dprin339's Blog

Author: CKA in Red State USA

---

 

---

Given his administration selections, Barack Hussein “Clinton FDR Lincoln JFK” Obama has redefined “bait and switch.” Victor Davis Hanson, at NRO, dissects the huckster’s strategy. Suggests, too, Obama will actually bolster George Bush’s image. Imagine that ironic backfire.

At the Corner at NRO, on Nov. 29, in “Bush Through the Obama Prism,” Hanson says, in part, “I think we are slowly (and things of course could change) beginning in retrospect to look back at the outline of one of most profound bait-and-switch campaigns in our political history, predicated on the mass appeal of a magnetic leader rather than any principles per se.

“He out-Clintoned Hillary and followed Bill’s 1992 formula: A young Democrat runs on youth, popular appeal and charisma, claims the incumbent Bush caused another Great Depression and blew Iraq, and then went right down the middle with a showy leftist veneer.”

Given that a blind person could see that we now have lots of Clintonistas and even a Bushie or so in Obama’s administration, it’s fair to call Obama a “profound” bait-and-switcher. Top of his game. After all, he did promise change. He didn’t say in which direction and how or with whom, though.

So we get Clinton III, at least. Carter II? Maybe. Obama I? Yes, if you mean Clinton III and/or Carter II.

But we will see that George W. Bush, though not smooth-tongued as Obama, did laudable things, not the least of which was dealing firmly with terrorists — radical Islamists or Islamofascists — who, sadly to say, just reared their ugly, hate-filled, death-dispensing, despicable heads in Mombai, India.

“Obama’s victory (predicated on painting Bush as a Hoover/Nixon redux), more so even than perhaps a John McCain’s, may do more for Bush’s reputation that anyone ever imagined,” Hanson said.

“And the Mumbai mess (over there, not here) will only empasize all this, as an array of old 9/11-era experts who used to warn us about radical Islam, then, in the subsequent respite at home, screamed that Bush fabricated a war against terror against bogeymen, and now in their third manifestation are paraded once more out to warn us about?—why, yes, radical Islam!”

I hope that Hanson’s prediction comes true. But, then, would the advocacy media or the punditocracy, liberal and conservative, even acknowledge it?

For certain, Obama lacks the testicularity to do so.

I bet Jim Jones is tooling around hell right now green with envy over the mind manipulation the global warming greenies are wielding upon our culture.

We’ve got green jobs, green cars, green dogs, green houses, green toilet paper and environmentally friendly green condoms. Everything now must become green or it is gone, mama. I’m sure Kermit the frog, iguanas, the Grinch, the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Gumby are seriously ticked off regarding the liberal alarmists’ hysterical hijacking of the color they have previously owned, loved and profited from for so many years.

I’m an oil painter, and as an artist I, naturally, love colors—all kinds of colors—but not anymore. Because of the global warming alarmists, as of right now, I officially hate the color green (nothing personal, green). I’m just sick of hearing about you. You are everywhere. It’s that whole overexposure thing . . . that Kathie Lee Gifford, incessant yacking about Cody and Cassidy mind numbing malaise that just the mention of your name now spawns.

Because of the sick amount of cash involved, both sides of the political aisle have drunk so much of the Global Warming Kool-Aid that they are peeing green, and if we the sheeple don’t lock step to these unhinged fascist demands then we’re the devil, Bobby Boucher.

There are several things that get me heated up over the global warmers’ hyperventilated horse smack. It’s stuff like:

- The specious science the global warblers put forth which establishes truth not by facts but through non-stop repetition.

- How the taxpayer dollar is floating this flotsam to the tune of $6 billion a year. That’s more than we send to the National Cancer Institute and to AIDS research.

- The Gestapoesque censorship of “dissenters” and “deniers” of the global warming “facts” by the greenies. God help you if you don’t parrot their apocalyptic projections. If you don’t believe me, just ask the “climate criminals” NASA chief Michael Griffin and NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner. Yep, if science is your field and you don’t inhale what the alarmists are trying to sell then you are SOL regarding a J-O-B.

- Actors in Hollywood who won’t hump a tree and trade in their H2 for a Huffy might as well slap a Bush/Cheney sticker on their truck and drive back to wherever the heck they hail from.

- College students who dare to question their panic-stricken prof’s apocalyptic predictions will endure more scorn than a nice old Christian lady holding a Styrofoam cross at a gay activist rally.

- Everything is now being blamed on global warming from summer frost in Africa, freezing penguin chicks, poorly rising bread dough, impoverished fashion houses and the recent economic downturn suffered by Bulgarian whorehouses.

- The MSM’s obvious omission of the fact that birds, fleas, and trees crank out more CO2 than humans. Hey, MSM greenie weenie, a cow’s tailpipe puts out more pollutants than a BMW’s. How are you going to guilt trip the flora and fauna into following you? They don’t watch your morning “news” or Hollywood’s stupid Leo DeCaprio and Al Gore end of the world fear flicks. How are you going to get them to step and fetch?

- Congress is currently deliberating whether or not they should make “environment literacy training” a required course for your kids before they get to graduate.

Which brings me to the main point of this column and that which really ticks me off about the green freaks: namely, how they’re after our kids with their gospel of green.

Here’s the rationale behind their brainwashing our young ‘uns: A lot of thinking adults (as in the multiple millions) think that the greenies are pretty much off their rocker. Since the greenies can’t have us arrested (yet), they have decided to get their agenda going via our children, primarily through the agency of the public school system.

Yep, if they can get little kids who still eat their boogers to believe in their boogie man then they will morph into half-pint climate nags who will be an emotional guilt tripping Disney-fueled pain in the butt to the parents who are destroying the earth by not using low flow toilets.

Our kids are being hammered with green hysteria from K through 12. Yep, on a regular basis they are spoon fed apocalyptic children’s books meant to scare the crap out of them and paint the F-150 father as a bad, bad man. In addition, many schools force the kids to view chunky butt, hypocrite extraordinaire Al Gore’s daft film and do chants and life pledges to save the earth. The global warmers are serious as a heart attack about making our children “Inconvenient Youths, veritable eco-warriors who will go after their parents for environmental offenses.”

To help you help yourself and yours steer clear from these terra firma fascists, NYT bestselling author Christopher Horner has penned a new book that is must for those who do not wish to be gang tackled by the green gang. In Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, Horner reveals how the greenies are about to go into overdrive, forcing new legislation, killing our weak economy, squelching our freedoms, and quashing all dissenting opinion about the causes and effects of climate change.

He has a particularly freaky chapter on how the greenies are gunning for our children, indoctrinating them to the extent that they blame their own parents for the “warming globe.” This heavily footnoted book body slams the global warming alarmists and their junk science. Get one for yourself and your kids and become a “climate criminal” with me!

Since gas prices are now plummeting, I’m off to the Ford dealership. I’m thinking about ordering their spankin’ new pickup truck, the 2009 Ford F-666 Global Warmer, with the El Diablo package. Varooom!

And this will fail just like the DARE program & the CAC in Chicago.

The DARE program was supposed to turn out "drug free" kids & it FAILED entirely.

The CAC in Chicago was supposed to IMPROVE education for kids in Chicago & it FAILED entirely. (all it really did was teach kids the extreme "activism" of a community organizer)

First, it was the Tobacco companies, then it was the Mortgage companies, then it was the Car companies. NOW it's fast food. What's NEXT on the Dems list of "let's see how we can crush capitalism in the name of "fairness" & we Dems know what's good for you!

In all the reporting on the auto industry’s ills, little is said about the government as the chief cause. Politicians holler at auto executives in hearings and beat their chests in interviews, but never mention Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mileage standards. Just like unaffordable union contracts (mentioned incredibly often by the same politicians who now wish to give the unions expanded), unchecked power wreaks the same destruction in other industries via the Employee Free Choice Act (which steals away free choice).

In all their reporting of how the sub-prime mortgage meltdown purportedly triggered the financial industry collapse (as a child’s sneeze might topple a meticulously constructed, floor to ceiling house of cards), they uttered hardly a word about Barney Frank and Gang’s push for financial institutions to provide mortgages to the woefully unqualified. Nobody mentioned the the Clinton Administration’s push for home ownership as a God-given right to be facilitated at any cost, let alone the years of criminal conspiracy and obscene executive compensation at Fannie and Freddie.

The next big mess in the making, where the dots are not being connected, is the attack on the fast food industry, intended to cripple its growth, slash its size and is certain to eliminate millions of entry level jobs for which there are no horizontal equivalents.

On Nov. 20, MSNBC reported on a new scientific study, stating that a ban on fast food restaurants’ TV advertising could reduce obesity in pre-teen children by 18 percent.

Unless we have an unreported epidemic of 12-year-old car thieves driving themselves to McDonalds, I have different statistical voodoo. Mine suggests that responsible parenting could reduce childhood obesity by 100 percent. But that’s not my point.

This is another in a series of political and media attacks on this industry, laying the groundwork for successful class action lawsuits by state governments and consumers. It’s an exact replication of the assault on the tobacco industry, which made so many lobbyists and lawyers rich, got so many politicians so much time in the spotlight, and accomplished absolutely nothing with regard to public health.

The fast food industry is looking like Custer surrounded by Indians. You can see over there, the ban on trans fats; over there, new menu laws, intended as prejudicial toward and damaging to the fast food chains; over there, the Employee Free Choice Act; over there, silly science; and over there, the media constantly blaming the industry for everything from childhood obesity to adult diabetes to out of control health care costs.

Opening new fast food restaurants has even been outlawed in parts of Los Angeles on the grounds that they contribute to childhood obesity. (Outlawing sitting for endless hours on an ever widening posterior while playing video games and eating mountains of junk food supplied by parents is not considered politically attractive.)

These are neither accidental nor unrelated incidents. To think so is hopelessly naïve. If you go back and carefully examine the build-up to the full-fledged war on tobacco, you will see the parallels, step by step. It is deja vu, all over again.

This train is now just leaving the station, coal being shoveled into its furnace, steam and power building. It will gain speed and strength, cross the point of no return, and slam into this giant industry unless de-railed early. The destruction: skyrocketing prices at the surviving chains (a tax on the poor and middle class), the shuttering of thousands if not tens of thousands of outlets, the loss of millions of jobs in the food industry, an epic loss of property and sales tax revenues to communities, the loss of ad revenues to media (which in turn provide tax revenue and jobs), and untold damage to franchising – a major force in guiding people, including veterans and minorities, into business for themselves. Of course, zero real impact on public health.

The impending wreck is another of too many examples of government not just picking but creating winners and losers in business. And it is part of an even bigger tabletop of puzzle pieces the media views and reports as separate and unrelated when, in reality, they are all strategically connected to expansion of government control of business.

Maybe it will bring the fast food industry to the federal table for its multi-billion dollar bailout before it is all over. Super-size my bailout, please.

Ethel C. Fenig
As noted previously here describing the horror in Mumbai  "reports coming from survivors rival anything Dante ever wrote about hell."  And the general description certainly was hellish.

But as more facts emerge the horror grows the hell intensifies.   Many of the killings were random; whoever the Islamic terrorist evildoers (and as Andrew Bostom has bravely explained, here   and in numerous other clearly sourced articles yes, these terrorists were propelled by Islamist ideology)  encountered as they went from hotel room to hotel room or saw in the restaurant or street, they slaughtered. 

As Fox News reported: 

The terrorists used incendiary bombs, or grenades thrown on gas or fuel canisters, indicating they had access to the Taj hotel in advance, though the Taj Majal hotel denies any staffers were involved. (snip) The (Indian, ecf))commandos also said they were surprised at how much ammunition the terrorists had. There still was a lot left, even after the attack.

"Terrorists are far more advanced today. We didn't realize that they had satellite phones for communication or that they would be so advanced and use incendiary bombs," one commando said. The siege was particularly troubling because "they didn't spare women or children."

At this moment it appears that the largest number of non Indians massacred were Israelis and/or Jews.  And that was not random; that was deliberate, they  were targeted.  According to the report from the Israeli victim identification and remains recovery team, ZAKA,  the Jewish religious Nariman Chabad House, once known as a center of comfort, of joy, of aid to Jews, was indeed hellish.   Read these terrifying descriptions --and more --that manage to evade the liberal media squeamishness, afraid to report on the full extent of the horror for fear of Moslem retaliation tinged with political correctness.    

And no, Office of the President-Elect Barack H. Obama, (D), talking to them just won't reduce the terror.   

And no, Office of the Vice President-Elect Joseph Biden, (D), wherever you may be, for all your presumed experience to balance the inexperienced changing president, girding our loins just won't reduce the terror either.   

And make no mistake about it--sitting in our comfortable homes wherever we are far, far from Mumbai or Gaza or even appeasing London does not protect us from the terror to come, does not guarantee our safety.  For we are future targets also.  And it has nothing to do with their petty grievances against us or their supposed poverty because of us.  

It has to do with them.

Obama tries on WOT rhetoric James Lewis
Who said this after the jihadi Mumbai massacres of last week?

"These terrorists who targeted innocent civilians will not defeat India's great democracy, nor shake the will of a global coalition to defeat them... The United States must stand with India and all nations and people who are committed to destroying terrorist networks, and defeating their hate-filled ideology." 
Duhhh... George W. Bush? Sure sounds like President Bush, right?
Well, it was Barack Obama last week. It sure doesn't sound like the Obama of a month ago, who wanted just to sit down and have tea with all the bad guys around the world. And it sure doesn't sound like the Left-radical Obama before the Democrat convention in Denver, who sympathized with the dark side. (what was that about how poverty causes terrorism & if we just listen to them & give them money, they will stop? obama thinks this will work, NOT!)
So Mr. Obama is now trying on WOT rhetoric, the way he might try on a spiffy new suit. Does he look good in the mirror? How does Obama look with a Kevlar helmet and assault rifle? Hmmmm... not bad, not bad at all...
The difference is, of course, that George W. Bush means it when he says things like that. He's shown us for seven years, and he's got the scars for it. So do our soldiers.
But does our coming president mean it? There's no way of knowing. Mr. Obama is trying out WOT language. If it suits him, he will keep it, sometimes. If the country is luckier than it is smart, he may even discover a new inner Obama, one who defends civilization from barbarism. But we don't know anything yet.
Tomorrow he might flip again.
That's what it means to say that George W. Bush has character, and staying power, and commitment. You can trust Bush to fight shoulder-to-shoulder in a foxhole.
We will find out very soon if the civilized world can trust Obama to fight never-say-die jihad ideology.
Obama is now being challenged by three imperialistic tyrannies:
1. The Mumbai massacre seems to come from the radical Islamists in Pakistan's jihadist intelligence apparatus. It is testing majority-Hindu India and its fast-developing democracy, along with the US.  2. The Russians have just challenged the US to withdraw purely defensive anti-missile systems from the Czech Republic and Poland, to see if he can be pushed around.  3. The Syrians (cheek-by-jowl with Iran) are making nice with Democrats, including Robert Malley and Samantha Powers, two O messengers. Trouble is, Syria is developing its nuclear technology at the same time, in tandem with Iran. They think the O's can be rolled. They might be right. 
Even before O walks into the Oval, we have three hardened tyrannies challenging the One. How will he respond? That's what they want to know. Can he be pushed around? (YES!) Can he be suckered? (YES!) How much advantage can be squeezed from a foreign policy team that has signaled appeasement in newspaper editorials for years? (as much as they want, as long as they are suffering from "poverty")You can't blame the wolves for salivating at the prospect. Wolves are wolves.
George W. Bush didn't think that negotiating with hardened fanatics was a promising strategy. Bush thinks they have to be defeated first. But behind the scenes, all the appeasers have been trying it (and they have FAILED miserably) --- the Europeans, the Indians, the international Left ---- letting eternal hope triumph over repeated experience.
It seems likely that the O's will promise a lot of goodies to the bad guys, only to discover that it doesn't work. That's what happened with Jimmy Carter and the Clintons. And the Clinton team is back in power, wondering how much more we can hand over to the bad guys.
No wonder the wolves are drooling.

My wonderful mother gave this to me today.

Is there a magic cutoff period when offspring become accountable for their own actions? Is there a wonderful moment when parents can become detached spectators in the lives of their children and shrug, "It's their life" and feel nothing?

When I was in my twenties, I stood in a hospital corridor waiting for doctors to put a few stitches in my son's head. I asked, "When do you stop worrying?" The nurse said, "When they get out of the accident stage." My mother just smiled faintly and said nothing.

When  I was in my thirties, I sat on a little chair in a class room and heard how one of my children talked incessantly, disrupted the class, and was headed for a career making license plates. As if to read mind, a teacher said, "Don't worry, they all go through this stage and then you can sit back, relax and enjoy them." My mother just smiled faintly and said nothing.

When I was in forties, I spent a life time waiting for the phone to ring, the cars to come home, the front door to open. A friend said, "They're trying to find themselves. Don't worry, in a few years, you can stop worrying. They'll be adults." My mother just smiled faintly and said nothing.

By the time I was 50, I was sick & tired of being vulnerable. I was still worrying over my children, but there was a new wrinkle?. There was nothing I could do about it. My mother just smiled faintly and said nothing. I continued to anguish over their failures, be tormented by their frustrations and absorbed in their disappointments. My friends said that when my kids go married I could stop worrying and lead my own life.

I wanted to believe that, but I was haunted by my mother's warm smile and her occasional, "You look pale, Are you alright?" Call me the minute you get home. Are you depressed about something?"

Can it be that parents are sentenced to a lifetime of worry? Is concern for one another handed down like a torch to blaze the traile of human frailties and the fears of the un known? Is concern a curse or is it a virtue that elevates us to the highest form of life?

One of my children became irritable recently, saying to me, "Where were you? I've been calling 3 days and no one answered. I was worried." 

I smiled a warm smile. The torch has been passed.

Obama picks foxes to guard henhouse
 Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Maybe Ralph Nader was right in predicting that the same Wall Street hustlers would have a lock on our government no matter which major party won the election. I hate to admit it, since it wasn't that long ago that I heatedly challenged Nader in a debate on this very point. But how else is one to respond to Barack Obama's picking the very folks who helped get us into this financial mess to now lead us out of it? Watching the president-elect's Monday introduction of his economic team, my brother-in-law Pete said, "You can see the feathers coming out of their mouths" as the foxes were once again put in charge of the henhouse. He didn't have time to expound on his point, having to get ready to go sort mail in his job at the post office, but he showed me a statement from Citigroup showing that the interest rate on Pete the Postal Worker's credit card was 28.9 percent, an amount that all major religions would justly condemn as usurious. Moments earlier, Obama had put his seal of approval on the Citigroup bailout, which his new economic team, led by protégés of Citigroup Executive Committee Chairman Robert Rubin, enthusiastically endorsed. A bailout that brings to $45 billion the taxpayer money thrown at Citigroup and the guarantee of $306 billion for the bank's "toxic securities" that would have been illegal if not for changes in the law that Citigroup secured with the decisive help of Rubin and Lawrence Summers, the man who replaced him as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. As Summers stayed on to ensure passage of deregulatory laws that enabled enormous banking greed, Rubin was rewarded with a $15 million-a-year executive position at Citigroup, a job that only got more lucrative as the bank went from one disaster, beginning with its involvement with Enron in which Rubin played an active role, to its huge role in the mortgage debacle. It is widely acknowledged that Citigroup fell victim to a merger mania, which Rubin and Summers made legal during their tenure at Treasury. Yet despite that dismal record of dismantling sound regulation, Summers has been picked by Obama to be the top White House economic adviser and another Rubin disciple, Timothy Geithner, is the new Treasury secretary. Geithner, thanks in part to the strong recommendation of Rubin, had been appointed chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank after working for Rubin and Summers during the Clinton years. Once at the New York Fed, he was the main government official charged with regulating Citigroup, a task at which he obviously failed. Yet over the weekend, it was Geithner who hammered out the Citigroup bailout deal with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and a very actively involved Rubin. As the Washington Post reported, Paulson had indicated last week that no further bailouts were planned before the new administration took office until "Rubin, an old colleague from Goldman Sachs, told Paulson in phone calls that the government had to act." Rubin conceded in an interview with the Post that he had played a key role in the politics of the bailout. This outrageous conflict of interest in which Rubin gets to exploit his ties to both the outgoing and incoming administrations was best described by Washington Post writer Steven Pearlstein: "The ultimate irony, of course, is that just as Rubin and Co. at Citi were being bailed out by the Bush Administration, President-elect Barack Obama was getting set to announce a new economic team drawn almost entirely from Rubin acolytes." As opposed to the far tougher deal negotiated on the bailout of AIG, the arrangement with Citigroup leaves the executives, including Rubin, who brought Citigroup to the brink of ruin, still in charge. Nor is there any guarantee of the value of the mortgage bundles that taxpayers will be guaranteeing. That is because, as candidate Obama clearly stated in his major economics address back in March, the deregulation pushed though during the Clinton years ended transparency in banking. Why then has he appointed the very people responsible for this disaster to now make it all better? Why not ask him? Heck, yes, it is time for the many of us who responded to his e-mails during the campaign to now challenge our e-mail buddy as to why he suddenly acts as if the interests of Wall Street and Main Street are one and the same.

What was he saying about not being able to afford 4 more years? We NOW have 4 more years of Clintons...............they are VERY smart, they set up messes that don't fall or fail until they are GONE so that they can point the finger at someone else.

IE: Citigroup, CRA, etc.

Okay everyone, this isn't political, but, where else would everybody find me? LOL

Now that Thanksgiving is near, it brings thoughts of what we are thankful for.

What are YOU thankful for?

Please, everyone participate, we all have things to be thankful for.

Obama Appointments Reveal His Inexperience
Monday, November 24, 2008 10:04 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann