The Culmination of the "Me" Generation

The culmination of America’s “Me” Generation was millions of Baby Boomers proving that they are not “racist” by selling their country up the river, voting-in a leader whose intentions were obviously to destroy it under the glittery, shallow guise of “change”. Apparently, remaining “forever young” also means “stuck on stupid”, since their candidate had clearly stated his sinister desires a priori, to which they stubbornly turned a blind eye. They are still bleating like lost sheep about how they voted for a half-“black” man (you mean all those years of being “colour-blind” were just an empty pose? How sad…), and if you don’t support his re-election for whatever legitimate OTHER reasons, YOU are just a racist. How narrow-minded, and how selfish can you get, wishing an oppressive socialist regime (or worse) upon your countrymen, just to assuage your own guilty conscience? If this is your Swan Song as you stumble from a jejune, forty-year pot-hazed stupour into a long period of self-induced clinical dementia, that tune has been played out already on the map of Europe, and it is a mouldy oldie not fit for the most rickety turntable. You used to rail against government authority, and now you just want to usher-in communism so badly that you can taste it. When your president finally succeeds in sucking all the life-blood out of the United States, you won’t even be able to taste Humble Pie, because the cost of its ingredients will be astronomically high–in fact, in the Changed America, you can probably say “Bye-Bye” to getting high as well….

You voted for this president because you despised George W. Bush. He is Bush squared and multiplied to the power of infinity (three wars, record-breaking expenditures on nothing but feel-good give-aways, even after he promised to reduce the national debt–and you think he is peachy-keen, just because he has slightly darker skin than you…). And even though the destructive changes and illogical exorbitant expenditures have taken place at blinding speed, you still don’t have the open-mindedness to imagine the dire consequences that are looming as you revel in the knowledge that you are not a racist. No brains, no headaches?

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife. During the last presidential campaign, America’s school children were taught to sing–in tones of Maoist and Hitler Youth–“Obama’s gonna lead ’em–gonna give us freedom…”, when they ought to have been warbling “Obama’s gonna bleed ’em—take away their freedom”.

In your zeal to show others how “tolerant” you are (of what, pray tell–a superficial thing like skin-colour?), and your selfish desire to be part of a  historical “event”, you have chucked your country onto the Ash-Heap of History. Doesn’t that satisfy your progressive soul, brother/comrade?

~~M-J
Advertisements

Letter to the Editor of Vineyard Gazette: Reality-Check on Recent History


To: Editor, Vineyard Gazette

From: Mike Lion

Subject: Dueling Narratives 

Vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard is, as this newspaper has often pointed out, like entering a special world. Nowhere is this clearer than on the editorial pages of the Gazette. For example, the letters to President Obama last week seem to come from another planet. The writers have presented a narrative that goes like this: wicked Republicans cynically obstruct valiant young president as he seeks to “transform America fundamentally” (by government spending at unprecedented rates). This seems to me a false narrative, relying on a selective choice of facts and accompanied by vitriolic rhetoric. (Not exactly the civility that the President has called for.)   Let me suggest an alternative: valiant young Congressmen and Congresswomen, elected specifically to restrain reckless government spending, keep their promises to constituents in spite of enormous pressure from the establishment.   Herewith are some facts to support that view: 

1. In December 2010, with large Democratic majorities in a “lame-duck” Congress, Senate Majority Leader Reid postponed the decision to increase the national debt ceiling because (paraphrasing his words) he wanted the new GOP House to “share the heat.”

 2. That same lame-duck Congress could have allowed the Bush tax (rate) cuts to expire, simply by doing nothing about them. Democrats had large majorities and Republicans could not obstruct anything they chose to do. Yet they chose to extend the cuts. President Obama signed the bill. Given his rhetoric before and since, his supporters should ask themselves why. 

3. At the same time the President’s own debt commission (the Simpson-Bowles Commission) presented its plan to reduce the deficit. The key proposal was to increase revenues by lowering tax rates and closing loopholes. President Obama ignored the Commission’s report. 

4. In January 2011, the new speaker, John Boehner, laid down two GOP conditions for  a deal on the debt ceiling: (1) spending cuts to match the increase in the ceiling and (2) no increase in tax rates (which is not the same as no increase in revenues). This is just what they got in the end, so President Obama could have had that deal at any time. 

5. In February, Obama presented his budget for 2012. It projected a record deficit and something like $10 trillion in new debt over 10 years. To say that it ignored the problem of reckless government spending would be a gross understatement. In April, it was rejected 97-0 by the Democratically-controlled Senate.

6. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled House passed its own budget (the “Ryan budget”) which would have reformed Medicare and balanced the budget (slowly over 10 years). The Senate also defeated this proposal, but at least it got 40 votes.

7. To this date, the Senate has not passed a budget in over two years (although required by law). Rather than engage the GOP directly on the issues, Democrats launched their “Mediscare” attack. 

8. Obama did invite GOP Congressmen to a budget meeting in April, where he proceeded to personally insult Rep. Ryan on national TV.  Liberal critics hailed him as “tough.” 

9. In July, facing the debt ceiling deadline, the Republican House passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” , which also would have led to a balanced Federal budget. Instead of debating the proposal, offering amendments, and modifying it as necessary (in other words, instead of doing their jobs), Senate Democrats tabled the bill.

10. In late August, VP Biden negotiated a “grand bargain” on the debt ceiling with Speaker Boehner and the GOP (including $800 billion in increased revenues). President Obama reneged on the deal, insisting on the same tax rate hikes he could not get through a Democratic Congress in December 2010. This was when Boehner withdrew. 

11. It is true that the GOP held to their principle of no tax rate hikes (the basis for their election in 2010). This caused critics to accuse them of “blackmail” and “holding hostages.” But Democrats had their own hostages. Reid and Pelosi insisted entitlements were “off the table,” which limited the scope of any deal, and President Obama insisted that any deal go past November of 2012.  Worried about his re-election prospects, he threatened to veto any measure that did not satisfy this condition. The difference is that the Republicans, Congressional Democrats, and even VP Biden respected the conditions of the other side, whereas President Obama did not. He proceeded to wreck the deal and blame the Republicans. 

12. As a result, Congressional leaders worked out a deal without much help from the President. He scrambled to get back in front of the parade by giving speeches, mostly in a hectoring, petulant tone. Liberal critics hailed him as “tough.” 

13. Liberal critics are lambasting the debt ceiling deal as a “debacle.” To me this means the conservatives must have won. The GOP held fast to its principle of no tax rate hikes and, if the spending cuts prove to be less than hoped for (they always do), at least they have shifted the argument. 

14. There was never any question of default on debts, although partial government shut-down was a possibility. It was Treasury Secretary Geithner who threatened default, JCS Chairman Mullins who warned troops overseas that they might not get paid, and President Obama himself who said he couldn’t guarantee Social Security recipients would get their checks. No GOP leader said any such thing. 

  Conclusions: 

1. In the end, the system worked as it was designed by our founders: The legislature reined in an over-reaching executive. It may be messy, but that’s democracy. 

2. The brief history tells a story of repeated Republican attempts to address the problem in the face of Democratic intransigence, rather than the other way around. The latter had hoped to bluff the GOP into backing down, as they always had before.

 3. If either of the GOP initiatives (the Ryan budget or Cut,Cap, and Balance) had become law, the S&P downgrade would likely not have occurred (according to S&P). I disagree with S&P’s  judgment on the downgrade, but it is a well-deserved rebuke to President Obama. Poetic justice, I’d say…. 

4. In retrospect, it’s hard to believe that Democrats even understand what the problem is (i.e., the debt spiral). 

5. I think President Obama missed a big opportunity when he ignored the report of the Simpson-Bowles Commission. Had he put a deal together based on their report, the Republicans would have had to go along. In all probability, he would have ensured his re-election. 

6. To negotiate a compromise one must at least recognize the point of view of the opposing side. And it’s hard to deal productively with political opponents when you continually accuse them of acting in bad faith (putting “party above country” is the latest, oft-repeated charge). 

7. One thing the President’s supporters do not seem to get: He is “the Man.” Like a ship’s captain, he is responsible for everything. It is the leader’s job to bring the parties together and work out a deal. Reagan did so, Clinton did so, both Bushes did so. President Obama has not.   

Mike Lion 

(Thank you, Mr. Lion!)

Health-Care Bill: Stealth Enslavement?



I wrote this in 2007, and still stand by it today: 


Health “Insurance” Is the Problem


And, since when is it a “liberal” thing to enforce supporting  giant corporations–insurance companies– who exploit people’s illnesses? Automotive insurance for one’s own car is not mandatory. My twenty-year old car is not covered, but has the required liability insurance in case it hits something. Anyone who believes that “insuring” one’s health constitutes “health-care” needs a check-up from the neck up. Read my piece to better understand why medical treatment costs are now so exorbitant.


Besides being unconstitutional, forcing anyone to buy “health insurance” is not a health-care program. 
In fact, many cultures and religions, including Islam, consider it to be gambling. Yes, gambling in which one bets against himself. That is pretty sick, isn’t it? 


http://mjintherepublic.blogspot.com/search?q=health+insurance


The Obscene Size XXX Carbon Footprint of the President


FLYING IN THE FACE OF REASON, RESTRAINT AND RESPECT
 
 
He FLIES into an airport somewhere in the midwest, hops into a brand-new 1.1 Million-Dollar bus, paid for by you and me,  for a “bus tour” ‘around the midwest’, and after an hour or so, gets driven back to the airport for ANOTHER FLIGHT, lands at another airport where another 1.1 Millio-Dollar, brand new black bus is waiting for him… and repeats all that until his midwest bus tour is done. THEN he leaves on a 12-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard…to REST UP from this campaign bus tour!
 
And don’t forget: those brand new shiny black buses aren’t DRIVEN to the location where they meet Obama. Those buses are loaded onto one or more C-17s. Then, they are flown to his destination ahead of AirForce-1.
AND this is REPEATED FOR EVERY CAMPAIGN STOP.
 
On this ‘bus tour’, the President will lecture the ‘little people’ on how they need to live within their means and sacrifice.  Remember when he told that family man to GO BUY A HYBRID VAN when he said he couldn’t afford to fill up his truck?
 
Obama’s “carbon footprint” must be as large as most cities by now (to match his ego, perhaps).
 
All of this “livin’ large” is on the taxpayer’s dime…..
But remember, this is NOT a campaign trip – it is a “Listen to the People” trip only (during which, incidentally, he ridiculed a man who asked him a civil, reasonable question)!  Therefore, the Democratic National Committee does NOT pay a cent for this extravagance.
 
This sort of abuse is one of the despicable things about communist leaders of the past. There is nothing new under the sun, after all, and “Change” is an idiotic idea when it represents this man’s actions. They speak so much louder than words….
 

The O.P.M. Plutocrats

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/19/the-partier-in-chief/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

After several His and Hers and First Family luxury trips on the American tab that cost mega-millions, lavish weekday parties for NPR (No Particular Reason)  B-Day Bashes, and Endless Wartime Golfing, the Other People’s Money Plutocrats are a bit world-weary,  which necessitates an Elite Upper Class Ostentation Vacation in Martha’s Vineyard.

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/living-large-obamastyle/

Investigating an Egotist

 U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, urged a full investigation be conducted into reports that President Barack Obama’s Administration had granted Sony Pictures and Oscar-winning filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow high-level access for a film on the mission in which U.S. Special Operations Forces killed Osama bin Laden. 
The film is reportedly scheduled to be released in October 2012, just a month before the November 2012 elections, a definite boost for Obama’s re-election hopes. 
In a letter to Defense Department Inspector General Gordon Heddell and CIA Inspector General David Buckley, King wrote that the “Administration’s first duty in declassifying material is to provide full reporting to Congress and the American people, in an effort to build public trust through transparency of government. In contrast, this alleged collaboration belies a desire of transparency in favor of a cinematographic view of history.” 
Ms. Bigelow won the Academy Award for best motion picture director for the Iraq war adventure “The Hurt Locker,” a film that won high-praise.
She was just about finished with her latest project, a film about the Afghan war, when news came out regarding SEAL Team 6’s killing of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. This presented Bigelow with a problem for her film’s ending. She then decided to re-shoot scenes for her film.
“Only in a Hollywood movie will you see a failed president whose claim to fame is being a community organizer, being portrayed as a hero Commander-in-Chief,” said former Marine intelligence officer and police detective Mike Snopes.
According to political strategist Donald Peltier, had President George W. Bush helped a filmmaker with classified material, he would have been skewered by the media and his opponents.
In his letter to Gordon S. Heddell, Inspector General of the Department of Defense, and David Buckley
Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency, Rep. King pointed out that:
Special Operations Command’s Admiral Eric Olson stated that the May 1st raid “was successful because nobody talked about it before, and if we want to preserve this capability nobody better talk about it after,” and that his operators’ “15 minutes of fame lasted about 14 minutes too long. They want to get back in the shadows.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen stated that “It is time to stop talking,” as “We have gotten to a point where we are close to jeopardizing the precision capability that we have, and we can’t afford to do that. This fight isn’t over.”
Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that “Too many people in too many places are talking too much about this operation, and when so much detail is available it makes that both more difficult and riskier” for such missions in the future.
Leaks of classified information regarding the bin Laden raid have already resulted, according to a June 15, 2011 article in the Washington Post, in the arrests of Pakistanis who were believed by local authorities to have assisted the CIA with the May 1st raid.
Further participation by JSOC and the Agency in making a film about the raid is bound to increase such leaks, and undermine these organizations’ hard-won reputations as “quiet professionals” − reputations important for their continued operational success. And, the success of these organizations is vital to our continued homeland security.

Then King spelled out what information was needed for a Congressional investigation:
• What consultations, if any, occurred between members of the Executive Office of the President, and Department of Defense and/or CIA officials, regarding the advisability of providing Hollywood executives with access to covert military operators and clandestine CIA officers to discuss the [Osama] raid?
• Will a copy of this film be submitted to the military and CIA for pre-publication review, to determine if special operations tactics, techniques and procedures, or Agency intelligence sources and methods, would be revealed by its release?
• How was the attendance of filmmakers at a meeting with special operators and Agency officers at CIA Headquarters balanced against those officers’ duties to maintain their covers? How will cover concerns be addressed going forward?
• What steps did the Administration take to ensure that no special operations tactics, techniques, and procedures were compromised during those meetings?
• To the extent possible to determine, how many human intelligence sources and how many Agency intelligence methods have been compromised due to leaks about the May 1st raid? What effects have these compromises had on the CIA’s collection capabilities? Will Agency participation in a film about the bin Laden raid add to or exacerbate the effects of these compromises?


Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: