The term smoke filled room is long the very image that politics bring forth. Cigars and presidents seem to have always gone hand to mouth. They are part of the very image of power and influence. However common they have been with our presidents, there are a few stories that stand out.
That phrase of the "smoke filled room" actually came from presidential politics. It was at the Chicago Blackstone Hotel in June of 1920. George Harvey was there to attend the Republican National Convention. The top GOP leader from New York City checked into a spacious two room suite. Harvey's name may have faded from history, but his suite # 404 was destined to become the most famous hotel room in American political history.
After four ballots, the convention was deadlocked between General Leonard Wood and Illinois Governor Frank Lowden. A distant fourth was Warren Harding. Through the hot steamy night a group of party leaders met in Harvey's room, looking for a way out of the deadlock. They decided on little known Harding.
As dawn broke, AP reporter Kirke Simpson filed a story saying, "Harding of Ohio was chosen by a group of men in a smoke filled room early today." Harding went on to win the nomination and the Presidency. From that day forward "Smoke filled room" described the back room where political operators pulled their strings out of public view.
Of course it would be impossible to tell this story without the most recent, and likely most infamous White House cigar story. Bill Clinton taught the world a new way to enjoy a fine cigar. For years gentlemen would try dipping their cigars in cognac or rum, however this is not a good idea. It really doesn't add to the flavor, it was a practice before humidors kept them moist. We will leave President Clinton's unsaid, but it is a practice that might make his guests pause before accepting a cigar from his desk humidor.
For a story that is more appropriate for mixed company, one would be that of President Ulysses S. Grant. This story goes back long before Grant was president, starting in February of 1862, when as a little known Union general Grant won a huge victory at Fort Doneleson, Tennessee. After several days of brutal fighting an entire Confederate army surrendered to Grant. More than twelve thousand Confederate soldiers were captured.
Fort Donnelson made Grant famous, and in time was his demise. Grant became the toast of the nation, in the many articles written about him and his valor, several described him as smoking a cigar at the height of the battle.
Up unto that time, Grant was a light smoker, however people from all across the Union began to send him boxes of the choicest brands of cigars. Soon he received more than ten thousand. Grant later wrote, "I gave away all I could, but having as such a quantity on hand I naturally smoked more than I would have done under the ordinary circumstances, and have continued the habit ever since."
Grant went on to win the war and serve two terms as president. Twenty three years after the battle of Fort Donnelson he died of throat cancer at age sixty three. Doctors agreed it was brought on by his years as a heavy cigar smoker. Fort Donnelson claimed it's final victim as his fans loved him to death.
However, my very favorite presidential cigar story was from John F. Kennedy. In 1962John F. Kennedy sent his Press Secretary Pierre Salinger out on a mission one night to round up thousands of his favorite brand of Cuban cigar. Salinger, who was confused as to why he was sent on this mission, reported to the president the next morning that he had done so. "Thank Goodness, now I can sign this" said Kennedy. He then put his signature on a trade embargo with Cuba that banned, among other things, the import of Cuban cigars. A little presidential privilege insider trading.
As Vice President Thomas Riley Marshall, a progressive ex-Governor from Indiana's claim to fame, told us. As vice president Marshall was presiding over the Senate when Joseph Bristow of Kansas was making a very long and boring speech about what was the matter with the country, and how to fix it. Over and over again, each paragraph began with "What this country needs is.." Finally Marshall couldn't take in any more, leaned over to Senate clerk Henry Rose and gave a stage whisper loud enough for all to hear "Henry, what this country needs is a good five-cent cigar."
This phrase caught the nation's fancy, he too was rewarded with cigars from admirers from all over the country. By the way, in his day, the average price of a good cigar was about a dime.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Freud Psychoanalyzed Woodrow Wilson.
If you haven't been living under a rock recently you have heard more and more comparisons of Obama and his presidency to that of Woodrow Wilson. A president who we learned little about in school turns out to have been a wild eyed progressive who tried to tear down the walls of United States Sovereignty and replace it with a global government starting with the League of Nations. His presidency was full of government over reach, stripping of our Constitution, arrests and illegal detainment of political opponents, an embrace of eugenics, and the seeming belief that he was doing "God's work" and it needed to get through no matter what the American people wanted.
What you may never have heard was that Sigmund Freud wrote a book where he psychoanalyzed Woodrow Wilson. Obviously Freud never had Wilson on his couch, but he was so fascinated by Wilson that he coauthored a book where he applied the tools of his psychoanalysis to the president.
Even though Wilson was already dead, but Freud considered his book to be so controversial that he didn't want to release it until after Wilson's wife had died as well. The book wasn't published until 1966, twenty five years after Feud himself had died.
Feud diagnosed President Wilson as suffering from severe personality defects. Freud saw in Wilson a neurotic who was dominated by his father, overprotected by his mother, and who lacked the masculine will to carry out his policies. Freud also thought Wilson suffered from a savior complex and needed to be worshipped to satisfy the demands of his superego. Freud also described Wilson's most trusted advisor, Colonel Edward House, as the president's chief love object.
Keeping in mind that this analysis was truly Freudian, it is very interesting to see how easily that this same analysis could be used to describe our current manifestation of Wilson in Obama.
What you may never have heard was that Sigmund Freud wrote a book where he psychoanalyzed Woodrow Wilson. Obviously Freud never had Wilson on his couch, but he was so fascinated by Wilson that he coauthored a book where he applied the tools of his psychoanalysis to the president.
Even though Wilson was already dead, but Freud considered his book to be so controversial that he didn't want to release it until after Wilson's wife had died as well. The book wasn't published until 1966, twenty five years after Feud himself had died.
Feud diagnosed President Wilson as suffering from severe personality defects. Freud saw in Wilson a neurotic who was dominated by his father, overprotected by his mother, and who lacked the masculine will to carry out his policies. Freud also thought Wilson suffered from a savior complex and needed to be worshipped to satisfy the demands of his superego. Freud also described Wilson's most trusted advisor, Colonel Edward House, as the president's chief love object.
Keeping in mind that this analysis was truly Freudian, it is very interesting to see how easily that this same analysis could be used to describe our current manifestation of Wilson in Obama.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Obama The 15th Best President? Really?
A group of college professors just ranked Obama as the 15th greatest president of all time. They voted him two places lower than Bill Clinton and three ahead of Ronald Reagan, with FDR sitting on top once again. Isn't having college professors rate the quality of presidents somewhat like pedophiles judging a children's beauty pageant? Most of our university professors have not shown themselves to be unbiased in their political slant, now have they.
How in the world can Obama rate higher than Ronald Reagan? Where is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, if FDR is number one? For that matter, how can Obama rank above any previous president today, at least until something he does actually work and improve the lives of the majority of Americans? So far he is batting zero on that.
An argument could be made that Obama is one of the top 15 best Democrat presidents, whom I would rank in this order.
1. Grover Cleveland, a strong fiscal conservative, a strong Constitutionalists who refused to tax and spend money he didn't believe that the federal government had the Constitutional authority to do.
2. Harry S. Truman, a man whose "The Buck Stops Here" motto is sorely missing today. Truman had the intestinal fortitude to do what was right. He won W.W.II and saved possibly millions of lives by making the tough choice.
3. John F. Kennedy, understood to make economic growth happen he needed to use supply side economics, he cut taxes and created an economic boom in America. He was a great leader, who dreamed a dream and sold it to America. He then put a date on it and created our moon landing allowing Neil Armstrong to take "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
4. James Knox Polk, broke from the Jacksonian Democrat machine and governed as his own man. Polk announced that his administration would achieve "four great measures": reduction of the tariff; reestablishment of the independent treasury; settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute; and the acquisition of California. All were accomplished. His policies with regard to annexation of Texas did lead to the Mexican/American War where not only Texas came into the United States but also California and the entire South West.
5. William Jefferson Clinton, from here on it becomes very difficult to rank the Democrat presidents, but Clinton rises to the top of those remaining due to his brilliant ability as a politician. After a disastrous first two years in office when he, his wife, and the Democrat controlled House and Senate over reached and terrified the American people who for the first time in 46 years gave the House and Senate to the Republicans. What I have to give Clinton credit for, is his desire to be liked overruled any ideological leanings. He would fight the GOP controlled House and Senate until he saw public opinion and the inevitable passing of the bill, he would then jump in front of it and claim it as his own. By doing this he had a very successful final six years and it allowed the conservative controlled House to give "Clinton" balanced budgets.
6. Andrew Johnson, taking over after Lincoln was assassinated, he tried to hold together Lincoln's vision of "With malice toward none, with charity for all, ...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, ...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." However, he was turned on by both parties, the Democrats and the Radical Republicans who were out for revenge against the South. He stood his ground, he stood on principle holding the the Constitution with his veto of legislation trying to strip the president of his chartered powers. He was impeached, but not removed from office.
7. Martin Van Buren, this is a tough one to place. He was the actual architect of creating the Democrat Party and it's spoils systems. It was his design that Andrew Jackson took full advantage of in his own presidency, one of the most corrupt in history. Van Buren created the Democrat Party for the expressed purpose of assuring that slavery would always be a safe institution by making sure that only Southern or "Southern leaning" men would ever hold the White House. However, he was moved up in this list due to his change of heart later in life, while in the White House. He then became a strong opponent to the advance of slavery into new states.
8. Franklin D. Roosevelt, this was a very tough call, his economic policies were truly disastrous they drove us much deeper into the Great Depression and held us there for many years longer than we would have had he not put them in place. His attack on the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties of all Americans, his attempt to completely dismantle the free market capitalist system and bring in a Socialist agenda was devastating to America. Problems he created are still plaguing us today. With that said, he was a brilliant leader, and he was a great war time president leading us through W.W.II, holding Americans together with his fireside chats and resolve. So in my mind his war time leadership moves him to the best of the rest.
9. Jimmy Carter, talk about a tough call, putting Jimmy Carter above anyone is difficult, however, it shows the quality of those who remain. Jimmy Carter was completely incompetent. Going into this blog I expected I would choose Carter the third worst president due to his economic, foreign policy, and domestic policies were all failures. His administration was the embodiment of the Peter Principle were the only competent member was Cyrus Vance, who was a crook. What put him ahead of the next two on this list is that his policies didn't lead us into a Civil War. Granted that isn't high praise, but it is the difference maker.
10. Franklin Pierce, came into office promising to be the president of peace, however, his policies actually inflamed the embers of war with the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealing the Missouri Compromise with Senator Stephen Douglas. He was so unpopular that his party didn't want him to run for a second term, turning to our next on our list.
11. James Buchanan, was the Neville Chamberlain of American Presidents. As the anger on both the North and South continued to rise, Buchanan tried to pretend that it would all just calm down. He likely conspired with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney about the Dred Scott decision trying to make slavery in every state Constitutional, the decision enraged the anti-slavery North, the Republicans, as well as the anti-Slavery Democrats. Buchanan can easily be said through inaction and poor decisions guaranteed that the Civil War would happen.
12. Andrew Jackson, was one of the most tyrannical men to ever sit in the White House. He wanted to get rid of the Electoral College, he used the spoils system that Martin Van Buren created for him to expand his political power with "With the victors goes the spoils" partisan handouts of jobs and largess with government contracts.
Basically the trouble was the 19th-century cyclical economy of "boom and bust," which was following its regular pattern, but Jackson's financial measures contributed to the crash. His destruction of the Second Bank of the United States had removed restrictions upon the inflationary practices of some state banks; wild speculation in lands, based on easy bank credit, had swept the West. To end this speculation, Jackson in 1836 had issued a Specie Circular requiring that lands be purchased with hard money--gold or silver.
In 1837 the panic began. Hundreds of banks and businesses failed. Thousands lost their lands. For about five years the United States was wracked by the worst depression thus far in its history.
13. Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the most corrupt presidents in history along the lines of Andrew Jackson. His policies in Viet Nam were a disaster, he kept escalating the war, but without giving the military the ability to fight a war without unreasonable restrictions. His Great Society programs are plaguing us yet today, they undercut the American family, it is the fault of these programs that has so devastated so many of the African American families by driving the husband and father out of the home for economic reasons.
14. Woodrow Wilson, a radical progressive who tried to strip America of our Constitution. He was a devout racists whose five volume American History he authored was the first to remove all accounts of the contributions of black Americans from the founding of this nation, and in each of our wars. This racist history became the slant that our schools started teaching after his presidency. Wilson was a nightmare, it would take books to lay out the case against him.
15. Barack Obama, who marries the radical progressiveness of Wilson, the Socialist expansionism of FDR, and attacks the Constitution as much or more than either, with the total incompetence of Carter, Buchanan, and Pierce. His overall place in history will be determined by the election this fall. If the Democrats remain in control, he will go down as the worst president in history because his programs will be allowed to do their damage. If however, the GOP takes back the House and Senate, he may move up to just an incompetent president along the lines of Carter.
How in the world can Obama rate higher than Ronald Reagan? Where is George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, if FDR is number one? For that matter, how can Obama rank above any previous president today, at least until something he does actually work and improve the lives of the majority of Americans? So far he is batting zero on that.
An argument could be made that Obama is one of the top 15 best Democrat presidents, whom I would rank in this order.
1. Grover Cleveland, a strong fiscal conservative, a strong Constitutionalists who refused to tax and spend money he didn't believe that the federal government had the Constitutional authority to do.
2. Harry S. Truman, a man whose "The Buck Stops Here" motto is sorely missing today. Truman had the intestinal fortitude to do what was right. He won W.W.II and saved possibly millions of lives by making the tough choice.
3. John F. Kennedy, understood to make economic growth happen he needed to use supply side economics, he cut taxes and created an economic boom in America. He was a great leader, who dreamed a dream and sold it to America. He then put a date on it and created our moon landing allowing Neil Armstrong to take "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
4. James Knox Polk, broke from the Jacksonian Democrat machine and governed as his own man. Polk announced that his administration would achieve "four great measures": reduction of the tariff; reestablishment of the independent treasury; settlement of the Oregon boundary dispute; and the acquisition of California. All were accomplished. His policies with regard to annexation of Texas did lead to the Mexican/American War where not only Texas came into the United States but also California and the entire South West.
5. William Jefferson Clinton, from here on it becomes very difficult to rank the Democrat presidents, but Clinton rises to the top of those remaining due to his brilliant ability as a politician. After a disastrous first two years in office when he, his wife, and the Democrat controlled House and Senate over reached and terrified the American people who for the first time in 46 years gave the House and Senate to the Republicans. What I have to give Clinton credit for, is his desire to be liked overruled any ideological leanings. He would fight the GOP controlled House and Senate until he saw public opinion and the inevitable passing of the bill, he would then jump in front of it and claim it as his own. By doing this he had a very successful final six years and it allowed the conservative controlled House to give "Clinton" balanced budgets.
6. Andrew Johnson, taking over after Lincoln was assassinated, he tried to hold together Lincoln's vision of "With malice toward none, with charity for all, ...let us strive on to finish the work we are in, ...to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." However, he was turned on by both parties, the Democrats and the Radical Republicans who were out for revenge against the South. He stood his ground, he stood on principle holding the the Constitution with his veto of legislation trying to strip the president of his chartered powers. He was impeached, but not removed from office.
7. Martin Van Buren, this is a tough one to place. He was the actual architect of creating the Democrat Party and it's spoils systems. It was his design that Andrew Jackson took full advantage of in his own presidency, one of the most corrupt in history. Van Buren created the Democrat Party for the expressed purpose of assuring that slavery would always be a safe institution by making sure that only Southern or "Southern leaning" men would ever hold the White House. However, he was moved up in this list due to his change of heart later in life, while in the White House. He then became a strong opponent to the advance of slavery into new states.
8. Franklin D. Roosevelt, this was a very tough call, his economic policies were truly disastrous they drove us much deeper into the Great Depression and held us there for many years longer than we would have had he not put them in place. His attack on the Constitution and the freedoms and liberties of all Americans, his attempt to completely dismantle the free market capitalist system and bring in a Socialist agenda was devastating to America. Problems he created are still plaguing us today. With that said, he was a brilliant leader, and he was a great war time president leading us through W.W.II, holding Americans together with his fireside chats and resolve. So in my mind his war time leadership moves him to the best of the rest.
9. Jimmy Carter, talk about a tough call, putting Jimmy Carter above anyone is difficult, however, it shows the quality of those who remain. Jimmy Carter was completely incompetent. Going into this blog I expected I would choose Carter the third worst president due to his economic, foreign policy, and domestic policies were all failures. His administration was the embodiment of the Peter Principle were the only competent member was Cyrus Vance, who was a crook. What put him ahead of the next two on this list is that his policies didn't lead us into a Civil War. Granted that isn't high praise, but it is the difference maker.
10. Franklin Pierce, came into office promising to be the president of peace, however, his policies actually inflamed the embers of war with the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealing the Missouri Compromise with Senator Stephen Douglas. He was so unpopular that his party didn't want him to run for a second term, turning to our next on our list.
11. James Buchanan, was the Neville Chamberlain of American Presidents. As the anger on both the North and South continued to rise, Buchanan tried to pretend that it would all just calm down. He likely conspired with Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney about the Dred Scott decision trying to make slavery in every state Constitutional, the decision enraged the anti-slavery North, the Republicans, as well as the anti-Slavery Democrats. Buchanan can easily be said through inaction and poor decisions guaranteed that the Civil War would happen.
12. Andrew Jackson, was one of the most tyrannical men to ever sit in the White House. He wanted to get rid of the Electoral College, he used the spoils system that Martin Van Buren created for him to expand his political power with "With the victors goes the spoils" partisan handouts of jobs and largess with government contracts.
Basically the trouble was the 19th-century cyclical economy of "boom and bust," which was following its regular pattern, but Jackson's financial measures contributed to the crash. His destruction of the Second Bank of the United States had removed restrictions upon the inflationary practices of some state banks; wild speculation in lands, based on easy bank credit, had swept the West. To end this speculation, Jackson in 1836 had issued a Specie Circular requiring that lands be purchased with hard money--gold or silver.
In 1837 the panic began. Hundreds of banks and businesses failed. Thousands lost their lands. For about five years the United States was wracked by the worst depression thus far in its history.
13. Lyndon B. Johnson, one of the most corrupt presidents in history along the lines of Andrew Jackson. His policies in Viet Nam were a disaster, he kept escalating the war, but without giving the military the ability to fight a war without unreasonable restrictions. His Great Society programs are plaguing us yet today, they undercut the American family, it is the fault of these programs that has so devastated so many of the African American families by driving the husband and father out of the home for economic reasons.
14. Woodrow Wilson, a radical progressive who tried to strip America of our Constitution. He was a devout racists whose five volume American History he authored was the first to remove all accounts of the contributions of black Americans from the founding of this nation, and in each of our wars. This racist history became the slant that our schools started teaching after his presidency. Wilson was a nightmare, it would take books to lay out the case against him.
15. Barack Obama, who marries the radical progressiveness of Wilson, the Socialist expansionism of FDR, and attacks the Constitution as much or more than either, with the total incompetence of Carter, Buchanan, and Pierce. His overall place in history will be determined by the election this fall. If the Democrats remain in control, he will go down as the worst president in history because his programs will be allowed to do their damage. If however, the GOP takes back the House and Senate, he may move up to just an incompetent president along the lines of Carter.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
We Now Know The Obama Doctrine.
When Charlie Gibson did his "gotcha" interview with Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin his big score was when Palin didn't know the "Bush Doctrine." Gibson asked Palin if she supported the Bush Doctrine, she stared back blankly until she tried to turn it back on him asking "in what way?" Gibson responded, "Well, what do you interpret it to be?" Trying to make her look foolish and get his "gotcha moment." Gibson pressed Palin. "The Bush Doctrine is we have the right to self-defense, pre-emptive strike against any country we think is going to attack us," he noted. "Do you agree with it?" Palin's answer, "Charlie, if there is enough intelligent and legitimate evidence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country."
Until this interview, I personally would have had no idea how to answer that question, I had never heard a specific Bush Doctrine, especially from the Bush Administration. The term the Bush Doctrine was first used by Dr. Charles Krauthammer in 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. Different pundits would attribute different meanings to it. It turned out that Gibson was referring to the 2002 National Security Strategy.
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act presumptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."
So if Charles Gibson can be the be all authority of what the Bush Doctrine was, I will propose the Obama Doctrine here.
When you look to find the underlying and defining ideology that makes all of Obama's decisions it has become very clear what we must call the Obama Doctrine. It is the quote by Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." This fits perfectly into the lifelong training that Obama has had as a community organizer and follower of Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. This has to be directly in Obama's comfort zone.
To prove this theory all we must do is look to how Obama and his administration have responded to any and all crisis that have come on his watch.
The largest financial melt-down in American history since the Great Depression was a crisis that Obama used to pass a massive spending program with the name of The Stimulus Bill, even though there was very little actual stimulus for the private sector in it, it amounted as more of a political slush fund to help bribe Democrats to go along with Obama's Health Care Bill with available pork to use to give the fence sitters in his own party.
Also in response to the economic melt-down came the need to completely redo our entire Health Delivery systems to put them under direct government control with the promise of "helping the economy and creating jobs." It wasn't until after it was forced through that we learned the numbers were going to be much higher costs than before, that it would kill thousands if not millions of private sector jobs, only creating more government jobs, such as 16,000 new IRS agents.
The floods in the south, nearly destroying Nashville, Tennessee and others was almost completely ignored by the media, and was ignored by Obama. When it was happening I couldn't figure out why this administration paid it no attention, now held up to the Obama Doctrine, I do understand. There was nothing in the flood that could be used as a reason to advance Obama's agenda, so it held no interest to him.
With the immigration crisis we see Obama choose to sue and vilify those Americans who are trying to just enforce the Federal laws regarding the border. Senator John Kyle tried to reason with Obama on a compromise to help stem the flow of illegals across the border, but was told by Obama that "If we secure the borders you guys (republicans) will have no reason to allow my comprehensive immigration reform, (total amnesty voter registration)" Once again never allowing a serious crisis to go to waste for advancing his agenda.
With the BP oil leak in the Gulf we see the Obama Doctrine clearly. When you try to use logic to figure out why the Obama Administration is throwing up roadblocks to the clean up and oil containment efforts. He has turned down every serious offer of skimmers, and oil cleaning ships from America and the world. Governor Bobby Jindal hired his own, and Obama sent the Coast Guard to stop them.
None of this makes sense if you are thinking of actually stopping or containing the crisis. However if you think about it through the filter of the Obama Doctrine it makes a lot of sense. The more damage done by the oil, the more dead sea life, ruined beaches, destroyed coastal economies, and if he is lucky sick and dying people from the fumes, the easier it will be for him to end all Oil exploration and drilling in America.
It will also open the door for him to push through the largest tax increase in world history with Cap and Trade. This is just what he needed as the entire global warming "science" has been proven to be a fraud.
When you look at the news through this Obama Doctrine, it is very clear why he is doing what he is doing on each crisis that comes our way.
Until this interview, I personally would have had no idea how to answer that question, I had never heard a specific Bush Doctrine, especially from the Bush Administration. The term the Bush Doctrine was first used by Dr. Charles Krauthammer in 2001 to describe the Bush Administration's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol. Different pundits would attribute different meanings to it. It turned out that Gibson was referring to the 2002 National Security Strategy.
"The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD.
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act presumptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression."
So if Charles Gibson can be the be all authority of what the Bush Doctrine was, I will propose the Obama Doctrine here.
When you look to find the underlying and defining ideology that makes all of Obama's decisions it has become very clear what we must call the Obama Doctrine. It is the quote by Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." This fits perfectly into the lifelong training that Obama has had as a community organizer and follower of Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. This has to be directly in Obama's comfort zone.
To prove this theory all we must do is look to how Obama and his administration have responded to any and all crisis that have come on his watch.
The largest financial melt-down in American history since the Great Depression was a crisis that Obama used to pass a massive spending program with the name of The Stimulus Bill, even though there was very little actual stimulus for the private sector in it, it amounted as more of a political slush fund to help bribe Democrats to go along with Obama's Health Care Bill with available pork to use to give the fence sitters in his own party.
Also in response to the economic melt-down came the need to completely redo our entire Health Delivery systems to put them under direct government control with the promise of "helping the economy and creating jobs." It wasn't until after it was forced through that we learned the numbers were going to be much higher costs than before, that it would kill thousands if not millions of private sector jobs, only creating more government jobs, such as 16,000 new IRS agents.
The floods in the south, nearly destroying Nashville, Tennessee and others was almost completely ignored by the media, and was ignored by Obama. When it was happening I couldn't figure out why this administration paid it no attention, now held up to the Obama Doctrine, I do understand. There was nothing in the flood that could be used as a reason to advance Obama's agenda, so it held no interest to him.
With the immigration crisis we see Obama choose to sue and vilify those Americans who are trying to just enforce the Federal laws regarding the border. Senator John Kyle tried to reason with Obama on a compromise to help stem the flow of illegals across the border, but was told by Obama that "If we secure the borders you guys (republicans) will have no reason to allow my comprehensive immigration reform, (total amnesty voter registration)" Once again never allowing a serious crisis to go to waste for advancing his agenda.
With the BP oil leak in the Gulf we see the Obama Doctrine clearly. When you try to use logic to figure out why the Obama Administration is throwing up roadblocks to the clean up and oil containment efforts. He has turned down every serious offer of skimmers, and oil cleaning ships from America and the world. Governor Bobby Jindal hired his own, and Obama sent the Coast Guard to stop them.
None of this makes sense if you are thinking of actually stopping or containing the crisis. However if you think about it through the filter of the Obama Doctrine it makes a lot of sense. The more damage done by the oil, the more dead sea life, ruined beaches, destroyed coastal economies, and if he is lucky sick and dying people from the fumes, the easier it will be for him to end all Oil exploration and drilling in America.
It will also open the door for him to push through the largest tax increase in world history with Cap and Trade. This is just what he needed as the entire global warming "science" has been proven to be a fraud.
When you look at the news through this Obama Doctrine, it is very clear why he is doing what he is doing on each crisis that comes our way.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Wal-Mart, Local Businesses, Manufacturing, Unions, What Happened?
At the Indiana GOP State Convention there was a group, Alliance for American Manufacturing, who had a booth promoting their agenda of trying to protect manufacturing in America. They were promoting ideas such as tariffs, and punitive fees for foreign manufacturing and monetary positions. While this might feel good emotionally to embrace the idea of going back in time when American unions were producing the most prosperous middle class in the world with high wages and benefits for often unskilled labor. That is a thing of the past, it doesn't matter who the political party in charge might be.
America will always have a percentage of its economy in the manufacturing sector, however, it is never again going to be the driving force of our economy. It will never again afford higher wages and benefits for those unskilled workers simply because their unions were able to pressure the company into paying them. The chickens have come home to roost on that process with companies trying to survive with the bloated expenses of all those benefits for not only their current workers, but those who have retired. They now find that trying to compete in a global market isn't possible with this heavy overhead.
The manufacturing jobs moved overseas due to the cost of doing business here. The manufactures sought less expensive labor markets. This isn't simply an American issue, but a global one. Japan was the first to really show us where we had a weak link. They started out building cheap junk, "Made in Japan" meant it was cheap and inferior. However, they learned to improve their quality but kept their prices low, they learned their lessons taught to them by W. Edward Deming well. It wasn't long that "Made in Japan" meant highest quality, yet still more affordable. They were dominating us at that point. However, Japan's dominance was short run. Korea learned what Japan was doing and copied them, and beat them due to their lower cost of living allowed them to cut labor costs further. Now Korea is losing out to China for the same reasons.
There is another burr under many Americans saddle, and that anger is often directed toward Wal-Mart, who they blame for destroying small towns and closing local stores. However, those same towns are benefited with more goods for less money, and more convenience because Wall-Mart is there. However, it is an easy target to strike out at a vanishing memory of how things used to be.
These two issues really are two sides of the same coin. Both are actually due to technology, not ideology. It is market driven, not some sort of conspiracy. We have been taught economics through a flawed prism. Today's government, who so embrace Keynesian economics, will not be able to come up with a working theory because their very basic premise is incorrect. Most economics are taught with a fixed pie concept. That if I get a bigger piece of pie, then you must get a smaller one. Wars have been fought for centuries over this fixed sum game thinking. If you look to the very definition of economics in most of our text books it will say that "Economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources." One of my favorite economists says that is totally false, that there are no scarce resources, and really no resources at all until first there is a technology to make it a resource. There was a time that if you had oil on your property is was a curse, until someone learned how to burn it.
It is all about a change of paradigms. If you look back in history there was a time when the world couldn't produce a working calendar. About every hundred years it would snow in July in Rome, the Pope would declare it January and it would work pretty well for a while. The science of astronomy couldn't find the answer because they defined their science from a flawed understanding. Just like today's economists, those old astronomers defined their science that they studied the planets, stars, and sun's rotation around the earth.
Eventually a Polish mathematician, Nicolas Copernicus, using mathematical equations found that if you put the Sun at the center and had the earth orbit around it, he could make a working calendar. He published in Polish, and died before his work became widely read in that day's academia.
Galileo read Copernicus's work, and had a tool no man had ever had, his invention the telescope. With the mathematical theory and using his telescope he proved Copernicus's theory and published it in Italian, not the accepted in academic circles of Latin. The Catholic Church was outraged, he was charged as a heretic for placing the Sun instead of the Earth at the center of the Universe. The Pope was going to have him burned at the stake unless he recanted his theory. With being a barbecue as an option, Galileo recanted. He was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, only to be reinstated on October 31, 1992 by Pope John Paul II.
The major reason we have seen such a sea shift in our manufacturing sector, and our retail distribution are both due to technology. No political party will be able to turn back the clock, however, there are things that can be done with a more business friendly environment in America. If America would reduce the Corporate Tax Rate and end the outdated concept of Unions, it would help keep manufacturing active and alive in America. However the days of high income low skill jobs are over.
For centuries the technology of the age defined the age. Eras like the Stone Age, Iron Age, then Agrarian Age, Manufacturing Age, and now Information Age. For most of history people were born, lived and died within the same technological age, there were few changes during their lifetimes. However those of us today are living at a time when change is the only thing we can count upon. Industries come and go seemingly in the blink of an eye.
When you look at 1930 there were 30 million Americans living and working on the farm. They were barely producing enough food for the 100 million Americans. By 1980 there were only 3 million Americans living and working on the farm who were able to have so much surplus beyond feeding the 200 million Americans that the government was paying them not to produce so much. That was a major shift in the dynamics of American life, however, it happened over a fifty year time period. Many farmers retired, most of their kids either chose to or were economically forced to leave the farm for opportunities in the cities.
What happened to some of those kids? In 1980 there were about 250,000 Americans in Michigan and Indiana building carburetors, however by 1985 there were none doing so. Not because the economy had turned bad, but a new technology of fuel injectors took over. They were being made by different people with different skill sets in different locations.
In 1985 there were about 250,000 American in Indiana and Ohio working in factories making vinyl records, that was the biggest year in history in the record business. However, by 1990 there were none making vinyl records due to the take over of Compact Discs. Once again new locations, new people with new skill sets.
It was during the 90s that I was interviewing a gentleman for a position. I went to his home to visit, it was a beautiful home on the water, there were two Mercedes in the driveway, all three had for sale signs. When we were talking he told me that he was the national sales manager for a high tech company but the company was falling on hard times. He had to lay off about one hundred of his sales people and was down to himself and about a half dozen others. The companies sales had fallen accordingly. He was complaining about the economic downturn. I asked him if people were not using his product anymore. He told me no, but his company's business was testing microchips, but where a few years before there would be ten microchips on a circuit board, at this time there might only be one due to how advanced technology had become. He went further and said many times the one on that board often self-tested. He was so close to the forest he couldn't see the trees. His industry had become buggy whip manufacturers, even though they were "high tech."
When you look at the Wal-Mart vs small local businesses. It is about technology and improvements in distribution that makes this battle so one sided. Wal-Mart, and others to a lesser degree have vastly improved their distribution methods to cut cost and streamline the process. There is no way that the local can compete head to head, so those who succeed do so by setting themselves apart. They are different, they make their stores destinations, and worth paying more. They are not going to be able to compete on price, of convenience, they are not likely going to be open 24/7. However, people are succeeding.
We as consumers, and as Free Market Capitalists have to embrace the better mouse trap and the consequences of some good businesses failing in the wake of a better business model. The argument against Wal-Mart could be made against Blockbuster coming in and running all the small Video Stores out of business. Of course now Netflix, Red Box, and Internet Downloads have killed off all the Blockbusters as well. Technology is marching on, with each advancement, companies and industries will come and go.
If you want to blame someone, blame Ronald Reagan. When he cut taxes in the early 80's and gave tax credits to businesses to retool themselves it caused an explosion of new computers being moved into businesses, where people got used to using them and bought them for home as well. If you want to go back to the theory of there is no scarce resource, and no resource until it has a technology to make it one. Who would have thought that sand would change the world? Once we learned to turn sand into silicone it allowed the computer age to change everything we knew.
This isn't going to change back, it is only going to change further and faster. The key is to relearn how we learn. Instead of learning to be the best at something, learn to learn faster so you can change and adapt as does the world. That is the new magic of success.
America will always have a percentage of its economy in the manufacturing sector, however, it is never again going to be the driving force of our economy. It will never again afford higher wages and benefits for those unskilled workers simply because their unions were able to pressure the company into paying them. The chickens have come home to roost on that process with companies trying to survive with the bloated expenses of all those benefits for not only their current workers, but those who have retired. They now find that trying to compete in a global market isn't possible with this heavy overhead.
The manufacturing jobs moved overseas due to the cost of doing business here. The manufactures sought less expensive labor markets. This isn't simply an American issue, but a global one. Japan was the first to really show us where we had a weak link. They started out building cheap junk, "Made in Japan" meant it was cheap and inferior. However, they learned to improve their quality but kept their prices low, they learned their lessons taught to them by W. Edward Deming well. It wasn't long that "Made in Japan" meant highest quality, yet still more affordable. They were dominating us at that point. However, Japan's dominance was short run. Korea learned what Japan was doing and copied them, and beat them due to their lower cost of living allowed them to cut labor costs further. Now Korea is losing out to China for the same reasons.
There is another burr under many Americans saddle, and that anger is often directed toward Wal-Mart, who they blame for destroying small towns and closing local stores. However, those same towns are benefited with more goods for less money, and more convenience because Wall-Mart is there. However, it is an easy target to strike out at a vanishing memory of how things used to be.
These two issues really are two sides of the same coin. Both are actually due to technology, not ideology. It is market driven, not some sort of conspiracy. We have been taught economics through a flawed prism. Today's government, who so embrace Keynesian economics, will not be able to come up with a working theory because their very basic premise is incorrect. Most economics are taught with a fixed pie concept. That if I get a bigger piece of pie, then you must get a smaller one. Wars have been fought for centuries over this fixed sum game thinking. If you look to the very definition of economics in most of our text books it will say that "Economics is the study of the distribution of scarce resources." One of my favorite economists says that is totally false, that there are no scarce resources, and really no resources at all until first there is a technology to make it a resource. There was a time that if you had oil on your property is was a curse, until someone learned how to burn it.
It is all about a change of paradigms. If you look back in history there was a time when the world couldn't produce a working calendar. About every hundred years it would snow in July in Rome, the Pope would declare it January and it would work pretty well for a while. The science of astronomy couldn't find the answer because they defined their science from a flawed understanding. Just like today's economists, those old astronomers defined their science that they studied the planets, stars, and sun's rotation around the earth.
Eventually a Polish mathematician, Nicolas Copernicus, using mathematical equations found that if you put the Sun at the center and had the earth orbit around it, he could make a working calendar. He published in Polish, and died before his work became widely read in that day's academia.
Galileo read Copernicus's work, and had a tool no man had ever had, his invention the telescope. With the mathematical theory and using his telescope he proved Copernicus's theory and published it in Italian, not the accepted in academic circles of Latin. The Catholic Church was outraged, he was charged as a heretic for placing the Sun instead of the Earth at the center of the Universe. The Pope was going to have him burned at the stake unless he recanted his theory. With being a barbecue as an option, Galileo recanted. He was ex-communicated from the Catholic Church, only to be reinstated on October 31, 1992 by Pope John Paul II.
The major reason we have seen such a sea shift in our manufacturing sector, and our retail distribution are both due to technology. No political party will be able to turn back the clock, however, there are things that can be done with a more business friendly environment in America. If America would reduce the Corporate Tax Rate and end the outdated concept of Unions, it would help keep manufacturing active and alive in America. However the days of high income low skill jobs are over.
For centuries the technology of the age defined the age. Eras like the Stone Age, Iron Age, then Agrarian Age, Manufacturing Age, and now Information Age. For most of history people were born, lived and died within the same technological age, there were few changes during their lifetimes. However those of us today are living at a time when change is the only thing we can count upon. Industries come and go seemingly in the blink of an eye.
When you look at 1930 there were 30 million Americans living and working on the farm. They were barely producing enough food for the 100 million Americans. By 1980 there were only 3 million Americans living and working on the farm who were able to have so much surplus beyond feeding the 200 million Americans that the government was paying them not to produce so much. That was a major shift in the dynamics of American life, however, it happened over a fifty year time period. Many farmers retired, most of their kids either chose to or were economically forced to leave the farm for opportunities in the cities.
What happened to some of those kids? In 1980 there were about 250,000 Americans in Michigan and Indiana building carburetors, however by 1985 there were none doing so. Not because the economy had turned bad, but a new technology of fuel injectors took over. They were being made by different people with different skill sets in different locations.
In 1985 there were about 250,000 American in Indiana and Ohio working in factories making vinyl records, that was the biggest year in history in the record business. However, by 1990 there were none making vinyl records due to the take over of Compact Discs. Once again new locations, new people with new skill sets.
It was during the 90s that I was interviewing a gentleman for a position. I went to his home to visit, it was a beautiful home on the water, there were two Mercedes in the driveway, all three had for sale signs. When we were talking he told me that he was the national sales manager for a high tech company but the company was falling on hard times. He had to lay off about one hundred of his sales people and was down to himself and about a half dozen others. The companies sales had fallen accordingly. He was complaining about the economic downturn. I asked him if people were not using his product anymore. He told me no, but his company's business was testing microchips, but where a few years before there would be ten microchips on a circuit board, at this time there might only be one due to how advanced technology had become. He went further and said many times the one on that board often self-tested. He was so close to the forest he couldn't see the trees. His industry had become buggy whip manufacturers, even though they were "high tech."
When you look at the Wal-Mart vs small local businesses. It is about technology and improvements in distribution that makes this battle so one sided. Wal-Mart, and others to a lesser degree have vastly improved their distribution methods to cut cost and streamline the process. There is no way that the local can compete head to head, so those who succeed do so by setting themselves apart. They are different, they make their stores destinations, and worth paying more. They are not going to be able to compete on price, of convenience, they are not likely going to be open 24/7. However, people are succeeding.
We as consumers, and as Free Market Capitalists have to embrace the better mouse trap and the consequences of some good businesses failing in the wake of a better business model. The argument against Wal-Mart could be made against Blockbuster coming in and running all the small Video Stores out of business. Of course now Netflix, Red Box, and Internet Downloads have killed off all the Blockbusters as well. Technology is marching on, with each advancement, companies and industries will come and go.
If you want to blame someone, blame Ronald Reagan. When he cut taxes in the early 80's and gave tax credits to businesses to retool themselves it caused an explosion of new computers being moved into businesses, where people got used to using them and bought them for home as well. If you want to go back to the theory of there is no scarce resource, and no resource until it has a technology to make it one. Who would have thought that sand would change the world? Once we learned to turn sand into silicone it allowed the computer age to change everything we knew.
This isn't going to change back, it is only going to change further and faster. The key is to relearn how we learn. Instead of learning to be the best at something, learn to learn faster so you can change and adapt as does the world. That is the new magic of success.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The Party of Purpose!
The 2010 Indiana Republican State Convention took place this weekend, and from what I saw it bodes well for Indiana, America, and our Republic. There is an excellent slate of candidates and a good deal of excitement, especially for a convention that there were no races to decide.
On Friday night in the caucus meetings from what I have heard, they were like the one I attended for the 5th District where about 75% of the delegates were there for the very first time. A lot of new blood, a lot of new enthusiasm have stepped up to the plate to take personal responsibility for maybe the very first time in the political arena. They're there out of a passion for their country, and for their Constitution that they are seeing under such attack.
The candidates look good, no one has more risen through the ranks than Charlie White from the town board to candidate for Secretary of State. He is running to replace Todd Rokita, who has been an excellent Secretary of State during his two terms, and is now running for Congress in the 4th to replace retiring Steven Buyer.
There seems a very good chance that we will see a VERY conservative Republican Congressional team in D.C. next year. Jackie Walorski shook the house this weekend, and is surely shaking up the polls in the 2nd. Marlin Stutzman is parlaying his new statewide recognition and tea party favorite son status in the 3rd, and Todd Young is looking very strong in the 9th. Marvin Scott in the 7th, Larry Buschon in the 8th, and Mark Leyra in the 1st all have tough races in strong democrat districts, but hopefully at least one of them can pick off a seat as well. It will be awesome sending at least four new conservative voices to team up with our two conservative stars in Dan Burton and one of the GOP's fastest rising stars Mike Pence.
Dan Coats is running very strong against Ellsworth, and all he should have to do is keep reminding the Hoosier voters that Ellsworth voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker twice.
The Indiana House race is very important, we have a good shot to take back the House, it will be tough the way that the districts have been gerrymandered, but it is doable. It is critical because the redistricting will take place in 2011 and we sure don't want Pat Bauer in charge.
There are some real conservative stars right here in Indiana. Of course the aforementioned Mike Pence, but also another potential presidential candidate in our Man Mitch Daniels. Governor Daniels speech knocked it out of the park this afternoon. He is one of less than a handful of people I have seen across the country who I believe could actually repair the damage that Obama/Reid/and Pelosi have caused. Another rising star is Tony Bennett, I easily see him as our future Governor soon. His no nonsense approach would be a perfect follow up when Mitch's term ends.
The big surprise for me this weekend was Richard Mourdock our State Treasurer. I really hadn't paid much attention to him, or his position. I remember him standing up to Obama on the White House's theft of the pension plans investments into Chrysler, but that was about all I knew about him. First of all his speeches last night in the Caucus and then today were two of the more substantive ones given all weekend. The more I learned about who this man is, what he stands for, and who he is willing to stand up against on principle and for the people of Indiana, I became a big fan. I don't know if I have ever paid any attention to who was the State Treasurer before, but I will keep my eye on this guy. I was able to speak with him at the Dan Coats party at the Columbia Club later, he mentioned that he should write a book about the Chrysler story. I hope he does, my order will go in immediately.
One of my personal passions this year is to hope to bring those newly politically active people who have been participating in the tea parties to understand that we need them in the Republican Party, and they they need the Republican Party if the tea partier's hope to capitalize on the energy that those parties have generated. My fear is that they will be misled into a third party of some sort either a brand new one or one of the old ones, either way at best it makes their vote meaningless, and worst it could be the deciding factor by splitting the anti-Obama vote to keep he and his stooges in power.
I was very excited to meet Greg Fettig of the Hoosier Patriots organization who is very deep into the tea parties here in Indiana. It was very exciting to hear him tell me that he was totally committed to helping the GOP candidates win. Today he was the one on stage to endorse the Party platform, he held up the GOP flag and the Gadsden Flag together and waved them as one saying "Together we will ride into victory, separate we will fall into defeat." No sweeter and truer words were spoken.
On Friday night in the caucus meetings from what I have heard, they were like the one I attended for the 5th District where about 75% of the delegates were there for the very first time. A lot of new blood, a lot of new enthusiasm have stepped up to the plate to take personal responsibility for maybe the very first time in the political arena. They're there out of a passion for their country, and for their Constitution that they are seeing under such attack.
The candidates look good, no one has more risen through the ranks than Charlie White from the town board to candidate for Secretary of State. He is running to replace Todd Rokita, who has been an excellent Secretary of State during his two terms, and is now running for Congress in the 4th to replace retiring Steven Buyer.
There seems a very good chance that we will see a VERY conservative Republican Congressional team in D.C. next year. Jackie Walorski shook the house this weekend, and is surely shaking up the polls in the 2nd. Marlin Stutzman is parlaying his new statewide recognition and tea party favorite son status in the 3rd, and Todd Young is looking very strong in the 9th. Marvin Scott in the 7th, Larry Buschon in the 8th, and Mark Leyra in the 1st all have tough races in strong democrat districts, but hopefully at least one of them can pick off a seat as well. It will be awesome sending at least four new conservative voices to team up with our two conservative stars in Dan Burton and one of the GOP's fastest rising stars Mike Pence.
Dan Coats is running very strong against Ellsworth, and all he should have to do is keep reminding the Hoosier voters that Ellsworth voted for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker twice.
The Indiana House race is very important, we have a good shot to take back the House, it will be tough the way that the districts have been gerrymandered, but it is doable. It is critical because the redistricting will take place in 2011 and we sure don't want Pat Bauer in charge.
There are some real conservative stars right here in Indiana. Of course the aforementioned Mike Pence, but also another potential presidential candidate in our Man Mitch Daniels. Governor Daniels speech knocked it out of the park this afternoon. He is one of less than a handful of people I have seen across the country who I believe could actually repair the damage that Obama/Reid/and Pelosi have caused. Another rising star is Tony Bennett, I easily see him as our future Governor soon. His no nonsense approach would be a perfect follow up when Mitch's term ends.
The big surprise for me this weekend was Richard Mourdock our State Treasurer. I really hadn't paid much attention to him, or his position. I remember him standing up to Obama on the White House's theft of the pension plans investments into Chrysler, but that was about all I knew about him. First of all his speeches last night in the Caucus and then today were two of the more substantive ones given all weekend. The more I learned about who this man is, what he stands for, and who he is willing to stand up against on principle and for the people of Indiana, I became a big fan. I don't know if I have ever paid any attention to who was the State Treasurer before, but I will keep my eye on this guy. I was able to speak with him at the Dan Coats party at the Columbia Club later, he mentioned that he should write a book about the Chrysler story. I hope he does, my order will go in immediately.
One of my personal passions this year is to hope to bring those newly politically active people who have been participating in the tea parties to understand that we need them in the Republican Party, and they they need the Republican Party if the tea partier's hope to capitalize on the energy that those parties have generated. My fear is that they will be misled into a third party of some sort either a brand new one or one of the old ones, either way at best it makes their vote meaningless, and worst it could be the deciding factor by splitting the anti-Obama vote to keep he and his stooges in power.
I was very excited to meet Greg Fettig of the Hoosier Patriots organization who is very deep into the tea parties here in Indiana. It was very exciting to hear him tell me that he was totally committed to helping the GOP candidates win. Today he was the one on stage to endorse the Party platform, he held up the GOP flag and the Gadsden Flag together and waved them as one saying "Together we will ride into victory, separate we will fall into defeat." No sweeter and truer words were spoken.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Obama The Unprecedented.
The favorite word of the Obama Administration has been unprecedented. They have used it every opportunity that they could, be it a presidential first or not. However, I have to admit that I too often have used the word unprecedented to describe activities and actions, or in-actions by Obama as well. Mine though are all due to watching the destructive activities and actions that are coming out of the White House during the last eighteen months.
The story of the oil spill and the White House's long inaction, and now bizarre handling of it, truly is an unprecedented disaster. It begs the question what are they thinking. It would seem that there are only two possible answers to what is happening at the White House, neither are good.
One possibility that could have driven the reaction from Obama and the White House is simply gross incompetence. This administration is unprecedented in how few people there have ever worked in the private sector. Only 8% of the over 400 people who work in the White House have ever worked in a real job in the private sector. None of the top "leaders" have ever held an executive position anywhere at any time until they took office. There lack of executive and managerial experience is as obvious as their deep disdain of the private sector. There first reaction is to demonize and punish the business people and the investors, do they not know that those investors are mostly regular people who have their 401ks and IRAs tied up in mutual funds?
The other possibility is more unthinkable, and unprecedented in American history, that being the decision by the Obama Administration that it is their best interest to make as much political hay by not wasting a good crisis, as Rahm Emanuel has often promoted. This administration, led by, and full of followers of Saul Alinsky, trained in community organizing, first thought is always to villainize business people, lionize the government bureaucracy, and play Robin Hood stealing from those who invest in the private market and redistribute that wealth to the Administration's friends in the unions.
Is that why they have sent the 13 nations, and dozens of local business people who have offered to clean up the spill? Are they truly not allowing a crisis to go to waste? Are they allowing it to keep flowing so that they can use it as an excuse to shut down all of America's oil business? Or nationalize it along with the cars, insurance, and banks? Are they allowing it to continue to allow them to push the largest tax increase in world history on the American people with Cap and Trade? Are they allowing it to continue for purely political reasons? Isn't it unprecedented to have an administration that such a claim against them sound reasonable?
The story of the oil spill and the White House's long inaction, and now bizarre handling of it, truly is an unprecedented disaster. It begs the question what are they thinking. It would seem that there are only two possible answers to what is happening at the White House, neither are good.
One possibility that could have driven the reaction from Obama and the White House is simply gross incompetence. This administration is unprecedented in how few people there have ever worked in the private sector. Only 8% of the over 400 people who work in the White House have ever worked in a real job in the private sector. None of the top "leaders" have ever held an executive position anywhere at any time until they took office. There lack of executive and managerial experience is as obvious as their deep disdain of the private sector. There first reaction is to demonize and punish the business people and the investors, do they not know that those investors are mostly regular people who have their 401ks and IRAs tied up in mutual funds?
The other possibility is more unthinkable, and unprecedented in American history, that being the decision by the Obama Administration that it is their best interest to make as much political hay by not wasting a good crisis, as Rahm Emanuel has often promoted. This administration, led by, and full of followers of Saul Alinsky, trained in community organizing, first thought is always to villainize business people, lionize the government bureaucracy, and play Robin Hood stealing from those who invest in the private market and redistribute that wealth to the Administration's friends in the unions.
Is that why they have sent the 13 nations, and dozens of local business people who have offered to clean up the spill? Are they truly not allowing a crisis to go to waste? Are they allowing it to keep flowing so that they can use it as an excuse to shut down all of America's oil business? Or nationalize it along with the cars, insurance, and banks? Are they allowing it to continue to allow them to push the largest tax increase in world history on the American people with Cap and Trade? Are they allowing it to continue for purely political reasons? Isn't it unprecedented to have an administration that such a claim against them sound reasonable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
