For nearly two decades now, and particularly in the wake of the 2000 presidential election debacle, Democrats have been pursuing a diabolically simple political strategy. In short, they moved hard-left, knowing how reflexively the 'mainstream' Republican response would be to follow them. But of course the GOP would pathetically claim that, by doing so to a lesser degree than the Democrats, it would somehow retain the mantle of 'conservatism.'
Thus the GOP could continue in its delusions of relevancy, while clearly abdicating any real qualities of leadership. Simultaneously, it would be helping implement the liberal agenda that in reality was orchestrated to empower the Democrats. Meanwhile, the disillusionment among the base of Republican voters would eventually cause a political collapse of the party.
By 2009, it has become undeniable that the plan ultimately worked, although some unexpected events along the way delayed, for a time, the Democrat effort to seize total control of the United States Government. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 briefly shook the nation from a former complacency that had enabled the wayward and corrupt Presidency of Bill Clinton.
President Bush, having embarked on that misbegotten 'new tone' effort at finding 'middle ground' with the left during his first eight months in office, was suddenly confronted with the reality of the Islamist threat, and had to redefine himself and his presidency as one committed to the reestablishment of a safe and secure American homeland.
_gottaremovethis_
The public focus on this aspect of his agenda proved to be a saving grace, circumventing the landslide of Republican losses in the 2002 mid-term congressional elections that inarguably would have ensued, had the Bush White House and Republican Congress been characterized solely by his contemptible pandering to the left, the resultant increase in the size and scope of government, and the inevitable bloating of the national budget that followed.
Nevertheless, the tides of public cynicism eventually caught up with Bush and the Republican Congress. In 2006, America thoroughly repudiated the direction in which these GOP 'moderates' had taken it, giving control of both the House and Senate to the Democrats.
Failing to discern the message sent by the electorate in the starkest of terms, the unrepentant GOP continued on its disastrous course. In 2008, with the prospect of archliberal 'Republican' President John McCain further sabotaging the conservative movement from within, frustrated and disgusted voters bolted, allowing Barack Obama to assume the nation's helm by default.
Yet a close examination of the subtleties of the McCain political debacle reveals the truth of what heartland America was expressing during the past two major elections, and what the GOP needs to acknowledge if it is to turn the political tide back on the left. So far however, it does not seem to be getting the message.
John McCain lagged badly in the 2008 pre-election polls, except for the brief period after he had chosenAlaska Governor Sarah Palinas his running mate. And had the McCain campaign spotlighted her bold and distinctly non-erudite ways, instead of becoming embarrassed by her and attempting to minimize her prominence in his campaign, the outcome of that race might have been entirely different.
Since that time, with the Republican Party in a shambles, Palin and grassroots conservatism have clearly undergone a renaissance. Yet among the Republican 'elites' this reality has not yet been comprehended. The mood among conservative Americans is one of outrage and frustration at the status quo, generating an incredible energy and commitment to do something about it.
It is crucial to understand that this groundswell is not about cult followings and personalities, and by her own words, Sarah Palin knows this to be true. Admittedly, the prospect of her appearance at any rally can guarantee an enthusiastic crowd of thousands. But ultimately, such gatherings are not about her. On numerous occasions, far larger crowds have assembled across the nation at 'Tea Parties,' and other protests, without any such notable figure on hand as a draw.
Likewise, the sales of her newly released book 'Going Rogue' are astronomical. But contrary to the deluge of liberal media distortions which falsely depict a public intrigue over the 'He said/She said' squabbles within the McCain/Palin campaign, readers are far more interested in the principles Sarah Palin espouses and courageously represents.
Americans have come to the grim realization that their country and its government is being wrested from them, and they instinctively understand that it is up to them to get it back. Otherwise, the greatness of freedom and prosperity that they once knew will be lost forever.
This is the message that is motivating real America, and that resulted in the recent stunning Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the incredibly strong showing of Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York District Twenty Three. Still, it appears that within Republican Party circles, the disastrous plan is to continue 'business as usual.'
In the upcoming Illinois Senate race, as well as the Kansas District 4 Congressional race, 'moderate' (read: liberal) candidates are being preselected and anointed by the Republican Party leadership, thereby virtually guaranteeing a repeat of New York District 23, which ultimately fell to Democrat Bill Owens. No doubt, this preposterous 'scheme' is being pursued elsewhere.
America is not, and will never be, inspired and motivated by a GOP strategy of diluted liberalism, especially when the full strength version is available right across the aisle. If the Republican movers and shakers can muster the courage to field and support truly conservative candidates, America will rally to them. It would be a tragedy if they once again 'fumble' at such an opportune moment.
It cannot be said often enough that the chief of staff of the United States Army, Gen. George Casey, responded to a massacre of 13 Americans in which the suspect is a Muslim by saying: "Our diversity ... is a strength."
As long as the general has brought it up: Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare -- I mean the beautiful mosaics -- in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
"Diversity" is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: "Cancer is a strength!" "Pollution is our greatest asset!"
By contrast, the canard "diversity is a strength" has now replaced "at the end of the day," "skin in the game," "blood and treasure," "jumped the shark," "boots on the ground," "horrific" (whatever happened to the perfectly good word "horrible"?), "not so much," "I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here," and "that went well," as America's most irritating cliche.
_gottaremovethis_
We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of "diversity is a strength" and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.
Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, "Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony" from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: "Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine."
Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, "Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine," while everyone nods in agreement.
Except mere nonsense makes more sense than "diversity is a strength."
If Gen. Casey's wildly inappropriate use of this lunatic cliche in the aftermath of the Fort Hood massacre doesn't kill it, nothing will.
Among the worst aspects of America's "diversity" is that liberals' reaction to a heterogeneous population is to create a pecking order based on alleged victimhood -- as described in electrifying detail in my book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America."
In modern America, the guilty are sanctified, while the innocent never stop paying -- including with their lives, as they did at Fort Hood last week. Points are awarded to aspiring victims for angry self-righteousness, acts of violence and general unpleasantness.
But liberals celebrate diversity only in the case of superficial characteristics like race, gender, sexual preference and country of origin. They reject diversity when we need it, such as in "diversity" of legal forums.
After conferring with everyone at Zabar's, Obama decided that if a standard civilian trial is good enough for Martha Stewart, then it's good enough for the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. So Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is coming to New York!
Mohammed's military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office, stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.
In a liberal's reckoning, diversity is good when we have both Muslim jihadists and patriotic Americans serving in the U.S. military. But diversity is bad when Martha Stewart and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are subjected to different legal tribunals to adjudicate their transgressions.
Terrorists tried in civilian courts will be entitled to the whole panoply of legal protections accorded Stewart or any American charged with a crime, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, the right to exclude evidence obtained in violation of Miranda rights, the right to a speedy trial, the right to confront one's accusers, the right to a change of venue, the right to examine the evidence against you, and the right to subpoena witnesses and evidence in one's defense.
Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.
Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens -- and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.
In the case of legal proceedings, diversity actually is a strength.
I can think of a number of motives President Barack Obama might have for his egregious decision to bringKhalid Sheikh Mohammedand four other high-profile al-Qaida terrorists to New York for trial in our civil courts. Regardless of which motives apply, one thing is clear: Our enemy is at war against us while we are in a suicidal, 9/10 state of denial.
I've heard at least three possible reasons for his decision, which fall into the categories of political, ideological and strategic, respectively. These motives are by no means mutually exclusive and are overlapping.
My friend Andy McCarthy, at National Review Online, emphasizes: "The decision ... is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious." Andy surmises that these proceedings will put the Bush administration on trial, giving the anti-war left, Obama's base, "its promised feast." The left's "shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights," will add each new disclosure to "the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents." Andy's analysis is difficult to refute.
Another bright friend of mine doesn't dispute Obama's political motivations but calculates that in the end, though appeasing the hard left, his strategy will end up costing him dearly because of the national security nightmare (and public backlash) it will generate -- a scenario Andy McCarthy himself thoroughly lays out with foreboding. Given the inevitable and foreseeable blowback awaiting Obama, my other friend reasons that Obama has decided to do it because he is a true believer. That is, it's not just a matter of feeding his base. He is his base. He is a hard-left anti-war ideologue. Again, I would be hard-pressed to poke holes in this assessment.
Then we also have to consider as a motivating factor Obama's stunningly naive belief that by being solicitous toward Islam and overly kind to terrorists, we can convince them that we are good people after all and not an enemy they should attack. That Obama harbors this belief is scarcely deniable. His various statements on American foreign and domestic policy reveal his conviction that America's past behavior and attitude, up until the precise nanosecond he was inaugurated, have contributed to our unpopularity in the world and served as a terrorist-recruiting impetus throughout the world.
_gottaremovethis_
If we hadn't been so "arrogant, sometimes dismissive," if we hadn't initiated "wars of choice," if we hadn't been imperialistic and "unilateralist," if we hadn't avariciously consumed a disproportionate measure of the world's resources, the world wouldn't look upon us with disfavor, and maybe even Islamic terrorism itself would be but a couple of isolated footnotes in an otherwise peaceful world. Included in Obama's convoluted mindset is the notion that we are not engaged in a war, but confronted with a knotty law enforcement challenge.
Obama is Mirandizing captured Taliban on the battlefields in Afghanistan, has deliberately substituted "overseas contingency operations" for "war on terror" and "man-caused disasters" for "acts of terrorism," and refuses even to acknowledge that the "Allahu akbar"-screaming Nidal Malik Hasan was engaged in an act of Islamic jihad in the Fort Hood massacre.
Considering this background, Obama surely believes, as patently ludicrous as this is, that affording American citizen-level constitutional protections to the worst of the worst will have a placatory effect on Islamists and potential Islamists, reversing some of the antipathy they have toward the United States and thus enhancing our national security. Yes, I'm sure Obama's tolerance will make jihadists, who are disposed to commit man-caused disasters, think long and hard about evening the score against us for our past "wrongs."
To me, that's the crux of it. The theme that rages through all these interrelated motivations is Obama's firm belief that pre-Obama America was, on balance, not a very admirable nation. Thus, we see his obsession to wreak "transformative," catastrophic change at all levels, presto chango, making us an admirable nation overnight.
But his policies across the board are devastatingly irresponsible to the best interests of this nation, from intentionally bankrupting us while pretending to have become a deficit hawk to dismantling our defenses while painting a bull's-eye on the very heart of America for terrorist exploitation.
At this point, it has become clear that to say it's wrong to root for Obama's agenda to fail is to say it's right to root for America's failure, unless, perhaps, your worldview leads you to believe that America will succeed only by emulating a Third World nation.
Of the many thoughts I had watching President Barack Obama's umpteenth speech on the economy Thursday morning, the most troubling was his refusal to accept responsibility for his disastrous policies.
With unemployment having soared to 10.2 percent, wouldn't it have been reasonable to expect that any Obama speech on the economy would at least acknowledge that his "stimulus" plan didn't come close to achieving the results he promised, starting with his claim that unemployment would peak at 8 percent?
Even a fallible leader would be humbled by this failed performance, but enjoying messianic stature, the expectations bar is rightfully much higher for Obama. Yet instead of showing contrition, he took to the microphone in a surreal, boastful mode, as if calculating that assuming an offensive posture would fool people into ignoring reality.
He bragged about the "bold steps" he had taken "to break the back of this recession." He said he'd prevented "responsible homeowners from losing their homes ... cut taxes for middle-class families ... and created and saved more than a million jobs." But, "We all know that there are limits to what government can and should do, even during such difficult times."
Let's examine his claims. Bold actions to end the recession and "created and saved more than a million jobs"? Well, he has engineered massive spending and debt explosions, but many weren't even calculated to stimulate the economy, especially in the short run.
_gottaremovethis_
ABC reported that as of Oct. 30, the White House claimed 640,329 jobs had been created or saved as a result of the $159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30, a figure provably bogus on its face, considering that the jobs reports were inflated and that many of the "created" jobs were short-lived and already over. But ABC noted that even if you accept the administration's projected figure of 1 million, which Obama is now clearly claiming, the math indicates that the stimulus cost taxpayers $160,000 per job created or saved.
Just to illustrate the speciousness of Obama's preposterously unprovable claim that saved jobs are measurable, you should know that two administration financial officials, Ed DeSeve and Jared Bernstein, were unable to say how many of the 640,329 jobs were saved and how many were created. It's also noteworthy that Obama promised in January that more than 90 percent of the stimulus jobs would be in the private sector, but more than half -- 325,000 -- were in education alone.
Then there's Obama's assertion that he prevented responsible homeowners from losing their homes, when everyone knows that included in his unconstitutional $75 billion government bailout of mortgagors were payments to those millions who irresponsibly did not pay their mortgage debts.
As for his claim that he has cut taxes for middle-class families, he didn't mention that his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, and his National Economic Council director, Larry Summers, have already refused to rule out the possibility that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class. Of course, the promise would already have been permanently breached if Obama had gotten his way on the cap-and-tax bill and Obamacare, each of which would have necessarily resulted in middle-class tax hikes, just as his planned double-digit trillions of new government debt would necessitate across-the-board tax increases just to service the interest.
Of all the words Obama uttered, though, nothing came close in sheer audacity to his announcement that he had planned "a forum at the White House on jobs and economic growth ... to talk about how we can work together to create jobs and get this economy moving again."
Isn't this the precise combination of words Obama used to sell his stimulus package in the first place: "creating jobs to get the economy moving again"? The answer is yes. A few months ago, Obama wasn't looking for experts to tell him how to stimulate the economy. He claimed to be the expert with the magic bullet solution.
Having demonstrably failed, Obama is now convening a photo-op summit, designed to deflect blame and personal accountability for his policy failures and to provide an excuse to give us more of the same, because you can bet that he won't be inviting Friedman free marketers, but academic adherents to failed Keynesian thinking and businesspeople whose judgment and policy endorsement he has purchased or will purchase with your money.
Despite Obama's claim that he recognizes that "there are limits to what government can and should do," more and more Americans realize he believes quite the opposite and that he is committed to doing everything in his power to continue to dismantle the economic system that has made America the most prosperous nation in history. We don't need a summit, but midterm elections to restore to power those who believe in the free market -- among other enduring American ideals.
According to witnesses, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan entered a medical facility at Fort Hood, prayed briefly, then shouted "Allahu akbar" before he began gunning down American troops. Now I don't know which to be more afraid of: Muslims or government-run health care systems.
President Obama honored the victims by immediately warning Americans not to "jump to conclusions" -- namely, the obvious conclusion that the attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. As conclusions go, it wasn't much of a jump.
But the mainstream media waited for no information -- indeed actively avoided learning any information -- before leaping to the far less obvious conclusion that the suspect's mass murder was set off by "stress."
The day after the slaughter, The New York Times ran one editorial and two of three op-eds asserting as much -- which was at least one more than the Times usually runs about psycho-killer soldiers going on rampages.
Two days after the mass shooting, the Times' laughably predictable headlines about the Fort Hood bloodbath were:
_gottaremovethis_
-- "Preliminary Inquiry Finds No Link to Terror Plot"
-- "Painful Stories Take a Toll on Military Therapists"
-- "When Soldiers' Minds Snap"
The Los Angeles Times jumped to the exact same conclusion, running an article on the massacre titled: "Fort Hood Tragedy Rocks Military as It Grapples With Mental Health Issues." Time magazine followed suit, posting an article titled: "Stresses at Fort Hood Were Likely Intense for Hasan."
Inasmuch as Maj. Hasan had never been deployed overseas, much less seen combat, liberals seem to have discovered the first recorded case of "pre-traumatic stress syndrome."
Their point was: The real victim of Fort Hood was Maj. Hasan. Indeed, all Muslims were the victims that day.
The media quickly set to work assembling lachrymose accounts of taunts Hasan had been subjected to in the military for being a Muslim, the most harrowing of which seems to have been his car being keyed at his off-base apartment complex.
I suppose we should be relieved that liberals weren't claiming Hasan snapped because of the dimming prospects for a health care bill by the end of the year.
The evidence for the manifestly obvious conclusion we were supposed to avoid jumping to is rather more extensive.
According to numerous eyewitness accounts, Hasan denounced the "war on terror" as a war against Islam, said Muslims should attack Americans in retaliation for the war in Iraq, defended suicide bombers and said he was "happy" when a Muslim murdered a soldier at a military recruiting center in Arkansas earlier this year.
Stranger still, he wasn't auditioning for his own show on MSNBC when he made these statements.
Hasan shared a "spiritual adviser" with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, whose unseemly enthusiasm for jihad got him banned from speaking in Britain, even by video link.
A few years ago, Hasan delivered an hour-long PowerPoint lecture to an audience of doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, arguing that non-Muslims should be beheaded and have burning oil poured down their throats.
He had tried to contact al-Qaida, and at least one U.S. intelligence official says the Army knew it.
Despite being well aware of Hasan's disturbing views and conduct, the Army did nothing.
Far less offensive speech has been grounds for discipline or even removal from duties in the military. In the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal, for example, two Navy officers were reprimanded and reassigned after putting up a sign with the words of a nursery rhyme altered to include a vulgar sexual reference to liberal congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.
But a Muslim Army doctor can go around a military installation somberly advocating the beheading of infidels, and the girls running the military treat him like he's Nicole Kidman and they're press junket reporters.
The Army's top brass, Gen. George Casey, responded to the military's shocking decision to keep a terrorist-sympathizing Muslim in the Army by announcing: "Our diversity ... is a strength." And I thought gays couldn't openly serve in the military.
On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslims moved to the top of liberals' victim pantheon on the basis of having slaughtered 3,000 Americans. Muslims were "victims" of Americans' displeasure with them for the biggest terrorist attack in world history. The only American deserving of more coddling than a Muslim is the first African-American president.
So, now any dyspeptic expression toward a Muslim is grounds for calling in a diversity coordinator. And when the "victim" attacks, as at Fort Hood, the rest of us are supposed to feel guilty because Hasan's car got keyed once. As with all liberal "victims," it is the victim who is massively guilty.
Even as more and more realize oppressive political correctness is damaging our nation and killing our people, we still hold ourselves hostage to it. We can't criticize Obama on his policy agenda without absurd accusations of racism, and now our authorities' first instinct after the mass murder at Fort Hood is to victimize the identified shooter -- Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- rather than to protect our soldiers.
The military is the last place we should expect political correctness to flourish. We recognize, after all, that our armed forces exist primarily to safeguard our national security, not as a laboratory for social experimentation. Or do we?
Forget "don't ask, don't tell" policy for now. I'm referring to the reaction of the Army's top brass to the Fort Hood slaughter in the news conference and television interviews following the shooting.
The first question to Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey (and Army Secretary John McHugh) was whether he believed "this was a wake-up call to the nation that the Army is simply too small to carry out the tasks that it's been given." "You've been having suicide rates that are off the charts," the reporter went on. "Your soldiers are under great stress from multiple deployments."
Our military manpower is a legitimate concern, but I think it would be more appropriate for this type of question to come up in the context of whether we have the troops necessary to perform our missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Instead, it surfaced in relation to whether an overly stretched Army might have contributed to causing this mass murder.
_gottaremovethis_
Instead of telling the questioner it's far-fetched, if not outright absurd, to suggest that a soldier committed multiple homicides because he was stressed from an overstretched Army, Gen. Casey dignified the question by responding that our Army has 70,000 more soldiers than it did five years ago and beaming about the Army's new "comprehensive soldier fitness" program, which helps soldiers build resilience and strength to deal with adversity.
A follow-up question was even worse. "Sir, some other counselors are saying this is just the tip of the iceberg. Suicide rates are now higher this year than they were last year. How concerned are you about this danger to recruits?"
Notice that the questioner's concern wasn't over the danger to soldiers of suicide murderers, but of suicide -- that is, what danger soldiers are to themselves as a result of military stress.
What are these people smoking? How lopsided has our thinking become that we view this murder through the prism of the shooter's stress and victimhood rather than focus on how to prevent such murders in the future? Besides, the shooter didn't commit suicide here.
Again, this kind of thinking isn't limited to the liberal press. Neither Secretary McHugh nor Gen. Casey challenged the questioner's implication or emphasis; they eagerly described the Army's "groundbreaking program ... to try to understand the dynamics and the forces behind suicides, particularly in the military."
Nor was their response merely a defensive reflex to a misguided question. Casey volunteered similar boasts about the Army's "huge" mental fitness efforts in his interview with CNN's John Roberts.
Casey -- in this interview and others, on ABC and NBC -- also expressed his concern about a "potential backlash" to Muslim soldiers. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he told host David Gregory, "Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."
I'm not sure I believe Casey is more concerned about the ethnic or religious composition of our armed forces or overblown threats to it than the actual murder of its innocent soldiers. I doubt he would express similar concerns in private, but I would be more concerned about the state of our officer corps if he did than if he didn't.
Does anyone really think we're going to discriminate against or expel Muslims from the service as a result of these murders? On the other hand, doesn't the safety of innocent soldiers and our national defense demand that we get to the bottom of why such an obviously radical Islamist was not purged from our ranks and whether inflated diversity concerns handcuffed us and, at least indirectly, led to these murders?
You've surely already heard about the shooter's radicalism, his ties to al-Qaida, his statement that infidels should have their throats cut and boiling oil poured down their throats, his profession as a "Muslim first and American second," his anti-American rants, his harassment of fellow doctors about religion, and our government's paralytic inaction despite awareness of all these things and more.
We're heading the way of Europe in not only our adoption of socialism and smothering of liberty but also our suicidal abandonment of national security. We will survive as a nation only if we radically reverse these trends.
The White House arrogance on display in denying that Tuesday's election results were a repudiation of President Barack Obama's radical agenda is of a piece with its arrogance in attempting to advance this agenda against the people's will.
One of the great ironies of this administration is its promise of returning power to the people but governing with an iron fist and its back turned to the expressed wishes of the voters. The White House claims a mandate for its extreme blueprint to restructure America, but the voters had no idea Obama would go this far, even if many of us listening closely to his statements and studying his relationships and voting record did.
It's possible, given the relatively monolithic embryo in which Obama was politically incubated, that Obama believed the majority of Americans held the same contempt for America's political and economic system as he did. It should be clear to him now, though, that he's not on the same page with them -- perhaps not even in the same book. But if you're paying attention, you know that this cold, hard slap of reality hitting Obama in the face isn't slightly deterring him from pressing forward. If anything, it has strengthened his resolve to implement his agenda with increased urgency, before the public turns even more against him.
Obama's attitude in over-reading his mandate and dismissing the significance of Tuesday's elections is, I believe, consistent with the liberal mindset that liberals know better than the people what is in their best interests. Sen. Jim Webb, whose fellow Virginia Democrat was soundly defeated Tuesday, said the election results indicate that "people up here on our side need to get their message straighter."
_gottaremovethis_
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., went even further, saying it is "nonsense" to suggest that the New Jersey and Virginia results represent a referendum on President Obama and that Democrats should try harder to make sure they "deliver on the promises of the last election."
Well, that could be news to the more than 4 in 10 Virginia voters stating in their exit poll responses that their views of Obama -- pro and con -- factored into their choices; a similar number responded the same way in New Jersey. Indeed, it's hard to deny that political issues are more nationalized now than they've been in years.
Sen. Webb's fantastic idea that Democrats simply need to get their message straighter parallels President Obama's 5 million unpersuasive public speeches on socialized medicine, always expecting a different result.
But how much clearer can Obama and the Democratic Party be that they have embraced, wholesale, the domestic model of European socialism and the foreign policy model of Jimmy Carter appeasement? As dense as we the people are, I think we grasp that, gentlemen.
We see this same liberal superiority complex -- an elitist confidence that they know better -- in MSNBC's "Hardball" host Chris Matthews' snarky reaction to the election results. When radio host Mark Williams opined that the Republican gubernatorial victories signaled a repudiation of big government, Matthews hissed that that was "the wing nut line. ... There are some people that believe that all their lives. They've always believed the black helicopters are coming. They've always believed somebody's coming to get their guns. They've always hated government."
To Matthews and his ilk, the expression of mainstream conservatism on talk radio, the public's outrage at bankrupting federal spending demonstrated at "tea party" protests, and the voters' rejection of liberal candidates are examples of extremism. But it is the liberals who are extreme and out of phase with mainstream Americans, twice as many of whom self-identify as conservative than they do liberal.
But what the public is coming to see is that liberals are the extremists and that, if placed in a position of unchecked power, they will recognize no boundaries in their quest to remake America in their image. It's obvious that for them, there is no such thing as government excess, no level of government intrusion that would justify a legitimate adverse public reaction.
If Obama's election and the Democrats' simultaneous control of the legislative branch have served any constructive purpose, it is to give liberals the confidence to finally expose their extremist agenda.
You can be sure that no matter what face they are wearing in the wake of these elections, Obama and his Democrats are fully aware of what they mean and that they'll have to make adjustments. They'll either redouble their efforts to press forward their extremist agenda by pretending to moderate it or descend into hyper-panic mode and accelerate their Draconian schemes with even greater urgency.
But one thing you can be sure of: They will not abandon their agenda, nor will they moderate it in substance, which is why conservatives must never let their guards down but prepare for an even greater battle ahead.
MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia:
"In [McDonnell's master's thesis], he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult, and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989.
"Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell."
-- MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell:
"And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement.
"Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."
On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent -- winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office.
Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for.
To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat.
_gottaremovethis_
And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey -- a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago -- lost by 5 points.
At 49 percent for Republican Chris Christie versus 44 percent for Corzine, the election wasn't even close enough to be stolen by ACORN. (Although Corzine did extremely well among underaged Salvadoran prostitutes living in government housing.)
The biggest winner election night was pollster Scott Rasmussen, who -- once again -- produced the most accurate poll results. New York Times poll: Corzine 40, Christie 37; Quinnipiac poll: Corzine 43, Christie 38; Rasmussen poll: Christie 46, Corzine 43.
The biggest loser was President Obama, who campaigned tirelessly for Corzine, even giving up golf on several occasions and skipping a quarter-million-dollar "date night" with Michelle to stump for the Democrat.
Just two days before the election, Obama was at a rally in New Jersey assuring voters that Corzine was "one of the best partners I have in the White House. We work together. ... Jon Corzine helped get this done."
Except the problem is that voting for Obama a year ago was a fashion statement, much like it was once a fad to buy Beanie Babies, pet rocks and Cabbage Patch Kids. But instead of ending up with a ridiculous dust-collector at the bottom of your closet, the Obama fad leaves you with higher taxes, a reduced retirement fund, no job and a one-year wait for an MRI.
That is why Corzine's defeat sounded the death knell for national health care.
The good news: Next time Corzine is in a major car accident after speeding on the New Jersey Turnpike, he'll be able to see a doctor right away.
The media will try to rescue health care by talking about nothing but the 23rd district of New York, where the Democrat won Tuesday night. Congratulations, Democrats -- you won a congressional seat in New York! Next up: A Catholic elected pope!
Far from an upset, the Democrats' winning the 23rd district was a long-term plan of the Obama White House. That's why Obama made John McHugh, the moderate Republican congressman representing the 23rd district, his Secretary of the Army earlier this year. The Democrats thought McHugh's seat would be easy pickings.
Only in the last week has everyone acted as if a Democratic victory in the 23rd district would be a shocking surprise -- an upset victory caused by puritanical Republicans staging inquisitions against "mainstream" Republican candidates like Dede Scozzafava, the designated "Republican" candidate in the special election.
This is preposterous -- there was absolutely nothing Republican about Scozzafava. As a supporter of partial-birth abortion, card-check union schemes and massive government spending programs, she was less Republican than John McCain.
Even Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos called Scozzafava the most liberal candidate in the race -- which may explain why she was the choice of George Soros' Working Families Party and why she promptly endorsed the Democrat after withdrawing from the race last weekend.
Conservative opposition to Scozzafava hardly suggests that they plan to impose litmus tests on every Republican candidate in the 2010 elections.
Speaking of litmus tests, on MSNBC recently, liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said of the possibility that a blue dog Democrat would oppose national health care: "I dare Blanche Lincoln -- I dare Blanche Lincoln to join a filibuster. She'll draw primary opponents so fast it would make your head spin."
While I'm sure an out-of-touch liberal blogger from Hollywood knows more about Arkansas than an elected senator from that state, Hamsher's threat sounds more like an intra-party civil war than conservatives opposing a George Soros-supported Republican candidate in a New York congressional race.
Not only do conservatives not pick insane fights -- such as staging a 2006 primary fight against a recent vice presidential candidate because he supported the war in Iraq -- but conservatives are more popular than Republicans.
By contrast, liberals are less popular than Democrats. When conservatives take control of the Republican Party, Republicans win. When liberals take control of the Democratic Party, Democrats end up out of power for eight to 12 years.
I nearly fell out of my chair as I read this New York Times headline: "Democrats Push for Plan to Cut Deficit." From the headline alone, I couldn't tell whether this was before, during or after they supported President Barack Obama's intentional, exponential escalation of the deficit to $1.4 trillion.
That's simply immeasurable chutzpah. But just in case you're ready to be taken in yet again by these fair-weather deficit watchdogs, the first sentence of the Times article reveals their true -- and true to form -- motive.
"Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats, the White House and Congressional leaders are weighing options for narrowing the gap, including a bipartisan commission that could force tax increases and spending cuts."
Those elections have a stubborn habit of forcing even drunken sailor politicians to pretend to care about other people's money they otherwise have an unlimited appetite for squandering.
But wait; I thought concern about runaway federal spending was the concern only of those "tea party" protestors the administration has dubbed "potential domestic terrorists" who were carrying "political paraphernalia" -- copies of theU.S. Constitution-- and engaging in "right-wing extremist chatter" focused "on the economy."
_gottaremovethis_
No, we're supposed to believe the Democrats care about deficits again, the ones Obama is planning on expanding to between $9 trillion and $13 trillion over the next decade.
We've seen this pattern of deception before. Democrats railed against President George W. Bush's deficits as if they would have curbed federal spending if they had been in power. (We happen to know the rest of that story, don't we?) When Bush fulfilled ahead of time his 2004 campaign promise of cutting the deficit in half in five years, Democrats mocked his achievement as a temporary blip.
Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney, hands wringing, said: "Only a president with such a historically bad economic record would be this excited about a $248 billion deficit. Under his watch ... record surpluses turned into record deficits as far as the eye can see." It gets even more amusing. The same Associated Press story that contained that quote reported that fueling this Democratic concern over the budget was the Congressional Budget Office projection that the deficit could total $1.76 trillion over the next decade.
You heard correctly. The Dems, just a few short years ago, were savaging Bush, despite his dramatic progress in cutting the budget, because his annual deficit was at the astronomical figure of $248 billion -- less than 18 percent of Obama's intentionally inflated budget of $1.4 trillion this year -- and his projected 10-year deficits totaled $1.76 trillion, barely more than Obama's budget for this one current year and only a small fraction of Obama's planned cumulative 10-year deficit projections of between $9 trillion and $13 trillion.
A more prominent Democratic lawmaker, Sen. Kent Conrad, piled on Bush, saying: "The fact that some are trumpeting this year's deficit number as good news shows just how far we've fallen. Our budget picture is extremely serious by any measure." This, by the way, is the same Sen. Conrad who, after threatening not to support President Obama's pseudo-stimulus package, did support it enthusiastically, without, it should be noted, talking about "just how far we've fallen."
It's also the same Sen. Conrad mentioned in the above-cited New York Times article as now saying "it is imperative we act" to bring federal spending under control.
Can you fathom how these people can even masquerade as having the slightest credibility on fiscal issues? And they want us to endorse their ingenious ploy to form a "bipartisan commission" to shrink the deficit?
It's awfully convenient to make this proposed commission "bipartisan," which would have the effect of suckering Republicans into ratifying Obama's deliberate profligacy -- just in time for the next election cycle.
Commissions are what politicians form when they need cover and want to avoid accountability. I thought Democrats owned Obama's spending agenda. I thought he was elected to bring fiscal prudence to our system -- to exercise prudence and responsibility -- not to farm out his primary duties to some unaccountable commission of experts.
Democrats have always wanted to grow government with revenues from our society's producers. They aren't sincere about reducing the deficit, because they will not abandon their addiction to spending other people's money.
They cannot be taken seriously on this issue. Their only solution is to raise taxes, forcing hardworking American taxpayers to bail them out yet again and still refusing to restrict their spending. Their talk of cutting spending is just that -- talk. Given their current premeditated scheme to spend this nation into bankruptcy, their feint toward fiscal responsibility reveals them as nothing short of cynical, Machiavellian frauds.
Can you imagine the brazenness of President Barack Obama and his cohorts in going so far as to ridicule opponents of Obamacare for rightly pointing out that its ultimate goal is single-payer socialized medicine?
These people are propaganda virtuosos of the highest order. You might expect grand artists of deception just to silently dismiss such claims from critics or, at most, to summarily deny them. But they go further and mock the critics, trying to reduce them to acutely paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing, black-helicopter-hallucinating Cuckoo's Nest inpatients.
What better way to distract attention from what is right in front of our faces? It's brilliant reverse jujitsu: using the outrageousness of your own plan to discredit as preposterous the allegations of your opponents about your truly outrageous plan. Shameless!
Obama and his minions are indeed conspiring to foist socialized medicine on this nation through whatever means necessary -- including outright deception over the nature and purpose of the so-called public option. But before presenting proof of that, let me pose a few questions bearing on the likelihood Obama would be involved in such a deception in pursuit of this goal.
Didn't Obama repeatedly threaten to "spread the wealth"? Isn't he deliberately indebting us through government expenditures of borrowed funds not remotely designed to appreciably increase employment? This "stimulus" monstrosity is a massive redistributive scheme not only in its direct transfer payments but also in the confiscatory tax increases it will necessitate to retire the debt it is generating.
_gottaremovethis_
Obama is hellbent on passing economically crippling cap-and-tax legislation on the dubious pretense that man-made global warming is leading to an apocalypse. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that this legislation would make the United States some $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035 while moderating temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 40 years. Obama's former colleague Sen. John Kerry, adding insult to injury, has the audacity to sell this plan as one that would enhance our national security -- security that depends on our economic viability.
Based on those two examples alone, the inescapable conclusion is Obama believes that America's resources have been unfairly allocated under its free enterprise system and that he must preside over an unprecedented correction of this "injustice" through institutional changes disguised as benign measures necessary to stop phantom demons.
But if you're not sufficiently convinced of Obama's Marxist bent to understand he is determined to implement socialized medicine as a means to establishing government control over all aspects of our lives, how about considering direct evidence of the administration's deception concerning the true purpose of the public option?
First, we have Obama's pre-presidential words (in a 2003 speech) on a single-payer system. "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. ... We may not get there immediately."
Bloggers at Verum Serum have further exposed this "transparent deception" with a video montage (http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9711) of Obama and other leftists -- including politicians, professors and journalists -- speaking candidly about the relationship between a "public option" and a single-payer system.
The videos show Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., telling her audience that an insurance company spokesman claimed that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to a single-payer system. "My single-payer friends," said Schakowsky, "he was right. ... This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will." Professor Jacob Hacker smugly boasts: "Someone once said to me this is a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there." Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confesses: "I'm all for a single-payer system, eventually. ... What we have to do, though, is work with what we've got to close the gap." Rep. Barney Frank says a public option "is the best way to reach single-payer." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman believes that a public option would, "in the end, kill the private plan." Presidential adviser Rahm Emanuel, in explaining Obama's (SET ITAL) apparent (END ITAL) flip-flop on the public option, said, "The objective is what's important; it's not the means."
If you need more proof, you can read a short history of the public option on "Tapped," The American Prospect's leftist blog, which traces the genesis of the public option idea as a means to get to single-payer. Because single-payer wasn't politically feasible if directly proposed, the public option was crafted as a compromise that would eventually lead to single-payer. "Ideally, it would someday magically turn into single-payer."
Apart from Obama's statist ideology and the evidence of his true aims, our common sense tells us that a "public option" backed by a government-stacked deck against private insurance companies -- which Obama hasn't demonized for nothing -- will eventually bury private health insurance companies.
