When the going gets tough, Obama goes golfing
While his underlings selflessly toil to determine whether or not all the Assad government of Syria used chemical weapons against its own people (as seen on TV), President Obama played a 5 hour round of golf Sunday, closing in on a presidential total of 150 rounds of golf in four and half years. Meanwhile, The Royal Navy is ready for strikes on Syria, should Obama decide that his red line is more than the empty threat it seems to be.Golf is a great game for socializing, spending time outdoors in well-manicured surroundings, and relaxing. But it does require an inordinate amount of time, which is the reason that after playing the game in high school, I have up on it. I don't think that I have ever in my adult life had a work situation that would permit me to indulge in regular games of golf. It eats up too much of an entire day when you count the time necessary to get to the course.
One of the biggest largely unwritten stories of the Obama administration is the actual amount of time the commander in chief spends at work, as opposed to watching sports on TV, filling out March Madness brackets, socializing with celebrities, and whateverthehell he was doing while the Benghazi consulate was under attack.
The work ethic of the Obama administration was highlighted when newly appointed UN Ambassador Samantha Power was absent as the UN Security Council debated what to do about Syria late last week. Less than 3 weeks into her new job, she took a "personal trip" to Ireland (her native country) with her husband, who had an important appearance at a Charlie Chaplin film festival. Ambassador Power, the self-styled "genocide chick" gives evidence that Obama's role modeling has had an effect further down the hierarchy. No wonder nobody seems to be able to determine whether all those dead and twitching children constitute the use of chemiucal weapons.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/when_the_going_gets_tough_obama_goes_golfing.html#ixzz2d5Uxn8qO
Obama's Increasingly Tyrannical Proclivities
In The Federalist #47,
James Madison penned the following: "The accumulation of all powers,
legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of
one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self[-]appointed, or
elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
Can anything be done to thwart the efforts by Barack Obama and his minions to concentrate all power in his Administration?
Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins thusly: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Granted, before a bill can become a law the president must approve -- the Constitution provides more than one way to do that -- although both houses of Congress can over-turn a president's veto by two-thirds majorities. The Constitution also permits the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to vote on a bill in the event of a tied vote in the upper chamber.
This just about exhausts the Executive Branch's constitutionally sanctioned involvement in the legislative process.
The Constitution does not permit a president single-handedly to alter laws, but we have witnessed more than one instance in which the Obama Administration has unilaterally changed provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Last year Obama unilaterally altered provisions of America's immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to the deportation of youthful illegal immigrants.
Obama hasn't gotten around to imposing his own version of "cap and trade," but he has announced that if Congress does not act on such a bill, he will do so himself.
Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Constitution does not permit the president or anyone in the Executive Branch, such as the Attorney General, unilaterally to nullify the Supreme Court's or other federal courts' decisions.
Nullification of at least one Supreme Court ruling, however, seems to be precisely what Obama's Attorney General aims to do. On July 25th, Eric Holder, addressing the National Urban League in Philadelphia, announced that he would seek to reinstate "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in Texas. Holder seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling, in Shelby County v. Holder, which over-turned that portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring the federal government to pre-approve of any changes to the voting laws of states with a history of discriminating against blacks trying to vote. The Department of Justice filed that suit on August 22nd.
(If anyone thinks Holder took this action without Obama's approval, lots of bridges are for sale.)
One could add other instances since January 20, 2009 in which Obama or someone in the Executive Branch intruded on powers the Constitution allocates to the Legislative or Judicial branches of government. Moreover, as noted in the context of "cap-and-trade," Obama has threatened to act unilaterally if Congress fails to act. There are similar worries about Obama's likely behavior if Congress fails to pass "comprehensive immigration 'reform.'"
Obama seeks to concentrate all government powers in his hands and/or those of his Administration. If he is successful, he will have "fundamentally transformed" the United States of America. According to the definition Madison proffered in The Federalist #47, Obama will be a tyrant.
It is disconcerting, then, when most of the criticisms directed against the Obamians place less emphasis on this facet of Obama's record than on his other "sins," such as expanding the central government's power, spending vast sums of money, and endeavoring to create a European-style welfare state.
There is, of course, substantial overlap between concern that Obama's ultimate goal is a federal leviathan of unprecedented power and worries that he seeks to concentrate all government powers in his hands. I remain nonplussed by conservatives' tendency to focus far more on the former than on the latter.
Both harm America's tradition of a government of limited powers. Establishment of a tyranny -- as defined by Madison -- however, puts the final nail in the American Republic's coffin. That Republic is predicated on the separation of powers.
Those who abhor Obamaism must continue to oppose every effort to expand government's power, spend the country into penury, and create a European-style welfare state.
Conservatives should also oppose Obama's increasingly tyrannical proclivities.
How can they do that?
Put aside any notion of using the impeachment process to remove Obama from office. The Constitution (Article II, section 4) stipulates that a president can be removed from office by impeachment and conviction of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Any attempt to create a tyranny -- again using Madison's definition -- fits the rubric of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." So why doesn't Obama have to worry about being impeached and convicted?
Obama won't be impeached for at least two reasons. First, the attempt to impeach and convict Bill Clinton in 1998 left such bad taste in the American ruling class' mouth that similar proceedings coming again so soon are very unlikely. (Have you even heard the phrase, "impeach and convict" from the GOP House leadership?)
(Democrats control the Senate, which the Constitution [Article I, section 3, paragraph 6] makes the trial body in impeachment cases. As the Clinton episode showed, Democrat senators will not convict one of their own.
Moreover, don't expect the mainstream media [MSM], who are among Obama's biggest fans, to support any effort to remove him from office. The MSM will not publicize his and/or his Administration's campaign to gut the separation of powers. They will characterize any impeachment campaign as "racism" and "mean-spirited partisanship.")
In addition, anyone who believes the typical American will continence impeachment of the country's first black president is dreaming. (I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's observation that "Public sentiment [i.e., opinion] is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.")
Given Obama's dislike of the Constitution, because it's a charter of "negative liberties," conservatives should expect him to accelerate efforts to concentrate all power in his hands if the GOP controls both houses of Congress after 2014.
How might he be frustrated? Remember Lincoln's words about the power of public opinion? Conservatives must find a way -- short of impeachment -- to turn public opinion against Obama's tyrannical proclivities, which may be easier than efforts to oppose big government -- that "benefits" ever-larger portions of the citizenry.
As Rush Limbaugh notes, the typical American is loath to believe a president harbors ill intentions toward the country. Still, conservatives have no choice but to try to convince others that, when it comes to the establishment of one-man (or one-branch) rule, this is what Obama will wrought unless he's stopped.
I have no magic way to get millions of heads out of the sand, beyond asserting the simple truth (as contained above). One thing is certain, however. We'd better start spreading the word now. It's already very late.
Can anything be done to thwart the efforts by Barack Obama and his minions to concentrate all power in his Administration?
Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins thusly: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Granted, before a bill can become a law the president must approve -- the Constitution provides more than one way to do that -- although both houses of Congress can over-turn a president's veto by two-thirds majorities. The Constitution also permits the Vice President, as President of the Senate, to vote on a bill in the event of a tied vote in the upper chamber.
This just about exhausts the Executive Branch's constitutionally sanctioned involvement in the legislative process.
The Constitution does not permit a president single-handedly to alter laws, but we have witnessed more than one instance in which the Obama Administration has unilaterally changed provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. Last year Obama unilaterally altered provisions of America's immigration laws, particularly those pertaining to the deportation of youthful illegal immigrants.
Obama hasn't gotten around to imposing his own version of "cap and trade," but he has announced that if Congress does not act on such a bill, he will do so himself.
Article III, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows: "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Constitution does not permit the president or anyone in the Executive Branch, such as the Attorney General, unilaterally to nullify the Supreme Court's or other federal courts' decisions.
Nullification of at least one Supreme Court ruling, however, seems to be precisely what Obama's Attorney General aims to do. On July 25th, Eric Holder, addressing the National Urban League in Philadelphia, announced that he would seek to reinstate "preclearance" for changes to voting laws in Texas. Holder seeks to nullify the Supreme Court's ruling, in Shelby County v. Holder, which over-turned that portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring the federal government to pre-approve of any changes to the voting laws of states with a history of discriminating against blacks trying to vote. The Department of Justice filed that suit on August 22nd.
(If anyone thinks Holder took this action without Obama's approval, lots of bridges are for sale.)
One could add other instances since January 20, 2009 in which Obama or someone in the Executive Branch intruded on powers the Constitution allocates to the Legislative or Judicial branches of government. Moreover, as noted in the context of "cap-and-trade," Obama has threatened to act unilaterally if Congress fails to act. There are similar worries about Obama's likely behavior if Congress fails to pass "comprehensive immigration 'reform.'"
Obama seeks to concentrate all government powers in his hands and/or those of his Administration. If he is successful, he will have "fundamentally transformed" the United States of America. According to the definition Madison proffered in The Federalist #47, Obama will be a tyrant.
It is disconcerting, then, when most of the criticisms directed against the Obamians place less emphasis on this facet of Obama's record than on his other "sins," such as expanding the central government's power, spending vast sums of money, and endeavoring to create a European-style welfare state.
There is, of course, substantial overlap between concern that Obama's ultimate goal is a federal leviathan of unprecedented power and worries that he seeks to concentrate all government powers in his hands. I remain nonplussed by conservatives' tendency to focus far more on the former than on the latter.
Both harm America's tradition of a government of limited powers. Establishment of a tyranny -- as defined by Madison -- however, puts the final nail in the American Republic's coffin. That Republic is predicated on the separation of powers.
Those who abhor Obamaism must continue to oppose every effort to expand government's power, spend the country into penury, and create a European-style welfare state.
Conservatives should also oppose Obama's increasingly tyrannical proclivities.
How can they do that?
Put aside any notion of using the impeachment process to remove Obama from office. The Constitution (Article II, section 4) stipulates that a president can be removed from office by impeachment and conviction of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Any attempt to create a tyranny -- again using Madison's definition -- fits the rubric of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." So why doesn't Obama have to worry about being impeached and convicted?
Obama won't be impeached for at least two reasons. First, the attempt to impeach and convict Bill Clinton in 1998 left such bad taste in the American ruling class' mouth that similar proceedings coming again so soon are very unlikely. (Have you even heard the phrase, "impeach and convict" from the GOP House leadership?)
(Democrats control the Senate, which the Constitution [Article I, section 3, paragraph 6] makes the trial body in impeachment cases. As the Clinton episode showed, Democrat senators will not convict one of their own.
Moreover, don't expect the mainstream media [MSM], who are among Obama's biggest fans, to support any effort to remove him from office. The MSM will not publicize his and/or his Administration's campaign to gut the separation of powers. They will characterize any impeachment campaign as "racism" and "mean-spirited partisanship.")
In addition, anyone who believes the typical American will continence impeachment of the country's first black president is dreaming. (I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's observation that "Public sentiment [i.e., opinion] is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.")
Given Obama's dislike of the Constitution, because it's a charter of "negative liberties," conservatives should expect him to accelerate efforts to concentrate all power in his hands if the GOP controls both houses of Congress after 2014.
How might he be frustrated? Remember Lincoln's words about the power of public opinion? Conservatives must find a way -- short of impeachment -- to turn public opinion against Obama's tyrannical proclivities, which may be easier than efforts to oppose big government -- that "benefits" ever-larger portions of the citizenry.
As Rush Limbaugh notes, the typical American is loath to believe a president harbors ill intentions toward the country. Still, conservatives have no choice but to try to convince others that, when it comes to the establishment of one-man (or one-branch) rule, this is what Obama will wrought unless he's stopped.
I have no magic way to get millions of heads out of the sand, beyond asserting the simple truth (as contained above). One thing is certain, however. We'd better start spreading the word now. It's already very late.
For Obama, world looks far different than expected
Nearly five years into his presidency, Barack Obama confronts a world far different from what he envisioned when he first took office. U.S. influence is declining in the Middle East as violence and instability rock Arab countries. An ambitious attempt to reset U.S. relations with Russia faltered and failed. Even in Obama-friendly Europe, there's deep skepticism about Washington's government surveillance programs.In some cases, the current climate has been driven by factors outside the White House's control. But missteps by the president also are to blame, say foreign policy analysts, including some who worked for the Obama administration.
Among them: miscalculating the fallout from the Arab Spring uprisings, publicly setting unrealistic expectations for improved ties with Russia and a reactive decision-making process that can leave the White House appearing to veer from crisis to crisis without a broader strategy.
Rosa Brooks, a former Defense Department official who left the administration in 2011, said that while the shrinking U.S. leverage overseas predates the current president, "Obama has sometimes equated 'we have no leverage' with 'there's no point to really doing anything'."
Obama, faced most urgently with escalating crises in Egypt and Syria, has defended his measured approach, saying America's ability to solve the world's problems on its own has been "overstated."
"Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations," he said. "We have to think through strategically what's going to be in our long-term national interests."
The strongest challenge to Obama's philosophy on intervention has come from the deepening tumult in the Middle East and North Africa. The president saw great promise in the region when he first took office and pledged "a new beginning" with the Arab world when he traveled to Cairo in 2009.
But the democracy protests that spread across the region quickly scrambled Obama's efforts. While the U.S. has consistently backed the rights of people seeking democracy, the violence that followed has often left the Obama administration unsure of its next move or taking tentative steps that do little to change the situation on the ground.
In Egypt, where the country's first democratically elected president was ousted last month, the U.S. has refused to call Mohammed Morsi's removal a coup. The ruling military, which the U.S. has financially backed for decades, has largely ignored Obama's calls to end assaults on Morsi supporters. And U.S. officials are internally at odds over whether to cut off aid to the military.
In Syria, where more than 100,000 people have been killed during the two-and-a-half year civil war, Obama's pledges that President Bashar Assad will be held accountable have failed to push the Syrian leader from office. And despite warning that Assad's use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" in Syria, there was scant American retaliation when he did use the toxic gases. On Sunday senior administration official said there is "very little doubt" that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in an incident that killed at least a hundred people last week. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Monday that the Obama administration will "get the facts" before acting and that any U.S. move would be done in concert with the international community. But there is pressure in Congress for Obama to act swiftly, possibly along the lines of a U.S. air strike against Syria.
Few foreign policy experts predicted the Arab uprisings, and it's unlikely the U.S. could have — or should have — done anything to prevent the protests. But analysts say Obama misjudged the movements' next stages, including Assad's ability to cling to power and the strength of Islamist political parties in Egypt.
"The president has not had a long-term strategic vision," said Vali Nasr, who advised the Obama administration on foreign policy in the first term and now serves as dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "They're moving issue to issue and reacting as situations come up."
Obama advisers say the president is frustrated by what is seen as a lack of good options for dealing with Arab unrest. But the president himself has pushed back at the notion that the U.S. has lost credibility on the world stage because he hasn't acted more forcefully.
"We remain the one indispensable nation," Obama said in a CNN interview aired Friday. "There's a reason why, when you listen to what's happened around Egypt and Syria, that everybody asks what the U.S. is doing. It's because the United States continues to be the one country that people expect can do more than just simply protect their borders."
But the perception of a president lacking in international influence extends beyond the Arab world, particularly to Russia. Since reassuming the presidency last year, Vladimir Putin has blocked U.S. efforts to seek action against Syria at the United Nations and has balked at Obama's efforts to seek new agreements on arms control.
Putin's hard-line approach stands in stark contrast to the relationship Obama cultivated in his first term with Putin's predecessor, Dmitri Medvedev. The two held friendly meetings in Moscow and Washington (Obama even took Medvedev out to lunch at a local burger joint) and achieved policy breakthroughs. They inked a new nuclear reduction agreement, and Moscow agreed to open up supply lines to help the U.S. pull troops and equipment out of Afghanistan.
Michael O'Hanlon, a national security analyst at The Brookings Institution, said the president miscalculated in assuming that a few signs of improved ties would be enough to overcome years of distrust with the Russians.
"The issue here is one of raised expectations, unrealistically high expectations that Obama himself deliberately stoked," O'Hanlon said. "He hoped that a more pragmatic, disciplined, less interventionist foreign policy would appease the Russians."
The White House's ties with Russia were further damaged this summer when Moscow granted temporary asylum to Edward Snowden, the former government contractor accused of leaking documents detailing secret U.S. surveillance programs. In retaliation, Obama canceled plans to meet with Putin in Moscow next month, though he will still attend the meeting of leading rich and developing nations in St. Petersburg, Russia.
But the international impact from the National Security Agency revelations has spread beyond Russia. In European capitals, where Obama's 2008 election was greeted with cheers, some leaders have publicly criticized the surveillance programs. Among them was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who questioned the legitimacy of the programs while standing alongside Obama during his visit to Berlin earlier this year.
Obama has long enjoyed high approval ratings from the European public, though those numbers have slipped in his second term. So has European approval for his administration's international policies.
A Pew Research Center poll conducted this spring, before the NSA programs were revealed, showed that support for Obama's international policies was down in most of the countries surveyed, including a 14 point drop in Britain and a 12 point drop in France.
http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2013/08/26/for-obama-world-looks-far-different-than-expected-n1673364
The Friends of Ron Binz
The activists and crony capitalists lobbying for an energy nominee.
These columns recently interrupted the coronation for Ron Binz to become one of President Obama's key energy regulators, and apparently reporting on his record is a violation of Capitol Hill decorum. We're happy to have the story to ourselves because there is so much more that Senators ought to scrutinize before they vote on his nomination this fall."Ron Binz's Rules for Radicals" (July 30) questioned his fitness to lead the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, whose narrow mandate involves interstate energy transmission and protecting the U.S. electric grid's reliability and affordability. The White House wants to conscript FERC for the climate wars—and now environmentalists and crony capitalists are teaming up to install their man inside this supposedly independent body.
They've found a lot to like in Mr. Binz. His background includes a collusive deal with an electric utility he regulated in Colorado that shut down coal power plants with an upside for the utility. He's mused about the rule of law as a nuisance when regulators want to exercise a "legislative role," while his global warming beliefs are so extreme that he calls even natural gas a "dead end" fuel.
Our reporting on all of this was too much for a dozen former FERC commissioners, both Democrats and Republicans. In a letter we published—a version is being circulated in the Senate—they assert that Mr. Binz fits FERC's "long nonpartisan tradition" and "will be a fair and impartial judge."
The 12 commissioners offer no evidence for that proposition other than an appeal to their own authority, but that's not their most notable omission. They somehow forgot to mention that, since their FERC tenure, most of them have taken the revolving door to become lobbyists, strategic advisers, utility executives and white-shoe attorneys with business in front of FERC.
Nora Mead Brownell, for example, bragged to the Politico website that she spearheaded the letter. Readers may recall Ms. Brownell as the George W. Bush appointee who was named to FERC at the suggestion of Enron's Ken Lay.
After she left FERC in 2006 she founded a consulting firm called ESPY Energy Solutions and also now serves on the boards of directors of business concerns such as the Texas transmission provider Oncor and the smart-grid company Comverge. Transmission line rules are currently, er, a live wire as FERC annexes this state responsibility to socialize the costs of out-of-state wind and solar farms.
Other signatories include Suedeen Kelly, who is now an Akin Gump partner cochairing that law firm's energy regulatory practice. There's also James Hoecker (Husch Blackwell) and Clifford Naeve (Skadden Arps), and don't forget Joe Kelliher, the executive vice president for federal regulatory affairs at the green energy company NextEra.
All of this reflects the "long nonpartisan tradition" of monetizing federal political connections. What travels under the euphemism "public service" is often really a form of deferred compensation, and the folks whose livelihoods depend on favorable FERC policy rulings will naturally try to bank goodwill with their new master—at least until Mr. Binz cashes out his political options too.
Speaking of which, after Mr. Binz left the Colorado post in 2011, he maintained a paid relationship as a consultant with an outfit called the Energy Foundation. That's not unusual for his line of work, especially from this multimillion-dollar San Francisco consortium of green philanthropists.
Yet the Energy Foundation has an affiliated political committee called the Green Tech Action Fund, which has taken the very unusual step of hiring an outside public relations firm on behalf of Mr. Binz. We couldn't find anyone who could think of a similar executive branch precedent, at least for an agency as obscure as FERC. Both Mr. Binz and the flacks, VennSquared Communications—run by Democratic hand Michael Meehan—deny coordinating with one another.
Another story in Politico, which has become a community bulletin board for the pro-Binz crowd, suggested the publicist was necessary to fend off scary old us. Thanks for the compliment. But the PR firm hire was made (and reported in the trade press) well before we said a word—and one might reasonably wonder about the daisy chain between Mr. Binz and his former client, the Energy Foundation.
The Green Tech Action Fund is one of those 501(c)(4) political arms that don't have to disclose their donors, though it has been linked in media reports to California billionaire Tom Steyer, who is increasingly active in environmental causes. The Center for Responsive Politics ranks the action fund as one of the top 10 U.S. dark-money organizations by spending.
***
The larger policy context here is that a core goal of the green movement is to pack FERC with commissioners who will expand and use its powers more assertively in the name of global warming, never mind a lack of legal authority. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) runs something called the Project for Sustainable FERC Energy Policy. Lo and behold, the Energy Foundation contributed more than a half-million dollars to NRDC in 2011 to support such advocacy, according to its most recent grants disclosure form.The one thing the former FERC members are right about is that the agency's chairman really is supposed to be "a fair and impartial judge," not a political soldier. Perhaps that helps explain why Mr. Binz and his letter-writing and check-cashing partisans are so defensive.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323610704578628181505999690.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Are Republicans Too Smart For Their Own Good?
Have
you ever wondered why Republican presidential candidates seem to be far
more knowledgeable about the pressing issues facing the nation whilst
armed with specific, detailed plans to solve the problems that confront
us, but still fail miserably come election time?
Is it possible Republicans have become too smart for their own good?
Before you scoff, consider that the vast majority of Americans don't make decisions intellectually. They make them emotionally.
In fact, if people made decisions intellectually and analytically, our economy would die.
Companies count on the consumer buying from emotion. If he or she didn't, our GDP would be far lower than it is, and unemployment far higher.
Don't believe me? Ask one of your friends who's a salesperson whether he or she appeals to a prospect's intellect or emotions. Whether you like it or not, it's assuredly the latter.
Consider the industry of marketing. Has a radio or television ad actually ever led you to make a purchase? Probably not, right?
But American companies spend billions on radio and television advertising. Why?
Because it works!
It may not work on you or most intelligent Americans, but it does work on the vast majority of the public.
Be thankful it does, or depending on what you do for a living, you mightn't have a job.
With that as pretext, it's clear Republicans in the past decade or so have forgotten the importance of marketing, or, at the very least, their presidential candidates haven't been good marketers.
Heresy you say?
Take the blinders off.
People make buy decisions based on their dreams, their fears, and sometimes out of envy.
This product will make your teeth whiter, your hair shinier, make you look less fat, help you attract a man/woman, or your neighbor has it and you're going to look poor if you don't.
Ever watched an episode of "Madmen?" That's what it's about.
And when it comes to politics, people also buy candidates based on dreams and fear.
Obama capitalized on both.
He made people afraid of Republicans, fearful that their lives would continue to worsen if they elected John McCain, and assured them that he could make their dreams come true.
That's a mighty powerful combination.
Was it based largely on lies as well as the assumption that the population wouldn't see through them?
Sure.
But isn't that what admen do? Does the product REALLY make your teeth whiter or your hair shinier? Or do you just want to believe it?
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are trying to appeal to the public's intellect.
McCain and Mitt Romney painstakingly explained the features and benefits of their prospective policies rather than appealing to the dreams of the electorate and assuaging their fears.
That's bad salesmanship, and in the words of pop singer Huey Lewis, sometimes bad is bad.
And therein lies the problem: the aging of the GOP - meaning the average age of Republican members - makes them too intellectual.
Older people aren't driven by dreams anymore, and are also less fearful. As such, they want the facts, and from them they'll make a decision.
But that's not where America is right now. People are making fast, emotion-driven purchase decisions that have little to do with intellect.
Think back to how quickly America fell for Obama. It's emblematic of a hook-up society. People see what they like and grab it without much thought.
But could they possibly have felt that way about John McCain. What was to love about him? What dreams did he promise to fulfill or fears to assuage. Where was the inspiration?
Same for Romney. There's just nothing there to get average Americans excited about.
Fortunately, Republicans lucked out with George W. Bush who also wasn't at all inspiring but won because Gore was totally UNinspiring as was Kerry.
So where does that leave Republicans?
Trying to find a candidate that will inspire the nation while helping them achieve their dreams and become less fearful.
It's not as impossible as it sounds.
In the past 32 years there have been three such candidates: Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Of course, I'd make the case that Clinton wouldn't have won without Ross Perot in the race, so maybe it's only two.
And no, I'm not comparing Reagan to Obama. I'm just saying that Obama sold to the society's dreams and fears much as Reagan did.
In reality, Reagan sold more to people's dreams and unlike Obama actually meant what he said, but that's beside the point.
The point is Republicans have chosen astonishingly bad salesmen of late, and are therefore making it easy for Democrats who at this moment are unquestionably far better salesmen.
Assuming they'll be facing Hillary Clinton in 2016, Republicans need a young, inspirational, well-spoken man or woman who speaks to the dreams of the nation in a way she can't.
If the GOP puts forth another aging intellectual talking features and benefits, said candidate will end up doing his or her critical thinking in a house likely not colored white.
Is it possible Republicans have become too smart for their own good?
Before you scoff, consider that the vast majority of Americans don't make decisions intellectually. They make them emotionally.
In fact, if people made decisions intellectually and analytically, our economy would die.
Companies count on the consumer buying from emotion. If he or she didn't, our GDP would be far lower than it is, and unemployment far higher.
Don't believe me? Ask one of your friends who's a salesperson whether he or she appeals to a prospect's intellect or emotions. Whether you like it or not, it's assuredly the latter.
Consider the industry of marketing. Has a radio or television ad actually ever led you to make a purchase? Probably not, right?
But American companies spend billions on radio and television advertising. Why?
Because it works!
It may not work on you or most intelligent Americans, but it does work on the vast majority of the public.
Be thankful it does, or depending on what you do for a living, you mightn't have a job.
With that as pretext, it's clear Republicans in the past decade or so have forgotten the importance of marketing, or, at the very least, their presidential candidates haven't been good marketers.
Heresy you say?
Take the blinders off.
People make buy decisions based on their dreams, their fears, and sometimes out of envy.
This product will make your teeth whiter, your hair shinier, make you look less fat, help you attract a man/woman, or your neighbor has it and you're going to look poor if you don't.
Ever watched an episode of "Madmen?" That's what it's about.
And when it comes to politics, people also buy candidates based on dreams and fear.
Obama capitalized on both.
He made people afraid of Republicans, fearful that their lives would continue to worsen if they elected John McCain, and assured them that he could make their dreams come true.
That's a mighty powerful combination.
Was it based largely on lies as well as the assumption that the population wouldn't see through them?
Sure.
But isn't that what admen do? Does the product REALLY make your teeth whiter or your hair shinier? Or do you just want to believe it?
Unfortunately, today's Republicans are trying to appeal to the public's intellect.
McCain and Mitt Romney painstakingly explained the features and benefits of their prospective policies rather than appealing to the dreams of the electorate and assuaging their fears.
That's bad salesmanship, and in the words of pop singer Huey Lewis, sometimes bad is bad.
And therein lies the problem: the aging of the GOP - meaning the average age of Republican members - makes them too intellectual.
Older people aren't driven by dreams anymore, and are also less fearful. As such, they want the facts, and from them they'll make a decision.
But that's not where America is right now. People are making fast, emotion-driven purchase decisions that have little to do with intellect.
Think back to how quickly America fell for Obama. It's emblematic of a hook-up society. People see what they like and grab it without much thought.
But could they possibly have felt that way about John McCain. What was to love about him? What dreams did he promise to fulfill or fears to assuage. Where was the inspiration?
Same for Romney. There's just nothing there to get average Americans excited about.
Fortunately, Republicans lucked out with George W. Bush who also wasn't at all inspiring but won because Gore was totally UNinspiring as was Kerry.
So where does that leave Republicans?
Trying to find a candidate that will inspire the nation while helping them achieve their dreams and become less fearful.
It's not as impossible as it sounds.
In the past 32 years there have been three such candidates: Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Of course, I'd make the case that Clinton wouldn't have won without Ross Perot in the race, so maybe it's only two.
And no, I'm not comparing Reagan to Obama. I'm just saying that Obama sold to the society's dreams and fears much as Reagan did.
In reality, Reagan sold more to people's dreams and unlike Obama actually meant what he said, but that's beside the point.
The point is Republicans have chosen astonishingly bad salesmen of late, and are therefore making it easy for Democrats who at this moment are unquestionably far better salesmen.
Assuming they'll be facing Hillary Clinton in 2016, Republicans need a young, inspirational, well-spoken man or woman who speaks to the dreams of the nation in a way she can't.
If the GOP puts forth another aging intellectual talking features and benefits, said candidate will end up doing his or her critical thinking in a house likely not colored white.
Faces of Evil in a Violent Underclass
Faces of Evil - that was the headline of the Australian Herald Sun when reporting the depraved murder of Aussie Christopher Lane. It is instructive to carry that theme further with a few more faces.James Edwards and his buddies murdered Chris Lane "for the fun of it". James Edwards shot him in the back. It was reported that Edwards danced and laughed in the police station after his arrest. Ending a stranger's life was funny to him.
He boasted on twitter that he had "knocked out 5 woods [whites] since Zimmerman court". He advised others to "HATE" white people, and a few days before the murder he said he wanted to be "with my niggas when it's time to start taken lifes".
This is De'Marquise Elkins and his mother and aunt.
On August 12, a recent graduate from nursing school, David Santucci, was walking home from a birthday party. According to witnesses, Dondre Johnson, Mario Patterson and Jerrica Norfleet drove up to him, shot him to death and drove away.
In another recent Memphis story, police say that the two people pictured above doused a man with gasoline in a vacant field and set him on fire. He was severely burned over most of his body. A neighbor heard the screams and saw the victim's skin falling off. He said the devil himself would not deserve such treatment.
Several years ago in Knoxville, Tennessee, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were carjacked by the degenerate savages
pictured to the left. Newsom was gagged, bound, brutally raped,
beaten, shot and set on fire. Then they went to work on Channon. She
was taken into the back room of a home where she was beaten and brutally
raped in every way imaginable for hours. Bleach was poured down her
throat. Then she was placed in a garbage bag to suffocate to death.News of this horrendous, racist hate crime was mostly covered up. Much of the media are happy to lie in cases like Martin/Zimmerman or Duke Lacrosse, but they are not willing to tell the truth in cases like this. The typical cover-up approach was demonstrated by the Norfolk newspaper, The Virginian-Pilot, last year when two of their reporters were beaten by a black mob of about 30 people. They did not report the story at all until they were shamed into it two weeks after the assault. 'News' organizations are political organizations and filter stories to suit their political agenda.
"Shorty" Belton died late last week. He was 88. He fought for our country in Okinawa and was wounded there.
I sure hope Shorty didn't try to defend himself, because, as we all now know, it is just wrong to defend yourself when black teenagers decide to pound on you.
The alleged savages are Demetrius Glenn, 16, who is now in custody (above), and Keenan Adams-Kinard (below).
In a similar case, Pat Mahaney was beaten by 'unarmed' 13 and 14 year olds. Pat died last week.
In Washington, DC, last August, T.C. Maslin was walking home from a baseball game.
His
wife and two-year-old son were at home. Tommy Branch (left) and two
other young black thugs approached Maslin. With a two-fisted grip,
Branch swung an aluminum bat into the side of Maslin's head, shattering
his skull and severing an optic nerve. Maslin lived, but he is severely
disabled. The national media ignored this story.Last Monday in Pensacola, Florida, 77-year-old John Garland Redick was chased, beaten with sticks and pelted with cans by a mob of very young black teens. Two of the attackers are pictured below, Keyon Black and Shaknee Golay.
On March 17, 2012, police found 32 year old Terry Moore lying in his own blood outside an Appleby's Restaurant in North Carolina. Moore said the group of predators pictured below approached him calling him a "tree honkey" and a "cracker".
It would not be difficult at all to post pictures and tell stories of degenerate predators like this ad nauseam. There is an explosion of black mob violence. If you doubt that, read "White Girl Bleed A Lot" by Colin Flaherty. Across the country, degenerate people are violently attacking strangers in "the knockout game" ... just for 'fun'. Flash mobs swarm stores to plunder and pillage. They are eliminating the government middle-man and taking what they want directly.
Even though we don't speak much about this violence, and even though the press works to cover it up, we all understand that we have a huge problem with a violent, racist, uncivilized underclass. We are taught, incorrectly, that it is not appropriate to talk honestly about it. But ignoring or denying the problem is the most foolish approach of all. We must acknowledge it and we must talk about it.
Consider these statistics:
§ Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
§ The best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percent of the population that is black and Hispanic.
§ Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.
§ The death toll from murder in Chicago over the last decade exceeds the death toll of our soldiers in Afghanistan since the beginning of that war. [Handgun purchases are not allowed in Chicago.]
§ Nearly 3/4 of black children are born out of wedlock. Generations of children are being raise without fathers.
§ Academic achievement for black students is appallingly low, despite a large amount of money being spent to provide that group with educational opportunities.
Now consider the fact that decent black people are the people who are most harmed by this violent subculture. They are the closest to the problem and suffer the most from it. But we all suffer from this growing cancer and ignoring the problem is simply one way to commit national suicide.
This problem is not about skin color. The real problem is bad values. There is nothing about having melanin in your skin that will protect you from the natural consequences of destructive values. Violent, hostile, uneducated, misogynistic men who do not care for their children will not be successful... anywhere, ever. And no civilization can survive the degradation of its women. Thug culture celebrates the degradation of women.
Think about the Vietnamese refugees or other Asian refugees who came to this country from lives of severe deprivation. They had nothing...except good values. With hard work, education, family values, self-discipline and perseverance, most achieved the American Dream in a short amount of time. In one generation, they were often small business owners and valedictorians. Fortunately for them, they had no putative leaders teaching them victimhood and hopelessness. No one told them it was someone else's job to make their lives successful.
If we discuss this problem openly we will be called racists. People will say we are finally "showing our true colors". We will be called liars. Thug culture will be defended. They will say we are afraid of black masculinity, as though violent bravado is praiseworthy. There will be a large leftist effort to stop people from saying what needs to be said.
We should ignore the criticism and steadfastly pursue Martin Luther King's dream of living in a nation where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." This dream strikes fear in the hearts of current civil rights 'leaders' who abhor the idea of character judgments. They live in the past. For them, it is all about skin color.
In my view, no one has done more to impede the progress of black people than black 'leaders" and other leftists in the racial grievance industry. They sell exactly the wrong message of victimhood, telling blacks on the dependency plantation that none of their problems are their fault and nothing is their responsibility. Could you find a better formula for creating an angry, dependent population than to tell them that all of their problems are caused by others and all of their needs are someone else's job to fill. From Sharpton to Obama, the message is destructive, though it does maintain the desired voting block.
Accepting lower standards of behavior for black people is a form of racism. Only a racist would say that black people are not capable of joining civilized society on an equal footing. Do blacks need lower standards because they are inferior people? This is the soft bigotry of low expectations. Violent, ignorant, parasitic thug culture is not a built- in defect. It comes from bad values which are created and supported by bad social policy. The violent subculture persists because of an absurd level of tolerance on our part.
No comments:
Post a Comment