Archive for the ‘obama’ Category

Today Felipe Calderon addressed the U.S. Congress.  As has become the Mexican custom, he castigated the United States for its unreasonably liberal gun control laws, unreasonably harsh treatment of illegal immigrants, and the alleged U.S. role in his country’s troubles with drug kingpins and violence.

He said, for example regarding Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, “It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree but also introduces a terrible idea using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement.”  Note the multiple layers of presumption and moral judgment.  First, he is criticizing a law democratically enacted by a U.S. state designed to address a massive flood of people caused by his government’s policy of encouraging illegal immigration (complete with “how to” pamphlets.)   Second, he is fearless in his condemnation of the U.S., even though his country is many times weaker militarily and economically, and even though he is our guest.  Finally, he is a hypocrite of the first order, as Mexico aggressively intercepts and deports illegal immigrants to Mexico and passing through Mexico from other parts of Central America, and Mexico’s human rights records leaves a great deal to be desired whether we’re talking the Cristeros War or more recent events such as the massacre of students in 1968.

I did a little digging.  The last US President to address the Mexican Congress was Jimmy Carter in 1979. While foreign presidents can mingle and engage in pseudo-aristocratic diplomacy, the Mexican Congress has long been a a hotbed of the traditionally ambivalent Mexican view of the United States, a combination of envy, fear, and contempt.  Carter’s speech presaged the devolution of American self-respect we’ve seen fully flower under President Barack Hussein Obama, whose various speeches in Berlin, Cairo, and Moscow cement in place the new era of American powerlessness and paralyzing guilt.

While today the Mexican President presumes to lecture the United States on illegal aliens and gun control, in 1979 Carter spoke in soothing and subservient tones, and he did so in Spanish.  He pleaded, “My friends, I have come to Mexico to listen.  This is a time to appreciate the mutual benefits of our historical friendship as neighbors. But it is also a time of exciting changes within our two countries and in our relationship with each other.”  Listening, that’s good–welcome and appropriate, in fact, in a foreign nation’s legislative halls. Such gestures of faux equality are unobjectionable standing alone, as mutual respect goes a long way in relations between nations.

Felipe Calderon didn’t get the memo; or, rather, he got the version with the editor’s notes, notes which reveal that there is one set of rules constraining the United States that demands we treat unequals as equals, and these editor’s notes make it plain that these inferiors can make demands and control policy among their military and economic superiors.  This is the tone and tenor of all leftist foreign policy:  the objective destruction of Western and American power recast as the advance of universal justice.

Much like Obama’s various humiliations of America–their America, the land that oppressed his ancestors–Carter also took things too far, noting, “Our friendship has at times been marred by mistakes, and even by abuses of power.”  Carter’s literal text was ambiguous, but rest assured, the Mexicans acknowledge no Mexican abuses of power vis a vis the United States.  In 1979, they understood the meaning and were pleased, or rather emboldened, and ever since the U.S. has weakly appeased them, even though Mexico as a nation has done literally nothing for the United States.  It has sent no soldiers to fight in any of our wars–unlike smaller neighbors Honduras and El Salvador.  Mexico in fact abrogated the Rio Treaty shortly after the 9/11 attacks.  The Mexican Congress even found it difficult to have a moment of silence to mourn the Americans killed in those attacks, as this was considered unduly subservient.

Weak people make bad friends, and the same thing is true among nations.  Weak people and weak nations take all they can get, as they have not learned the restraint and magnanimity that comes from success and strength.  The Mexicans are weak and insecure, not least because American prosperity, in a nation that emerged some 120 years after theirs, is a daily indictment of the Mexican social and economic system, their culture, and their vaunted La Raza Cosmica.

Mexicans still smart over things Americans have forgotten, like the Treaty of Gudalupe Hidalgo or U.S. boycotts in the wake of the nationalization of the Mexican oil industry in 1938.  Mexicans are also undoubtedly ashamed that so many of their citizens are leaving, in many cases forever, to the North, where even the lowliest and least educated can make a living impossible to achieve in Mexico.  In short, Mexico is a pesky, fragile, and envious little country that is the chief source of its own problems.  Unfortunately, our politicians all the way up to our President seem to think that they will somehow expiate America’s sins by doing Mexico (and the rest of the Third World’s) bidding.  As we have seen in Calderon’s latest insults, the more likely result is that Mexico will become further emboldened and more demanding as the U.S. loses its self-respect.

During the Cold War, Mexico, for all of its leftism and socialism, never dreamed of going Communist. They knew America would strike back.  In Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback, the Mexican government knew to tread lightly in dealing with America’s internal affairs, as much as it may have filled their so-called Revolutionary Party with resentment.  Today, when our impositions on Mexico are so minimal, that resentment, and that demandingness, has reached an all time high.  And these demands are enabled by a domestic fifth column, fueled by multicultural ideology, that is willing to let everyone but native-born Americans play by rules of tribal aggrandizement.  The only silver lining of Calderon’s visits is for patriotic Americans to realize that these foreign leaders have contempt for them and their way of life, and that they are arm-in-arm with leftist American elites that share that contempt.  In short, the insults of a President Calderon can ignite a nationalist reaction that would be muted if its authors were solely, at least technically speaking, American statesmen.

Read Full Post »

The Death of NASA

Americans Doing Great Things Without Regard for Diversity

Man does not live by bread alone. It’s appropriate for a great people to do things simply for the honor and wonder of achievement: sailing around the globe, exploring the stars, authoring literature, poetry, and making great art. The 1960s era space program was once such thing. A flicker of its greatness has existed ever since.  NASA’s budget, while substantial, yielded many times its numbers in national pride, national prestige, and knowledge.  Consider Hubble alone!  Of course, NASA needs reform, not least in the way of efficiency, mission focus, and deep-sixing its egregious affirmative action policies.  But it makes sense for a great nation to put man into orbit and to explore the stars, for reasons of national defense alone.  None of this means anything to Obama and others like him.   Obama only cares about redistributing wealth to his mostly minority constituencies. He implied it was a matter of “better or worse” that we’re a super-power.  Not for long with him at the helm.  And he’s killing the space program as part of his program.

The general weakening of our culture, the honor due our civilizational allies like Poland and Great Britain, and making tough choices on entitlements are all non-concerns for Obama. He is excited by making the last first and degrading symbolically all that was glorious and note-worthy about the old oppressor America, that is the entire history of America before he was born.  This is a guy who has much more concern for a white cop in Cambridge’s than the white dots in the sky that represent other worlds and ultimate destiny of our mankind.  He allegedly wants to stimulate the economy, while destroying one of the few government activities–defense and aerospace–that actually does create wealth and technology useful for the rest of the society.  Better to fund midnight basketball, internet cafes in Detroit, and God knows what else rather than embracing something that hints at national greatness.  Because that greatness undermines the premise of deep evil in the heart of America before its descent into leftism, self-hatred, and multicultural reengineering over the last 30 years.

It fills me with great sadness to see the images of well groomed engineers before America was “diversified” doing great things. This, the America that supposedly needed diversity, a sexual revolution, forced integration, and a huge welfare state before it would be worth a damn.  And, yet, it’s there for eyes to see:  the land and the people that put a Man on the Moon did not need diversity at all.  It was a homogenous people, as real a people as those of any other nation.  And that land and that people are dying.  Or, rather, they are being murdered.

Read Full Post »

First, Obama yanked missile defense on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet Invasion of Poland.  Now, with the decimation of Poland’s leadership, Obama spends the day golfing rather than heading to a museum, an embassy, or the funeral itself.  What the hell is wrong with this guy? Is he smarting that they were pro-Bush and fought with us in Iraq?  Or did too many guys named Kowalski give him funny look back when he was community organizin’ in the heavily Polish city of Chicago?  If there’s one thing we can be sure of, this guy is petty and narcissistic, so perhaps this is a perfect storm of his leftist politics and black identity-seeking chauvinism!

The thing that probably really does make someone like Obama so angry is that ethnic whites–Poles, Irish, Italians, Slovaks, Serbs–do not have the same guilt-ridden baggage of older generation WASPs.  They came here broke, worked hard, have had modest success on the whole, and contrast their own work ethic and up-by-the-boots-strap values with the idleness, violence, promiscuity, and alien ways of the inner-city blacks with whom they competed for jobs and political power.  Not only did they compete, but they moved away, en masse, when forced to integrate.  They were willing to live harmoniously (if separately) but not if it meant their kids safety and education would suffer.  This story was repeated many times in cities like Philly, Chicago, and NY.  These Reagan Democrats abandoned the Democratic Party not because of capital gains tax cuts, but because they felt alienated from the unpatriotic New Left and the various programs aimed at the idle, mostly black poor. While a hustler like Obama could do a pretty decent job of getting guilty WASPs and Jews to go along with his social-peace-through-surrender-to-the-savior schtick, this rhetoric doesn’t fly that well among the ethnically proud people like Poles who are not nearly so rich and privileged to be lumped in with the supposed oppressors.

One wonders, though, if someone like Obama is too ignorant to know or care much about the tragic story of Poland or the triumphant story of Polish Americans and all of the other ethnic whites who have achieved so much in America, simply because they were free to allow their talents shine.  Or does their success remind him of the persistence of black social stagnation and decline, even though these people had as much or more poverty as the blacks 50 years ago.

Read Full Post »

Just as the left often said Bush “misled” the country into war, which confused whether or not he was lying or merely mistaken, the left also seems to confuse those who resort to political violence from those who are merely pissed off.  Bill Clinton remembered the Oklahoma City Bombing by describing the lone wolf terrorists as follows: “On that April 19, the second anniversary of the assault of the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, deeply alienated and disconnected Americans decided murder was a blow for liberty.”  That’s an interesting description, “Americans,” or, more precisely, “deeply alienated and disconnected Americans.”  Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were certainly that.  But isn’t a term like “nut jobs” or “crazy terrorists” or “malevolent psychopaths” more appropriate?  Would anyone describe Mohammad and Malvo, the DC snipers, as “disconnected Americans.”  Or Lee Oswald?  But, for Clinton this is a natural usage.  They’re part of an entire cohort, which includes everyone from Rush Limbaugh on down.  And the whole group of alienated, small government conservatives is thus tarred with the same brush, even though few on the right had kind words for McVeigh, unlike Muslim and leftist leaders’ words for Iraqi “freedom fighters” or the bombers of the Weather Underground.

The biggest antidote to right wing crazy extremists–of which there are some inclined to violence, no doubt–is the absence of provocations that are also unjustifiable for many other reasons.  A government that aims to remake society, demonize the majority, threaten Christians and their means of self defense, while preventing them from making a decent living through affirmative action and free trade is asking for trouble.  But Obama, like Clinton, sees a million reasons to appease Muslims and other foreigners, while finding no reason not to clamp down on his home grown enemies, whom he finds alien and despicable, more alien and more despicable than the Muslim fundamentalists around whom he was raised in Indonesia and with whom he shares an alienation from America’s white, Christian, conservative majority.

Obama, like Clinton, will create the very right-wing violence (real and imagined) that a softer touch and greater respect for their way of life and their tresaured Constitution would prevent.

Read Full Post »

We’ve all heard of, “I cut, you choose.” It’s a game theoretic principle, well known to children, that basically says if someone is dividing the pie, the other person should get to pick which slice he gets.  That way the cutter has an incentive to divide it as evenly as possible.  Well, with Obama, it’s all about redividing the pie.  That great big pie that represents our collective economic wealth.  For him, it’s a pie fit for redivision, where 90% of the wealth is supposedly in 10% of the hands.  If that’s the case–and this Marxist folk wisdom defined Obama’s entire adult life–then the problem of governance is relatively easy:  you simply need to organize the aggreived majority, demonize the wealthy minority, and, in Obama’s words, take from the “money people” in order to “spread the wealth.”

He spent most of his life thinking about how to redistribute wealth from the wealthy to the less wealthy through various schemes like redistributionist taxation, nationalized health care, community organizing, affirmative action, increased government sector, unionization, minority set-asides and the like.  But now he’s in the awkward position of having to come up with policies designed to replace and create wealth.  Massive wealth has been lost in this recession, both in housing, bank balance sheets, government revenues, and all the rest.  It threatens to remain this way for a long time.

Obama did not want to be president at this moment, any more than George H.W. Bush wanted to be a post-cold-war president.  Obama doesn’t know what to do, as evidenced by the large proportion of stimulus dollars going to “jobs” like government sector jobs at the state and local level, such as clerks, teachers, etc.  The minor exception to this is the “flying cars” concept; you know, so-called green jobs.  Truthfully, no one really thinks this will work, and, if it does, it won’t create all that many jobs, since the unemployed in construction, service sector, sales, office workers and others with industry-specific skill sets can’t easily move into manufacturing nifty flying cars and solar plants all that easily.

Further, the pretension that Obama can pick the next big growth sector is kind of quaint.  This kind of industrial policy–as opposed to broad-based monetary and trade policy–has been a major failure where it’s been tried, as evidenced by the overinvestment of the Japanese Ministry of Trade in HDTV 25 years agoand other mercantalist schemes, such as Brazil’s inefficient investments in airplane and auto manufacturing. He probably knows nothing about the sorry history of public-private investment partnerships.

He does not accept, does not benefit from, and does not realize that the best thing he can do for the economy is to restore confidence in government finances, shrink the deficit, avoid radical moves, and restore sound financial regulation to prevent market blowups, while channeling investment generically into productive sectors (as opposed to the prevailing trend of leveraged gambling on currency trades and what not). In other words, most of what he needs to do is less of everything involving government intervention, and it’s against his nature to do so.

Read Full Post »

I am more than a little chagrined about the passage of Obamacare. 

It will cost a lot, it will reduce quality of care, and eventually it will create a debt crisis when combined with the impact of other entitlements. This debt crisis will end in American default on its debt (and insanely high interest rates and mass confusion) or  slow motion inflation (and insanely high interest rates), and, in either case, a general destruction of wealth for many years not so different from the recession we’re now enduring. 

This is all very bad, of course, but the worst impact of Obamacare will be spiritual:  Obama has made us all welfare cases.  And every election from now until the end of time will be one where the majority of voters (i.e., net recipients) clamor for more from the government, which will squeeze every harder on the shrinking  plurality of the prouctive class (i.e., net taxpayers).

In addition, I am greatly afraid this victory will embolden Obama, who is verye sensible of the backlash that will hit vulnerable Democrats this fall, and thus he will be filled with a great sense of urgency and ability to continue to change America and the relationship of Americans to their government as long as his party has the majority.  

Perhaps, Cap and Trade or Immigration Amnesty is next. 

The man is, if nothing else, driven by an agenda.  He is an ideologue.  His goal is to put wins on the scoreboard of history, and he sincerely believes in much of what he’s doing.  This makes him all the more dangerous, as evidenced by his maniacal energy and focus on healthcare even as the economy continued to stay in the tank  and even as his numbers fell.  He will push on the gas harder, even if it weakens his party and his own chance of reelection.  He knows, as we all should have known, once this passed it will be hard to repeal, and he knows, as we all should have known, that this type of entitlement will change the dynamics of American politics for generations if it becomes part of the landscape.

Read Full Post »

There are vague suggestions that the constitutional order is defunct because the legislative branch won’t nationalize 1/7th of the US economy.  This is how it’s supposed to work; the whole point of checks and balances is to slow down the causes tied to popular enthusiasm.  The idea is that the long-term, settled judgment of the majority–not some passing snap-shot of public opinion–will prevail.  Suggestions to the contrary are self-serving and results-oriented.  Indeed, these same critics of congressional deadlock over the very unpopular Obama healthcare bill were appalled at the huge majorities that supported the hugely popular efforts such as the Afghanistan War and the Patriot Act.

T.R. Fehrenbach, the excellent author of Lone Star, wrote the following today from San Antonio:

The idea that the institutions of the U.S. are fundamentally flawed is arrant nonsense. Washington and the Constitution, as amended, are working pretty much as the Founders intended them to work. I have heard and seen all this before, during the Great Depression and run-up to WWII, when supposedly sensible men argued that free institutions weren’t up to the challenges of economic crisis and totalitarian dictatorship. We showed them. . . .

The current administration and majority of Congress were chosen by 53 percent of the electorate, giving them a clear mandate to form a government but not necessarily to push partisan politics. A business that ignores 47 percent of its market is on shaky ground, and so is a government. According to the studies, this result was largely because an unprecedented percentage of first-time voters, blacks and Hispanics turned out, voting 62 percent Democratic.

If this coalition wants to effect real change, it must hold together for more cycles; otherwise, it was a fluke. The evidence to date is that the Obama coalition has already lost cohesion; therefore those it put in office have little right to push agendas. Our institutions are right to resist, meantime.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »