Our Dawning New Age...

On CNN tonight, they talked about the "new electorate", the young, minorities, etc.  About the same time, I stumbled on this tidbit from an NCAAP poll:

95% blacks say Feds should provide jobs 

Paul Bedard - November 6, 2012 - 2:33 pm  

Providing an 11th hour clue to how blacks will vote on the presidential stage, 95 percent of African Americans believe that the federal government should be the nation's jobs creator...

I think this is representative of this "new electorate"...  The only way to win them is to buy them.  I don't know why, and I don't know how, but my generation and younger have somehow convinced themselves that government, not individual initiative, is the engine of civilization, prosperity, and progress.

There's a quote attributed to Ben Franklin that sums up the dawning new age that this philosophy will bring:

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

When democracy becomes a tool to expropriate what you want from others, we are all slaves.

What does it mean for you and me today? Maybe nothing... but the long, inexorable decline has truly begun.

Still true today...

This is exactly what I posted to Facebook four years ago on the Monday before the 2008 election:

To any who remain undecided, or who might be swayed in the final hours:

Here are two relevant definitions of "freedom" from dictionary.com:

"2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.  

3. the power to determine action without restraint."

And a couple of quotes from Ben Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

It may be tempting to cede freedom to government in exchange for the promise of "universal" health insurance, or a tax system where only the "rich" pay taxes, or "protection" from Chinese/Japanese/Mexican companies, but, ultimately, it won't work.

If anything, the last century has demonstrated that government control and government planning always do worse than freedom. (See the end of the cold war.)

Barack Obama has many high hopes for and eloquent words about government. But at the end of the day, he honestly believes that government control is better than freedom. Education, taxes, trade, domestic economics, labor relations--on all of these issues, his faith lies in central government control and central government planning.

I honestly believe that this is completely wrong, and that his leadership would be a disaster for our nation....

 This is at least as true today. Maybe even more so, as Obama has nothing to offer but more of the same divisive, punitive, central-planning, government-centered ideas.  I cannot support such a philosophy.

Summaries of the Benghazi incident... is this really Obama's doctrine?

If you get your news from CNN, Jon Stewart, the NY Times, or any other MSM media outlet, you probably don't know much about Benghazi... and, whatever you know, you're probably having a hard time figuring out why some people keep talking about it.

In case you need a bit of catching up, here are two relatively up to date summaries (one more sanitized than the other):

Benghazi: Obama's Actions Amount To A Shameful Dereliction Of Duty

Peter Ferrara, 10/25/2012 @ 9:19AM 

"Enough facts are in the public record about the Benghazi murders of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 others, including two Marines, that a final judgment can be rendered on President Obama’s handling of the affair.  Obama’s actions, or inactions, amounted to dereliction of duty, and worse."

Benghazi Timeline: The long road from "spontaneous protest" to premeditated terrorist attack

Eugene Kiely, October 26, 2012 at FactCheck.org


We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. ... [But] we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack...[,] they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.



Note that even FactCheck.org can't get the lipstick on this pig!

I've already commented on the fact that there were American assets in place that were refused permission to defend Ambassador Stevens and his team.  We still don't know exactly who the feckless coward is that couldn't authorize every available means to defend these Americans... and MSM sure isn't asking.

Now, though, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is digging the Obama team an even bigger hole.  Here's Panetta's summary of why no help was ordered:

"(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place,” Panetta told Pentagon reporters. “And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation." 

I have a feeling that the idea of sitting on our hands while allowing an attack to proceed until we know "what's taking place" would surprise most Marines, Rangers, and Special Forces.  But then, Jonah Goldberg has pretty well covered how utterly ridiculous this statement is...

But let's think about this for a moment... is this really Obama's doctrine?  Let people die while the administration and DOD struggle to get their glasses on straight?  Wait to order up a defense until we've got all the details on any attack?  If Obama's defense establishment was so parallelized by this Benghazi incident, what would they look like during a larger crisis?  No wonder they thought going after bin Laden was some kind of gutsy call!

October Surprise: Hurricane Sandy

Will Hurricane Sandy be Obama's "McCain and the financial crisis" moment... or Romney's?

In 2004, McCain, thinking that the financial crisis was a big deal (it was) and that being Presidential meant running around with your head cut off, suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to... basically do nothing.  Obama, by contrast, kept on keeping on with his attacks on McCain, and ultimately just parroted Congressional Dems on the crisis.

Real crises are difficult beasts for politicians in the middle of a major race, let alone right at the end.  My sense is that Romney's steady, focused approach (combined with Chris Christie's presence as Governor of the state about to be the coming ashore point of Sandy!) gives him a leg up on Obama.  Obama is already reportedly planning a visit to FEMA headquarters... I'm guessing this'll appear to be exactly what it is:  posturing by getting in the way of the people actually doing the work.

That said, both candidates better tread lightly.....

Which brings us to what people along the heavily populated east coast between Virginia and Long Island should do...  Sitting well in the heartland of America behind an entire mountain range, I can afford to prognosticate.  And the National Hurricane Center's website is great for prognosticating.

That said, my take is that the wind will definitely knock out lots of power.  The rain will result in plenty of local flooding.  But neither of these effects will be a huge deal.  The thing that I think deserves some looking at, is the NHC's storm surge predictions.  It's the storm surge that overwhelmed New Orleans, and it'll be the storm surge that will really inundate low-lying communities... e.g., like large portions of Manhattan.

Bloomberg has closed the subway, and ordered evacuations of the lowest areas of the NYC.  Only time will tell the ultimate outcome.  For the time being, if your on the east coast, get stuff to higher floors, get ready to be without power, and, if you're in a storm-surge susceptible area: get out. 

"Out of the Mainstream", Weekend reads II

In this edition:

• Romney's tax policy is actually great policy, and good politics... that's why Obama is struggling to take it down no matter what.
• The WSJ climbs on my Federalism band wagon!
• Another reason Obama's "Horses and bayonets" sneer is full of holes
• Can the philosophical origins of modern economic malaise be laid at the feet of modern consumerist narcissism?

WSJ: Romney's Tax Deduction Cap: Good Tax Policy, Better Politics

Linked 10/20/2012 by Paul L. Caron at TaxProf Blog

"[D]etails aside, the tax cap is a big idea, and potentially a very good one. The proposal makes economic sense to the extent that it helps to pay for lower marginal tax rates. ...

The idea may be even better politically."

Plenty of Debates, Not Much About States

Democrats regard federalism as quaint, Republicans at least pay lip service to it.

David B. Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, October 23, 2012

"The idea that the Constitution grants only limited and enumerated powers and leaves the remainder to the states is foreign to those who believe that the national government should or even could address voters' every concern. But contrary to the view widely shared by the political class, Washington—in particular, Congress—does not have the power to pass any law it wants in the name of the 'general welfare.'"

Holes in the Hull 

Liberals confuse sneering for intellectual confidence.

By Jonah Goldberg, OCTOBER 26, 2012 12:00 A.M.

"This struck me as an example of how thoroughly liberalism has confused sneering for intellectual confidence. It shouldn't be surprising, given that comedy shows often substitute for news programs, particularly for younger liberals. That's probably why the president has been spending more time talking to DJs, entertainment shows, and comedians than to reporters. He desperately needs the support of low-information voters, who've replaced the old adage 'it’s funny because it's true' with 'if it's funny, it must be true.'"

Guest Post: Narcissism, Consumerism And The End Of Growth

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 10/20/2012 10:16 -0400 at ZeroHedge

"We need a third way that offers people work, resilience and authentic meaning. In my view, that cannot come from the Central State or the global corporate workplace: it can only come from a relocalized economy in revitalized communities."

We let them die, let the killers get away, then lied about what happened.

"What this means is that we have the forces in the air and on the ground to have stopped the attack at any point, eliminating the terrorists and saving American lives."

AC-130U Gunship was On-Scene in Benghazi, Obama Admin Refused to Let It Fire

Bob Owens - October 26, 2012 - 9:50 am


The AC-130U is a very effective third-generation fire-support aircraft, capable of continuous and extremely accurate fire onto multiple targets....

It was purpose-built for a select number of specific mission types, including point-defense against enemy attack. It was literally built for the kind of mission it could have engaged in over Benghazi, if the administration had let it fire. 

CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin - October 26, 2012



"...an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11. "


Maybe there were military or diplomatic reasons to allow the attack to proceed unhindered.  But then why did Obama and his surrogates continue to claim that the problem was free speech??  This was an attack on America, entirely unrelated to some specific expression of free speech.

An American ambassador was murdered, American forces refused to intervene, and the American President went to the UN and told the world that he believes in free speech... unless it pisses off Muslims, and, therefore, though murder is terrible, the people who really need to change their ways are those that speak ill of Muhammed.

Amazing.

"Attacking me is not an agenda..."

The narrative has slipped away from Obama... which means the attacks are just going to get increasingly shrill and hysterical.

This is a pretty good line from Romney:



But more revealing is how far out of Obama's control the overall narrative has swung.  Reading through the static, it appears Team Obama is now desperately trying to build a "Romney as flip-flopper" narrative.  This is completely reactionary as Obama reels from the discovery by everyday Americans that Romney isn't the psychotic, "imprison-women-in-the-1950s", "Ebeenezer-Scrooge-what-are-the-poor-houses-full?" monster Obama and the MSM have been making him out to be.

The flip-flopper approach is also unlikely to hold water as Romney increasingly focuses past Obama and continues to lock in on actual ideas and policies.  Every day Romney spends talking about what he'll do when he's President while Obama shrilly (literally--have you listened to his voice when he gets himself worked up into attack-attack-attack mode?) and derisively attacks Romney (instead of talking about his own ideas) is a win for Romney.

E.J. Dionne captures the overall meme nicely.  This article is a complete mess--it's not even internally consistent (is the tea party dead, or is it just marching under a "false flag"?)--but it nicely demonstrates how the "flip-flopper" line boils down to the fact that Romney has never been what the lefties have claimed he is.  As this becomes clear to America, those ensconced in the liberal narrative are left spluttering "Romney has changed his stripes."  Hilariously enough, it was those same lefties, hoping to bring Romney down in the GOP primaries, that so relished exposing Mitt's moderate positions in an effort to scare off the same tea partiers that Dionne incoherently dismisses.

In any case, as the narrative continues to drift away from Obama, I can guarantee that the attacks will get more outlandish and shrill.  Should be a fun ride.