December 3rd, 2012

When you’re being audacious, it helps to have the Times on your side

One of the many reasons Obama is able to be so bold—nay, audacious—in his negotiations with Republicans is that he is secure in the knowledge that he will get the help of articles such as this one in that reliable old Democratic shill, the NY Times. Dismiss the Times if you will, but it remains highly respected by a ton of people and influences the beliefs of a host of others.

The paper is shameless and yet oh-so-restrained and dignified in spinning its meme of a meek, kind, conciliatory president who wasn’t tough enough with Republicans in his first term and now is getting just a wee bit bolder (they do everything but say “taking the gloves off”: headline, “Criticized as Weak in Past Talks, Obama Takes Harder Line”)

I’m sure Obama’s base (who would prefer he put the Republicans in front of a firing squad and get it over with) “criticized” Obama as “weak” last term. And there’s no doubt his line now is “harder.” So you see, the Times is merely telling the truth, as usual.

Never mind that former fair-haired boy Bob Woodward has written a book that made it clear the truth was otherwise. Apparently Woodward is only useful to the Times when he advances stories that help The Cause, so this sort of thing can be ignored:

With the president taking charge, though, Obama found that he had little history with members of Congress to draw on. His administration’s early decision to forego bipartisanship for the sake of speed around the stimulus bill was encapsulated by his then-chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel: “We have the votes. F— ‘em,” he’s quoted in the book as saying…

As debt negotiations progressed, Democrats [not just Republicans] complained of being out of the loop, not knowing where the White House stood on major points. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, is described as having a “growing feeling of incredulity” as negotiations meandered.

“The administration didn’t seem to have a strategy. It was unbelievable. There didn’t seem to be any core principles,” Woodward writes in describing Van Hollen’s thinking…

One important moment in the negotiations came when the president scheduled a major address on the nation’s long-term debt crisis. A White House staffer thought to invite House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., along with the other two House Republicans who had served on the Simpson-Bowles debt commission.

The president delivered a blistering address, taking apart the Ryan budget plan as “changing the basic social compact in America.” Ryan left the speech “genuinely ripped,” Woodward writes, feeling that Obama was engaged in “game-on demagoguery” rather than trying to work with the new Republican majority.

“I can’t believe you poisoned the well like that,” Ryan told Obama economic adviser Gene Sperling on his way out of the speech.

But those halcyon days are over. No more Mr. Nice Guy President.

[NOTE: I would like to add that the Republicans are a majority in the House. It's easy to forget that. I'm not an expert on the negotiations between presidents and Congresses in previous administrations, but it seems to me that presidents had at least some perceived need to defer somewhat to the majority to get the votes to pass the legislation. Obama is able to dispense with that because he knows the press will never blame him for being unreasonable, and he plans to blame the Republicans for everything that goes wrong, with the press's cooperation. And he knows the majority of the public will buy this story.

There's another related reason for Obama's stance, and that is that he doesn't seem to much care whether he gets the legislation he says he wants. It would be nice, of course, to win in that respect. But blaming the Republicans for whatever fiscal mess happens to ensue in the absence of an agreement would be just as good a result---perhaps even better---in his eyes.]

[ADDENDUM: Meanwhile, the WaPo works hard on the "detached, in seclusion" Romney theme, as Ann Althouse points out.

How does the WaPo do that? By showing a photo of Romney on a roller coaster, and quoting him as writing to a buddy "who’s having a liver transplant soon: 'I’ll change your bedpan, take you back and forth to treatment.'"

Detached. Secluded.]

37 Responses to “When you’re being audacious, it helps to have the Times on your side”

  1. T Says:

    I repeat a thought I’ve written on this site before. IMO the fight is with the media and the massaging of the national dialogue (which is what the media does).

    Those wealthy one-percenters of conservative bent would do well to worry less about winning elections (the battles) and engage in shaping the national dialogue (the war) so that Fox news is not the only counter voice to the liberal elite.

    For all his faults, I think that Bill O’Reilly is quite correct to announce a culture war in this country. The culture war drives the politics rather than the other way around. If you focus only on the politics, even your victories are nothing more than bandaids on deeper infections.

    Repetition is one of the oldest and most powerful tactics and the left has been using it for decades. How many of us have not succumbed to a salesman’s pitch that “this is the model which most people buy.” Hear the allegation often enough and the allegation becomes the conviction, the revisionist history becomes the history, the lie becomes the truth. We need to get the conservative message out there in a strong, powerful and consistent way. It needs to stop sounding like the “Help me!” wailings of a drowning (wo)man and be able to stand on its own as a valid and serious counterpoint to the theoretical fallacies of the left. That is only possible with a media onslaught.

  2. M J R Says:

    T, 2:16 pm — “I think that Bill O’Reilly is quite correct to announce a culture war in this country.”

    For what it’s worth, and point of information, Patrick J. Buchanan over two decades ago said (and was excoriated for saying so) that we are in a war for the control of our culture.

    He also pointed out that since we’re in a war, our side has to at least show up.

    Andrew Breitbart, Bill Bennett, and some others are showing up, but for the most part our guys haven’t shown up yet. Our guys are still playing footsies with the mainstream media, for example, still unaware that this is really, truly a take-no-prisoners war . . . but hey, I do recognize that you-all don’t need to read M J R going off on another rant again.

    Peace.

  3. Inkraven Says:

    A vote for Romney meant turning the press from a lapdog into a watchdog.

  4. Steve Says:

    I think Republicans should start calling dems what they are: tax and spend liberals. Just keep saying it at every opportunity. It is true. It will stick.

  5. Ray Says:

    The media has been in the tank with the democrats for as long as I can remember. I remember the Kennedy-Nixon presidential race. The press loved Kennedy and loathed Nixon. They would do gushing adulatory articles about Kennedy. Kennedy was from Camelot and Nixon was from hell. My mother called it Kennedy worship. Today it’s Obama worship.

  6. Sam L. Says:

    How about “We’ve shown you our plan, anbd you rejected it. You, on the other hand, have made a couple of airy suggestions which got no, zero, zip, zilch, nada, votes in the Senate and House.

    We’ll take the Simpson-Bowles Commission for 1 Billion, Alex, and throw in a 91% tax rate for any executive branch employee who goes to work as a lobbyist on every dollar above his salary. And a 30% excise tax on Hollywood” (been reading Glenn, a-yup, and upped it).

  7. parker Says:

    I agree the MSM is the real problem, along with the inattentive voters who swallow the media propaganda without a hiccup. That is why I urge politicians on the right to hit back at the MSM. They should not respond to their misleading talking points and instead stay on message. They should not directly answer their biased questions and instead stay on message. Of course that requires a consist and concise message which is also a part of the problem.

  8. Otiose Says:

    One other reason (other than having the MSM on his side) Obama probably is fine with going over that cliff is that he has already achieved the destruction of the budget process in his first term.

    Once he got the higher levels of spending via stimulus and other emergency measures he (and the Senate Democrats) refused to propose a serious budget or engage in the budgeting process. It’s not an accident that the Senate has not moved to work on a budget in now three or four years.

    No budget means the prior year’s spending levels continue as default.

    Any new budget (these negotiations would definitely modify the situation in ways Obama will not accept) will likely reduce spending from the very high levels they’re at now, but by refusing agree to a new budget he actually is achieving his goal of unrestrained expansion of government together with the resources (via borrowing) to dispense to favored groups.

    One reason FDR and the Democrats achieved such a strangle hold on the national political system was that FDR carefully and intentionally gave money to and thru Dem organs and groups and very deliberately withhold funding from Republicans.

    If Obama allows the cliff cuts to occur it likely will create enough turmoil politically that he will end up with more spending on the social programs that deliver more power to him and government and far less spending on the military – something he has said he wants to cut drastically from current levels. He can’t propose a budget that would cut the military directly, but this way he can keep his fingerprints off the cuts even as he destroys our military base of power.

    Eventually, I suspect / hope that his maneuvering so aggressively along these lines will create a backlash among enough Dem Senators from more conservative states that they will ally with the Repub in the Senate to check Obama’s moves.

    If not, it’s going to be a long four years.

  9. M J R Says:

    However this all plays out, it’s going to be a long four years.

  10. parker Says:

    Given our present course, sooner, rather than later, the whole house of cards will tumble. At best we in the USA can hope for Argentina, at worst we should prepare for Zimbabwe.

  11. holmes Says:

    The media, an institution that is supported in large part by crass commercial consumerism in the form of corporate advertising and is comprised mainly by an elite group of One Percenters at the helm who make millions of dollars on the backs of the grunts who bring it to production. You would think rank and file Dems would hate such an organization. :)

  12. NeoConScum Says:

    I LIKE the idea of signing on for the Simpson/Bowles Commission recommendations—IGNORED by The Bama—by the Republicans. Put it to him. You are right, Landlord, that our side needs to remember that it controls the House.

  13. thomass Says:

    T Says:

    “For all his faults, I think that Bill O’Reilly is quite correct to announce a culture war in this country.”

    Dennis Prager was pushing that meme over 20 years ago. He is still around btw.

  14. thomass Says:

    Sam L. Says:
    ” “We’ve shown you our plan, anbd you rejected it. You, on the other hand, have made a couple of airy suggestions which got no, zero, zip, zilch, nada, votes in the Senate and House.”

    Don’t hold your breath. Remember; when you hear the ‘republicans are the stupid party’ it is usually from republicans lamenting how the elected officials get played. Dems phrase it differently.

    Actually; this time around I don’t think the republicans even care if they win.

  15. Otiose Says:

    The timing can’t be certain, but Bernanke’s monetizing of the new debt issues cannot end well and when its effects begin to take hold (e.g. even more volatile commodity prices, US dollar, and the worst – higher interest rates) will greatly disrupt Obama plans.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-03/time-bernanke-reevaluate-his-sworn-testimony-congress

    The budget negotiations assume (timing problem) that interest rates will remain low. This is probably a bad assumption and when they do begin to rise (likely within 4 years) we’ll see turmoil that will make the late 70′s / early 80′s seem pleasant. Back then the Fed was not so aggressively monetizing as they are now.

    Rapidly rising interest rates will be extremely disruptive abroad. US debt is held by many foreign entities including governments and central banks as a store of value/reserves and its sudden drop in value will cause great uncertainty overseas.

    The timing of the Arab Spring is – in part – due to the manipulations of the Fed since the 08 crisis which caused inflation overseas. In developed countries with high living standards it’s tolerable, but in places where people live on very little/day and where energy/food make up a higher % of daily living costs it does not take much to cause ripples that quickly turn violent.

    The US dollar underpins much of the global trade and a sudden correction in its value will be very destabilizing.

    Here in the US higher interest rates will make irrelevant the negotiations about raising taxes because the deficits caused by rising interest rates will make it obvious that there aren’t enough untaxed sources of income/wealth to cover the costs.

    Or,
    maybe the extreme crisis atmosphere will work towards allowing Obama to take greater control.

  16. Charles Says:

    Romney WILL be willing to change that friend’s bedpans – Obama would not help a friend unless there was something in it for himself.

    It is a shame that most voters don’t see that.

  17. SDN Says:

    There’s another related reason for Obama’s stance, and that is that he doesn’t seem to much care whether he gets the legislation he says he wants.

    He doesn’t have to care. If the House doesn’t give him what he wants, he will simply implement it by Executive Order and regulation, secure in the knowledge that he can’t possibly be impeached because 34 of his fellow tyrants will back him up.

  18. blert Says:

    Otiose…

    That’s an interesting link…

    But you’ve got the interest rate curve wrong.

    When Weimar blew through the currency — German interest rates never took off.

    Instead, lending simply evaporated. Weimar Germany became an all cash society.

    Anyone who’d lent prior to 1923 was already wiped out.

    =====

    No, what happens is that Critical Imports simply explode in nominal price — as the evil foreigners refuse to be duped into accepting fake wealth.

    We’ve ALREADY seen this dynamic with oil prices.

    Every time you’re filling up, you’re paying HALF of your money to Uncle Sam by way of currency debasement.

    All of the US Dollars that are now sleeping overseas should begin to come back home — a tsunami of cash.

    Shortly thereafter, everything that is not nailed down will be bought with these funds. For a time, the press will be hailing our new export miracle.

    There are special factors that delay this process.

    1) All other fiat powers are playing at financial war, too.

    2) Our critical imports of oil are falling steadily from the muslim OPEC players.

    WHILE

    3) The key muslim OPEC powers are faced with ramping food imports from exactly those nations who’d been stacking up debts.

    However, with enough rope, Barry can tow even America over the cliff.

    His immediate gambit after getting taxes raised will be to forgive student loans, en masse, and to spread the proceeds around the ‘hood.

    He’s on record: he told Joe the Plumber, remember?

  19. RickZ Says:

    I see people think the Fellatio Media is the problem. I disagree.

    It’s not the media, not the schools, not the unions, not the ultra-far-left radical tax and spend politicians that are the problem(s). Clean up one of those problems and the others remain.

    No, the problem we face is that progressives/communists have been running riot for decades now, and have finally taken over. It may not be politic (pun intended) to say this, but we now have a communist government, propped up by the propaganda coming from a communist media, solidifed by communists running our education system from pre-pre K through all those Piled Higher and Deeper programs.

    Crazy? I don’t think so. I hate commies and know ‘em when I smell ‘em. ‘Spread the wealth’, ‘economic justice’, ‘social justice’, ‘hate crime laws’, ‘politically correct’ speach, ‘tax the rich’ class warfare, ‘at some point, you’ve made enough money’, OwebamaCare nationalized medicine, all of that is communism running and ruining our society. Isn’t all crime hate? Why should I stifle my speach because somebody gets offended? Since when did success become a bad thing?

    No, the only way to win this war for America’s free market soul is to try, try mind you, to get the debate changed to communism vs. capitalism. But the problem with that is our reach around Pubbies are too afraid to call Owebama what he is, a committed progressive/communist. The two words are interchangable, and change with the public’s perception of those words. Communism in the early 1900s was bad, but ‘progress’ was good. SS, DD.

    Too many in this country have been inculcated with the idea that they are somehow special, and deserving of special treatment and perks. They are quite comfortable in their envy which allows them to easily and greedily take from you that which they think by right is theirs.

    No one will call out the the communists because people only think of the KGB and the like when they think about communism, if they think about communism at all. Between freedom loving people and communists, there is only one endgame to that zero sum game: Communists win or free marketers win. The progressives are removed (and or killed) from their positions, both elected and unelected, or the free market types are crushed by the onerous regulations and taxation that are required to keep communism afloat (for a while, until the money runs out, which is why Owebama wants those tax hikes now, to keep the game going a little longer).

    The so-called culture war is really a war of ideologies which comes down to a very old and simple battle: Freedom versus slavery. We know the Dems are the party of slavery, so there can never be expected any help from that quarter. Pubbies should be the free market team, but they are Dem lite, just taking a little longer to get to the same finish line as the Dems: Uncle Sugar Big Government.

    When so many of my not-so-fellow citizens are fine with communism, there’s not a whole lot that can be done without violence. Communists never give up power willingly, and will use any method available to keep it (‘Romney’s a murderer!’). For now, that method is massive voter fraud (which will never stop without Voter ID laws). Do you want to be a servant of the state or do you want your rights as an individual respected and protected? Do want Owebama’s Rule By Fiat (EOs) or do you want the Rule of Law? There is not enough time to undo what the progressives have spent over a century creating. We either submit or stand up (and become a target). Not a pleasnt situation, no matter how you slice it.

  20. Eric Says:

    It’s all about the narrative.

  21. Jaynie Says:

    Hey neo, I agree that dismissing the NYT, in fact the entire MSM, seems naive. It feels all good to us, but they continue to wield tremendous power despite rumors of their imminent demise. Daily, they shape and direct thoughts, beliefs and discussions. They especially have great influence over the low-information voter who consumes very little media, but who absorbs the MSM drumbeat they are immersed in and that swirls around them.

    And, as T says, “Repetition is one of the oldest and most powerful tactics and the left has been using it for decades.”

    The dem campaign, together with the MSM, would reduce key ideas to a tag line which they then would repeat constantly. The idea became a part of people’s very consciousness; believed with little thought at all.

    Watching them do this, for me, was like watching the creation of an amazingly well crafted but terrifying work of art. It is a staggeringly brilliant techique. Simple and elegant. That combination, a simple tag line repeated like a matra, was powerful by itself, but couple that technique with the citizenry mal-educated in our public schools and you have a level of mind control that previous tyrants would envy.

    It is, and has always been, all about the slogan: from “taxation without representation is tyranny”, through “a chicken in every pot” and “remember the Maine” to the vacuous but brutally effective “hope and change” (bah).

    Aside: I so wanted the Repubs to get a slogan and create the drumbeat of their ideas. I was hoping to hear the chant of such slogans as: “A mom and pop shop on every block,” and/or “Energy independence! All of the above for America!” and /or “Set free free enterprise and American prosperity!” Dopey and stupid though slogans are, they effectively shape thinking.

    And,as RickZ says, this has been going on for a long time and has shoved America far along the road to a type of communism.

    Repubs, however, have the opportunity to take advantage of new media outlets to begin their own repetitive mantra. This may gin up the momentum to begin the low-information voter to hear, and thus think about, the idea of personal liberty and of the beauty of the free market. Repubs may yet lead the people to begin to take pride in America, her past, her present and her future.

  22. T Says:

    Rickz,

    “It’s not the media, not the schools, not the unions, not the ultra-far-left radical tax and spend politicians . . . the problem we face is that progressives/communists have been running riot for decades now”

    The reason they’ve been “running riot” for decades is because of the influence they’ve been able to exert over the national consciousness in the media and in the schools. And, that has happened in great part because small govt conservatives have stood by and watched it happen.

    there’s a reason that with any revolution the first target is always the centers of mass-communication. Control them and the battle is half-won.

    Also, above MJR and thomass elaborate on my Bill O’Reilly comment noting that Pat Buchanan and Dennis Praeger have been singing the cultural war song for a much longer time that O’Reilly. I won’t dispute that; it makes my point about the media. Buchanan and Praeger—who knew? The hammer that O’Reilly has is that he reaches more eyes and ears in one night that Buchannan and Prager have in twenty years.

    This is not to dismiss their efforts, but my point was that we need a media onslaught of the small govt, individual rights message that we just will not get in the current media. This, IMO, is where the conservative billionaires money needs to be dedicated.

  23. RickZ Says:

    T,

    I think the commies are running riot due to HUAC and Tail Gunner Joe. Nobody wants ‘blacklists’ today because that was ‘bad’, so we all get to eat the shyt sandwich commies have in store for us.

    We’ve allowed communism to go manistream, and there is never anyone to call the communists out. They are too afraid of being ridiculed, just like too many are afraid of being called racists. Fear allows communism to metastasize.

    I told someone this election that Owebama is a commie, and they started to argue with me. I told that person the CPUSA always runs a candidate for president, except in 2012: They endorsed Owebama. Now think about that. It was not news but it should have been.

    I think we’re in this whole (hole?) mess because we’ve gotten soft on communism thanks to our Country never having been subjected to such tyranny; tyranny is now just a word in the dictionary nobody even cares about so long as Survivor or American Idol are on. (The loss of Freedom is ever only a generation away. Hello Generation!) The evils that arise from communism are glossed over and/or ignored. Being a communist now is not a bad thing, with no repercussions, because it is so mainstream. It’s not a game or just a label, even though too many think it is.

  24. T Says:

    RickZ,

    “. . . we’ve gotten soft on communism . . . The evils that arise from communism are glossed over and/or ignored.”

    I certainly agree. I have recently found the cultural distinction between communists and Nazis interesting. As you know they are both socialist movements (Nazi = “Nazional Sozialismus”) yet to call someone a “Nazi” is akin to calling them the scum of the earth while calling them a “communist” is no big deal. At the very least it does not carry the same perjorative connotation that “Nazi” does even though communists worldwide have been responsible for the murder of millions more people than the Nazis ever killed.

    I think this reaffirms your point.

  25. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Media machinations that extend well past mere bias, yes. A fundamental weapon of the left, in the 100 year cultural war that we are in the middle of, yes.

    The primary determinative factor, no.

    Nor has communism yet arrived, though that is the goal of the far left. The difference between socialism and communism is not mere semantics. That difference can be encapsulated within two words; private property.

    Socialism supports regulated private property, communism holds the very concept of private property to be invalid, a fundamental construct from which capitalism extends.

    What we have in this country is an evolving socialistic model patterned after socialistic Europe, which shall inescapably evolve into totalitarian communism, both here and abroad.

    Socialism must, in time transform itself into communism, either suddenly and violently or by incrementally ‘evolving’ into it..

    That assertion is supported by the following rationale;

    Socialism’s fundamental premise is that the majority has the right to seize any individual’s or existent classes money. But as we all know, “socialism eventually runs out of other peoples money”. In a socialistic economy, what is generally meant by ‘other people’s money’ is ‘legal’ seizure of taxable income.

    But running out of taxable income isn’t the end of the road. Personal assets remain to be plunged.

    Our country’s 50% death tax on ‘the rich’ is effectively seizure of personal assets, justified by its transfer to those who receive the ‘windfall’ of inheritance. It posits that the less fortunate have ‘the right’, justified by political might, to ‘tax’ the good fortune of others. The mob does because it can.

    Once a socialist society reaches its ‘tipping point’ in spending beyond its ability to tax income and turns to the ‘legal’ seizure of personal assets in order to continue to fund socialism’s entitlements, a society begins to exchange the soft tyranny of dependent entitlement for the hard tyranny of oppression.

    When private property is abolished (for all but the elite) the ‘rubicon’ of transformation from socialism to totalitarian communism has been crossed.

    The only deviation from this path is if fiscal collapse occurs while a society is still socialistic and the mob turns to the demagogue, who is able to successfully become a dictator.

    Socialism thus inescapably leads to totalitarianism and/or dictatorship.

  26. T Says:

    Geoffrey Britain,

    “. . . the less fortunate have ‘the right’, justified by political might, to ‘tax’ the good fortune of others.”

    My only quibble here is the term “the good fortune of others.” Indeed, this is how the left justifies the taxation of the propserous; their prosperity is simply the result of “good fortune.” Hard work, insight, creative vision count for naught.

    Let’s rewrite it as “. . . tax the hard work of others.”

    “The only deviation from this path is if fiscal collapse occurs while a society is still socialistic . . . .” And this supports the approach that commentors such as Foxmarks have been advocating. Fiscal collapse as a prophylactic measure, hmmm . . . .

  27. RickZ Says:

    Geoffrey,

    We’ve already had our established bankruptcy law overturned on a whim by Owebma, specifically the GM bondholders. Now our progressive Congressbastards are proposing the nationalization of 401(k) and IRA individual retirement accounts (like occured in Argentina). The plan is to convert the plans into government debt (which is worthless), thereby giving the government all the cash that resides in those accounts. It might sound farfetched and leaves one thinking ‘it can’t happen here’ but it can, and it has.

    We’re not so far from that hard tyranny you speak of. Within 4 years, we’ll have it. Unless they do take those retirement accounts a little too prematurely, then the shooting war starts.

    But when Rule of Law is no longer, when Constitutional restraints on Government power, including the President’s, is routinely ignored with no repercussions, when we have no budget passed for 4 years as required by the Constitution, when we have a president who rules by Executive Order fiat, then I say we are at the end of soft tryranny and well on the way to full blown Owebamao imperial rule. He already spends my money like a divine right king just on his vacations alone.

  28. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    T,

    The inheritors of wealth may or may not have been instrumental in the formation of that inherited wealth, thus I labeled it their good fortune. We cannot pick our parents, thus inheritance is generally an ‘accident’ of birth.

    I am unfamiliar with the commentator Foxmarks and thus the approach that he has been advocating…

    How is it relevant?

  29. T Says:

    Geoffry Britain,

    My comment was intended to refer to the original wealth creating generation. There is no special first generation estate tax credit for those who created the wealth to pass it on (if you created it, shouldn’t you have the right to give it to whom you choose without being taxed on that right?). All generational transfers, first generation through nth generation are taxed the same. But you are correct, I did not clarify that point.

    As for your question, Foxmarks is a commentor who appears on this site who, during the run up to November 6th, indicated support for Ron Paul and justified said vote by noting we’re going over the fiscal cliff anyway, might as well do it now and get it over with.

  30. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    RickZ,

    No argument with the examples you mention and there are even more that can be cited. Congress Is Looting Federal Worker, Military Retirement Funds and income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities

    What you describe however is not communism per se but approaching the precipice of complete selective enforcement of the law, which is as you point out, de facto tyranny and the increasing abandonment of the rule of law for the rule of men.

    Tyranny, no matter how cruel is more inclusive of various configurations than merely communism.

    In many respects we are already a socialistic society.

    We are being forced through legislation, academic indoctrination and media manipulation of popular culture into ‘evolving’ into a deeper socialism that shall in time lead to either the tyranny of dictatorship or the perhaps more likely tyranny of an acceptably ‘soft’ communism.

    The tactics you cite are some of the methodologies being employed, though there are other fronts in this cultural war, such as efforts in the UN, to through international treaties, abridge the first and second amendments, create global taxes, taxes on carbon, etc.

    There are efforts underway in the UN to regulate the internet. That proposed legislation is a dagger aimed at free speech and the right. Control the flow of communication and information and you effectively control the populace by obstructing organization and awareness.

    Then there is the movement among leftist American justices to use legal ‘precedents’ from the International Court to supersede the US Constitution…

    We are indeed much closer to the possibility of hard tyranny than the uninformed public realizes. Though its problematic that many would care as long as the entitlements continue and increase.

    I believe that Obama’s strategy in the coming fiscal cliff debacle is to set up regaining the congressional majority in 2014 that he had in 2008-2009. If he succeeds, he will not waste the opportunity again and we will move much closer to completing America’s evolution into a fully socialistic model.

    However, it will take the ‘opportunity of crisis’ that a fiscal collapse brings, to provide the political cover needed, to initiate the fundamental transformation of America from a fully socialistic society into the Marxist model that Obama not-so-secretly desires.

  31. RickZ Says:

    Geoffrey,

    Yeah, I left out The Den of Thieves on Turtle Bay.

    When we have a president who is more American than UN, we’re at least okay. But with Owebama, I wouldn’t be surprised to see blue helmets running around this country in the not so distant future — with full arrest powers. And, of course, Owebama selling out America to UN jurisdiction on a vast number of topics, including that gun control bullshyt for which the UN is always pushing. (Who needs the Senate to pass a treaty?) Tyrants hate prols and bourgeoisie with guns. Too much competition. Besides, our betters know, well, better. Aaack!

  32. JuliB Says:

    After pondering on the rule of law versus the rule of men, I went over and donated some $$ to the George Zimmerman Defense Fund.

  33. beverly Says:

    Did anyone see 60 Minutes on Sunday? I usually avoid it these days, because their political slant infuriates me, but I happened to see that Anderson Cooper, our new gay hero, was doing a piece on an escapee from a North Korean gulag: a young man who was born in the concentration camp, and really believed there was no other existence than this hell; he’d never heard there was an outside world.

    Great piece. BUT: there was one word the 60 Minutes folks NEVER MENTIONED: Just guess.

    I watched the whole f***ing thing, and not ONCE did they mention that NK is a COMMUNIST dictatorship. NOT ONCE.

    Welcome to Prison Planet.

  34. beverly Says:

    COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST COMMUNIST.

    There.

  35. T Says:

    As I wrote, conservative billionaires need to establish a national balanced or conservative media to shape the national dialogue counter to the current “Pravda” MSM (H/T Hot Air):

    MSNBC’s prime time line-up was spotted entering the West Wing Tuesday afternoon for what host Ed Schultz tweeted was a meeting with President Barack Obama.

    The link:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/msnbc-hosts-vist-obama

  36. JWD Says:

    The audacity is in the NY Times “reporter” writing the following statement as if it is even partially factual:

    “Mr. Obama has repeatedly offered what he considered compromises on stimulus spending, health care and deficit reduction to Republicans, who either rejected them as inadequate or pocketed them and insisted on more.”

    I re-read that and my jaw dropped open. I have yet to find any “compromise” that Obama offered on ANY of those matters, yet the NY Times acts as if this is a FACT. The editor let that statement go by without a qualification such as “the White House feels that…”.

    We are at war with the press.

  37. Ymarsakar Says:

    The thing is, the media doesn’t write bad articles about the Islamos because they know the Islamos will kill them.

    They treat half of America in this fashion because they are confident that they will use America’s own desire for peace and the Constitution to make slaves out of you all while tearing apart the US Constitution getting in their way.

    And people let them do exactly as they wish on this matter.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge