In His Interest Only

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Columnist and author of “The Undocumented,” Mark Steyn argued comparing President Obama to Neville Chamberlain is “rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain” on Tuesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said of comparisons between Obama and Chamberlain, “I think actually that’s rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, Sean. He got the central question of the 1930’s wrong, but he was an honorable man, who believed he was acting in the interests of his country and the British Empire which he loved. When Churchill became prime minister he kept Chamberlain on and had him chair the War Cabinet in his absence. And Churchill wept over Chamberlain’s funeral casket, and claimed he was an honorable man who just happened to be wrong. I don’t think you can say that about Obama. I think what Obama did is significantly worse than what Neville Chamberlain did. I don’t think, in effect, Obama was negotiating on behalf of the United States. I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians were, in a sense, negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran’s reentry, the biggest planetary sponsor of terrorism, to facilitate its reentry into the global community. That’s what Obama was there doing.”

“I think the nuclear issue was a mere pretext, a Hitchcockian McGuffin. Iran will be a nuclear state, and very soon. The joke inspections regime – under which Teheran can block any inspections for the best part of a month – will facilitate the nuclearization of Iran and prevent anyone who objects to it – such as Israel – from doing anything about it. That’s a given.”

But that’s not what the talks were about. Obama’s vision of the post-American Middle East sees Iran as the dominant power, and that’s what the negotiations were there to finesse.

Steyn added, “I think that’s the other difference between Obama and Chamberlain. The horrors of the — of what Germany did were not known to Neville Chamberlain. And in a sense the appeasers of the 1930’s did so because of the horrors of the first World War and the lost generation, and they didn’t want that to happen again. And it’s because we know they got it wrong, that history won’t give us the same opt out card. Because we should have known better because it had happened before. And I think what Obama gets here, i think it does come back to a — to his classic Marxist worldview in which he sees America as the problem on the world’s stage. And if you look at everything he did — he’s done, Sean, what he did with Iran fits into that context. I mean, whether you look at missile defense in Eastern Europe, where he takes the side of Russia over US allies like Poland and the Czech Republic. If you look at little things, like the Falklands Islands, where he takes the side of Argentina over a US ally like United Kingdom. And in the Middle East, he’s taken the side of Iran over US allies like the Sunni monarchies and Israel, because his central view is that America and American power is the problem in the world. And, therefore, American allies are part of that problem. And, therefore, what he does is, in a sense, withdraw from the world, and enhance the position of the enemies of American allies. That’s what he’s done in the Middle East. And it won’t be confined to the Middle East, it’ll spread beyond that.”

Sheldon Filger: In a private meeting with leftwing progressive activists in the Democratic Party held in January 2014, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, spelled out the administration’s intentions. Unknown to Rhodes, his confidential briefing was secretly recorded, and details would subsequently leak out. The core of what he had to say about the negotiations with Iran:

“So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” He went on to say, “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away. And there are ways to do that.”

Largely in secret, and based on a belief that the American people lacked the sophistication to fully understand the Iran issue as thoroughly as President Obama and his expert advisors, a policy decision was apparently made to engage in a grand act of appeasement, allowing Iran to maintain intact its illicit nuclear infrastructure designed solely to fabricate fissile materials suitable for ultimately only one purpose — manufacturing nuclear weapons. A fig leaf of a 10-year moratorium on full-scale use of that capacity by Iran, with a supposedly strict inspection regime that is obfuscated by a complex treaty that is so arcane, it allows Iran numerous opportunities to thwart its intent and cheat successfully, has been presented as largely a public relations exercise. The real intent of the Iran deal, as Ben Rhodes suggested 18 months ago, is to transform Iran from an adversary to a regional ally of America’s and serve as the Middle East policeman, allowing the United States to finally extricate itself from military involvement in that region.

Barack Obama, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes apparently believe in a manner similar to Stalin’s that the Ayatollahs’ vehemently anti-American hatred is not a core value of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will be sublimated by pragmatism. Yet, even as the Iran Deal was being finalized, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei publicly chanted “death to America!” American flags were burning on Iranian streets as Kerry and Zarif exchanged smiles. And the regime’s most militant instrument of power, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was staging naval exercises that involved the “sinking” of a replica of an American aircraft carrier.

President Obama has apparently convinced himself that Tehran’s hostility is only a passing phase, and that in time it will become the trustworthy guardian of the Middle East, protecting the United States from what the administration seems to regard as the unruly Sunni Arab world. Decades of alliances with the broader Arab world, and especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, along with Israel, are in the process of being abandoned, in what must be regarded as the most reckless crapshoot in American geostrategic planning.

Unfortunately, the administration has lulled itself into sleepwalking with a hegemon whose core ideology, as the leaders of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly stated, is centered on hatred of the United States. Unless other forces can prevent what at this point seems inevitable, the ultimate outcome of the Iran deal is that Americans will one day awaken to the reality of an apocalyptic regime pointing nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles at their shores.

But it makes THEM feel good. It makes THEM feel superior. It MAKES them look “strong” in their eyes. And we know the only opinion that matters to Obama, Is Obama’s.

And in 10-15 years (or less) when Iran is terrorizing the world with Nuclear weapons the Left and Obama will be firmly and resolutely convinced beyond a shadow of any doubt that it will be someone elses fault! 🙂

Somebody Else’s Problem field, or SEP, is a cheap, easy, and staggeringly useful way of safely protecting something from unwanted eyes. It can run almost indefinitely on a torch (flashlight)/9 volt battery, and is able to do so because it utilises a person’s natural tendency to ignore things they don’t easily accept, like, for example, aliens at a cricket match. Any object around which an S.E.P. is applied will cease to be noticed, because any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence) become Somebody Else’s. An object becomes not so much invisible as unnoticed.

“The Somebody Else’s Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what’s more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people’s natural disposition not to see anything they don’t want to, weren’t expecting, or can’t explain.”

― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Problem Solved. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Government of The People

When the federal government spends more money than it takes in during a fiscal year, there is a deficit. The deficit turns into the debt when the Treasury Department issues interest-bearing Treasury securities so the government can continue to spend. If the federal government were ever to default on these securities, or not make an interest payment, America’s credit rating would suffer. In this scenario, the economic consequences would be dire for the United States.

In Citizens United Productions’ film Generation Zero, Fox Business analyst Tobin Smith warns, “We wouldn’t be paying down the debt. We would just simply be like the consumer at home who only pays a minimum on their credit card. That’s what we’re talking about, and that begins what I’m calling the financial death spiral.” The start of the financial “death spiral” can be seen in President Obama’s 2012 budget.

According to the president’s budget, interest payments for the national debt will quadruple from $186.9 billion in 2009 to $768.2 billion in 2020. That equals $2,500 for every man, woman, and child to pay off just the interest on our national debt every year. The American taxpayer will be like the Greek King Sisyphus, rolling the (debt) boulder up a mountain only to watch it come tumbling down over and over again. Remember, the $768.2 billion Americans will be paying in 2020 does not bring down our national debt; it just pays off the interest the debt has accrued!

As the Washington Post points out, the interest payments for our national debt will eclipse the spending of all discretionary programs except for defense by 2014. By 2018, interest payments on our national debt will be more expensive than one of the nation’s largest entitlement programs — Medicare. Politically difficult decisions have to be made, but President Obama’s leadership on this important issue is nowhere to be found.

President Obama talked about doing “big things” and making “big changes” during his 2010 State of the Union address, and said, “Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.”

Mr. President, if you believe what you said back in 2010, now is the time to make the tough decisions needed to dig America out of our fiscal black hole. For a leader who was elected on the mantle of change, I find it interesting how content President Obama is with the failing status quo. Unfortunately, it looks like Mr. Obama is more concerned about not angering the big government constituencies that will fund his $1 billion reelection campaign.

America faces a tough and bumpy road ahead. If the Obama administration continues to ignore the problems of irresponsible spending and the soaring interest payments on our $14 trillion national debt, then that road will most certainly lead to a dead end and future generations will be thrown under the bus. To conquer our debt, and the secret entitlement program that pays its interest, we must come together as a country and force our leaders to make the tough decisions. If not, America will become a second-rate power. (DC)

But don’t worry, Washington is taking this seriously. 😦

Especially, the Tax and Spend Liberals.

*********************

Baby Joseph Update

A Canada court had ruled that under socialized medicine their baby must die in the hospital. Now he’s in the U.S., getting the care his parents, not the bureaucrats, want.

Joseph Maraachli, who’d been set to have his ventilator removed against his parents’ wishes at an Ontario hospital last month, got a tracheotomy Monday morning and is doing well, his family says. The procedure was denied him under a system of medicine that may be coming to a hospital near you courtesy of ObamaCare.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Radycalled it “a sad and difficult case,” according to the London (Ontario) Free Press, and set the time for Joseph’s government-decreed passing “to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes.”

The parents won in the end and got to do what THEY wanted to do and not what the state wanted.

But when Obamacare kicks you in the ass where do you go when the State says “No”??

*********************************************************************

And there’s the Obama fund raising trip to Brazil:

While the President refuses to lift the offshore drilling here in the United States, continues to demonize the oil and gas industries, as energy prices continue to rise and as unemployment still hovers around 9 percent, Obama told a group of Brazilian businessmen at a CEO Summit during his trip to South America over the weekend they should begin drilling in their offshore oil reserves so the United States can be a paying customer in the future, adding that the United States would help them do it.

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

Really?!

Yep, as part of the White House U.S.-Brazil Strategic Energy Dialogue, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and President Obama have developed the Strategic Energy Dialogue, a plan that helps Brazil develop the country’s offshore oil reserves.

The two Presidents also discussed intensified sharing of best practices with respect to the safe and environmentally benign exploitation of offshore oil and gas resources. Brazilian officials will meet with representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior within two weeks to advance the dialogue on safe offshore oil and gas development. The United States and Brazil will hold workshops on deepwater production technologies and environmental management, the first planned for early October in Rio de Janeiro.

Not only is President Obama going against those in his base who believe offshore drilling is bad for the environment and that the burning of oil contributes to global warming, Obama is blatantly supporting the economic growth of another country while purposely hindering the economic growth of the American economy.

Doc Hastings, Natura Resources Committee Chairman, is not impressed:

“Rather than creating American energy and American jobs, President Obama is in Brazil advocating for deepening the United States’ reliance on foreign energy.”

“The President has clearly learned nothing from recent world events.  He appears to believe the answer is to shift our foreign energy dependence from one part of the world to another.  The real answer is to produce more American energy.  The ‘potential for a new, stable source of energy’ can be found with our own resources here at home.  Resources that the Obama Administration is purposely choosing to keep under lock-and-key.”

Let’s not forget Obama has blocked access to U.S. oil and natural gas production by issuing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and has revoked onshore leases since taking office. Don’t be fooled when the Administration says they have been working to open up energy resources in the United States as the Administration has only issued three permits allowing for deep water exploration, not drilling.

So much for keeping jobs from going oversees and so much for lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

2009: The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan. (WSJ)

And guess who has a big interest in a Brazilian Oil Company (Petrobras)….<<drum roll please>>…GEORGE SOROS!!

The Socialist Billionaire who is the money sugar daddy of the Democrats. (That and Public Sector Unions).

He’s good “rich” people.

He also has interest in NPR, Media Matters & The Huffington Post. 🙂

Gee, now that’s not a cynical campaign ploy now is it…. 😦

But don’t worry, we are from the Government and we are here to protect you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Peasants are Revolting!!

“Sire, The Peasants are Revolting.”

“You’re telling me, they stink on ice” (Mel Brook’s History of the World Part 1)

And from one of the best films ever, Monty Python & The Holy Grail.

ARTHUR: I am your king! (Think Obama, The Ivy Tower Harvard Educated Community Organizer and Academic Professor )

OLD WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.

OLD WOMAN: Well, how did you become king, then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held Excalibur aloft from the bosom of the water to signify by Divine Providence … that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur … That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing out swords … that’s no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. ( and ours ignores that in favor of  Socialist Keynesian Liberal Academic Fantasies and “democratic” cramdowns for your own good because we are so morally and intellectually superior)

ARTHUR: Be quiet! (HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to the Insurance Industry)

DENNIS: You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

ARTHUR: Shut up!

DENNIS: I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!

ARTHUR: (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up!

DENNIS: Ah! NOW … we see the violence inherent in the system.

ARTHUR: Shut up! (DAMN TEA PARTIERS!)

PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.

DENNIS: (calling) Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I’m being repressed!

ARTHUR: (aware that people are now coming out and watching) Bloody peasant! (pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off) (Bloody Teabagger!)

DENNIS: Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away.

ARTHUR: Come on, patsy.

They ride off.

DENNIS: (in the background as we PULL OUT) did you see him repressing me, then? That’s what I’ve been on about …

Call the NAACP!!, LA Raza, or MSDNC… 🙂

But now to the more serious point. This amazing article by Victor David Hanson.

Traditional peasant societies believe in only a limited good. The more your neighbor earns, the less someone else gets. Profits are seen as a sort of theft. They must be either hidden or redistributed. Envy rather than admiration of success reigns.

In contrast, Western civilization began with a very different ancient Greek idea of an autonomous citizen, not an indentured serf or subsistence peasant. The small, independent landowner — if left to his own talents and if his success was protected by, and from, government — would create new sources of wealth for everyone. The resulting greater bounty for the poor soon trumped their old jealousy of the better off.

Citizens of ancient Greece and Italy soon proved more prosperous and free than either the tribal folk to the north and west, or the imperial subjects to the south and east. The success of later Western civilization in general, and America in particular, is testament to this legacy of the freedom of the individual in the widest political and economic sense

We seem to be forgetting that lately — though Mao Zedong’s redistributive failures in China, or present-day bankrupt Greece, should warn us about what happens when government tries to enforce an equality of result rather than of opportunity.

Even after the failure of statism at the end of the Cold War, the disasters of socialism in Venezuela and Cuba, and the recent financial meltdowns in the European Union, for some reason America is returning to a peasant mentality of a limited good that redistributes wealth rather than creates it. Candidate Obama’s “spread the wealth” slip to Joe the Plumber simply was upgraded to President Obama’s “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

The more his administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors; raises taxes on the upper income brackets; and creates more regulations, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent cash rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

No wonder that in such a climate of fear and suspicion, unemployment remains near 10 percent. Deficits chronically exceed $1 trillion per annum. And now the poverty rate has hit a historic high. We are all getting poorer in hopes that a few don’t get richer.
The public is seldom told that 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 40 percent of the income taxes collected, while 40 percent of income earners are exempt from federal income tax — or that present entitlements like Medicare and Social Security are financially unsustainable. Instead, they hear more often that those who managed to scheme to make above $250,000 per year have obligations to the rest of us to give back about 60 percent of what they earn in higher health care and income taxes — together with payroll and rising state income taxes, and along with increased capital gains and inheritance taxes.

That limited-good mind-set expects that businesses will agree that they now make enough money and so have no need to pursue any more profits at the expense of others. Therefore, they will gladly still hire the unemployed and buy new equipment — as they pay higher health care or income taxes to a government that knows far better how to redistribute their income to the more needy or deserving.

This peasant approach to commerce also assumes that businesses either cannot understand administration signals or can do nothing about them. So who cares that in the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement, quite arbitrarily the government put the unions in front of the legally entitled lenders?

Health insurers should not mind that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius just warned them to keep their profits down and their mouths shut — or face exclusion from health care markets.

I suppose that no corporation should worry that the government arbitrarily announced — without benefit a law or court ruling — that it wanted BP to put up $20 billion in cleanup costs for the Gulf spill.

What optimistic Americans used to call a rising tide that lifts all boats is now once again derided as trickle-down economics.

In other words, a newly peasant-minded America is willing to become collectively poorer so that some will not become wealthier.


The present economy suggests that it is surely getting its wish. (
Townhall.com)

But damn it will feel good, at least for liberals, to stick to the rich bastards.

Class warfare is like the fire they set at night to keep them warm and to warn off the predators lurking in the dark. It warms the cuckolds of their hearts and give them sustenance.

Envy, and Fear. Fear and Envy.

FEAR IS HOPE

Mind you, Everyone in Congress and the President are “rich”, millionaires in fact. But they aren’t evil because they are Liberals. And they are in “Public Service” so they are the Insufferably Morally and Intellectually Superior Left and not evil “rich” millionaires.

And big companies run by Millionaire CEOs (hello, GM,Chrysler etc) or Unions are not evil capitalist bastards out to destroy everyone in their path, because they are Liberals.

Evil “rich” people are only Republicans and Conservatives, you notice. Funny how that works out. 🙂

No partisan politics involved there. <wink>

Orwell was piker compared to these guys.

Did you see him (the evil “rich” and/or republican) repressing me? 🙂