PERRY, OBAMA, AND HARRY TRUMAN
It's starting to look like 1948 all over again. Mark Twain observed that while history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes. The 2012 presidential campaign is now rhyming with that of 1948 in iambic trimeter - the poetic form tragedians of Ancient Greece such as Aeschylus and Sophocles used to best express portending doom. So let's revisit that extraordinary yesteryear of 1948, resulting in the most famous upset in American politics - Democrat Harry Truman defeating Republican Tom Dewey - and see how we can avoid a similar outcome by using it to our advantage. How to do so is an opportunity being handed to Rick Perry on a platter. The opportunity is to agree with Zero...
THE CHOICE
This election -- including the Republican primary contest -- is about a fundamental question in American politics: We have an opportunity to decisively turn away from big government in Washington. Do we want to take it? Conservatives across the country are fed up with President Obama's Washington approach to governance. Massive, budget-busting, deficit spending (except on defense, where he proposes cuts that are downright dangerous). Bailouts. An ever-mounting national debt. A federal government that has reached its tentacles further into Americans' lives, by virtue of Obamacare with its noxious individual mandate to purchase health insurance. Excessive, bureaucratically dictated, job-killing environmental regulation. Dodd-Frank. Yet there are "big government conservatives" who argue that a big intrusive government is fine, desirable even, so long as it pursues "conservative" goals, which frequently when scrutinized are neither conservative nor worthy. Big government conservatives will never truly overhaul Washington because they need the status quo in place to accomplish their objectives. They don't want to rebuild the machine; they simply want to change the people pulling the levers. But that is not what the American people want. There is such deep and widespread discontent that nothing short of a complete overhaul will satisfy their justifiable demands.
ARE WE REALLY CAUSING THE OCEANS TO DIE?
Coral reefs around the world are suffering badly from overfishing and various forms of pollution. Yet many experts argue that the greatest threat to them is the acidification of the oceans from the dissolving of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. The effect of acidification, according to J.E.N. Veron, an Australian coral scientist, will be "nothing less than catastrophic.... What were once thriving coral gardens that supported the greatest biodiversity of the marine realm will become red-black bacterial slime, and they will stay that way." This is a common view. The Natural Resources Defense Council has called ocean acidification "the scariest environmental problem you've never heard of." Sigourney Weaver, who narrated a film about the issue, said that "the scientists are freaked out." The head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration calls it global warming's "equally evil twin." But do the scientific data support such alarm?
DO YOU BELIEVE A WEAKER AMERICA IS A STRONGER AMERICA?
A weaker America is a stronger America, President Barack Hussein Obama said last week in unveiling his new defense strategy. Mr. Obama didn't use those words. But that's the effect of his plans to cut more than 100,000 troops from the Army and Marine Corps; reduce the Navy from 300 to 238 ships; cut Air Force strategic bombers by a third, and Air Force fighters by half. Our military will be "leaner," the president said. "Leaner" is an adjective more appropriately applied to cutting fat, not muscle. Mr. Obama has reduced spending for defense by $480 billion since he assumed office. The cuts he previewed last week would reduce defense spending over the next ten years by $487 billion more. The cuts are necessary, the president said, because of our mammoth federal budget deficits. But defense can't be responsible for the $1.5 trillion he's added to the national debt, since he already has cut so much from the defense budget. The failed $821 billion stimulus cost as much as the war in Iraq. Spending for defense is mandated by the Constitution. Providing pork to political cronies is not.
WILL THE TEA PARTY THROW OUT THIS INCOMPETENT REPUBLICAN CONGRESS?
Despite pledges to cut spending by the new Republican House majority, it appears spending during the current fiscal year (FY2012), which ends on Sept. 30, will actually be greater than in fiscal 2011. The House Republicans were filled with good intentions, but they got snookered by President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The Tea Party crowd and other Americans who believe in fiscal responsibility are unlikely to be tolerant of and re-elect Republicans who are so incompetent that they cannot reduce federal spending and continue to fund programs that most of their voters oppose. The Constitution is clear. Article I, Section 9 states, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." That is, only Congress can authorize the spending of money. The House Republicans can insist on reductions in overall spending and, particularly, get rid of unpopular and nonessential programs as a price for passing any of the necessary appropriations bills. They didn't. Why should they be reelected in November?
HALF-FULL REPORT 01/06/12
As Jackie Gleason always said at the start of his show, "And awaaaaay we go!" with the first HFR of 2012. The first week of the year got shot out of the fascist cannon with Zero declaring war on Congress by making four presidential appointments that are egregiously unconstitutional. Ed Meese, President Reagan's Attorney General, explains why. The fury of Boehner Congressfolk means nothing to Zero. As an example of how hopelessly feckless the Pubtards are, Republican Senator Scott Brown (remember how excited we were about him a year ago?) announced his support for Zero's fascism. Michael Savage is no doubt correct in predicting that Zero's reelection will result in a Hugo Chavez-type banana republic dictatorship, for we are well on our way towards it right now. The fascist unconstitutional lawlessness of our federal government has built up a monumental amount of inertia, which won't be halted or slowed down merely by Zero's defeat. It will take an equally monumental effort to reverse its direction. Which brings us to the pointlessness of Mitt Romney. Why is he running for president other than to be president? That's really what's going on, you know. He wants to live up to his dad.
PRISON NOT PROFITS FOR INSIDER TRADING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Earlier this week (1/04), the Chicago Tribune ran a little noted editorial on the insider trading scandal plaguing Congress, calling out phony efforts to reform the rules and demanding that we finally put a stop to this outrageous and unethical behavior. It's not enough members of Congress make $174,000 a year, some -- from both parties -- are trading on inside information to use their public service to enrich themselves. This has to stop. And more. In addition to calling for tough measures to outlaw insider trading by Members of Congress, I've called for making Congress part-time like the Texas legislature, cutting congressional pay in half, and amending FOIA to apply to Congress and the White House.
THE MEETING THAT CAN CHANGE THE WORLD
Gobsmacked. It's the word Brits use when they are stunned by something ridiculously astounding. Late Tuesday night (1/03), I was beyond gobsmacked when I heard the results of the Iowa Caucuses. Now it is Thursday (1/05), and I remain profoundly shaken by the stupefying stupidity of the Iowa caucus voters. It tells me that Zero's election in 2008 was no fluke, no spasm of temporary masochistic insanity. That voters are into reality-denial up to their ears. That whatever part of their brain they are using to vote with, it is most assuredly not their ratiocinative part. Iowans have no idea what they did to their country Tuesday: they substantially increased the odds that Zero will win re-election in November. It wasn't Romney or Santorum who won in Iowa. It was Zero who won, hands down. So let me tell you about a meeting that could change the world.
OBAMA AND THE MOSLEM NAZI
The Obama administration is conducting secret negotiations with the Taliban, and has recruited Yusuf al Qaradawi, the Moslem Brotherhood's leading jurist, to mediate them. Let's be clear about this: Qaradawi is a Moslem Nazi. Like other Islamists, Mr. al-Qaradawi advocates the destruction of Israel. But that's not enough to satisfy his blood lust. "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption," Mr. al-Qaradawi said in a speech broadcast on al Jazeera in 2009. "The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them...he managed to put them in their place. "This was divine punishment for them," Mr. al Qaradawi said. "Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers...Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one." Yet the Obama administration considers Mr. al-Qaradawi to be a "moderate."
THE DISASTER OF SANTORUM
I'm trying to think of good reasons why Rick Santorum did so well in the Iowa caucus, only losing to Romney by 8 votes. So far all I can come up with is: 1. He's not Mitt Romney. 2. He's not Newt Gingrich. 3. Iowans feel more intellectual voting for the only candidate with a surname which sounds like a Latin genitive plural. What this doesn't mean, though, is that we're going to end up with President Santorum. Or, if we do, it will be a disaster. Santorum is the very opposite of what the US wants or needs right now. He's a big government conservative.