Tag Archives: Democrats

NEWS TO MUSE: Upsetting Hizzoner, Olbermann Benched and the Pelosi Pitiful Ploy

Is Rahm Emanuel upset?

News flash from my old home town of Chicago!  Machine mayor and Obama confidant, Rahm Emanuel, has been forced into a run off by former State Senator Jesus “Chuy” Garcia – as have a number of Emanuel backed alderman.  Given a political personality akin to that of a Mafia hit man, I am assuming Hizzoner is breaking up the furniture in his office while spew a tourettes-style series of profanities at underlings.  The two man race is still a daunting challenge for Garcia, but doable.  The election of a Republican governor in the very blue land of Obama was the first indicator that the old Democrat Machine is beginning to sputter and backfire.  This also presents a big challenge to Obama.  Does he go to bat for his former chief-of-staff and offend the Hispanic community, turn is back on Emanuel for the Hispanic vote or stay away altogether?  Since he has no reason to personally give a damn about the Hispanic vote, I suspect he will do something to try to keep Chicago’s blacks from abandoning the Machine.  Stay tuned.

Keith Olbermann gets sophomoric with college kids.

I guess if you have too much angst for MSNBC, you really need to consider therapy.  Keith Olbermann, who was bounced from MSNBC for being to … shall we politely say … too outspoken, has just received a modest tap on his pinky from ESPN for getting into a low level Twitter peeing contest with Penn State students and alumni.  Olbermann employed his highest intellectual tactic – name calling.  “Pitiful” and “moron” were his words of choice in this encounter.  ESPN took him off the air, with pay, for a few days.   They called it a “suspension,” but I think it is more of a cooling off period.  Honestly, I am not sure if Keith should be presented the Alec Baldwin Anger Management Prize or Alec Baldwin should get the Keith Olbermann Childish Outbursts Award.   And the winner is …

Partisanship in the Eye of the Beholder

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu took a pass on attending a Democrats-only private meeting offered by Democrat Minority Leader (love that title for her) Nancy Pelosi and Senator Dick where-is-the-camera Durbin.  This was to balance out his public speech before the entire United States Congress.  As the Democrat spin goes, Bibi should meet privately with only Democrats because he is meeting with a Congress led by Republicans, albeit with lots of Democrats in membership – most of whom will be attending the speech.  Pelosi, Durbin et al contend that an appearance before both Republicans and Democrats in Congress is partisan, and that a meeting privately with Democrats only would solve that.  I am beginning to think that when partisan zealotry becomes too strong, logical thinking ceases.  It is what has become known as “liberal lunacy.”

Advertisements

Understanding President Obama.

I have lived under the Chicago Machine for most of my life.  I personally know many of the key players who brought Barack Obama out of obscurity to the presidency.  Perhaps this analysis should have been made several years ago.  But, better late than never.

I am way not the conspiratorial theorist type.  I never bought into the Obama birther theory.  I never thought of him as some sort of Manchurian candidate.  I do not believe Obama is member of the Muslim faith – not after attending a Christian church, such as it is, for 20 years.  Is it possible that the President is really a nice guy who believes he is doing good for the United States and the world?  I think it is possible.  BUT, just because he might believe that does not mean it is true.

There has to be some explanation for his six years of seemingly inexplicable presidential behavior – at least as measured against his 42 predecessors.  Why has Obama become arguably the least trusted President in American History?  Why has his patriotism been questioned by so many?  And, don’t give me the “because he’s black” excuse.  One of his greatest benefits in becoming President was his skin color.  God knows, it was not due to his record and experience.  Being black has insulated Obama from scrutiny and proper vetting – and given his sycophants and a fawning news corps a racist mantra to deflect justified criticism.

I have come to the conclusion that the problem with Obama is that he is the first un-American president.

By that, I mean he has a completely different core of knowledge and value structure than the vast majority of Americans. He was not raised in an American culture.  He never learned American history in depth.  He does not understand the American culture – and what he thinks he understands, he does not like.

As a child, he was raised in Muslim traditions by his father, then an uncle and a family mentor who, more importantly, all harbored negative viewpoints about America.  He attended a Muslim school in a nation highly critical of America. His mother, though not Muslim, was a lifelong critic of America, its culture, its politics and its economic system.   He attended American colleges where criticism of America reigns supreme among students and faculty.

He spent most of his life subjected and devoted to a politicized anti-American version of Christianity in the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  As a community activist in Chicago’s University of Chicago neighborhood, he worked in a pseudo-intellectual cultural enclave that exaggerates American racism and demonizes free market capitalism.  It is a tightly knit community best personified by its local iconic leaders, such Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan and Reverend Wright.

His formative political experience comes from his association with the Chicago Democrat “Machine.”  It can explain his contempt for Republicans – and even contempt for any opposition and accommodation.  It may also explain his belief in authoritarian “boss” governance, where the executive is the primary source of public policy.  His Chicago experience would lead him to believe that role of a legislative body is to endorse — rubber stamp, if you will — but not to challenge.

In many ways, Obama is the product of his two closest advisors, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett.  Axelrod represents the thuggish Chicago Machine’s strident partisanship, with its allegiance to an autocratic boss figure.  He personifies what could be called the Daley wing of the Democratic Party, operating more like a “banana republic” than what the Founders had in mind.

Jarrett represents the far left ideological wing of the Democratic Party – also autocratic.  Under the first Mayor Daley, these were warring factions.  Under the second Mayor Daley, the factions united in the person of Barack Obama.

Since both factions are autocratic, Obama represents the worst of them in terms of the American republic.  Both factions place government rule by an elite over the historic American concept of governance by the people.  With a belief in and tendency toward autocratic power, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the intoxicating power of the presidency has introduced a sense of megalomania.

Obama came to office believing America is an imperial power guilty of shameful acts.  That is why his first overseas junket as President was widely described as “an apology tour.”  That is why he is so quick to draw moral equivalencies between us and every other nation – and more recently, between the maniacal brutality of today’s Islamic extremists and the Christian Crusades of 1000 years ago.

That is why he relegated American Exceptionalism to nothing more than nationalistic pride. Obama sees America as no better than any other nation, and to think otherwise is arrogance.  He does not believe in the need or importance of America’s economic, military and moral leadership, so, at every turn, he withdraws us from it.  Since he cannot make other nations as strong as America, he seems determined to make America as weak as them.  He seems to think that world leadership, itself, is arrogance.

His disdain for the traditional American culture extends to allies who share that culture.  It is why his foreign policy realigns America away from historic allies in favor of relationships with even current enemies, such as Cuba and Iran.  His preference for third world countries is evident in his refusal to not only secure the American border, but to encourage illegal migration and acceptance on an every growing level.

He has created a deceptive language to explain his governing philosophy, with such oxymoron’s as “leading from behind” as an excuse for not leading, or “patient diplomacy,” as a euphemism for doing nothing.  As with all autocrats, he is capable of the most audacious lies.  He talks of our victory over al Qaeda and ISIS as relatively harmless “junior varsity.”  He takes pride in ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even as they accelerate. He claims Gitmo promotes terrorism, but claims the release of terrorists is in our national interest.

He takes victory laps for ending our economic crisis even as millions of Americans continue to suffer from unemployment and under employment.  His infamous “you can keep your doctor” promise now rates with President George H. Bush’s “read my lips” as an iconic presidential betrayal.

The President is a left wing globalist, who not only surrenders American leadership, but American sovereignty.  He promotes agreements and treaties that give international bodies authority of our lands, our international policies, our guns and even our elections.

He has no frame of reference to understand the nature of the American republic, in which the people govern.  Rather, he subscribes to the authoritarian philosophy that a government run by self determined enlightened people must rule over the masses for their own good.  He sees the federal government as the necessary regulatory authority over every aspect of our personal lives.  He relegates America’s several states to mere Chinese-style provinces, and redistributes wealth according to his political agenda.

We have seen this in his preference for personal power over the shared power of three branches.  His go-it-alone policy is not born out of strong leadership, but is the result of an all too obvious contempt for the people’s Congress as an equal branch of government.

He came into office promising change.  His meaning was not the change Americans had every reason to assume.  It was to change the very nature of the American government from a republic based on the autonomy of the people to an authoritarian regime where dependency replaces opportunity as the dominant characteristic.  He would change our successful free enterprise system to a controlled central economy where the market forces are replaced by government manipulation, regulation and redistribution of wealth.

The Founders risked life and property “in order to form a more perfect union.”  It was ours to preserve through “eternal vigilance.”  In recent generations, we have failed in both regards, and may now be reaching a point of no return.

When you look at the critical education and emotional development of past presidents, Democrat and Republican, none has been so devoid of traditional American education and understanding.  Obama operates the way he does because he knows no other way.  He is not anti-American, but I think he is un-American in his intellectual foundation.  And that is the problem.

The General Election of 2016 may well determine whether our historic culture has truly changed as we the people decide either to continue down the path of subjugation to Washington, or will we rise up to re-establish the great American Dream based on American Exceptionalism that made this nation the most successful democracy in history?  We will determine whether to leave a nation and a world to our children that is greater and safer than we found it, or we will condemn them to lesser status with fewer opportunities under an oppressive regime in Washington.

DAILY OBSERVATION: Dictators are no friends of mine

I have come to believe that entirely too much public opinion and public policy is based on myths.  That has led me to start a book on political myths (but more about that another time).  I was reminded of one of the most common myths – the existence of right wing dictatorships.

We all know that the political continuum goes from right to left, with those of us on the right fighting for limited government, lower taxes and more citizen authority.  Starting on the extreme right is anarchy … libertarianism … mainstream conservatism … economic conservatism … etc.

Coming in from the left extreme is dictatorship … oligarchies … socialists … progressives … etc.

I am sure you can see where this is going.  We, on the right, NEVER like too much government – and dictatorships are state-of-the-art “too much government.”  We believe in what President Reagan once said.  “Government is not part of the problem, it IS the problem.”

Let me make it clear.  We conservatives do not like authoritarian government – not ever.  We may have to deal with them in a complex world, but we favor democracies and republics.  Liberals, too, must deal with dictatorships according to their relationship with the United States.  That is just international politics.

The record shows that in conservative administrations, dictatorships are more challenged and often overturned.  The Reagan foreign policy encouraged more nations to shift to participatory governance than any time since the Founders began a world trend toward global democratization.

Liberals are more accommodating to dictatorships.  They oppose “imposing” democracies on other nations.  They seem to not even understand the concept.  America does not “impose,” but rather helps remove the shackles of totalitarianism so that the people can “impose” their own government.

You see the liberal view in Washington today.  Obama is impotent in dealing with the brutal dictatorships spreading throughout the Middle East today.  He plays na na na boo boo with North Korea.  He bails out a failing brutal dictatorship in Cuba.  He gets into rope-the-dope negotiations with Iran.  After “I’m going to kick your ass” threats to Syrian despot Bashar al Assad, Obama cuts and runs.  After conservative Republican policy faced down the Russians and crushed the “evil empire,” Obama does nothing in the face of the re-emerging “evil.”

Domestically, it is the progressive mentality that believes that a powerful government must solve problems for a less apt or willing public.  They believe that the public, as Jonathan Gruber put it, is stupid.  Thanks to liberal thinking, our federal government, which should have the least influence in our daily lives, is suffocating the constitutional rights of the several states, and, in the process, our individual personal rights.

That is not to say that grass-roots American liberals want a dictatorship.  No. No. No.  It is their tendency, however, to support the shift of more and more power to the government that is most distant and least responsive to public influence.  That is so obvious, it is beyond refutation.  In doing that, they do tip-toe along the edge of a very dangerous slippery slope.

So, let’s have no more talk about right-wing dictatorships.  They do not exist.

Democrats again promote racism to manipulate African Americans.

In an audacious and shameless desperation play the national Democrat Party is again following its long, long tradition of promoting racism.  All indicators suggest that Republicans will fare well in the upcoming election.  The panic among Democrats has caused the party of slavery, segregation, oppression to resort to its two icon practices — promoting racism and stealing votes.

In a desperate effort to mobilize black voters in key states, the Democrats are paying for advertising that is dishonest race baiting and fear mongering.  They link the issues in Ferguson, Missouri to elections and candidates all across the country.  Little black children holding up “don’t shoot me” signs, suggesting that a vote for the Republican is dangerous to their lives.  In Louisiana, Democrat Senator Mary Landreau blames here likely defeat  to white racism against Obama — claiming that her home state is both racist and sexist, even though the people of the Pelican State have sent her to Congress for some 23 years and has a Republican minority Governor.

Democrats are passing out literature that says President Obama will be impeached if the GOP wins the Senate, even though Republicans have rejected that suggestion — an unlikely prospect that has been advanced more by Democrats.  The literature often says that welfare benefits will be taken away if Republicans are elected.

In the black community, there is a level of racism against the non-black community due to the fear mongering of the Democrat Party.  it is the shameful legacy of a party that will sink to new lows in a blind ambition to hold power.

Here is my view on DEMOCRATS AND SCHOOLS (as published by the Florida Palm Beach Post on April 28, 2014)

SCHOOL REFORM MEANS TAKING CONTROL FROM DEMOCRAT “MACHINES”

Nothing will improve urban education until we (1) deal with brutal facts and (2) have the courage to apply real solutions. No more faux reforms.

We have innumerable examples of quality education in private, parochial and, yes, even public schools. These educations often come at less cost than failed urban schools.  In big cities, we have one failed system after another.

The decade-after-decade failure to provide millions of young minority students with an ability to secure opportunity and employment is immoral, obscene and even criminal. It is destructive to individual lives, and to the public welfare. It is our national shame.

To find the solution, we must recognize that virtually all failed school systems have one thing in common – they are controlled by Democrats. For political reasons, ghetto schools are intentionally operated to maintain a dependent ghetto-ized underclass.  Incompetency, alone, cannot explain these educational failures.

Political benefits come in two forms — votes from dependent uneducated and unemployed ghettos residents and taxpayer funds flowing from union coffers to the Democrat machines. That is why such common sense things as school choice are so forcefully opposed by Democrats and school unions.

More money is not the answer. It is no coincidence that almost all new money goes to wages and benefits, with nothing for the “children’s budget.” In some cases, unions have grabbed more than 100 percent of new money – meaning actual cuts in the “children’s budget.”

If we are to improve education, regain our international leadership, and bring minorities out of perpetual poverty and dependency, we must spread choice systems, prohibit teacher strikes, advance the work day for students and teachers, restore discipline to the classroom, protect teachers from nutty law suits, trim bureaucratic patronage, restore the American exceptionalism curriculum, return authority to the local school districts, fire bad teachers, shut down the Education Department, and stop lowering the bar with stupidities like “social promotions.”

We should not deny minority children quality education by a blind devotion to failed government run schools.