. He has been disrespectful to our allies around the world while currying favor with those whose favor isn’t worth a bowl of bad curry. Finally, he has unceasingly fed a bloated, overreaching government that runs contrary to every Constitutional principle of individual freedom with corresponding responsibility and limited governmental power over same.

And for this he wants four more years as President?

Obama has repeatedly demonstrated he is an eternal campaigner, forever running and promising. Unfortunately for him, he arrived at his destination. His promises ring hollow, betrayed by his actions or lack thereof. No matter how the media and others make excuses for him, he has failed. Miserably. He has failed because the foundation of his political philosophies, policies and practices is incurably flawed. In 2012, Barack Obama will not be running against whoever wins the Republican nomination. He will run against himself. And regardless of how much he spends, or wishes he could hide all that has transpired since he took office in order to continue living in the past when all he had to do was promise, he will find himself to be a most difficult opponent.

P.S. Speaking of living in the past…

[jwplayer mediaid="4718"]