White House Down:

 Obama Version

I don't know how he does it, but Internet Wit Sans Peer, Iowahawk, wrapped up the week more succinctly than anyone:

BREAKING: State Department says Egyptian military overthrow spontaneous reaction to 'White House Down' movie"

Bipartisan Tango and Lawless Justice

Two things caught my attention this week: first, the ridiculous way Democrat partisans, erroneously appointed by President George W. Bush to government positions from which they exercised their power, to undercut Republicans are by reason of the Bush appointment tagged "bipartisan" by the media.

Secondly, the widespread ignorance of the Bill of Rights and their obligations by oath to obey the Constitution by government lawyers in Washington and at the state level.

The Democracy Initiative: a Coup in Plain Sight

Matthew Continetti, one of my favorite writers, wrote an eye opener last week, "'A Conspiracy so Immense': ideological commitment and the timidity of pragmatic politics", too late for me to discuss in my column. It is one of the most important stories you'll ever read anywhere and shows how far behind conservatives are in the fight against "progressive " ideologues.

He picks up on a report by Andy Kroll in Mother Jones about a coordinated effort by about 36 different interest groups with reported revenues of no less than $1.69 billion, pledging millions of dollars to work together to attack conservative supporters and organizations, to intervene directly in Democratic politics, to push for filibuster reform to better enable a push through their agenda without any input from the opposition, and expanding "voting rights" and fighting voter registration laws to further grease the skids for their legislative agenda.

The group's organizers are Michael Brune, formerly director of the radical Rainforest Action Network, and presently director of the Sierra Club , Phil Radford, head of Greenpeace, Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP.

All of this is taking place with no comment by the media -- which like their counterparts in academia, Hollywood. Silicon Valley (and unfortunately too many big corporations) -- are ideological partners in "progressivism".

Here are some of the highlights of the article, though I strongly urge you read it all:

1. Who belongs: Kroll didn't name all the participants in the organization's latest retreat in December which took place within blocks of the White House at the headquarters of the National Education Association. Here are those he did name:

"the AFL-CIO, the Center for American Progress, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Color of Change, Common Cause, Demos, the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Mother Jones (in a "non-editorial" capacity!), National People's Action, the National Wildlife Federation, People for the American Way, the Piper Fund, Public Campaign, the Service Employees International Union, the United Auto Workers, and Voto Latino. Brune of the Sierra Club predicts there will be 50 participating organizations by spring."

2. How much money will they throw into their effort? Continetti thinks there should be "at least two high numerals inserted before Kroll's estimate of "millions of dollars". This from people claiming they want to get money out of politics.

Continetti repeatedly attacks the mainstream media for failing to cover this story, concluding,

What little we know of the Democracy Initiative provides a useful lesson in the ability of fantasy to inspire political action. Progressivism sets the political and cultural and social agenda; it is embedded in Hollywood, in Silicon Valley, in the academy, in journalism, and in much of corporate America; many of the richest counties in the nation support liberal Democrats; President Obama outraised and out-spent his Republican challenger; the combined budgets of progressive interest groups and foundations and think tanks and nonprofits and community organizations is practically incalculable; the most liberal president since Lyndon Baines Johnson is barreling ahead with a confrontational and ideological approach to cabinet appointments and budget fights; Republicans and conservatives are in their greatest state of shock and disarray since 1992 and perhaps since 1964; and yet progressive elites such as the well-compensated Radford of Greenpeace still are swinging at the windmill of the "40-plus-year strategy by the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world" to "take over the country."

Someone needs to give the members of the Democracy Initiative a tap on the shoulder, a kick in the pants, a wonk-like nudge -- anything to wake them from their fantasy of being weak and isolated and besieged, anything to alert them to the fact that it is they, not "the Scaifes, Exxons, Coors, and Kochs of the world" who actually run the country and therefore ought to be covered in a diligent, scrupulous, and adversarial fashion. One thing is for sure: It won't be the mainstream media that holds the progressive movement to account.

Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom, like me, found the Continetti article extremely important. Jeff's forte is language as a tool to stifle debate and control thinking, and he viewed the article largely from that angle.

It is post-modernist philosophy put into physical usage: we have witnessed, if we cared to take notice, the studied and inexorable deconstruction of our Constitution, such that we now have laws deemed Constitutional by the Court that claim that of course a country formed on a Declaration of Independence from a tyrannical centralized authority can be compelled by that centralized authority to enter into private contracts -- and that businesses be compelled to offer those contracts -- the specifics of which are set by the central government. We have a Court that deemed it Constitutional that of course the government can take private land and give it to a shopping mall developer if the promise of increased revenue for that government comes to be considered and act in the public interest. And soon, we'll be told that "shall not be infringed" is naturally open to infringements of all kinds, because shut up and think of the children.

"Equality" today means equality of outcome, or egalitarianism and homogeneity. "Tolerance" today means how dare you give offense -- and your "hate speech" must be controlled. "Fair share" today means an immensely disproportionate amount is paid by those scapegoated by the left and given over to the left's cronies, with some crumbs going to the poor, who become more and more entrenched in their dependence on the state, and more and more permanent clients to the state's war on the free market.

To anyone who has studied language -- and done so in a way where they didn't feel compelled to follow the academic party line and pretend the sophistry of the post-structural movement, which has reached its zenith (or from the perspective of Enlightenment classical liberalism, its nadir) in anti-foundationalism -- the physical, policy manifestations of such a corruption of our epistemology, informed by the premises we accept for the language that must necessarily describe and construct that epistemology, was an inevitability. As certain linguistic kernel assumptions were adopted, entrenched, and finally institutionalized -- by all political stripes ("Yay, it's the 'democratization of language and meaning!' We're all for democracy! Go us!" -- the effects of that adoption, played out in the world of language where language has performative functions (and no where is this more so than in law and legislative policy), were preordained: collectivism, consensus, mob rule, all dressed up in the finery of studied, rigorous legal interpretation that, once certain conditions for "interpreting" were legitimated, were inevitable. And that's precisely because the kernel assumptions were all cleverly laid by collectivists to deconstruct and or subsume the notion of individualism on every level.

This is a coup. And we've relied on cowards, charlatans, or know-nothings on "our" side to help push back against it.

While I agree with Jeff on the attempted coup and the failure of conservatives and the Republican party to effectively communicate what is going on and fight back against it, there are ways to counter this sort of thing but it takes time and the kind of effort I am not seeing.

In an article describing how the National Rifle Association became a political force to reckon with, the Washington Post 's Joel Achenbach, Scott Higham and Sari Horowitz show us how it was done.

1. Be firm in advancing your convictions and welcome controversy. "They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The NRA learned that controversy isn't a problem but rather, in many cases, a solution, a motivator, a recruitment tool, an inspiration."

2. Don't try to be all things to all people. "The group has learned the virtues of being a single-issue organization with a very simple take on that issue. The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists. In the halls of power, it works quietly behind the scenes. It uses fear when necessary to motivate supporters. The ultimate goal of gun-control advocates, the NRA claims, is confiscation and then total disarmament, leading to government tyranny."

3. When the old order needs changing, change it:

In the second half of the 1970s, the NRA faced a crossroads. Would it remain an Establishment institution, partnering with such mainstream entities as the Ford Foundation and focusing on shooting competitions? Or would it roll up its sleeves and fight hammer and tongs against the gun-control advocates? [Snip]"Because of the political direction the NRA was taking, they weren't being invited to parties and their wives were not happy," says Jeff Knox, Neal's son and director of the Firearms Coalition, which fights for the Second Amendment and against laws restricting guns or ammunition. "Dad was on the phone constantly with various people around the country. He had his copy of the NRA bylaws and Robert's Rules, highlighted and marked. My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops."

Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The bylaws of the NRA gave members power on the convention floor to vote for changes in the NRA governing structure.

"We were fighting the federal government on one hand and internal NRA on the other hand," Aquilino says.

In Cincinnati, Knox read the group's demands, 15 of them, including one that would give the members of the NRA the right to pick the executive vice president, rather than letting the NRA's board decide. The coup took hours to accomplish. Joe Tartaro, a rebel, remembers the evening as "electric." The hall's vending machine ran out of sodas.

By 3:30 in the morning the NRA had a whole new look. Gone were the Old Guard officers, including Maxwell Rich, the ousted executive vice president.

3. Clean House when you need to,

Don't ignore your membership and their concerns and change leaders who go wobbly, but don't go off and become some fringe organization.

4. Choose spokesmen who effectively communicate your position in words that strike a responsive chord in listeners:

By 2000, the NRA had become even more closely aligned with the Republican Party and worked strenuously to keep Al Gore from becoming president. At the annual meeting in May of that year, Hollywood legend Heston provided what might be the signature moment in the history of the NRA. He spoke of a looming loss of liberty, of Concord and Lexington, of Pearl Harbor, the "sacred stuff" that "resides in that wooden stock and blued steel."

Handed a replica of a Colonial musket, he said: "As we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed -- and especially for you, Mr. Gore."

He held the gun aloft.

"From my cold, dead hands!"

Of course, the NRA has been fortunate in its enemies. The Democratic party has done a lot to make it the heavily financed, powerful organization it has become:

"The D's keep coming back to this. This is so visceral to them," Norquist says. "Again, it's an expression of contempt for Middle America. They don't like you and yours and don't think you should be in charge of the capacity to take care of yourself. They know they can't do this for you, but they've hired these nice people to draw chalk outlines of your kids, and that's supposed to make you feel better.


5. Don't be afraid to just say no to people who want you to compromise your principles for their political advantage.



It'll be the death of you.

By Clarice Feldman

"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Ben Franklin

Paul Ryan and the Triumph of Math

Luftmensh is a delightful Yiddish word to describe an impractical person who concerns himself with airy intellectual matters and not how to make a living or get things to actually work. I had just decided to make this column on Paul Ryan's nomination about how facts, in this case mathematics, will beat the fantastical notions of the luftmensh in the White House. Remember, Obama began his term as the spinner of naïve hopes and dreams and as those proved unworkable, became the purveyor of fear, anxiety and outright lies. Once again, however, the great Iowahawk beat me to it with this twitter:

"Paul Ryan represent[s] Obama's most horrifying nightmare: math."

Let me remind you how nightmarish Ryan is to Obama. Here's a six-minute take down of Obamacare by Congressman Ryan.
Watch the vacant look in Obama's eyes as it becomes clear he has no idea how to respond to the facts Ryan raises, to the math which demonstrates the utter unsustainability of Obama's legislative scheme.

And then observe how that look in Obama's eyes turns to rage

















Ryan, a man who does know what's he's talking about on the most important issue before us -- rescuing the economy from Obama's mismanagement and getting America back on track -- has to be Obama's worst nightmare.
(As for Joe Biden, my guess is he should start packing up to leave his office because Obama cannot afford to have as his running mate this time a man obviously chosen only because he was sure never to intellectually show up his boss.)
Fiscal conservatives and libertarians who want to limit the federal government's control of our money and lives are ecstatic. Why shouldn't they be? Here are some of the things Ryan's been heard to say:

"...at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I think there's a difference in philosophy here. One side likes to think of the idea of everybody sending their money to Washington, then we go to a back room, and we slice up the money and send it out to favored groups, favored constituents, people we want to be as winners versus those who might be losers. We've got to get out of the game of Washington picking winners and losers in the tax code, because what we do is stifle that entrepreneur who has an idea..."

"...And we've been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference..."

"The facts are very, very clear. The United States is heading for a debt crisis. The only solutions will be truly painful for us all. That doesn't have to be our future. The way we respond to this challenge will ultimately define our generation. We can choose a path to prosperity..."

"...The spending bills that you have signed into law, the domestic and discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 300ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now...So my question is, why not start freezing spending now? And would you support a line-item veto and helping us get a vote on it in the House?"

"...America is not just a nationality it's not just a mass of land from Hawaii to Maine, from Wisconsin to Florida. America is an idea. It's the most pro-human idea ever designed by mankind. Our founders got it right, when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature's God - - not from government. Should we now subscribe to an ideology where government creates rights, is solely responsible for delivering these artificial rights, and then systematically rations these rights?"[/quote]

In contrast with Ryan's notion of a fiscally sound economy, and a limited government not based on a Chicago style thuggish spoils system we have the Luftmensh in Chief saying fascistic nonsense like "you didn't build that" and this:

I said I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back and GM is number one again. (Applause.) So now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs not just in the auto industry, but in every industry. I don't want those jobs taking root in places like China. I want them taking root in places like Pueblo. [emphasis added]

For those of us who paid attention to what he did to the auto industry: confiscating the pensions of non-union members, destroying the livelihood of Republican GM dealers; managing GM so badly its stock is now valued at 50% of the value it held when we bought it; causing the SP500 and Dow to nosedive as he stood property rights on its head, his words were chilling.
Lubbock online details more of the bone headedness of Obama's claim:

The facts do not support Obama's wild assertions. An analysis posted two months ago by James Sherk and Todd Zywicki shows that the American taxpayers will lose about $23 billion in the Obama bailout of the auto industry and the unions financially ended up with most of the money. The following is the Abstract of this column,

The U.S. government will lose about $23 billion on the 2008-2009 bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. President Obama emphatically defends his decision to subsidize the automakers, arguing it was necessary to prevent massive job losses. But, even accepting this premise, the government could have executed the bailout with no net cost to taxpayers. It could have -- had the Administration required the United Auto Workers (UAW) to accept standard bankruptcy concessions instead of granting the union preferential treatment. The extra UAW subsidies cost $26.5 billion -- more than the entire foreign aid budget in 2011. The Administration did not need to lose money to keep GM and Chrysler operating. The Detroit auto bailout was, in fact, a UAW bailout.

Allowing Obama to take over US industries would be a disaster of incalculable and unimaginable proportions. Obama has shown himself to be incapable of handling taxpayer money, and Obama continues to remain intent on fully controlling the entire economy of the United States. ObamaCare effectively placed health care under full government control, and the majority of Americans want ObamaCare dismantled and discarded.
The United States of America cannot survive many more months of Barack Obama. All the wealth that exists in the United States could not begin to pay for what Barack Obama intends to do to us and to our country.

If the Romney campaign's weak response to a mendacious Obama PAC ad charging him with killing a steelworker's wife -- an ad so bad even CNN and MSNBC couldn't stomach it -- made us fear that he was just another establishment Republican who couldn't and wouldn't fight for us, his choice of vice president was so bold we are forced to re-assess that judgment. Nothing better shows Romney's strength of purpose and clear eyed vision of his role and his campaign than the selection of Congressman Ryan as his running mate.


By Clarice Feldman