Posts Tagged ‘Bankruptcy’
We Won’, Part One
By Arnold Ahlert
63 House and 6 Senate seats later, “compromise” and “working together” have become the new memes for Democrat progressives and their media apparatchiks. That’s quite an amazing turnaround for those who, only a year ago, rammed a health care bill through Congress without the slightest concern for working together or compromise. It’s the very same bunch whose leader expressed his idea of compromise in two words: “I won.” Still, compromise sounds reasonable — until we get to the actual issues where progressives wish to “split the difference.” To wit:
• How do we split the difference between bankruptcy and solvency? Without the slightest interest in compromise, progressive Democrats rammed Keynesian economics down America’s throat with one stimulus package after another. They treated us to “3 million jobs created or saved,” “Recovery Summer” and “Quantitative Easing, Part 2.” The only thing “stimulated” was the unionized public sector workforce and a bunch of state governments with a pathological refusal to confront their own fiscal profligacy.
Millions of ordinary Americans didn’t get off their Barcaloungers and show up at rallies, town hall meetings, and the mall in Washington, D.C. because they wanted to slow down America’s headlong rush towards bankruptcy. They want it stopped — dead in its tracks. And the overwhelming majority of them know the bottom line: it’s the spending, stupid. Or, more importantly, it’s the spending, period. Spare us all the nonsense that raising taxes is an indispensible part of the equation. It’s only part of the equation for those members of the ruling class who wish to be relieved of making tough, responsible decisions, explaining them to a skeptical public, and standing by them when the inevitable wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.
The progressives’ “your killing granny and small children” strategy is hackneyed and tired. Bottom line: out-of-control spending is killing the whole country, grandma and small children included. And for those Americans who will inevitably say “cut every program but the one I like,” I have four words:
Snap out of it!
• Regarding war, what’s the middle ground between victory and defeat? Exactly what we’ve been witnessing the last eight years. Maybe the only thing dumber than fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda with one hand tied behind our back is telling them when we’re going to stop. Even the dimmest Afghani hillbilly can draw sustenance from that nonsense. And what does al Qaeda think when we allow them to remain open for business in North Waziristan, while were feeling up grandma and the kids at O’Hare Airport?
Memo to our clueless Commander-in-Chief: the last time we were faced with an enemy that used suicide to advances its political agenda, we nuked them. Twice. You want to “win hearts and minds?” Me too — right after we completely demoralize and destroy anyone unwilling to get with the program. In 1651, English philosopher Thomas Hobbs remarked that life was “nasty, brutal and short.” War should be an exponential expansion of that philosophy. If you can’t stomach it, bring our men and women in harm’s way home — or resign.
• What’s the middle ground between national sovereignty and a defenseless border? Again, exactly what we have now. Millions of law-breakers who not only don’t fear being here illegally, but who are now demanding the right to stay. This is perhaps the biggest black eye in history for a country which has long prided itself as being a “nation of laws, not a nation of men.” Even as Mexican drug cartels run wild — on both sides of the border — Eric Holder’s Justice Department is determined to sue Arizona into surrendering its own sovereignty for nothing more than political correctness and the progressive hope they can Dream Act their way to a 2012 Hispanic voting bloc keeping them power.
Last week a report, “Broken Neighbor, Broken Border,” complied for the House Immigration Reform Caucus was made public. It was a sobering and scary look at what may be the hottest war in the world going on right now, right on our southern border — and beyond. Two of its principal recommendations? First, “Let the states secure their own borders.” Second, engage in a “long-term deployment of a minimum 25,000 armed troops with enforcement power… on our southern border to preserve U.S. sovereignty and the lives of American citizens from organized armed forces hostile to the United States.” (italics mine)
Question: when does the deliberate failure to enforce the Constitutional mandate to “provide for the common defense” rise to an impeachable offense? As for compromise, where in the Constitution does it say that national security is a part-time job, or a pick-and-choose affair?
• What’s the compromise between free-market capitalism and all-out socialism? Thirteen trillion dollars of debt and an unemployment rate of almost ten percent. Millions of jobs outsourced to “business friendlier” locales. Out-of-control public sector unions pushing virtually every state and local government in the country to the brink of insolvency. Banks, car and insurance companies and a host of other crony capitalists who despise genuine competition, bailed out by taxpayers because they’re “too big to fail.” An ideologically-inspired and idiotic refusal to allow the housing market to find a true bottom, even as the concept of moral hazard receives a steroid shot, and responsible Americans are made to feel like fools for being responsible.
Once again for the terminally clueless: progressivism, and its redistributionist mantra, is the super-highway to sloth, serfdom and subjugation. Anyone who thinks “more government” is the answer is either a moron — or a public school and university graduate. And anyone who thinks someone will bust his butt strictly out of the goodness of his heart — as opposed to having an incentive to do so — is even dumber than that.
There are reasons the United States has long out-performed all of South America economically, despite being settled by the exact same groups of people. There are reasons one of the youngest nations in the world leapt to the head of the pack in less than two hundred years. All one has to do is cast one’s eyes towards the individual states where progressives have been firmly in charge, or to Eastern Europe, where they broke the Berlin Wall down from the inside, to understand what happens to people when the “beneficence of the state” replaces personal ambition, individual achievement — and human dignity.
For those of you who are still unconvinced, two simple questions will suffice: could socialism survive without capitalism? Not a chance. Could capitalism survive without socialism? Absolutely, positively. The former eventually “runs out of other people’s money,” exactly as it’s doing now. The latter made us the most prosperous nation on earth.
Americans have to be realistic. The rejection of progressivism is, at the very least, a two-election process. Getting a majority of Republicans in the House can only stop the progressive agenda. Rolling it back will require an equally determined electorate in 2012. Not just to put Republicans in the control of the Senate and the White House, but to put conservatives in control of the Republican party. Heaven help us all if 2012 turns into another choice between an aging squish with liberal tendencies, and a dedicated Marxist looking for four more years to undo everything this nation has stood for, for two-plus centuries. As for his partner in crime, our current as Secretary of State, anyone who thinks Mrs. Clinton is any better than Mr. Obama is kidding themselves. That’s nothing more than a choice between two deck chairs on the Titanic.
Between now and 2012, Americans need to pay attention. The Democrats are a known socialist/marxist commodity which was made crystal clear by their re-election of one of the least popular women in American politics, Nancy Pelosi, to speaker. What that means is simple: the most left-leaning conglomeration of Democrats in the nation’s history have decided to lean further left, despite a complete repudiation in the 2010 election. Does that sound like “compromise” to you?
Republicans? Perhaps all they can do for the next two years is stand on conservative principle — but they sure as hell better do that. Memo to the RNC: Americans didn’t elect Republicans, they tossed Democrats under the bus. And while some common ground with Democrats may be found, Republicans had better understand that people who put them back in power have little patience for those willing to “go along to get along” when it comes to the critical issues mentioned above. These are Americans who saw the true face of Democrat progressivism, and weren’t merely upset, but thoroughly appalled.
They don’t want compromise. They want a line drawn in the sand.
JournoList: ‘Coordinated’ Ideological Bankruptcy
By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The next time you hear a liberal scoffing at the idea that the American left has a set of “talking points,” or that they’re “reading from the same script,” tell him to google “JournoList.” Frankly, it is completely unsurprising that 400, invitation-only, members of leftist media, academia, think tanks and political activist associations would be attempting to coordinate their political strategy. When your ideology is bankrupt, the only thing left is strength in numbers. And when you revere the collectivist aspirations of Marxist/socialist all-encompassing government, “group-think” becomes as natural as breathing.
What else do internal emails confirm? That overt hatred and character assassination were perfectly acceptable when it came to protecting Barack Obama from his poisonous associations with America-hating radicals like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Thomas Schaller, Baltimore Sun columnist, proposed a “coordinated effort” to demonize ABC’s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for daring to ask then-candidate Obama why it took him so long to disassociate himself from Wright. “It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” wrote Schaller.
Take a good look at that last sentence and understand what a member of the media is advocating. It isn’t, “let’s win the ideological debate by presenting better ideas to the American public.” It’s “don’t mess with our chosen presidential candidate, or there will be hell to pay.”
In Friday’s Washington Post, Ezra Klein, founder of the list, tried to discredit Tucker Carlson’s breaking of the scandal. He claims much of the reporting in Carlson’s “Daily Caller” is “inaccurate” and justifies such by claiming Tucker himself sought to be included as a member of the “club.” Yet his response to Tucker’s request is quite revealing:
“We definitely have friends in common, and I’d have no worries about you joining. The problem is I need to have clear rules, as i (sic) don’t want to be in the position of forcing fine-grained membership tests based on opaque criteria. Thus far, it’s been center to left, just because that was how people wanted it at the beginning in order to feel comfortable talking freely. I’ve been meaning for some time to ask the list about revisiting that, so I’ll take this opportunity and get back to you.”
Translation: if I allow a conservative to join, leftists couldn’t “feel comfortable talking freely.”
Why not? What is it about leftist philosophy that is so fragile it become necessary to insulate it from dissenting ideas? Ideological bankruptcy, that’s what. And the proof is in the pudding: members of the group voted down Carlson’s membership.
Klein noted that the main reason Carlson was vetoed was that JournoList members “worried about opening the archives to individuals who could help their careers by ripping e-mails out of context, misrepresenting the nature of the ongoing conversation…”
There’s a simple solution to that problem, Mr. Klein: publish all of the emails–in the order in which they were written, along with the names and occupations of those who wrote them. Let the American people decide who’s telling the truth here, and what, if anything, has been “taken out of context.”
The emailers’ occupations are critical. Let the American people make the distinction between emails written by typical leftist fire-breathers from academia, think tanks or activist groups–and those people in the media who have been entrusted with providing unbiased news coverage to the public.
Let the people decide if there’s anything resembling a coordinated effort to merely solidify leftist talking points–or a determined effort to slant the news, via selective reporting, outright lying, and/or character assassination.
It is no secret Barack Obama is the least-vetted candidate to ever occupy the Oval Office. And it is now becoming painfully evident that that “lack of curiosity” may have had far less to do with journalistic ineptitude than a pre-meditated effort to squelch information about the mainstream media’s “preferred candidate.”
Here’s the most pathetic part of all: what does it say about leftists that they feel compelled to coordinate information via membership in a fraternity? What does it say about people who have long considered themselves champions of tolerance that allowing one conservative to join that fraternity is a bridge too far? What does it say about those who consider their ideas so “superior” to those of ordinary Americans that anyone who disagrees with them is considered beneath contempt–and open to being labeled racist, sexist homophobic, xenophobic, etc. etc.?
I tell you what it says to me: these people are cowards–and lightweights. People may not like what I write, but I’d be damned before I’d “clear” my work with anyone other than my editor and my wife. I’d laugh out loud if anyone suggested I “coordinate” my writing with anyone else’s. And I’d quit writing altogether before I sat on any information because it might not accrue to my “favorite” politicians.
These people are entitled to do as they please. But any journalist on this list–not opinion-maker, just to be clear–ought to be ashamed of himself. In case no one has spelled it out for you, “coordinating” news is an utter disgrace to the profession. In a better world anyone guilty of such a transgression would be fired. In this world, leftists will likely circle the wagons and protect each other.
Apparently a lot of them need the protection. If this story makes anything clear, most of these people are scared of standing on their own two feet–which is what happens when what you stand for is ideologically bankrupt.