THE ENTERPRISE--WHAT ARE OTHERS SAYING
A COMPILATION OF OPINIONS OTHER THAN MY OWN
After writing mostly my own opinions week after week, I decided to choose just a few of the most noteworthy articles and opinions I found in the news media. Of course I get lots of good material from readers and correspondents, so I also considered those. I tried to "vet" the pieces for accuracy using places like Snopes.com and TruthorFiction.com. It's not a precise job, but I do the best I can. Sometimes the headline and a key phrase or two excerpted from the article will do the job. In other cases, the entire piece is necessary to convey the message accurately.
I know this edition is too long. Read whatever you want of it. It all offers useful insights from a very diverse group of writers.
FIRST A FEW "HOT BUTTONS" OF MINE--HOW STUPID? VERY STUPID!
--Reportedly, 38 people die each day not wearing seat belts required by law in their cars. DUH? Buckle up!
--Motorcyclists not wearing helmets dramatically increase their chances for fatal head injuries. Wear Helmets!
--Many people drive and talk on their cell phone, ignoring their driving. Just Drive!
--Many more text while driving, ignoring their driving even worse. Even new laws won't stop this. Please, Just Drive
--Many people walk out into traffic while talking on cell phones, so absorbed in conversation, they don't even notice cars. Pay Attention!
--Children's games (Little League baseball) are being played without scores kept, so no one has to "lose." Games Have Winners and Losers.
--Many kids, and most parents keep score--so who is kidding whom? Get Real!
--Schools now granting partial credit on math problems with the wrong answer "but the right process?" Teach the Right Way!
--Schools grading without using the ABCDF scale, using descriptive words. (Hint, parents and many kids immediately convert an Outstanding to an A! Get Real II.
I hope I'm not ever risking my life riding in or traveling on something designed by a person with "the wrong answer but the right process.
I also hope someone tells those kids that in the cold hard world they'll be entering, there will be winners and losers.
The question is which they will be.
Get Used To It--It's Called LIFE!
BUT...now I understand how half of the country could vote for Obama and a lot of the incompetents in Congress.
Really, how could our country choose to put an impostor, an incompetent in the White House?
They were deceived. What the President is great at is deception. Too bad that doesn't solve any of our country's problems.
"EUROPE'S FAILING, SO WHY EMULATE IT?"
Victor Davis Hanson's WSJ article carried this title. His closing sentence is enough to convey his concerns--and those I share with him: "Only one question remains: at a time when Europe is discovering that its democratic socialism does not work, why in the world is the United States doing its best to copy it?" If you are a voracious reader, I posted a lengthy column answering that question in one aspect. It's title is "THE ALIEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE." It's posted below.
"WHERE ARE THE INVESTMENTS TO CREATE JOBS"
This headline led off Bob Herbert's NYTimes opinion piece. Now I must admit, that I usually disagree with Bob Herbert on a lot of things. So why am I using his article? Because he calls it mostly right. I will just cite a few of his statements:
"I know the president has a lot on his mind but the No. 1 problem facing the US continues to fester and that problem is unemployment." ... "Obama's take on the May numbers seemed out of touch." [when he said] 'This report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.' ... "The economy is sick, and all efforts to revive it that do not directly confront the staggering levels of joblessness are doomed." ..."...how is anyone going to get a handle on the federal deficits if we don't get millions of people back to work and paying taxes?" ... "There is no plan that I can see to get us
out of this fix." ... "Bold and effective leadership would have put us on this road to a sustainable future. Instead, we're approaching a dead end."
OBAMA WILL FIND THE CHICAGO WAY WON'T WORK IN WASHINGTON
So says Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner. His closing paragraph sums it up well: "The problem with Obama's Chicago Way is that Chicago isn't America. The Chicago Way works locally because there is an America out there that ultimately pays for it. But who will pay for an America run the Chicago Way?"
Obama Pays Back Political Favor By Scott Wheeler June 16, 2010
President Obama has now made the United States an official “state sponsor of terrorism” a designation, applied to other countries, would mean no aid or trade with the US. It is unclear how Obama’s actions will affect our ability to trade with ourselves as a nation. On June 9, President Obama announced a 400 million dollar aid package to the West Bank and Gaza, which are currently two separate entities; the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by radical Islamic standards, Gaza is run by the democratically elected Islamic Resistance Movement known otherwise as the terrorist group Hamas.
Obama was trying to be sneaky in announcing this “aid package” to Gaza with Abbas present thus conflating the moderate with the radical terrorist group Hamas, a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny of handing over American’s money directly to a terrorist organization that has murdered American citizens. Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends. Thanks to the investigative work of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs we know that in 2007 Obama’s campaign received over 30 thousand dollars in illegal donations from Hamas controlled Gaza....
I reported before the 2008 election that Obama had been endorsed by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, who himself had been a Hamas operative inside the United States for years, using several aliases, until I confronted him and informed him that I knew who he was. He denied that he worked for Hamas and then promptly fled the country and two years later turned up in Damascus, Syria as a senior Hamas leader. Obama is either completely ignorant of the war Islamic terrorists such as Hamas are waging against us, or worse. Until we know more I have the unfortunate task of reporting to you that we are now a state sponsor of terrorism.
================
MOST READERS OF THE ENTERPRISE UNDERSTAND THESE FOREGOING ARTICLES
But what it the large part of America that supports President Obama and his colleagues who control the Democratic Congress, and his appointees and czars who control the rest of our government. You see they have a very different, and arguably flawed perspective. Read the following, and try to follow the immense point it makes. There are fundamentals of economics that are not understood the same way--or at all--and that leads to many of our problems as a country.
================
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?--Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
By DANIEL B. KLEIN
[Ed. Note: Could this partially explain why the USA is in deep economic trouble?]
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101. Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian. Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure. Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical. Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.
In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.
The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26. Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.
To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities. Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).
The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect. Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.
Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
==================
OBAMA: AN INCOMPETENT EXECUTIVE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes. And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late. Why didn't the Administration act sooner? Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy. When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway. But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010
=======================
I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN, BUT THIS GUY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE
Wayne Allen Root was the Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate a few years back. Of course he lost, big time--but that doesn't mean he was wrong. He just lacked the huge resources of the two major parties. Anyway, I'm not sure anyone could have beaten the glib lies and misspeaking campaign skills of Barack Obama, especially when backed by the bias of the major media--the largest misuse of freedom of the press--through distortion and misreporting, in our country's history.
Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm the System
By Wayne Allen Root, Fox Nation
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Gary Hubbell: The Redneck tree hugger:
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
GARY HUBBELL, ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever. Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection.
Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace. That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored. Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence.
They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness. Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion.
Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives. But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest. In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real
estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com.
http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100229854&template=printart
=====================
The Alien in the White House—The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe. One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judiciary Committee on May 13. Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marveled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board. Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
A COMPILATION OF OPINIONS OTHER THAN MY OWN
After writing mostly my own opinions week after week, I decided to choose just a few of the most noteworthy articles and opinions I found in the news media. Of course I get lots of good material from readers and correspondents, so I also considered those. I tried to "vet" the pieces for accuracy using places like Snopes.com and TruthorFiction.com. It's not a precise job, but I do the best I can. Sometimes the headline and a key phrase or two excerpted from the article will do the job. In other cases, the entire piece is necessary to convey the message accurately.
I know this edition is too long. Read whatever you want of it. It all offers useful insights from a very diverse group of writers.
FIRST A FEW "HOT BUTTONS" OF MINE--HOW STUPID? VERY STUPID!
--Reportedly, 38 people die each day not wearing seat belts required by law in their cars. DUH? Buckle up!
--Motorcyclists not wearing helmets dramatically increase their chances for fatal head injuries. Wear Helmets!
--Many people drive and talk on their cell phone, ignoring their driving. Just Drive!
--Many more text while driving, ignoring their driving even worse. Even new laws won't stop this. Please, Just Drive
--Many people walk out into traffic while talking on cell phones, so absorbed in conversation, they don't even notice cars. Pay Attention!
--Children's games (Little League baseball) are being played without scores kept, so no one has to "lose." Games Have Winners and Losers.
--Many kids, and most parents keep score--so who is kidding whom? Get Real!
--Schools now granting partial credit on math problems with the wrong answer "but the right process?" Teach the Right Way!
--Schools grading without using the ABCDF scale, using descriptive words. (Hint, parents and many kids immediately convert an Outstanding to an A! Get Real II.
I hope I'm not ever risking my life riding in or traveling on something designed by a person with "the wrong answer but the right process.
I also hope someone tells those kids that in the cold hard world they'll be entering, there will be winners and losers.
The question is which they will be.
Get Used To It--It's Called LIFE!
BUT...now I understand how half of the country could vote for Obama and a lot of the incompetents in Congress.
Really, how could our country choose to put an impostor, an incompetent in the White House?
They were deceived. What the President is great at is deception. Too bad that doesn't solve any of our country's problems.
"EUROPE'S FAILING, SO WHY EMULATE IT?"
Victor Davis Hanson's WSJ article carried this title. His closing sentence is enough to convey his concerns--and those I share with him: "Only one question remains: at a time when Europe is discovering that its democratic socialism does not work, why in the world is the United States doing its best to copy it?" If you are a voracious reader, I posted a lengthy column answering that question in one aspect. It's title is "THE ALIEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE." It's posted below.
"WHERE ARE THE INVESTMENTS TO CREATE JOBS"
This headline led off Bob Herbert's NYTimes opinion piece. Now I must admit, that I usually disagree with Bob Herbert on a lot of things. So why am I using his article? Because he calls it mostly right. I will just cite a few of his statements:
"I know the president has a lot on his mind but the No. 1 problem facing the US continues to fester and that problem is unemployment." ... "Obama's take on the May numbers seemed out of touch." [when he said] 'This report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.' ... "The economy is sick, and all efforts to revive it that do not directly confront the staggering levels of joblessness are doomed." ..."...how is anyone going to get a handle on the federal deficits if we don't get millions of people back to work and paying taxes?" ... "There is no plan that I can see to get us
out of this fix." ... "Bold and effective leadership would have put us on this road to a sustainable future. Instead, we're approaching a dead end."
OBAMA WILL FIND THE CHICAGO WAY WON'T WORK IN WASHINGTON
So says Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner. His closing paragraph sums it up well: "The problem with Obama's Chicago Way is that Chicago isn't America. The Chicago Way works locally because there is an America out there that ultimately pays for it. But who will pay for an America run the Chicago Way?"
Obama Pays Back Political Favor By Scott Wheeler June 16, 2010
President Obama has now made the United States an official “state sponsor of terrorism” a designation, applied to other countries, would mean no aid or trade with the US. It is unclear how Obama’s actions will affect our ability to trade with ourselves as a nation. On June 9, President Obama announced a 400 million dollar aid package to the West Bank and Gaza, which are currently two separate entities; the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by radical Islamic standards, Gaza is run by the democratically elected Islamic Resistance Movement known otherwise as the terrorist group Hamas.
Obama was trying to be sneaky in announcing this “aid package” to Gaza with Abbas present thus conflating the moderate with the radical terrorist group Hamas, a clear attempt to avoid scrutiny of handing over American’s money directly to a terrorist organization that has murdered American citizens. Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends. Thanks to the investigative work of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs we know that in 2007 Obama’s campaign received over 30 thousand dollars in illegal donations from Hamas controlled Gaza....
...Since 2001, the United States has listed Hamas as a “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist” organization. The sanctions for providing support for a SDGT are harsh. Even the New York Times, which is as a rule sympathetic to terrorists, stated “The details of how the aid would be used in Gaza remained unclear. Nor was it immediately clear how Mr. Abbas, who has authority in the West Bank but not in Gaza would be able to administer it.” But, according to the Times, “White House officials said the money would be spent on housing, schools, efforts to provide access to drinking water and other health and infrastructure projects.” Of course, with Americans providing all of their financial needs it frees up Hamas’ other money to buy weapons and afford them more sophisticated means by which to smuggle them into the strip, no more raggedy flotillas for these terrorists.
I reported before the 2008 election that Obama had been endorsed by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, who himself had been a Hamas operative inside the United States for years, using several aliases, until I confronted him and informed him that I knew who he was. He denied that he worked for Hamas and then promptly fled the country and two years later turned up in Damascus, Syria as a senior Hamas leader. Obama is either completely ignorant of the war Islamic terrorists such as Hamas are waging against us, or worse. Until we know more I have the unfortunate task of reporting to you that we are now a state sponsor of terrorism.
================
MOST READERS OF THE ENTERPRISE UNDERSTAND THESE FOREGOING ARTICLES
But what it the large part of America that supports President Obama and his colleagues who control the Democratic Congress, and his appointees and czars who control the rest of our government. You see they have a very different, and arguably flawed perspective. Read the following, and try to follow the immense point it makes. There are fundamentals of economics that are not understood the same way--or at all--and that leads to many of our problems as a country.
================
Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?--Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.
By DANIEL B. KLEIN
[Ed. Note: Could this partially explain why the USA is in deep economic trouble?]
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101. Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian. Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.
Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure. Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical. Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.
In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.
The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).
How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26. Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.
To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities. Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).
The survey also asked about party affiliation. Those responding Democratic averaged 4.59 incorrect answers. Republicans averaged 1.61 incorrect, and Libertarians 1.26 incorrect. Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.
Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
==================
OBAMA: AN INCOMPETENT EXECUTIVE
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010
Contrary to what the Constitution says, the president does not run the executive branch of the federal government. It runs itself. Following Newton's Laws of Motion, it is "a body in motion that tends to remain in motion in the same direction and at the same speed unless acted upon by an outside force." The bureaucracy keeps doing what it is programmed to do unless someone intervenes. And that intervention is the proper job of the president. He has to step in, ask the right questions, get inside and outside advice, and decide how to intervene to move the bureaucracy one way or the other. President Clinton had an excellent sense of how to do this and when to get involved. President Obama does not.
When the spill started, he and his campaign staff - now transplanted to the White House - reacted the way a Senator or a candidate would, blaming British Petroleum, framing an issue against the oil company, and holding it accountable. But what he needed to do was to review the plans for coping with the disaster and intervene to move the bureaucracy in untraditional but more appropriate directions. Instead, he let business as usual and inertia move the process.
The president's tardy requests for international assistance and his government's bureaucratic response to their offers demonstrates his lack of command and control. The Washington Post reports that the Obama Administration initially "saw no need to accept offers of state-of-the-art skimmers, miles of boom or technical assistance from nations around the globe with experience fighting oil spills." Arrogantly, State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters on May 19th "we'll let BP decide what expertise they do need."
Two weeks after the spill started, the State Department and the Coast Guard sought to figure out what aid they could use from abroad. On May 5th, the Department reported that thirteen international offers of aid had been tendered and the government would decide which to accept "in the next two days." Two weeks later, it said that it did not need any of them.
Now, when it is too late, the U.S. has finally accepted Canada's offer of 10,000 feet of boom. In late May it took 14,000 feet from Mexico, two skimmers from Mexico, and skimming systems from Norway and the Netherlands. Too little too late. Why didn't the Administration act sooner? Bureaucratic obstacles stopped it and the president was not involved or active enough to sweep them aside.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr Christopher T. O'Neil said that "all qualifying offers of assistance have been accepted." But this bureaucratic-speak did not mention that the Jones Act - an isolationist law passed in the 1920s that requires vessels working in American waters to be built and crewed by Americans - disqualified many of the offers of assistance. But Obama could have waived the Jones Act whenever he wanted to.
A Norwegian offer of a chemical dispersant was rejected by the EPA - more bureaucracy. When Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal sought to create sand berms to keep oil away from the coastline, the Washington Post reported that he reached out to "the marine contractor Van Oord and the research institute Deltares...BP pledged $360 million for the plan, but U.S. dredging companies - which have less than one-fifth the capacity of Dutch dredging firms -- objected to foreign companies' participation."
An activist, involved chief executive would have swept aside these impediments and demanded immediate action. He would have ridden roughshod over bureaucratic and political objections and gotten the cleanup underway. But this president is no executive. He is a legislator - he is now pushing new environmental legislation. He is a lawyer - his Attorney General is investigating criminal charges against BP. He is a populist - he is quick to blame BP. He is a big spender - he wants a fund to pay the spill's victims. He is all of these things. But he is no chief executive and that, unfortunately, is the job he was elected to do.
Published on DickMorris.com on June 14, 2010
=======================
I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN, BUT THIS GUY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE
Wayne Allen Root was the Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate a few years back. Of course he lost, big time--but that doesn't mean he was wrong. He just lacked the huge resources of the two major parties. Anyway, I'm not sure anyone could have beaten the glib lies and misspeaking campaign skills of Barack Obama, especially when backed by the bias of the major media--the largest misuse of freedom of the press--through distortion and misreporting, in our country's history.
Obama's Agenda: Overwhelm the System
By Wayne Allen Root, Fox Nation
Rahm Emanuel cynically said, "You never want a crisis to go to waste." It is now becoming clear that the crisis he was referring to is Barack Obama's presidency.
Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Gary Hubbell: The Redneck tree hugger:
Barack Obama has awakened a sleeping nation
GARY HUBBELL, ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY
Barack Obama is the best thing that has happened to America in the last 100 years. Truly, he is the savior of America's future. He is the best thing ever. Despite the fact that he has some of the lowest approval ratings among recent presidents, history will see Barack Obama as the source of America's resurrection.
Barack Obama has plunged the country into levels of debt that we could not have previously imagined; his efforts to nationalize health care have been met with fierce resistance nationwide; TARP bailouts and stimulus spending have shown little positive effect on the national economy; unemployment is unacceptably high and looks to remain that way for most of a decade; legacy entitlement programs have ballooned to unsustainable levels, and there is a seething anger in the populace. That's why Barack Obama is such a good thing for America.
Obama is the symbol of a creeping liberalism that has infected our society like a cancer for the last 100 years. Just as Hitler is the face of fascism, Obama will go down in history as the face of unchecked liberalism. The cancer metastasized to the point where it could no longer be ignored. Average Americans who have quietly gone about their lives, earning a paycheck, contributing to their favorite charities, going to high school football games on Friday night, spending their weekends at the beach or on hunting trips — they've gotten off the fence.
They've woken up. There is a level of political activism in this country that we haven't seen since the American Revolution, and Barack Obama has been the catalyst that has sparked a restructuring of the American political and social consciousness. Think of the crap we've slowly learned to tolerate over the past 50 years as liberalism sought to re-structure the America that was the symbol of freedom and liberty to all the people of the world. Immigration laws were ignored on the basis of compassion.
Welfare policies encouraged irresponsibility, the fracturing of families, and a cycle of generations of dependency. Debt was regarded as a tonic to lubricate the economy. Our children left school having been taught that they are exceptional and special, while great numbers of them cannot perform basic functions of mathematics and literacy. Legislators decided that people could not be trusted to defend their own homes, and stripped citizens of their rights to own firearms. Productive members of society have been penalized with a heavy burden of taxes in order to support legions of do-nothings who loll around, reveling in their addictions, obesity, indolence, ignorance and “disabilities.” Criminals have been arrested and re-arrested, coddled and set free to pillage the citizenry yet again. Lawyers routinely extort fortunes from doctors, contractors and business people with dubious torts.
We slowly learned to tolerate these outrages, shaking our heads in disbelief, and we went on with our lives. But Barack Obama has ripped the lid off a seething cauldron of dissatisfaction and unrest. In the time of Barack Obama, Black Panther members stand outside polling places in black commando uniforms, slapping truncheons into their palms. ACORN — a taxpayer-supported organization — is given a role in taking the census, even after its members were caught on tape offering advice to set up child prostitution rings. A former Communist is given a paid government position in the White House as an advisor to the president. Auto companies are taken over by the government, and the auto workers' union — whose contracts are completely insupportable in any economic sense — is rewarded with a stake in the company. Government bails out Wall Street investment bankers and insurance companies, who pay their executives outrageous bonuses as thanks for the public support. Terrorists are read their Miranda rights and given free lawyers. And, despite overwhelming public disapproval, Barack Obama has pushed forward with a health care plan that would re-structure one-sixth of the American economy.
I don't know about you, but the other day I was at the courthouse doing some business, and I stepped into the court clerk's office and changed my voter affiliation from “Independent” to “Republican.” I am under no illusion that the Republican party is perfect, but at least they're starting to awaken to the fact that we cannot sustain massive levels of debt; we cannot afford to hand out billions of dollars in corporate subsidies; we have to somehow trim our massive entitlement programs; we can no longer be the world's policeman and dole out billions in aid to countries whose citizens seek to harm us.
Literally millions of Americans have had enough. They're organizing, they're studying the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, they're reading history and case law, they're showing up at rallies and meetings, and a slew of conservative candidates are throwing their hats into the ring. Is there a revolution brewing? Yes, in the sense that there is a keen awareness that our priorities and sensibilities must be radically re-structured. Will it be a violent revolution? No. It will be done through the interpretation of the original document that has guided us for 220 years — the Constitution. Just as the pendulum swung to embrace political correctness and liberalism, there will be a backlash, a complete repudiation of a hundred years of nonsense. A hundred years from now, history will perceive the year 2010 as the time when America got back on the right track. And for that, we can thank Barack Hussein Obama.
Gary Hubbell is a hunter, rancher, and former hunting and fly-fishing guide. Gary works as a Colorado ranch real
estate broker. He can be reached through his website, aspenranchrealestate.com.
http://www.aspentimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2010100229854&template=printart
=====================
The Alien in the White House—The distance between the president and the people is beginning to be revealed.
By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ
The deepening notes of disenchantment with Barack Obama now issuing from commentators across the political spectrum were predictable. So, too, were the charges from some of the president's earliest enthusiasts about his failure to reflect a powerful sense of urgency about the oil spill.
There should have been nothing puzzling about his response to anyone who has paid even modest critical attention to Mr. Obama's pronouncements. For it was clear from the first that this president—single-minded, ever-visible, confident in his program for a reformed America saved from darkness by his arrival—was wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion. Mr. Obama wasn't lacking in concern about the oil spill. What he lacked was that voice—and for good reason.
Those qualities to be expected in a president were never about rhetoric; Mr. Obama had proved himself a dab hand at that on the campaign trail. They were a matter of identification with the nation and to all that binds its people together in pride and allegiance. These are feelings held deep in American hearts, unvoiced mostly, but unmistakably there and not only on the Fourth of July.
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe. One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White House—that is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdity—unnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judiciary Committee on May 13. Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answered—a response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marveled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
Long after Mr. Obama leaves office, it will be this parade of explicators, laboring mightily to sell each new piece of official reality revisionism—Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' among them—that will stand most memorably as the face of this administration. It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world community—as it is euphemistically known—a body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world community—proof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative.
It is no surprise that Mr. Posner—like numerous of his kind—has found a natural home in this administration. His is a sensibility and political disposition with which Mr. Obama is at home. The beliefs and attitudes that this president has internalized are to be found everywhere—in the salons of the left the world over—and, above all, in the academic establishment, stuffed with tenured radicals and their political progeny. The places where it is held as revealed truth that the United States is now, and has been throughout its history, the chief engine of injustice and oppression in the world.
They are attitudes to be found everywhere, but never before in a president of the United States. Mr. Obama may not hold all, or the more extreme, of these views. But there can be no doubt by now of the influences that have shaped him. They account for his grand apology tour through the capitals of Europe and to the Muslim world, during which he decried America's moral failures—her arrogance, insensitivity. They were the words of a man to whom reasons for American guilt came naturally. Americans were shocked by this behavior in their newly elected president. But he was telling them something from those lecterns in foreign lands—something about his distant relation to the country he was about to lead.
The truth about that distance is now sinking in, which is all to the good. A country governed by leaders too principled to speak the name of its mortal enemy needs every infusion of reality it can get.
Ms. Rabinowitz is a member of the Journal's editorial board. Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
-----------------------------------------------------------
John L. Mariotti, President & CEO, The Enterprise Group, Phone 614-840-0959 http://www.mariotti.net http://mariotti.blogs.com/my_weblog/
------------------------------------------------------------
Comments