America: Long Lost To The Left

Government, IMMIGRATION, Labor, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, The State

What motivates Middle America “to distrust its government, for it surely does”? Pat Buchanan packs a lot of pathos into the answer. I hope he is right, because not everyone agrees about what moves Middle—or is it “Meathead”?— America:

“…the alienation and radicalization of white America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.”

“Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: ‘They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.'”

“Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993 and blocked the Bush-Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.”

“In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.”

“They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on – then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.”

“They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.” [My emphasis]

“They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.”

“America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.”

Another Mao Man (Yawn)

Barack Obama, Communism, Democrats, Intelligence, Propaganda, Socialism

The energizer bunny that is Glenn Beck is relentless in tracking down Barack’s Bolsheviks. On the heels of the Dunn debacle comes this, also courtesy of Beck:

“Manufacturing Czar Ron Bloom is the latest in a long line of White House officials who seem to just love Chairman Mao. Mao, of course, is the loving former Chinese dictator who killed 70 million people during peacetime, so what’s not to love? Bloom also mocked capitalism, ‘We know that the free market is nonsense.’ This is of course the sentiment you want from the guy trying to create jobs in the manufacturing sector. Glenn plays the audio and reacts to the latest idiotic quote, this time from Ron Bloom.”

[SNIP]

Much to my surprise, I’ve heard it repeated on this blog of seasoned, cynical, politics watchers that the administration must have failed to vet this or the other communist functionary. The mind boggles at such a comment—especially on this forum. I’ve literally cut and pasted from a blog post I penned when that feeble excuse-making began gaining traction–back when I made “a prophetic prediction (NOT)”:

“There are many Van Jones’ in the Obama administration. You’ll meet them in the fullness of time. Quit feigning surprise when they crawl out from their dank corners.”

AND:

“Spare me a repeat performance of the Jeremiah Wright farce, only with Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, substituting for the Obamas’ preacher; and surfacing in YouTube clips while delivering Wright-like jeremiads lambasting white men and Western civilization, as every liberal lunatic and wimpish WASP pretends Obamby hardly knew the jejune Jones.

Can we skip this? Can this country’s anointed cognoscenti at least pretend to be familiar with the concept of a learning curve?”

Sean keeps telling me to repeat the same themes in columns becasue nobody retains anything these day. Peter Brimelow once imparted the same lesson. I accept this truism—but not when it comes to regular readers of this space (with accesses to archives).

Big Brother Bernanke

China, Debt, Economy, Federal Reserve Bank

Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke “urged Asian leaders to build better pension systems and to increase government spending and the Obama administration to address the U.S. budget deficit,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

The audacity did not stop there. The “rebalancing of global growth,” as Bernanke put it, could not be achieved if the Chinese persisted in their errant practices:

“Trade surpluses achieved through policies that artificially enhance incentives for domestic saving and the production of export goods distort the mix of domestic industries and the allocation of resources,” and yield “an economy that is less able to meet the needs of its own citizens in the longer term.”

This from the man who, together with his predecessor, is responsible for distorting production and consumption in the largest economy in the world.

World leaders are coming to “a growing consensus … on the need to rebalance global economic growth so it depends less on U.S. consumers.”

Besides, who made Bernanke the crime boss of the world?

Updated: 'Does It Really, Really Take 100,000 U.S. Troops To Find Osama bin Laden?'

Constitution, Democrats, Federalism, Foreign Policy, Race, Republicans, Terrorism

Democratic Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), “a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House,” has warned consistently about Obama’s executive-branch power grab. And he did the same during the Bush era.

The frail senator took to the floor of the United States Senate on October the 14th, “to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and voice his concerns over the possibility of a major increase in U.S. forces into Afghanistan”:

“General McChrystal, our current military commander in Afghanistan, has requested 30,000-40,000 additional American troops to bolster the more than 65,000 American troops already there. I am not clear as to his reasons and I have many, many questions. What does General McChrystal actually aim to achieve?”

“So I am compelled to ask: does it really, really take 100,000 U.S. troops to find Osama bin Laden? If al Qaeda has moved to Pakistan what will these troops in Afghanistan add to the effort to “defeat” al Qaeda? What is really meant by the term “defeat” in the parlance of conventional military aims when facing a shadowy global terrorist network? And, what of this number 100,000? Does the number of 100,000 troops include support personnel? Does it include government civilians? Does it include defense and security contractors? How many contractors are already there in Afghanistan? How much more will all this cost? How much in dollars; how much in terms of American blood? Will the international community step up to the plate and bear a greater share of the burden?”

“Some in Congress talk about limiting the number of additional troops until we “surge to train” more Afghan defense forces. That sounds a lot like fence straddling to me. I suggest that we might better refocus our efforts on al Qaeda and reduce U.S. participation in nation building in Afghanistan. Given the lack of popularity and integrity of the current Afghan government, what guarantee is there that additional Afghan troops and equipment will not produce an even larger and better-armed hostile force? There ain’t no guarantee. The lengthy presence of foreign troops in a sovereign country almost always creates resentment and resistance among the native population.”

“I am relieved to hear President Obama acknowledge “mission creep” and I am pleased to hear the President express skepticism about sending more troops into Afghanistan unless needed to achieve our primary goal of disrupting al Qaeda. I remain concerned that Congress may yet succumb to military and international agendas. General Petraeus and General McChrystal both seem to have bought into the nation-building mission. By supporting a nationwide counterinsurgency and nation-building strategy, I believe they have certainly lost sight of America’s primary strategic objective – – namely to disrupt and de-fang al Qaeda and protect the American people from future attack.”

“President Obama and the Congress must reassess and refocus on our original and most important objective — namely emasculating a terrorist network that has proved its ability to inflict harm on the United States. If more troops are required to support an international mission in Afghanistan, then the international community should step up and provide the additional forces and funding. The United States is already supplying a disproportionate number of combat assets for that purpose.”

[SNIP]

Republicans are forever maligning this old Southern gentleman for his past peccadilloes (although when Senator Trent Lott was lanced for so-called racial indiscretions, Republicans, “principled” folks that they are, defended him).

Perhaps if Republicans adopted Byrd’s skepticism of war for the sake of war, and rediscovered authentic Taft Republicanism—they might even deserve to win the next election.

Update (Oct. 19): I notice that a reader, hereunder, insists, that attacking Byrd’s present policy positions for distant past indiscretions (in the 40s or 50s?) is intellectually honest. Moreover, conveniently—but predictably—left unaddressed is the Lott episode and other violations by Republicans against the racial police.