constitutionalley.us

In preparation for watching tonight’s ‘debate’, thought I’d send along this video that offers some insight into the use of political code words. Here’s a 3m47s course in Obamaspeak:

See y’all tonight!

Ciao,
Dennis

Hat Tip: Heinz A.

Update: There are reasons why you’re not going to get insightful information, such as the above, from American mainstream media. For example, over at American Thinker Ethel Fenig tells us that “for some women, science really is hard.”

From the “Physicals is really hard” department here’s Andrea Mitchell reporting:

Does this mean he landed before he went up?

Andrea?

Thomas Peterffy grew up in socialist Hungary. Despite the fact that he could not speak English when he immigrated to the United States in 1956, Thomas fulfilled the American dream. With hard work and dedication, he started a business that today employs thousands of people. In the 1970s, Thomas bought a seat on the American Stock Exchange. He played a key role in developing the electronic trading of securities and is the founder of Interactive Brokers, an online discount brokerage firm with offices all over the world.

From yesterday’s American Spectator blog

John Silber, the longtime President and later Chancellor of Boston University, has passed away from complications of kidney failure. He was 86.

[snip]

Judging by this interview in which Silber described the late Howard Zinn’s The Peoples’ History of the United States as “one of the most incompetent and inaccurate histories of this country that has ever been written,”; I think it is safe to say you won’t find a college or university hiring a president like John Silber and we are the worse for it.

From the The New Criterion:

June 1995
Obedience to the unenforcable
by John Silber

On the decaying domain of manners.

Seventy-five years ago, John Fletcher Moulton, Lord Moulton, a noted English judge, spoke on the subject of “Law and Manners.” He divided human action into three domains. At one extreme is the domain of law, “where,” he said, “our actions are prescribed by laws binding upon us which must be obeyed.” At the other extreme is the domain of free choice, “which,” he said, “includes all those actions as to which we claim and enjoy complete freedom.” Between these two, Lord Moulton said, lies a domain in which our actions are not determined by law but in which we are not free to behave in any way we choose. In this domain we act with greater or lesser freedom from constraint, on a continuum that extends from a consciousness of duty “nearly as strong as positive law,” through a sense of what is required by public spirit, to “good form” appropriate in a given situation, and so on up to the border with the domain of free choice, where there is no constraint whatever on what we may choose to do.

Lord Moulton considered the area of action lying between law and pure personal preference to be “the domain of obedience to the unenforceable.” In this domain, he said, “Obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself.” This domain between law and free choice he called that of “manners.” While it may include moral duty, social responsibility, and proper behavior, it extends beyond them to cover “all cases of doing right where there is no one to make you do it but yourself.”

Both the domains of law and free choice threaten to encroach upon the middle domain of manners. Moulton’s central point, one of capital importance, is that “the real greatness of a nation, its true civilization, is measured by the extent of this land of obedience to the unenforceable. It measures the extent to which the nation trusts its citizens, and its area testifies to the way they behave in response to that trust.”

In America today the domains of choice and law have eroded the domain of manners. As the realm of manners and morals has been diminished by those who claim that whatever they do is right if it feels good to them, the central domain loses its force. And despite the expansion of the domain of law, the consequent weakening of the central domain has resulted in a diminution of the authority and effectiveness of the law.

cont’d. . .

Once again: “Obama’s not the problem. Romney’s not the solution.”

Update: Wonder what Silber might have had to say about this?

“The ‘Pulp Fiction’ star spoofs children’s books to get out the Obama vote.”

Hat Tip: Elaine and the New York Daily News

See also: Madonna and Our “Black Muslim President”

Y’all better vote for f–king Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right? We have a black Muslim in the White House! Now that’s some amazing s–t. It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man, g-damnit.

Helicopter Ben (Bernanke) training:

Is that you, ‘Panky? Ready for QE III?

Hat Tip: Nancy M.

Update: As John Mauldin put it on Saturday, “QE Infinity: Unintended Consequences”

The Federal Reserve (that is, the FOMC – Federal Open Market Committee) last week gave us an open-ended quantitative easing policy. Most of the world thought they would only give us QE3, and more than a few observers expressed surprise that the Bernanke-led Fed decided not only to continue Operation Twist at its current level but also to buy an additional $40 billion a month of agency mortgage bonds. This latter easing policy will continue “(i)f the outlook for the labor market does not improve substantially…”

This rather prodigious easing will total some $85 billion per month for the rest of the year and almost $500 billion a year, for some time to come. My first thought upon reading the post-meeting communiqué and Bernanke’s press release was, what exactly defines the policy? What is an acceptable rate of unemployment? This is not merely an academic question because, as we have noted in past letters, it is going to be quite some time before unemployment dips below 6%, and to reach that level will take a much healthier economy than the one in which we are mired.

The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is now at a mind-numbing $1.5 trillion. Bernanke proposes to raise that by a half trillion dollars every year until we reach whatever is deemed an acceptable rate of unemployment, as long as it is “achieved in a context of price stability.” And while Bernanke argued many years ago for a 2% inflation target, there has been no real line in the sand as to what the current target should be and what is an acceptable rate of inflation in an age of very high US indebtedness, not to mention high unemployment.

And so the Fed has embarked upon a course of extraordinary quantitative easing – or printing money, in the vulgar parlance of those of us back in the cheap seats. And it is doing so in the face of a growing chorus of economists who are clearly seated in first class and who are hollering that more QE will not have any effect upon employment and may even do more harm than good.

Isn’t that special?

On Tuesday, Bret Stephens asked in the Wall Street Journal, “Why is it OK to mock one religion but not another?”

So let’s get this straight: In the consensus view of modern American liberalism, it is hilarious to mock Mormons and Mormonism but outrageous to mock Muslims and Islam. Why? Maybe it’s because nobody has ever been harmed, much less killed, making fun of Mormons.

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are, of course, the creators of South Park and, along with Avenue Q co-creator Robert Lopez, the proud progenitors of 9-Tony-Award-winning The Book of Mormon.

When’s that new Broadway hit going to open, Trey? Matt?

In case you haven’t heard. . .

From the September 12th “Inside the Ring” column:

China rejects zero option

President Obama and other disarmament advocates continue to call for the total elimination of nuclear arms. This week, China’s government signaled its intention to move in the opposite direction and expand and speed up its large-scale nuclear buildup.

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, stated in a Sept. 11 editorial that reports about China’s recent long-range nuclear-missile tests, including a future multiple-warhead ICBM, are part of a major shift in its nuclear posture.

“China must accelerate upgrading and strengthening its nuclear deterrent and make it real and believable,” the newspaper said.

The unusual statement was followed by another alarming comment: China should use its nuclear forces to coerce its enemies.

China left out of Romney campaign

The presidential election campaign of Republican Mitt Romney recently made public a policy memorandum by Harvard academic Lanhee Chen, listing what it sees as several foreign-policy and national-security failures by President Obama.

However, conspicuously absent from the list was any mention of China and the administration’s failure to coax China into behaving like a normal part of the international community.

There was no mention of China’s military buildup continuing apace in secret with no pressure from the administration for an explanation. It also ignored the current failure to halt the Chinese state-controlled press campaign to demonize the United States. It made no mention of the administration’s mishandling of efforts to prevent China from moving to control vast areas of international waters near its coasts, while alarming neighbors from Japan to India.

The lack of any reference to China reflects the pro-China bent of the formal Romney campaign advisers, such as Rich Williamson, who recently praised liberal China hand Kenneth Lieberthal, a former Clinton administration adviser who is considered a soft-liner on Beijing’s military buildup.

Warning on nuclear cuts

Mr. Kyl and Mr. Turner said that Mr. Obama promised to request full funding and to accelerate building a new chemistry and metallurgy research nuclear facility, but the funding cuts delayed construction from 2021 to 2028 at the earliest.

“This is all an unnecessary risk, because alternative funding sources have been proposed to the administration,” they stated.

“When we find ourselves replacing antiquated vacuum tubes with modern circuit boards, the risk of further delays in warhead-life extension is too great.”

Another major worry identified by the two lawmakers: “Our decades-old, land-based missile force remains without a proper replacement plan — contrary to The Post’s suggestion — while countries such as Russia and China deploy new missiles.”

“It is more than fair to criticize the president’s failure to honor his commitments; the future of the U.S. nuclear deterrent and extended deterrent is at risk,” they said.

Not sure why anyone should be worried about our land-based missile force deteriorating. We don’t even plan on using them:

The Obama administration’s nuclear strategy review made public on Tuesday (04/06/10) keeps in place all strategic weapons needed to fight a nuclear war and presents only minor policy changes, a move that upset arms-control advocates who had sought major cuts in U.S. forces.

The report of the yearlong Nuclear Posture Review changes how nuclear arms will be used against non-nuclear weapons states. Nuclear-missile forces will remain on alert to be fired within minutes to counter a nuclear strike, but the intercontinental ballistic missile warheads now are targeted on open oceans — not Russian or Chinese cities — in case of an accidental launch, senior administration officials said in releasing the report.

From the September 18th Washington Free Beacon article “Chinese General: Prepare for Combat”

China’s most powerful military leader, in an usual public statement, last week ordered military forces to prepare for combat, as Chinese warships deployed to waters near disputed islands and anti-Japan protests throughout the country turned violent.

Protests against the Japanese government’s purchase of three privately held islands in the Senkakus chain led to mass street protests, the burning of Japanese flags, and attacks on Japanese businesses and cars in several cities. Some carried signs that read “Kill all Japanese,” and “Fight to the Death” over disputed islands. One sign urged China to threaten a nuclear strike against Japan.

Gen. Xu Caihou, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, considered the most senior military political commissar, said Friday that military forces should be “prepared for any possible military combat,” state run Xinhua news agency reported.

Heightened tensions over the Senkakus come as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta arrived in China Monday.

Trust Mr. Panetta got a warmer reception than Mr. Gates did awhile back.

I wonder when Obama’s “Soft Power” strategy will begin to kick-in? Any idea? Doesn’t seem to be working in the Middle East. However, when it comes to the Chinese, it’s former colonial invaders payback time. Just too bad we’re making it so easy for them. And paying them to boot!

Ciao,
Dennis

Update — Guess the Chinese like Mr. Panetta better than Mr. Gates as can be seen in this DoD news release: “Panetta, Xi Welcome Closer U.S.-China Military Relations.”

Just how “close” is that going to be, Mr. Panetta? Well, at least this close:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta’s unusual offer to China’s military to join a major U.S.-led naval exercise in the Pacific prompted several U.S. security officials to express fears privately that China will gain valuable war-fighting intelligence from the Rimpac, or Rim of the Pacific, exercise.

China’s military will learn details on how the United States conducts coalition warfare, a strategic war-fighting capability. It also will learn valuable data on U.S. communications used in naval warfare maneuvers, said defense officials familiar with the war games.

Such cooperation also would violate legal restrictions on military exchanges with China that were imposed by Congress to prevent unrestricted cooperation with Beijing from enhancing Chinese war-fighting.

[snip]

Mr. Rohrabacher (Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on government operations) also said such cooperation is not just impractical, but illegal.

“The Defense Authorization Act of 2000 prohibits this kind of military contact with China,” he said. “This is not only unwise, but illegal. It would be putting our military in a cooperative situation with a potential enemy.”

— Bill Gertz in this week’s “Inside the Ring”

A few days ago, the Huffington Post published a story titled “Allen West Blames President Obama For Libya Attack; John McCain Backs Arab Spring.” After detailing what West and others, including Sarah Palin, had to say critical of President Obama’s response to the Benghazi butchering of an American ambassador, Michael McAuliff waxed wise with the “nuanced” approach of three senatorial sages:

But Palin’s former running mate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), penned a far more nuanced response, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). They argued that despite the anguish and outrage Americans feel at the diplomats’ deaths, it is important to continue to promote democracy and the Arab Spring.

The three senators, who are often critical of the Obama administration, represent perhaps the most influential legislators among centrist and conservative foreign policy makers. McCain is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which Graham also serves, and Lieberman chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“Despite this horrific attack, we cannot give in to the temptation to believe that our support for the democratic aspirations of people in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere in the broader Middle East is naive or mistaken,” they wrote:

“We cannot resign ourselves to the false belief that the Arab Spring is doomed to be defined not by the desire for democracy and freedom that has inspired millions of people to peaceful action, but by the dark fanaticism of terrorists,” they warned, cautioning that if the United States gave up, it would be a win for terrorists.

“To follow this misguided path would not only be a victory for the extremists and their associates, but a betrayal of everything for which Chris Stevens and his colleagues stood and gave their lives,” the senators wrote. “In short, it would be a betrayal of our own best ideals as Americans and our own enduring interest in using our great influence to support the overwhelming majority of people in the Middle East who want to be free from the kinds of murderers and terrorists who killed our people yesterday in Benghazi.”

The remarks of the senators, who declared they “have confidence that our own government will provide all necessary assistance” to help Libya catch the killers, also contrasted with those of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who leveled harsh criticism at the White House.

Once-upon-a-time, the late Mr. Osama bin Laden put it a bit more succinctly:

Between a strong horse and a weak horse, people will favor the strong horse.

Nuanced, my ass.

Ciao,
Dennis

Time for another stab at the Free Trade Boogeyman … and the Wall Street Journal.

Here are some of the thing that the Journal had to say about presidential candidate Mitt Romney in response to a recent Romney ad swiping at our trade nemesis China:

• Americans have heard similar trade themes before—from Walter Mondale, Dick Gephardt, Bob Kerrey, John Kerry, Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, among others. What they all have in common is that they were candidates who never became President.

• As a former businessman, Mr. Romney surely knows that cheaper Chinese imports create jobs in the U.S. up and down the merchandise and services value chain.

• Mr. Romney’s larger mistake is that this ad conveys an economic pessimism that undermines his political case that he can deliver a better future for American workers. If the only way to revive American manufacturing is to steal jobs back from China, our future can’t be very bright.

Point one seems pointless. Other than Ross Perot, none of those mentioned were candidates with a business background nor would they have been considered fonts of economic wisdom. And was their position on trade a pivotal factor in their failure to be elected? Not likely.

Point two is true but makes no mention of the flip side: the loss of smaller retail outlets and distributors in the U.S. to competition from the Big Box stores such as Walmart. There may have actually been an overall net loss of such jobs. Also interesting is that Home Depot and Best Buy have closed or will close their China stores because their business models just don’t work there. Guess honorable Mother and Father will be staying in business.

But the crux our trade deficit issue with China, not to mention energy imports, is nicely sidestepped by number three. Bringing jobs back from China would be stealing them? Couldn’t you also say that the multi-national corporations stole the jobs from Americans when they invested in China rather than the U.S. and consequently “off-shored” those jobs? Or am I beginning to sound like a union organizer?

Globalization is not a “natural” phenomenon in the sense that it was self-starting and self-perpetuating. It was and is a purposeful venture on the part of U.S. and foreign multinationals to expand their markets, sales and profitability. Back in 1980, with the exception of certain natural resources, the United States could have managed to get along while enjoying a decent standard of living with very little trade with outside world. That situation would have not been optimal, and competition from overseas would not have led to the improvement in quality that is so obvious in such products as automobiles. But we had the “in-house” skills, knowledge and capacity to produce not only finished goods but also the machinery and tooling required to produce them. Today, much of that capacity and skilled labor pool is gone. Disappeared. Even if we wanted to, we could never duplicate Herculean effort that transformed Detroit into the “Arsenal of Democracy” during WW II. We even buy much of our military hardware from overseas including the Chinese who, by the way, have been known send us counterfeit electronic chips that ended up in U.S. fighter aircraft. Today, along with any number of other products, there isn’t a single TV or light bulb produced in the U.S. But, I don’t want you to get the idea that U.S. manufacturers willy-nilly shipped millions of jobs overseas just to save a few bucks on labor.

The cost of doing business in the United States has been pushed ever upward for a number reasons beside direct labor expense. Of course, there’s been the monumental increase in the cost of medical care. There’s also been increases in payroll taxes. Property taxes. Then there’s cost of dealing with environmental, equal employment opportunity, disability, personal injury, and product liability issues. Not to mention the myriad of regulations you can go to jail for but don’t even know exist. Why anyone would even want to be in a manufacturing business in the U.S. seems a mystery to me. If many of those issues can be whisked aside with the flick of a trip overseas, well, why not? My point being that social, environmental, and health legislation, along with over-regulation and taxation, have consequences often foreseen but ignored. Corporations, being even less inclined than individuals to beat their heads against walls, move overseas where many of these barriers don’t exist. And if in the name of free trade they can bring their products back into the country with little or no tariff, well, they’re even willing to hand over most, if not all, of their technology for the privilege of setting up shop in the Middle Kingdom.

So, what’s the proverbial bottom line? It’s the following chart that illustrates how much we’ve given away by borrowing to maintain our lifestyle rather than work for it. Over the past thirty-plus years, it adds up to nearly nine trillion. I cannot come away from looking at this graph convinced that our trade and energy “policies” since 1980 have been to our long-term benefit. And any concern over tariffs and the Smoot-Hawley canard is nonsense.

The numbers and sources behind the chart, including data on foreign-held U.S. debt, is given in the following spreadsheet:

And whom do you think we should blame for all this? Certainly not the Chinese.

Ciao,
Dennis

There was a time in American politics when asking such questions would automatically label one as certifiable. However, such confidence in the electoral system has now been raucously relegated to the historical curiosity department. Persons both intelligent and sane now seriously ponder these once-upon-a-time imponderables. For example, here’s an email I received this morning:

I know there has to be more to the assassination and the increased rioting…not the anti-muslim movie or celebrating the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. O’s reaction or lack of reaction/response to what happened is telling…maybe my prediction that there won’t be an election isn’t so far fetched. Maybe the Shakespearean line “false face must hide what the false heart doth know” is applicable to O. What are your thoughts? E

Ever responsive I replied:

Dear E,

Shakespeare’s line is applicable, but I think the election will be held. Obama doesn’t have the reach to prevent it. Keep in mind that the states run the elections. Not the federal government. There’s enough momentum in the process to make it extremely difficult to halt the election itself. And such a move would be way too obvious. However, the “progressives” may have so corrupted the electoral process that the returns will be sufficiently questionable or ambiguous in enough states so as to preclude a clear result. Obama could thereby refuse to leave office while the attorneys and courts do battle. . .but for how long? All hell would eventually break loose, but who’s going to toss him out? Not the military. They’ve also been corrupted. And why would they? It’s not Obama’s fault the states couldn’t run a clean election, is it?

Just a thought.

Ciao,
Dennis

And thereby could arise the justification for the imposition of martial law that is a concern for what seems to be an ever growing number of America’s fair citizens. I believe our military leadership would be willing under such a circumstance to do so. Just consider the extent to which the military has been feminized, homogenized and lawyerized over the past twenty years. And, after all, the military has also been turned into a political arm of the Obama Administration geared towards suppressing the First Amendment. Don’t think so? Try these on for size:

• Then Secretary of Defense “Robert Gates Urged Terry Jones to Call Off Koran Burning” — CBS News on September 9, 2010

• “Petraeus condemns Quran burning as protests rage on” — CNN on April 03, 2011

And, most recently, regarding Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dempsey:

“Top US military officer calls pastor over film” — Reuters on September 12, 2012

Whether or not the rank and file would go along with orders to shoot their fellow citizens is another question altogether. Homeland Security, on the other hand…

Ciao,
Dennis

Hat Tips: E.B. and Hot Air

George Will on ABC This Week mused, “If the Republican Party cannot win in this environment (a depression-level-numbers economy), it has to get out of politics and find another business”:

[hana-flv-player video=”http://constitutionalley.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/George-Will-on-ABC-This-Week-GOP-should-get-out-of-politics.flv”
width=”300″
description=””
player=”4″
autoload=”true” autoplay=”false”
loop=”false” autorewind=”false”
/]

On her talk show, Laura Ingraham agrees with Mr. Will that, if the GOP can’t win this election, they should shut down the party. She feels that winning is mostly a matter of getting new campaign managers who can effectively re-brand the party and project a compelling image (2m43s audio only, ignore the screen image):

But over at the National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy knows the problem is much deeper than just poor politicking skills on the part of the GOP. He asserts that the Republicans can’t win just by being slightly less “progressive” than the left:

After a first term that has been historically abysmal, President Obama stands a good chance of being reelected. How can that be?

[snip]

Still, the truth is increasingly irrelevant. Contemporary American politics is about emotion and perception. And this is a game Republicans will never win — and not, as they would have you believe, because the deck is stacked against them.

Certainly, the media, the academy, and most of our society’s major institutions are heavily influenced by progressives, if not outright controlled by them. It is therefore a given that elite opinion will portray Republicans as villains. Yet, that longstanding challenge for Republicans has never before been an insuperable one. In America, at least until now, the avant-garde has never been able to tame the public. It has always been possible to run against elite opinion and win — if you make a compelling counter-case.

Today’s Republicans do not. Indeed, they cannot, because they have accepted the progressive framework. Their argument is not that the welfare state, deficit spending, federalized education, sharia-democracy promotion, and the rest are bad policies. Their argument is not that Washington needs to be dramatically downsized. It is that progressive governance is fine but needs to be better executed.

Ain’t that something to rally around! The counter-case is supposed to demonstrate why the other guys are deeply wrong. You’re not going to get very far with “We’re not as bad as they say we are.”

It is hard to complain about Obama’s $5 trillion in new debt when you added $5 trillion just before he did. “Well, we took eight years and he took only four” is not exactly a response that stirs the soul — particularly when the country took two centuries to amass the first $5 trillion.

cont’d. . .

Not very encouraging, but I am pleasantly surprised to see some of those with a national voice express a thought that I’ve had for quite some time: The two-party system of Republicans vs. Democrats doesn’t really offer one much of a choice.

On the other hand, perhaps Romney and Company do know what they’re doing. It may be a little early to go for the jugular. A federalist solution to the medical marijuana issue was even floated by Paul Ryan. And who knows how many “October Surprises” we have coming from both parties? During the Presidential debates would it be a good idea for Romney to offer to produce more tax returns if Obama releases his college transcripts? Just a little tit-for-tat thought.

Whatever is currently showing up in the polls may not reflect the true level of angst coursing though the veins of the electorate. Received the following from correspondent E.B. in response to the McCarthy article:

I had other thoughts after reading the article. I may be a dreamer but I believe there are millions of people who don’t want to continue living in this repressive environment. M.’s cousin was a devote, and I mean brainwashed, O supporter. She actually bowed her head, clasped her hands in prayer when I bashed O. She called the other day and asked ME who she should vote for…maybe people are thinking about their lives before O. Emotion can work both ways.

Or, as Shakespeare once penned:

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.

Ciao,
Dennis

Hat Tips: National Review and The Daily Caller