invincible idiots

It is sometime instructional to read what Leftists have to say. I appreciate the interns and junior assistants of the VRWC who cull through the chaff of the Huffington Post, etc for slave wages – so I don’t have to if I don’t want to. But still, to have even an inkling of what they Left thinks and how they come up with their loony ideas, it is necessary to read them directly.

Case in point, reliably loony Eugene Robinson:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/12/demanding_the_impossible_109517.html

“At issue is a fundamental question -- what is the nature and purpose of government”

This much is true. Sane people have observed as much. It is one of the things that is confusing Leftists. Back in the good old days of Rockefeller Republicans, the discussion was merely over how big Gov’t should be and whether Communists were fuzzy or smelly. Today, Conservatives have brought up a question Leftists thought had been answered – what is the nature and purpose of government?

Robinson, however, doesn’t know his History:

“-- that was first answered more than two centuries ago, when Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson duked it out as warring members of George Washington's first Cabinet. Hamilton's centralized government was victorious. There are those who have never forgiven him.”

It was answered over 2 centuries ago, but his answer is barely 100 years old. I am quite confident Alexander Hamilton wouldn’t feel too comfortable with the House Progressive Caucus. Robinson re-imagines Hamilton and Adams as disciples of Crowley and Wilson and Marx. Only in an alternate universe inhabited by Manhattan/Berkley Leftists.

“The far-right ideologues in the House seek to starve the federal government to the point where it can no longer fulfill its constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.”

You don’t have to be a Constitutional Scholar to know that a line in the preamble doesn’t constitute an enumerated power. Also that a particular benefit for a specific class or individual is incongruous with the general welfare, which – if words mean anything – means it the non-specific (not 'targeted') good (as in non-rivalous, ie: roads, defense, etc) (not benefice, tax shelter or direct payment) of the general population (not particular interest groups or individuals). Thus, EITC, medicare and Social security are a lot of things but not in any way promoting the general welfare.

“Their inspired tactic -- which has worked so well that they would be crazy to abandon it -- has been to take a wildly extreme position and stick to it with the obstinacy of a mule.”

Does it not strike him that the mascot of the Democrat party is in fact, the mule? Perhaps not. In any case, it seems to me that obstinately saying that the country isn’t broke, that $1T deficits won’t add to the debt, and that increasing taxes won’t decrease economic activity are wildly, crazily extreme. But then, to Eugene, I’m a far-right ideologue. I thought I was just someone who could do math.

“Ryan seeks not just to reduce the nation's long-term indebtedness but to change the essence of the relationship between citizens and their government.

“Restore” would be a better word. Obama et al have been intent on changing the relationship between citizens and their government. Read Wilson and Crowley and you will get an idea of what they have in mind.

This graph is from the Administration's case supporting the disastrous stimulus plan. I found it in an article in the Weekly Standard. We are now in Q3, FY11. The ill-conceived, poorly-executed Stimulus boondoggle was supposed to have afforded us with 6.5% unemployment. Without the effects of their Keynesian idiocy, they projected that unemployment would be about 7.6% right now. It is actually somewhere between 8.8% and 17.7% - according to the Huffington Post!

I think we can all agree that the Democrat's economic plan has had a measurable and significant effect on the economy - just not a good one.

Forget the phone, what about the 'problem'?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/obama-disappointed-lack-cool-phone-oval-office/

"I had the emir of Qatar come by the Oval Office today," Obama said. "Pretty influential guy. He is a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform. ... Now he himself is not reforming significantly. There's no big move toward democracy in Qatar. But you know part of the reason is that the per capita income of Qatar is $145,000 a year. That will dampen a lot of conflict.
"I make this point only because if there is opportunity, if people feel their lives can get better, then a lot of these problems get solved."

In context, the ‘problems’ that Obama wishes he didn’t have and that the emir of Qatar is paying its citizens to not bother him with are democracy and reform.

I wonder if we can convince him that drilling for American oil will help him with his Tea Party 'problem'?

R2P - WTF?

No, not "winning the future" I don't think. R2P apparently means "Responsibility to Protect" and it seems to be a major feature of the Obama Doctrine. This from the Globe and Mail:

"This doctrine is known as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P for short) and was endorsed by the United Nations in 2005. It mandates that the “international community” is morally obliged to defend people who are in danger of massive human-rights violations. It’s rooted in Western guilt over the failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda. R2P is the moral underpinning of the war in Libya, and it’s the reason why people such as Paul Martin, Roméo Dallaire, Mr. Rae and Mr. Axworthy have been so amazingly eager for us to rush into battle.

So have Ms. Power and her sister warriors Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN."

Columnist MARGARET WENTE concludes:

"We have entered a new age – the age of humanitarian imperialism. Humanitarian imperialists are besotted with fantasies of the West’s inherent goodness. As American writer David Rieff puts it, they have promised that, from now on, all wars will “noble wars of altruism.” To them, the facts on the ground don’t matter much. What really matters is their good intentions."

The Obama Doctrine: Post-Neo-Colonialism: All the problems of colonialism without the benefits.

Big Sis Tells us It's All Safe Now

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday said the administration has "enough" resources to secure the border now that President Obama signed into law a $600 million border security spending bill, and she said Congress must now act on a larger overhaul of the nation's immigration laws.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/napolitano-border-spending-bill-signed-time-reform/

Who didn't see this coming? It goes well with the MSM's recent regurgitation of the MiniTru's claim that there have been more arrests, deportations etc. More than when? When Bush didn't do enough to secure the Homeland against foreign infiltration? And does the fact that there are more arrests in Chicago for murder than in Lake Forest mean that Chicago is safer? Not really. But it will put pressure on RINOs who have no guts, no principles or no faith in their standing among their Hispanic constituents to flip to the wrong side of the issue.

A Time for Choosing

"The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that created this mess in the first place," Obama said at a fundraiser in Wisconsin. "In November, you're going to have that choice."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_us/us_obama

I quite agree. The worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that cause stagflation in the 70's, exacerbated the Depression in the 30's and has stifled the recovery following the real estate bubble burst in 2007. Keynesianism has failed everytime it has been tried. Statism has failed every time it has been tried, collectivism has failed everytime it has been tried. Let's think of all of the prosperous states and comfortable citizens enjoying the fruits of a strong, dictatorial central government directing the economy and distributing the fruits of prosperity: Burma, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia...

Nah, let's try something new that has had some small level of success occassionally in the past: Let individuals pursue their goals unfettered by central government micro-management, enforce the rule of law impartially, support ethical and moral behavior among the citizens and discourage (in accordance with ordered liberty) anti-social behavior.

In November we will have a choice between "up or down. Up to man's age-old dream--the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."
http://reagan2020.us/speeches/A_Time_for_Choosing.asp

Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant." - GKC

Heretics, Ch VII. Omar and the Sacred Vine:

Great joy does, not gather the rosebuds while it may;

its eyes are fixed on the immortal rose which Dante saw.

Great joy has in it the sense of immortality; the very splendour

of youth is the sense that it has all space to stretch its legs in.

In all great comic literature, in "Tristram Shandy"

or "Pickwick", there is this sense of space and incorruptibility;

we feel the characters are deathless people in an endless tale.



It is true enough, of course, that a pungent happiness comes chiefly

in certain passing moments; but it is not true that we should think

of them as passing, or enjoy them simply "for those moments' sake."

To do this is to rationalize the happiness, and therefore to destroy it.

Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized.

Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure.

I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean

something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness.

A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love,

or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment,

but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the

woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not

for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag.

The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting;

the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks

of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something

that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity;

these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary.

Once look at them as moments after Pater's manner, and they become

as cold as Pater and his style. Man cannot love mortal things.

He can only love immortal things for an instant.