Views on the News – 9/22/2012
By: David Coughlin
President Obama is headed to defeat in November, and it won’t be close, but that won’t stop the Democrat from trying to spin reality to change your opinions. Forget about the polls, and forget about the cadre of delusional Democrats who can’t stop telling us how great and successful the last three and a half years have been. Slick Willy can shill all he likes, but seriously, he’s preaching to the choir, because the only ones believing his shtick are bought and paid for sycophants, crony capitalists, and members of the mainstream media. Americans remembering the hopes and dreams they had for a better world in 2008, and the hopes and dreams they have today for a better tomorrow, are reluctant to tell someone taking a poll that they don’t like Barack Obama. It doesn’t matter how well a case can be made against the man’s disastrous and disgraceful leadership; guilt can often preclude telling a stranger they plan to vote against the black guy, when all opposition to the President is framed as racist. When watching the news or any of the President’s campaign speeches, it is easy to get the message that Barack Obama is way ahead and can’t lose. His successes are portrayed as many and significant, although he needs another term because much still needs to be done. He did his best, and there was nothing more he could have done to improve what was an unprecedented (everything with Barack is unprecedented) decline in economic activity. Usually in mainstream media world, all is well and Americans should pay no attention to the price of gasoline, or the unavailability of financing for mortgages or business investment, or the price of groceries and the dearth of jobs. Yet there are no real accomplishments, which would be bad enough if it stopped there, but in actuality, everything is much worse since many trusted the “one” in 2008 to solve all the ills of the nation and humanity. All he has done during his tenure is torture the economy into submission with poor decisions, bad legislation, overregulation, and threats of onerous taxation. At the Democrat National Convention, John Kerry said Americans should “ask Osama bin Laden if he’s better off now than he was four years ago.” The answer would be “no,” just as it is for most Americans, because Obama is killing us. Bin Laden at least has the luxury of being dead; his job is finished. For us, Obama wants another four years. On November 6, 2012, Americans will flock to the polls to ensure that Barack Obama does not get another term to finish the job he started, and the empty chair will lose in a landslide!
(“The Empty Chair is Losing” by William L. Gensert dated September 14, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_empty_chair_is_losing.html )
The crude idea of perpetual class warfare seems to be the primary foundation of Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, if not his entire Presidency. The President is not just asking the rich to pay their fair share, he is demeaning them and dismissing their accomplishments as well. He is also inciting his audience to join in a mean-spirited attack on the rich as “exploiters.” His Roanoke speech was a perfect reflection of the radical tradition in which Obama was educated from childhood on. In that tradition, those who aspire to material success are regarded as “enemies of the people,” a phrase that crops up very frequently in radical and anarchist writing and that is suggested in Obama’s current populist attacks on the rich. For centuries, leftists have campaigned against those whom they considered class enemies. The tendency to divide society into two distinct and opposed classes is a fundamental tenet of leftist thought, and it is a view that underlies Obama’s entire conception of government. For leftists like Obama, the rich deserve to be attacked not because of what they have done wrong, but because of what they have done right. The rich are enemies of the people for the very reason why they have succeeded while others have failed. Like all Marxists, Obama seeks power on the promise of redistributing wealth from those who have succeeded and redistributing it to those who have failed. This, at least, is the theory. In practice, communists never redistribute wealth to the poor because wealth is destroyed when capital is taken from high achievers. What little that’s left finds its way into the hands of the ruling elite. Obama is not running for office as a communist per se, yet he has employed all of the classic methods of Marxist politicians. He has harped continuously on class inequality while promising to seize and redistribute the wealth of the rich if he is re-elected. He has divided voters along class, ethnic, gender, and ideological lines. He has politicized every crisis from the market collapse of 2008-2009 to the embassy attacks of today. These tactics are familiar within the communist tradition. No one can now be blind as to what Obama is or whence he came. He came out of the communist tradition stretching back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While Obama may not have studied these original sources closely, he was tutored in Marxist ideology by his parents, grandparents, and mentors, including Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers. That tradition has never been democratic in nature. The American left has relied more on manipulation and fraud. Obama’s attempt to position this election as a contest between the rich and everyone else, with Obama as the champion of “everyone else,” is a classic example of Marxist manipulation. Obama shares the left’s contempt for democratic process. The President is campaigning on the basis of class warfare not just to distract attention from his record of failure, but also to avoid discussion of what he would do in his second term. What he plans, as he has repeatedly told donor groups, is “to finish the job.” By that he means the institutionalization of widespread dependency: permanent dependence on government for medical care, education, housing, transportation, energy, and even food. Most Americans do not support the transformation of America into a communist state, but unknowingly many will be voting for just that in November. By appealing to the basest motives of envy and resentment, Obama may succeed in cementing the left’s hold on power and permanently transforming the relationship of Americans to their government. Obama’s re-election would establish a permanent majority dependent on government for their every need, and those who become dependent on government may believe they are secure, but they will live out their lives in poverty and they will only have themselves to blame.
(“Rich Man, Poor Man” by Jeffrey Folk dated September 19, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/rich_man_poor_man.html )
President Obama spent his entire term blaming President Bush for his economic difficulties and other contemporary problems, but his criticism is more myth than factual. These problems include deficit spending, severe economic recession, unemployment, and global contempt for America. This meme is so fiercely repeated that it is rare for Republicans or conservatives to deny that it is at least substantially true. Let’s look at these misconceptions:
· President Bush caused the economic collapse of 2008. This falsehood rests primarily upon a rejection of the Democrats’ role in causing the economic crisis. Clinton used the “affordable housing goals” that Congress had imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase the availability of mortgage credit to low-income borrowers. It also loosened the standards under Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act to pull insured depository institutions further into the low-income lending program. Congress is charged with oversight roles regarding government economic activities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but instead of supervising its own interference in the free market, it heavily subsidized the risky schemes of the GSEs. By the fall of 2008, the decline and collapse of the U.S. and global economy were apparent. The financing of American homes saw the evaporation of 6 trillion dollars in values. As President Obama’s election alongside a Democrat House and Senate became imminent, the economy steepened and accelerated in its decline. The markets did not express a sense of relief upon the election of President Obama in early November 2008. What ensued was an economic panic. It was the most rapid and destructive loss of jobs and capital in U.S. history. Business leaders feared the coming onslaught of regulatory and redistributive fervor of President-Elect Obama and his supporters.
· President Obama helped the United States recover economically from Bush’s bungle. The most decisive component of this argument is the suggestion that President Obama bailed out U.S. car companies and saved the auto industry. In fact, the car bailout was signed into law by President Bush. President Obama brags that he made the tough and politically unpopular decision to extend emergency rescue loans to the American auto industry, saving more than 1 million jobs and preventing the loss of over $96 billion in personal income-and the collapse of manufacturing in the Midwest. The reality is that both GM and Chrysler filed for bankruptcy, but the federal government arbitrated a raw deal for bondholders and a sweat deal for the UAW. The effort to pin the praise for this bailout on Obama and the fiscal blame of the costs of this bailout on Bush is the height of this dangerous intellectual propaganda collusion. The Bush bailouts for both the financial industry and the auto industry required the funds to be paid back. These were temporary emergency funding actions that were paid back by the recipients with interest, and yet the Obama administration counts them as deficit spending actions committed prior to coming to office in January 2009. Yet those temporary emergency funding actions are counted as permanent budget allocations that allow Obama supporters to argue that Obama has increased federal spending less than most presidents. The Obama budget office has switched the payback funds into general operating expenses of the nation that support his general revisions to stimulus that do not require recipients to repay, such as the funds for Solyndra.
The protracted economic malaise and the collusion of our intellectual community to suggest that the problem is intractable leaves the public believing that there are no solutions. Yet the solutions are self-evident. Capitalized recipients of government aid should expect to pay back emergency funding they receive from the government. This is reasonable and empirically proven by the successful policies of President Bush. Moreover, the government should not count the emergency spending as a permanent part of the budget process. This makes slashing almost one trillion dollars from the budget a reasonable expectation.
(“It’s Not Bush’s Fault” by Ben Voth dated September 16, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/its_not_bushs_fault.html )
As the current largest minority voting bloc in America, it would behoove Hispanics to examine how African-Americans, the former largest minority voting bloc, are currently doing economically and socially after such a long history of support for the Democrat Party. African-Americans have been major supporters of the Democrat Party since 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed under Democrat President Lyndon Johnson. For almost six decades, the Democratic Party has averaged receiving an astounding 88% of the African-American vote. Here is a list of current economic and social data for African-Americans:
· African-Americans aged 18-34 have the lowest employment rate (54%) since the government started tracking in 1948.
· African-American youth unemployment is 39.3% (ages 16-19) and is nearly double the 20.9% unemployment rate for whites in the same age demographic.
· Total African-American unemployment is 14.1%, while overall national unemployment now stands at 8.1%.
· Two point five million African-Americans are currently looking for work but can’t find a job.
· African-Americans make up 19% of the total unemployed, 23% of those unemployed for more than six months, and 26% of those unemployed for 99 or more weeks.
· The typical unemployment spell lasts roughly seven months (28.4 weeks) for an African-American worker, compared to less than five months (19.2 weeks) for all workers.
· African-Americans are more likely to be unemployed than the overall population across all levels of educational attainment: without a high school diploma was 21.7% vs. 15.0%and with a bachelor’s degree 6.6% vs. 3.3%.
· Since 2007, African-American median household income has declined by 10.1%, the largest decline of all major racial and ethnic groups.
· In 2010, the poverty rate among African-Americans was 27.4%, up from 24.5% at the start of the 2007-2009 recessions.
· 10.7 million African-Americans lived in poverty in 2010, including 4.4 million children, and the poverty rate among African-Americans living in families headed by women was 41.0% in 2010 and 39.1% of African-American children less than 18 years old live in poverty.
Despite these discouraging economic facts and trends regarding the African-American population in America, they continue to support the Democratic Party almost exclusively as a minority voting bloc, voting 95% for Barack Obama in 2008 and supporting Democrat candidates by almost 90% in the 2010 elections. The Hispanic voting bloc’s support for the Democrat Party continues to rise, with 67% of Hispanics voting for Barack Obama in 2008 and 60% supporting Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections. Here are some important government statistics indicating where the Hispanic population currently stands economically and socially in America today:
· Hispanic unemployment is 10.3%.
· Hispanic youth unemployment is 46.5%, well above the black youth rate of 38.9%.
· Hispanic poverty rate is now 26.7%, close to the rate of 27.5% among blacks.
Unfortunately, this economic data indicates that Hispanic-Americans are on virtually the same social and economic path as African-Americans today. Given the above dismal economic and social data for both African- and Hispanic-Americans, the question remains: why would the two largest minority voting blocs in America continue to overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party today, especially when research and studies show that personal and familial economic status is the single largest contributing factor to personal and familial quality of life? Diversion is a highly successful political strategy used by the Democrat Party to continue to receive the majority of African-American support, and it’s the exact same strategy Democrats are using to attract and grow the support of Hispanics. The Democrat Party uses civil rights issues and racism as a diversion to keep African-Americans from looking objectively at the truth of their poor and declining social and economic conditions. With Hispanics, the Democrat Party uses immigration rights, under the guise of civil rights and racism, as a diversion to keep Hispanics from objectively assessing the truth of their poor social and economic status. With regard to the Democrat Party continuing to use civil rights and race issues as a diversion for their political benefit, it’s important for all minorities to understand the following facts: civil rights legislation was passed into law almost fifty years ago, and there are federal laws and numerous well-meaning organizations working today to help monitor and protect minorities from discrimination. There are also federal immigration laws and millions of immigrants living in America who have fully complied with those laws to become naturalized United States citizens. However, there are no laws preventing any legal United States citizen, naturalized or born here, from attending public school or college; utilizing all available public infrastructure and services; working hard to improve his economic status; taking risks to build his own business; speaking out to have his voice heard; belonging to any faith or attending the church of his choice; volunteering and donating funds to help his fellow citizens; getting involved as a public servant to better his community; enlisting in the armed forces to defend his freedom; pursuing life, liberty, and happiness; or even becoming president of the United States. The Democrat Party has successfully used the diversion strategy for its political benefit for many decades, but the facts suggest that this success has been at the expense of Democrats’ most ardent supporters – minorities.
(“Hard Truths for Hispanic and African-American Voters” by Keith Edwards dated September 15, 2012 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/hard_truths_for_hispanic_and_african-american_voters.html )
Barack Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo marks the beginning of the administration’s “utterly naïve” foreign policy. The Obama administration’s Middle East policy is collapsing right in front of us. He got behind the Arab Spring and dumped over some dictators and autocrats and other people, some of whom were friendly to us, others who were not. Thereby, they’ve unleashed these new forces, and not all of them are benign. Some of them are noxious.” There’s Islamic fundamentalism, there’s tribalism, and there’s ethno-nationalism. All of these forces are on the move across the Middle East. President Obama’s position is exposed as utterly naïve. They detest and hate the United States. They hate our culture. They hate our policy. They have historic grievances, and they are as anti-American as they can be. What is exploding now has been building up for years and years. There’s a real incompatibility between American culture and the culture of the fundamentalist and the Islamic world. There’s an Islamic revolution underway, a great religious awakening taking place among the poor and the working class and the one thing they have is the Islamic faith, and they’re very militant about it and look at the enemy as the great Satan, and the Americans and the others with their cultural intrusions.
(“Unrest is Obama’s ‘naïve’ Middle East policy ‘collapsing right in front of us’” by Jeff Poor dated September 16, 2012 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/15/buchanan-unrest-is-obamas-naive-middle-east-policy-collapsing-right-in-front-of-us/ )
David Coughlin is a political pundit, editor of the policy action planning web site “Return to Common Sense,” and an active member of the White Plains Tea Party. He retired from IBM after a short career in the U.S. Army. He currently resides with his wife of 40 years in Hawthorne, NY. He was educated at West Point (Bachelor of Science, 1971) and the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Masters, Administrative Science, 1976).