Libertarian Leanings

My Sentiments, Exactly

Thomas Sowell writes, "If the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief." 

'This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself.

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power. Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.

During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with “Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur.” In reality, it was not Emperor Hirohito who surrendered on the battleship Missouri. American troops were already occupying Japan before Hirohito met Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the first time.

This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know.'

He certainly thinks he has all the answers.  Combine that with the Democrats' historic disregard for the truth and their insatiable thirst for power, and we have the potential destruction of America in the making.

Neat Trick

Bill Weinberg, lefty editor of the lefty online World War 4 Report, argues that the right is defending what amounts to an illegal coup in Honduras.  And what makes it an illegal coup, when the Honduran Congress, Supreme Court, and army all followed Honduran constitutional law by removing President Manuel Zelaya?

'Zelaya’s opponents, who argue that the coup was not a coup, cite Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution, which states that any president who proposes an amendment to allow re-election “shall cease forthwith” in his duties.

Missing from this explanation is acknowledgment that the constitution was crafted by a military-dominated state in 1982, and that this measure was aimed at keeping elected leaders subordinate to the generals.'

I wonder if it was the military origin of the Honduran constitution that makes it invalid in the mind of Mr. Weinberg.  Lefties have such little regard for the military.  Or maybe because it was crafted in 1982.  After all, 1982 was a long time ago.  Maybe Mr. Weinberg thinks the Honduran constitution should have expired by now.  Sort of like Barack Obama's policy statements.

Cambridge Police Stand By Sgt Crowley

Listen to fellow Cambridge Police officers Leon Lashley and Kelly King talk about James Crowley, Henry Louis Gates Jr, and especially Barack Obama.

Via Hot Air.

New Jersey has a Problem

New Jersey has a big problem.

'Big Government is why New Jersey created only 6,800 private sector jobs from 2000 to 2007—while public sector jobs grew by more than 55,800. Big Government is the reason New Jersey ranks as the worst of 50 states on the Small Business Survival Index. And Big Government is a leading reason New Jersey has a “corruption problem” that an FBI agent at Friday’s press conference characterized as “one of the worst, if not the worst, in the nation.”

Sandy McClure, co-author of the book “The Soprano State: New Jersey’s Culture of Corruption,” agrees that big government is a big reason behind the state’s corruption problem. “You have all these little authorities that everyone has to go to for permission,” she says. “Too much government means too many opportunities for officials looking to cash in. And there’s no way that the press can keep track of it all.”'

In its first reporting of the corruption scandal, the Los Angeles Times demonstrated extraordinary delicacy.  A reading of the Times accounting of it would lead you to think this was a non-partisan affair.  Neither of the words "Democrat" nor "Republican" appear anywhere in an article about the arrests of 44 public officials -- a collection of mayors, state assemblymen, and city councilmen.

A slightly different picture emerges from yesterday's reporting by Examiner.com.

'The mayors of Hoboken, Secaucus and Ridgefield, the Jersey City deputy mayor and council president, two state assemblymen, numerous other public officials and political figures and five rabbis from New York and New Jersey were among 44 individuals charged Thursday in a two-track federal investigation of public corruption and a high-volume, international money laundering conspiracy, according to Michael Drewniak, public affairs officer for the US Attorney's Office in Newark, NJ.

All but one of the suspects, are part of the Jersey Democrat Party Machine.'

New jersey is said to be running neck and neck with Illinois, Barack Obama's home state, for the title "Most Corrupt State in the Union." 

Teachable Moment -- Take Two

That's what President Obama hopes to make out of his invitation to Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley, when the three sit down for beers at the White House to iron out the misunderstandings. 

'The pair was invited by Obama to the White House after the president made remarks about Crowley’s arrest of Gates on a disorderly conduct charge last week, Gibbs said on “Fox News Sunday.”.

“The president believes this can be a teachable moment,” Gibbs said. “He feels he unnecessarily contributed to the frenzy. Cooler heads have prevailed.”'

There is no question that Obama contributed to the frenzy.  In fact the arrest would likely have gone unnoticed by the vast majority of Americans.  Instead, Obama put it front and center, and it's quite likely that it he did it by choice.  Sure, Lynn Sweet assured us that no one at the White House had any idea she would ask the question she asked, only that she knew she was likely to be called upon.   

'When President Obama called on me, he had no idea what I would be asking. I had not written or blogged about the Gates incident, so no one in the White House had any clue that I was particularly interested in Obama's reaction.'

But whether Obama knew about the question in advance, as Power Line points out, he was prepared for it if it was asked.  And when it did, Obama launched into his teachable moment right there on the spot.  Unfortunately for Obama, Teachable Moment -- Take One didn't go all that well.

'Of course, what got Obama into trouble was not saying that he knew Gates, but claiming that the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" in arresting him. Although Gibbs doesn't come out and say it, it appears that Obama's "acted stupidly" line was not a spur of the moment blunder, but rather scripted commentary that he worked out in advance with his aides. Gibbs went on:

And, look, Bret, it's our hope that, as the president said, there can be -- this can be part of a teachable moment, that we can create a better communication and a dialogue between communities and police and help everyone do their job a little bit better.

Like the President, Gibbs doesn't seem to understand that the person in need of "teaching" is Obama. And who is supposed to "do their job a little bit better"? The police, I guess; but some would say the incident suggests that the President needs to do his job a little bit better. The dialogue continues:

BAIER: In fact, accepting that invitation for the beer, Mr. Gates wrote this. He said that he hopes it helps. Quote, "my unfortunate experience will only have a larger meaning if we can all use this to diminish racial profiling."

So does the president believe, as Mr. Gates clearly still does, that this was an instance of racial profiling?

GIBBS: Well, I think that's an issue that the president has worked on and been concerned about. I don't think the president has come down on one side of that or the other. Again, I think he would tell you he doesn't know all the details of this.'

The professor apparently believes that he was the victim of racial profiling and it's likely Obama agrees with him.  But there is another lesson to come out of this.  When police officers arrive at your house in response to a reported burglary and find you in it, you will be asked to step outside even after you show the officers that you live there.  Once there the break is reported, the police are obligated to confirm that there is not a hostage situation in progress and that it will be safe for you to go back into your house when they leave.

Those things were not what Professor Gates was thinking, when he called Sgt. Crowley a racist for asking him to step outside, nor were they on President Obama's mind when he said the Cambridge Police "acted stupidly" for arresting a loud and insulting Professor Gates.  So it will be interesting to see what comes out of Teachable Moment -- Take Two.  Andrew Breitbart sees an opportunity of a different sort.

'The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation's history. This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important. As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race. And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job.

Sgt. Crowley, a proud and defiant public professional, played the moment perfectly and stopped his own assassination by media. Talk about a postmodern hero. Whether he likes it or not, Sgt. Crowley is a potent symbol of how the union has managed to become more perfect, a Rosa Parks of rush-to-judgment "reverse racism."

Now that the facts of the case show that his friend the professor was the man doing the racial profiling, the president wants to end the discussion.'

Let's see how that beer goes down at the White House.

Double Digit Disapproval

Barack Obama's attack on the nation's health care delivery system hasn't helped his approval ratings. 

'The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory (see trends).'

His ratings took a precipitous dive when, without any knowledge of the facts, he said the Cambridge Massachusetts police acted "stupidly" when they placed a disorderly Harvard professor under arrest.  Obama's remark amounted to an accusation that Cambridge Police Sgt. James Crowley was guilty of racial profiling.

Open mouth, insert foot.

Speculation goes both ways over the question by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times.  It was about the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates at his home in Cambridge, Mass.  She asked:

'What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?'

While Ms. Sweet took both praise and criticism for asking the question, it was really Obama's answer that set off the controversy,

'Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.'

As one might imagine, the Cambridge police are not in agreement with Obama's conclusion.  It was not "fair to say" that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly."  Sgt Leon Lashley, the African-American partner of arresting officer sgt James Crowley, said it was Professor Gates who acted strangely.

'Lashley says Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."

Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said [he] supported Crowley "100 percent."'

According to Ms. Sweet, the question was not planted, and the White House had no idea it was coming, even though they called to give her a heads up. 

'I got a call from the White House press office about 6:30 p.m. confirming I was indeed going to show up at the 8 p.m. press conference. I was told I "may" get a question from the president. No one asked me -- directly or indirectly -- about what I may be asking. No one from the White House tried to plant any question.'

But down in the comment section of her story behind the question, Ms. Sweet gets it from both sides.  Blame...

'Your question has opened up so many old racial wounds from the past here in Greater Boston. What a mess! Next time please think before you ask!'

More blame...

'Oh, come on now.

Your "question" was designed to torpedo the President's presentation on health care reform for all the tactical reasons you gave -- where else ? -- at the end of your explanation above.'

And praise...

'No need to explain your question. It will make it seem as though it was planned. Personally, I knew nothing of the Gates' incident and I find that more of a travesty than you asking the question.

Eventually, it was going to come out and you brought it to the fore-front in the media at the Obama press conference.

Thanks.'

My initial reaction to the question was, what a soft toss.  But what a disastrous swing and miss.  He shouldn't need a Miranda warning before he answers questions from the press.  Anybody who's ever seen a "Law and Order" episode knows that it's a good idea to have your lawyer present when you have to answer the D.A.'s questions.  Well, Obama is a lawyer.  But here we have Obama, admittedly not having all the facts, yet shooting off his mouth anyway.  How bright is that?

In October 2008 Charles Krauthammer wrote,

'Obama has shown that he is a man of limited experience, questionable convictions, deeply troubling associations (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko) and an alarming lack of self- definition - do you really know who he is and what he believes? Nonetheless, he's got both a first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president.'

Limited experience.  Check.  Questionable convictions.  Check.  Troubling associations.  Check.  Well, now Obama is president, but where is the first-class intellect? 

The Real Gap Between Rich and Poor

One of the more interesting things about Joel Kotkin's The Blue-State Meltdown and the Collapse of the Chicago Model is that he identifies the real gap between the rich and the poor.  According to Kotkin it is the result of two key blue state economic principles.  First is 'the relentless expansion of public sector employment and political power.'  The second key blue economic principle says that there is 'ever expanding high-end “creative economy”' that will pay for it all.

And what do you get?

'The Great Delusion and Its Blue-State Victims

This elite strategy has served to bifurcate most blue states into an affluent core and a rapidly declining periphery. For example, California, a state whose shift from red to blue has given some heft to “progressives” everywhere, has experienced an increasing gap between a small sliver of wealthy metropolitan residents along the coast and an increasingly marginalized interior populated largely by middle- and working-class Hispanics.'

 Don't hold your breath waiting for the mainstream press to begin reporting on the concentration of wealth among the elite.  Well, they are the elite actually.  Definitely part of the "creative economy."  All you have to do is listen to their Obama coverage.

Legitimizing The Abuse of Power

Republican Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to postpone votes to confirm Arturo Valenzuela as assistant secretary of state, and Thomas Shannon as U.S. ambassador to Brazil.  DeMint is unhappy with U.S. policy on Honduras.  He and 16 other Republican senators wrote to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ask that the administration to reassess its stance on Honduras.

The group said it worried that Washington's pro-Zelaya stance would legitimize "abuses of power" and "violations of the Honduran constitution" by Zelaya before he was ousted by the army on June 28.

Efforts to broker an end to the Honduran power struggle collapsed on Sunday, after interim leader Roberto Micheletti rejected a proposal to reinstate the overthrown president.

Clinton spoke to Micheletti by phone after the talks fell apart and warned him he could face cuts in economic aid unless he strikes a deal with his rival.

DeMint and other Republicans have said they believe Hondurans were acting lawfully when they ousted Zelaya after he had sought to hold a referendum on overhauling the constitution to allow his re-election.

A spokesman for DeMint said on Tuesday the senator was also displeased at Valenzuela's refusal to discuss Honduras at length during his nomination hearing.

At the hearing, DeMint asked why Washington would want to be on the same side as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro, in the Honduran crisis.

"President Obama rushed to side with Chavez and Castro before getting the facts. Now it's clear that the people of Honduras were defending the rule of law," DeMint said on Tuesday, through his spokesman.

I can't help but notice that Obama invariably sides with leftists, or any other totalitarians for that matter, while they assert control by whatever means possible.  Look how he refused to stand up for the people of Iran.  And now Honduras.

Real Reform

Bobby Jindal lays out what real health care reform ought to be, and what it isn't.

'The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.

First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan.

If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.

Second, the Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.

Third, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down. The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.'

As long as there has been a "left" there has been a profound dishonesty in the promotion of leftist policy.  That's because leftist policy is designed first and foremost to promote leftist control.  Everything else is just an excuse for giving it to them.