The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Serving The Czar Czar

By

There’s word getting out onto the street that GE has not only been rabidly slobbering all over President Obama in order to further its executives’ fortunes by pushing for cap & trade, but that they are flexing their corporate muscle to spank journalists of varying stripes who attempt to report facts instead of pushing the pablum-laced, White House-contrived fiction.  Particularly when those facts put GE and its subsidiaries in a less-than-favorable light.

The latest tidbit involves Jeffrey Immelt and Jeff Zucker orchestrating a GE boycott of their news subsidiaries’ rival media outlet Nielsen after a Nielsen-owned The Hollywood Reporter journalist wrote a much-publicized story about the rather lively GE shareholder meeting in April.  That well-attended Orlando, Florida GE shareholder meeting where many people wanted to know whether or not Immelt actually told GE’s news operations (e.g. MSNBC) to be “less critical” of President Obama and his administration.

Of course Hollywood lives and dies on both fiction and gossip, however, when one considers the bias of GE’s news outlets towards the current administration, and the fact that the FOXNews staff of the Bill O’Reilly show is now investigating GE’s possible involvement in supplying weapons material to Iran, well…it doesn’t take a healthy dose of imagination to wonder whether this is yet another case where truth is stranger than fiction. 

Washington, D.C. seems to be taking its cue from Hollywood because the May unemployment numbers were preceded by quite a lot of gladhanding that the numbers were down.  Truth is that the May unemployment numbers are higher than those well-spun previews and are, in fact, higher than if we’d done nothing at all to “stimulate” the economy.  Which is even higher still than the numbers projected by the administration.

Last thought is of the word that must have finally given nightmares to the Romanovs.  That word is “czars”.  The Republic of the United States of America now has more and more czars every day; popping up faster than Nancy Pelosi during an Obama campaign speech, each one being given the helm of what used to be considered private or individual state business.  Not only is the word itself and its connections to monarchy, imperialism, and tyranny disturbing, that it is manifesting in a free, democratic Republic should sound an alarm to even the most addicted Kool-Aid drinkers.  No one elects them, they are hand-picked by and accountable to no one but Barack Hussein Obama.  Rather his very own personal court lackies; in reality more government employees on the taxpayer dole with absolutely no incentive to safeguard citizen interests or the Constitution.  It is starting to sound beyond ridiculous – regulatory czar, pay czar, energy czar, car czar, health care czar, intelligence czar, urban affairs czar, drug affairs czar, border czar, even a Great Lakes czar. 

Does this make President Obama the czar czar?

Such is the stuff of which revolutions are made.

Obama’s Flowery Phrases In Egypt Disguise More U.S. Debt

By

Like many Americans, I was busy working hard to earn my daily bread while President Obama addressed the world from Egypt.  But unlike many Americans, I do not rely on the mainstream media to give me a politically-convenient sound bite or two in order that I may deceive myself that I’m on top of what’s going on in the world.  Instead, I have read the transcript of his speech – several times now – and while soaring rhetoric is always nice, and while addressing the diverse factions in the Middle East is rather akin to walking a tightrope without a net, I cannot throw myself into the camp claiming the President did a good job of it.

Indeed, I find his speech troubling on many levels.  On the surface, it is a pretty bouquet of pandering – “(peace be upon them)”.  While one must never be outright rude to one’s hosts, I find the President was yet again too quick to apologize for America and the West: 

“…tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” 

“Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice … events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible.”

“9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals.”

“…in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. “

In the same manner as the debate over interrogation techniques required context, so, too must the actions of the United States and any other country also be viewed and understood in context.  And frankly, while no country is perfect, since her inception it is America who has been the most giving and forgiving and I see no need for apologies to those in the Middle East.  For the President did get one thing right:  Islamic extremists have killed more Muslims than anyone else.

The other troubling aspect to Obama’s speech comes when you understand that an America who is now so broke it cannot even pay interest on its current-yet-still-increasing debt is also being set on a course to fund various Middle East initiatives.  He promised $1.5 billion each year for 5 years to Pakistan, $2.8 billion to Afghanistan; an expansion of exchange programs and increased scholarships; investments in on-line learning and a “new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.”  He spoke of a “new fund” in support of “technological development in Muslim-majority countries” and opening “centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia”, complete with the appointment of “new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops.”  He committed the United States to a “new global effort” to eradicate polio and expanding “partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.”

 Warm and fuzzy and feels good but, like so many of Obama’s ideas that use the government to duplicate what already exists within the private sector, exactly how will we fund all of this?  Along with many others, I am still reeling from the unprecedented  lawlessness of the dismissal of legitimate bond holder claims in favor of the UAW in the Chryler and GM bankruptcies (unprecedented unless you’re a Chicago politician, of course).  It’s old news now that Obama promised “no new taxes” yet continues to dessimate the middle and lower classes through socialistic tactics that only serve to redistribute radical progressives’ perceptions of “wealth” to those to whom he is politically in debt.  In much the same manner as Sonia Sotomayor practices “identity advocacy”, Obama practices “identity politics”.  I can’t help but wonder if the inspiration for this particular line in his speech came to him while gazing adoringly into his mirror, for his own words provide us with perhaps the best description of his administration to date:

“…there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others.”

Of Course Not, Mr. President

By

“But I want you to know that what you’re doing is making a sacrifice for the next generation — a sacrifice you may not have chose to make, but a sacrifice you were nevertheless called to make so that your children and all of our children can grow up in an America that still makes things; that still builds cars; that still strives for a better future. ”

So said President Obama during his press conference about the bankruptcy filing of General Motors on Monday.  Those words really mean something coming from the man who spent some $24,000 of taxpayer money to take his wife on a jet-set “date” to New York City the previous Saturday night, don’t you think?

“What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM. GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team with a track record in American manufacturing that reflects a commitment to innovation and quality. They — and not the government — will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around. The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions. When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision.”

So that explains why President Obama called Detroit mayor Dave Bing on Sunday night, just hours before that bankruptcy filing, to reassure the mayor that you “support” GM’s headquarters remaining in its downtown Renaissance Center buildings, rather than wisely consolidate to its nearby Technical Center property in Warren, Michigan.

It also explains why a key member of the auto task force and charged with dismantling GM is a 31-year old with absolutely no business experience, let alone any experience in anything that even remotely resembles the automotive industry.

Birds of a feather, Mr. President?

Tough Love

By

I love best those who can both think rationally and express their thoughts clearly and simply.  Those who can take an idea and put it into context, who wield both the tools of imagination and logic with elegance and then have the courage to manifest them.

Andrew Klavan is one of those people.  So while my own thoughts – the mixing bowl currently filled with Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, affirmative action, prejudice, the Constitution, hypocrisy – are figuratively being stirred and then must be allowed to set before dishing them out, I thought it best to simply share Mr. Klavan’s latest piece for Pajamasmedia.

It’s the best 5 minutes you’ll spend today.

An Example Of Empathy?

By

It was just a little news blurb tonight, one of those “fluff” fillers intended to make us feel all warm and fuzzy.

The President took his wife on a promised “date night” to New York City tonight.  Dinner at a swanky restaurant and then a Broadway show; nothing different than what millions of husbands do for their wives every weekend.  Or used to do, anyway.

But those other millions of husbands aren’t preaching to everyone else that “climate change” is a Big Serious Matter and then turning around and leaving yet another big carbon footprint just for fun.  Those millions of other husbands aren’t preaching fiscal responsibility and then going off to have that fun on someone else’s dime.

Words mean something all right.

And the word that comes to mind is:  hypocrite.

Different But Equally Racist?

By

The White House has actually warned folks to “be careful” as President Obama’s choice to replace Supreme Court Justice Souter, Sonia Sotomayor, begins the confirmation process.  It seems that because Sotomayor is a Hispanic woman, that is such a big deal in and of itself it should trump any all legitimate questions and their answers – such as looking closely at her on the job performance – when deciding if she is really and truly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Frankly, boys and girls, I watch this nonsense and shake my head.  Anyone who uses things like race or economic circumstances in an attempt to elevate themselves above others is, at best, a fool.  To claim that your race or gender makes you somehow wiser than those who are different from you is a racist statement.  Kudos to ANYONE who works hard and makes something productive out of themselves.  We all know that a piece of paper from a prestigious university has no bearing on common sense or eventual life outcome; if you want to talk about real wisdom I will bet you can find more in a ditch digger than in some alleged “Constitutional law professors”. 

But I digress. 

Affirmative action and equal opportunity are a direct result of freedoms provided in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  It is on a level playing field that every nominee must be judged; without prejudice, without discrimination, blindly – and those who are found to be lacking in objective judicial abilities must be sent packing.

Judge Sotomayor does not appear to be an appropriate choice for the Supreme Court simply because she is on record as advocating legislating from the bench, and because of her racist statements.  Both are bad news when being considered for a job that calls for upholding the Constitution and doing so without prejudice, meaning doing so blindly.  It makes no difference that she is Hispanic.  It makes no difference that she is female.  Lady Justice doesn’t discriminate, Lady Justice is not divisive, and upholding that literal objectivity is simply a fundamental test that Sonia Sotomayor does not pass.

Memorial Day Thoughts

By

Doing the right thing and confining one’s self to bed when ill provides a good deal of time to just think.  As plans for the long weekend fall to the wayside one-by-one and time turns on itself and morphs the nights into days as the deep, healing sleep comes in its stereotypical fits and starts, there comes the inevitable moment when one must choose between regret and acceptance.  And in that choice comes the opportunity for clarity, for the choice of acceptance brings the realization that so much of what we do is busyness simply for the sake of busyness.  A truth is that our priorities are so often just plain silly.  Barbeques and planting flowers may somehow satisfy the soul, and indeed such things have their place, but I believe a well-lived life must also include time for reflection.  For, in the words of Edmund Burke repeated so often these days, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Particularly today, Memorial Day, thoughts go to the idea that America sets aside a day on which to specifically remember those who have given their lives in service to this country.  There have been so many willing to lay their lives on the line to protect and defend the rest of us; indeed, our country’s birth was, like all births, a bloody one.  But the principles that spurred so much bloodshed were sound, and the result was the greatest nation in the history of civilization.  With the crystal clarity of 20/20 hindsight and the wisdom to see into a future where men would continue to forget their history lessons, the Founding Fathers incorporated the very best of all that had come before;  America has continued to be a “melting pot” but it was Her foundations – our basic freedoms – that have protected us. 

Such protections have been a beacon to the rest of the world, and with that has come the inevitable envy and the flat-out hatred from those who would wish to have our might and our productivity while maintaining a tyrannical grip.  Such a thing is impossible, of course, and so it is that our freedoms have required defending.  American independence is a tangible thing and no outsider has ever stood a chance of taking it away from us.

We have fought great wars in defense of freedom.  And we have lent our strength to other countries whose people shared the same dream to live just as freely, for we are also a generous nation.  We not only give financially, but we have given our sons and our daughters that others may make manifest the natural goodness of the American experience.  We have also fought with enormous heartbreak against ourselves, north against south, yet again and most importantly done solely in defense of freedom; in defense of our simple, basic tenet that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It is never really a good day to die.  Yet that is the risk freely accepted by those who go forth on our behalf to meet the enemy face-to-face.  I have known many of these men, those who have fought on the front lines, those who have watched their brothers fall yet somehow managed to come back to us, and I can tell you that to shoulder this responsibility changes a person in a way that those even who serve in more supportive military roles do not change .  Those who have smelled the fear and the blood, those who have heard the battle cries and screams of terror and pain are, unlike their supporters both in and out of the military, in the main quite quiet men.  They simply don’t talk about it much, they keep their memories and the nightmares to themselves, but I know that for every one of them every day is Memorial Day. 

Most Americans can’t even bear to know how their meat gets to their dinner table so there is a kind of wisdom in the silence of our front-line veterans.  I don’t imagine there are really even words to describe the horrors of war, though documentary after documentary still tries.  Yet even to me, one who only knows the smallest of their memories, it is clear so many stories of battles are, for lack of a better word, sanitized.  Perhaps it is simply just another way those who are willing to take the greatest risk continue to protect us?

I do not know, really.  But as this Memorial Day goes by and I think of all of those who “gave their all” so that I might lay here in peace, with opportunity to simply contemplate, what I do know is that I am grateful to them.  Their legacy is something that has always been good, and though now the enemy within has become as dangerous as the enemies without, their legacy must be preserved. 

To them, I say thank you.  However it is within my power, I will do all that I can to insure that it may never be said that you died in vain.

Yo, Barry O, Justice Is Supposed To Be Blind

By

“You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you, but you have to be able to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.”  So claimed President Obama in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television about what he thinks are the requisite qualities of a Supreme Court justice.

He has also said he wants someone who employs empathy, “understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles.” 

So much for that oath of office, eh?  That one about preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States.  The one that President Obama had to say twice in order to get it right.

Perhaps the problem is that the oath of office also caveats the President to do these things to “the best of [his] abilities”. 

Since President Obama’s alleged abilities continue to remain just that, alleged, it is little wonder that he fails to understand (or worse, deliberately chooses to avoid) perhaps the most important point about our nation’s system of justice.  It is blind.  Lady Justice is always blindfolded in order to avoid any distraction from the matter at hand.  She is to hear the case, weigh the facts and evidences and only the facts and evidences, and apply the law to them without regard for the individual’s circumstances.  She is utterly impartial and her sword can cut either way to insure it.

It is this blindness that insures no one is above the law and so keeps tyranny at bay.

It is not the job of the Supreme Court to “empathize”, and more particularly their job is not judicial activism.  With extremely limited exception, it is the job of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an appellate court.  Period.  It is their job to insure that no one manipulates the law for personal gain and therefore to protect the American people as a whole. 

If Justice Souter were not already considered a liberal Supreme Court judge, I would be even more concerned.  But this continuing disregard for the basic tenets of the United States bears continued watching for the day will come that the President will have to nominate another justice to the Supreme Court and it is then that the full force of his progressive perceptions and skewed ideologies will come to bear down hard on American freedoms.  And such dangers will be far more difficult to overcome than his attempts to legislate fascism.

Almost 21 years ago, Ronald Reagan prophetically told a group of lawyers at the 1988 Federalist Society convention, “Yes, some law professors and judges said the courts should save the country from the Constitution.  We said it was time to save the Constitution from them.”

That time has come again.

Gitmo, Guns, and Goodness

By

There are several online news articles today about how Democrats and liberals are starting to look like Bambi in the headlights as their pet projects, closing Gitmo and restricting citizen access to guns, go down in red, white, and blue Conservative flames.  They can’t fathom why Pater Obama can’t find the right words from the God speaking through his teleprompter to coerce or condemn Congress into going along with these two most nefarious plans.

Let me put it into a nutshell for them:  AMERICANS WANT TO BE SAFE.  That means we don’t want even “suspected” terrorists on American soil.  And that means we want our guns even more when our government is wack enough to consider setting even “suspected” terrorists loose in our streets, let alone to safeguard ourselves from the usual suspects.

Let me put it another way, at least about so-called “gun control”:  PROHIBITION FAILED.  The war on drugs has failed, too.  Even the most fascist regime will concede the power of the black market.  What Americans do NOT want is for criminals – and especially those inside the government – to have more access to guns than they do.

The Second Amendment is quite clear: 

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In legal and all other lingo, “shall not” is an absolute.  An absolute is a point upon which there can be no debate.  This means that the intentions of the Founders are crystal clear and in perhaps their greatest moment of wisdom, of goodness, they deliberately left no wiggle room on this one.  The 2nd Amendment is a right that SHALL NOT be infringed.  Period.  It has been well-argued elsewhere that this is one of the most basic, key, and fundamental rights upon which then hinges everything else in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  For it is he who controls the means of life or death of another that effectively controls all, and in order to prevent tyranny and its inherent abuses, at the birth of this nation this control was laid squarely – absolutely – in the hands of we, the people.

In even the blackest of the tiniest of progressive liberal hearts, the absolute of “SHALL NOT” is understood at an instinctive level, for it is the one thing that allows blithering idiocies about Gitmo and guns to be spoken aloud and argued.  But when all the words have been spoken, it is those two little words that not only really and truly mean something, but, in fact, mean the most.

Call them the trump card, if you will.  And so it is that the Democrats and liberals find themselves hoisted upon their own petard.

Bummer, Bambi.

Respect Must Be Earned

By

Though it seems that the majority of people focus on this long holiday weekend as being the start of summer and therefore the perfect excuse to party, Memorial Day is when we remember those who “gave it all” in service to this great nation.  From the first moment of the American Revolution, there have always been those willing to take up their arms and make manifest our collective belief in the principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” against those who would seek to destroy it. 

It is not an easy thing to die in defense of one’s beliefs.  Ask any veteran who has experienced combat or ask any family who has watched their son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife bravely wave one last time as they walk onto the ship or airplane or bus that will take them to join their comrades; we may shed a tear at the news of the fallen, but it is they who must forever live with the real nightmares.

In yesterday’s radio address, President Obama said:

“Our fighting men and women – and the military families who love them – embody what is best in America. And we have a responsibility to serve all of them as well as they serve all of us.

And yet, all too often in recent years and decades, we, as a nation, have failed to live up to that responsibility. We have failed to give them the support they need or pay them the respect they deserve. That is a betrayal of the sacred trust that America has with all who wear – and all who have worn – the proud uniform of our country.”

While I agree with his first sentence, I take great offense at the audacity of his second.  Perhaps this is an example of the blindness of self-righteousness; having been raised by socialists and raised abroad, a life lived in the bubble of “progressive” liberal academia and buddied-up with radicals, it seems that President Obama doesn’t remember what disrespect of our fighting men and women really means.  I do remember, though.  The protests against the war in Vietnam, the horrible, rude treatment of returning service personnel – including being spat upon and called “baby killers” – and then the collective mea culpa that came with Desert Storm.  We, the people, made a vow we would not repeat our mistakes.  We, the people, may not have liked the decision that led to sending our military service personnel to the Middle East but, despite Obama’s convenient memory lapse, we supported our troops.  Just the other day I came across an old sweatshirt lovingly stashed away; it is proudly emblazoned with the words, “These Colors Don’t Run”.  Those words, and that support, still rings true today.

I, like many others, have been touched personally by both World Wars, by Vietnam, by Desert Storm, and by 9/11.  I, like many others, hold our military personnel in high regard.  I know of no veteran – including my own spouse – who does not in turn respect former President Bush and former Vice-President Dick Cheney.  They know full well that they had the unwavering support of both men, and they know that support continues to be unwaveringly demonstrated.  They see Obama’s continuing slander against the Bush administration for what it is – a sly and snarky attempt to demand what is, quite rightly, unearned and therefore undeserved respect, and hence a back-handed slap of them, too.

And so by disrespecting his predecessors and our troops, on this Memorial Day weekend, President Obama speaks ill of the dead.  Like so much of his incoherent, nonsensical rhetoric, it is yet another shameful example of the dangers we now face within our own borders.

As the long weekend rolls on, and especially tomorrow, it is those who are no longer able to raise their glasses in a toast to freedom of whom I will be thinking.  Haunted by chairs and tables that are not empty, but instead filled with the greatest courage.  And remembering the words of this one soldier, who so eloquently spoke out against the election of Barack Hussein Obama.