Underground Limestone Castle

Sunday, May 03, 2009

Barack Obama, Hypocrite-in-Chief

Who is the bigger hypocrite - Barack Obama, or his fawning sycophants in the news media?

The hypocrite-in-chief has wasted no time in engaging the sort of double-talk that routinely earned his predecessor the label of "Worst president ever", but isn't it even more nauseating that the news media, the self-styled truth-to-power speaker which considers itself the conscience of the world, can't cast on Obama even one one-hundredth of the scrutiny and criticism it routinely doled out to George Bush?

Let's just try and imagine what would have happened if George Bush had engaged in just one of Obama's many shenanigans:

-Having an attorney general who labels the country as "Cowards" when it comes to "Talking about racial matters" - Of course, Eric Holder did nothing to illustrate exactly what matters he was describing, but it was merely a racial elephant in the room for everyone to ignore by unspoken agreement. Could he have been referring to the street-thug gangsta-rap ideology that pervades the culture and denounces those who read and study for "Acting White"? That would indeed be speaking truth to power, but by the shamefully absurd lack of focus, it's clear that Mr. Holder was talking about something that no reporter even felt the need to ask for details on. Is it still such a foregone conclusion in the U.S.A. that the only racial issue that matters is the notion of white hatred towards blacks? Apparently, it's easier to avoid facing the fact that reality is a good deal more complex than this simplistic scapegoat, but as always, it's easier to blame the white race for all social ills. But the differentiation appears to be the mere fact that Mr. Holder himself is black - sure, a white Attorney General would never say such a thing - but why is a black man given a pass for such a thing, where a white man would be hounded to obscurity? The mentality that allows such double-standards is precisely what allows the national racial-angst monologue to continue.

-Expanding our debt by trillions, then denouncing the same debt, then pretending that projected reductions would be "Savings" (and let's not even discuss what usually happens to such projected reductions). Generally, doublespeak about money is uncool. This time around, Obama's "Trust me, I'm really cool" message appears to be pegged to a currency of its own, which circulates for as long as everyone accepts it - but what happens when people lose their faith in it, and want real cash?

-Saying that we "Need to look forward" regarding actions taken by the past administrations, but then quietly sending out the lawyers to see if "Truth Commissions", prosecutions, lawsuits, and indictments can be obtained at the same exact time.

-Taking boatloads of campaign money from a company, and then using his power as president to force the company into government receivership, effectively taking it over.

-Indulging in the most expensive inauguration ever - particularly at a time when the rest of the economy is reeling from contraction. Oh, well, it's different, everyone thinks; it's an "Historic" occasion, the inauguration of the first black president, so it's okay. If you bought into this line, you've patronized millions of Americans with your shallow airs. Apparently, you've invested so much into the notion that America is the Great Satan of the world, you've forgotten how many lives America has sacrificed to emancipate blacks from slavery (leading the rest of the world way behind in the rearview mirror), rescue untold millions from dictatorships and fascists around the world during the twentieth century, and the millions upon millions of dollars transferred from the pockets of U.S. taxpayers every year into the bank accounts of other nations, even those who pocket such largesse while at the same time uttering drearily predictable rants about how evil the U.S. is. Hypocrisy? Set your watch to it; it's Obama time!

-Pretending that every one of his tax-cheating cabinet appointments were absolutely crucial to the survival of the nation, and that their tax offenses were something to be explained away - or simply ignored.

-Making "Calls" for "Bipartisanship", then denouncing those who don't buy into it once it becomes clear that "Bipartisanship" to the president means that everybody on the other side gives him what he wants, while he gives nothing in return.

-Claiming that he'd have no lobbyists, then bringing in a whole bunch of them.

-Claiming the budget had no pork, and then adding a mountain of pork.

*******************************************************

So much of this see-no-evil approach has to do with Mr. Obama's purported personal charm, and I say "Purported" specifically because too many have made huge concessions about the one's "Oratorical Gifts", and "Cool Demeanor", and such, but I'm sorry to report that I see little evidence of it. Sure, he's not wearing a sideways baseball cap, and saying "Yo, 'Sup" at press conferences - instead, he adopts the tones of a smooth salesman, and talks in exceptionally bland platitudes - this is supposed to be evidence of an amazing personality? It's just snake oil all over again. Bush's line about the "Soft bigotry of low expectations" once again proves far more visionary than anyone could ever have expected. So Obama can go on and on about stuff that sounds good in the abstract, and avoids details when turning on his charm offensive. That's statesmanship? It's just the same old malarkey, and everyone who thought we were getting a new and better spin on the presidency is having the wool pulled over their eyes at the same time the rug is being pulled out from under them.

****************************************************************

However, there are of course many actions taken by Obama that are not hypocritical in the sense that he'd be praised for them, where Bush would have been damned, but that's because Bush would never have done them:

-Kissing up to Hugo Chavez, and even accepting a book from him, which was, of course, a diatribe about how all of South America's problems are the fault of the U.S.A.
-Kissing up to Daniel Ortega
-Apologizing for America (just as though it were necessary)
-Releasing CIA information to further demonize the former administration, while giving no consideration to whether such information affects America's safety.
-Turning up the thermostat in the Oval Office to 80, while burning absurd amounts of jet fuel on "Earth Day" for photo opportunities, and at the same time denouncing coal as an industry, and buying into the notion of a cap-and-trade bureacracy of dubious nature and need, which is all but guaranteed to act as an albatross around the neck of the country.
-Targeting celebrities, such as Jim Cramer and Rush Limbaugh in an attempt to deflect criticism and scrutiny of his own agenda.
-Returning the Bust of Winston Churchill to England - what many would consider to have been a treasured gift from a staunch ally - then allowing his staff to tell the British that they shouldn't consider themselves any different from anyone else, nor expect special treatment.

No, Bush would have been far more classy - but you can be sure, that whatever Bush did that's "Bad", is now "Good", just as long as Barack Obama is the one doing it. Since that's the only rule that anyone needs to know, being a fan of Obama is possibly the easiest, most default position to take - but, as always, thinking for yourself takes a backseat to such group-think. So carry on, emperor Obama, and your adulatory bootlickers in your press corps - because they do work for you; never forget that. You earned them, and they're yours - sure, they are still ostensibly owned by private companies, and their own steep declines in readership, circulation, and shareholder values have taken a concurrent plummet - but that has nothing to do with you. In fact, they might be eligible for a bailout, no? Pull the AIG trick again, and they're all yours, in deed as well as fact!

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Stark Raving Deficits

I don't give my regional, rodeo-clown representative, Pete Stark, a hard time as often as I should for the dismal job he does, but today I had to dash off a quick note, since his office is constantly sending out news items on his latest boondoggles: his latest is more public spending to subsidize employer leave, which earned him this response from me:

Dear Mr. Stark: with regard to HR 1723: You've got to be kidding. In "These tough economic times", as you yourself referred to them, the last thing we need is further bankruptcy of our bloated public sector.
That seven dollars a month for the employee AND employer you cited as the approximate cost - and we all know what tends to happen to such "initial" estimates - would be better left in the hands of employers and employees alike. Not all of us favor the process of transferring power to the government for everything that sounds desirable; making laws that demand certain results is an inappropriate use of public policy.
As you and your colleagues scramble to spend ever more public money, you are merely adding to already-absurd deficits - which you also denounced under Bush, but apparently praise under Obama.
Please stop throwing other people's money on this pyre.
Sincerely,

Registered and regular voter

Monday, March 16, 2009

How are those campaign pledges coming along?

What were the reasons for the serial hatred of George W. Bush? Few of the charges against him held up under scrutiny, and still fewer can now be found that haven't been brazenly embraced by Barack Obama himself, as we shall see:

-Embrace of war over "Diplomacy"
-Shredding the constitution
-Wrecking the economy

If you voted for Obama in the heat of the moment, thinking, "Eh, let's try some change", this instinct can be understood - but if you were of the die-hard Obama supporter contingent, fully believing that this man actually knew what to do to "Fix" America and unite us as a nation, then you were a total sucker.

To wit: True to form, Obama now plays down the Iraq war while upping the ante on the Afghanistan war, the "Ball" that we supposedly "Took our eye off". As for Bush's gleeful stomping on the bill of rights, Obama has simply renamed the "Enemy Combatants" at Guantanamo, and has maintained the authority to detain such folks - whatever flavor-of-the-week labeling they're slapped with - in addition to reserving his prerogative for renditions, and most of the other stuff that the Civil Liberties watchdogs were foaming at the mouth over during Bush's time.

Beyond that, Obama's campaign blasted McCain for the notion of removing tax-free status of medical insurance, but now allows that it's not such a bad idea, after all.

Irresponsible spending? Obama blamed Bush with this one, in line with fiscal conservatives, but now triples down with his trillions-plus budget boondoggle. Awhile ago he blamed Bush for using fear as a way of enacting his personal agenda, but his chief of staff publicly boasts of "Never letting a crisis go to waste" - cynical even in the best of times, one can only imagine the deafening outcry had Bush uttered such a thing.

"No Earmarks" - remember that one? Gone, crushed under the weight of the thousands of these very same once-derided items that are now present in his monstrous budget.

Cabinet appointments? Don't make me laugh - after swearing that not a single man, woman, or child in the U.S. of A. was qualified to head the treasury save for the now-acceptably tax-dodging Geithner, whose subsequent Kerry-esque "We have a plan" nonsense spooked the markets even more than they were already, we've seen withdrawal upon withdrawal (who knew so many otherwise-qualified top Democrats were also tax cheats? Is it possible that they themselves don't like paying all those taxes they keep insisting are patriotic for the rest of us to swallow?), Boatloads of lobbyists (where we told before that there would be - how many? Oh,right: None!), and total roadkill where we heard, only a month or so ago, boasts of "The smoothest presidential transition in history" - oh, and also "The most ethical administration in history" - though in fairness, no one gets elected without making this nakedly fatuous pitch.

It's understandable to root for your guy in partisan politics, but the bipolar hatred of Bush juxtaposed against the worshipful rhetoric directed towards Obama is a new low in hypocrisy. If any political activity is accessible as long as the perpetrator is a Democrat, then fine, but let's admit it as such; stop pretending that an action taken by Bush is by definition bad, while the same action taken by Obama is "Prudent" or "Necessary" or the result of a "Tough Decision" or any other such euphemism employed to cover up your double standards.

So now that the scorecard has evened up, which is it? Is Obama in fact the healer-in-chief you thought you were getting, or is he just another politician?

Friday, February 06, 2009

Hope you're happy, Obamamericans

So what did you get in exchange for your "Hope and Change" vote? An end to the old, divisive politics, and the ushering in of a new era of bipartisanship, coupled with fiscal restraint while at the same time magically bestowing care and largess on the downtrodden of society? Did you imagine for even one minute that your "Historical" presidency would be immediately bloated with the same-old career lobbyists, tax cheats, and pork-trough scavengers? Could you not have foreseen the renewed dedication to huge tax increases and massive expansion of a government that is both broke and broken?

What is a "Stimulus", especially considering that Mr. Obama has hardly worked for private enterprise in his life, much less run a business? Not all leadership is predicated on this quality, but it is rather distressing how many in the Democrat "Leadership" are career bureaucrats, who have had minimal exposure to the intricacies of either running a business or living paycheck-to-paycheck. Rahm Emanuel's childlike enthusiasm for not letting a crisis "Go to waste" demonstrates, more clearly than anything else could, the extent to which government careerists wish to don laboratory coats and turn the economy into a testing environment for their grandiose schemes. To some extent, this is all to be expected, as we elect our leaders with the understanding that they will be dealing with things on a daily basis which we have neither the time nor the inclincation for - but there is a breaking point which these opportunists love to go beyond, from which they may dictate newer and ever-more bizarre ways to spend our tax dollars.

Listen to Nancy Pelosi attempting to explain how throwing millions of dollars at contraception and family planning somehow helps the economy. Listen to Harry Reid dismissing Republican objections to the kazillion-dollar "Stimulus" - which, when you look at it, amounts to little more than printing money, in the old banana-republic style. And listen to Obama himself, attempting to spin resistance to this plan as "Irresponsible" - lecturing and hectoring like that takes guts, but when you're Obama, and the newspapers will echo your every move while putting an angelic halo over your head, you begin to taste what is known as hubris - and your appetite for it expands exponentially, while your fawning supporters eagerly dish out whatever explanation of reality you care to come up with. Listen, once again, to how "Bipartisanship" is claimed to mean Republicans shedding their points of view, as though any opposition is somehow undemocratic.

Remember how somberly we were lectured that "Dissent is Patriotic" when many of us criticized the head-in-the-sand approach to terrorism and Iraq? Incredible how quickly the winds shift when your own guy is in power. Nowadays, those who question our dear leader's mortgaging of the future of America are told to "Give him a chance" - this is the chance they actually wanted? To bankrupt the government and hamstring the private sector while being told that the "Right Thing" is being done?

If you loathe business and love the concept of socialism, then great, you're probably in a very happy place right about now - and the accusation of "Socialism" is very real - you may dismiss such talk, and tell yourself that "It can't happen here", but how sure of that are you? We are told, by administration personnel, that stimulus money should not go to "White construction workers", and no one even objects to such naked racism. Sure, it's all understood to be somehow correct and proper, in some incredibly twisted logic - but is this at all close to the grand new society you thought Obama was going to bring?

You who supported Obama while struggling to overlook some very real concerns about him - his far-left views, his openly racist pastor of twenty years, his role as a cog in the Chicago machine - you, who joined in with the newspapers, who tripped over themselves explaining away anything even remotely negative about the man - you, who continue to think that Obama's skin color has little to do with how he got where he is, as opposed to serving as a convenient vehicle for getting support from the press, the elites, and the intellgentsia - you, who bought into the notion that ACORN is a non-partisan group that merely helps out with the always-questionable concept of "Community Organizing" - you, who went mad with rage at Bush's razor-thin margin of votes in 2000, but now dismiss the significance of Obama's first election win by getting votes invalidated, and his subsquent quashing of opponents by the mysterious leaking of divorce records - you, who thought that a John Kerry-like, more "Sensitive" war on terror was a wonderful idea, and applauded Obama's speech that appeared to kowtow to Islam while ignoring America's tremendous contributions of the well-being of such Muslims all around the world (and please, put aside the notion that Israel is the primary cause of religious violence) - you, who have been swaddled in the notion that the government should provide all things to all people, and Obama is just the man to do it - you are a hypocrite.

Hope you enjoy the country's misery; you've certainly earned it.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Doubling Down

The hits just keep on coming, courtesy of the double-standards jukebox:

1. "President-elect" Barack Obama, fresh on the heels of inventing his own nifty new pre-presidential title, is glorified in the media for his intense dedication to fitness and exercise. The description of his "Pecs" belongs in a titillation novel - and yet, George Bush was villified for his similarly focused efforts, which were dubbed "Creepy". What could the difference be?

2. Sarah Palin was roundly denounced as insufficiently sophisticated for the Vice-Presidency, while Joe Biden was given a pass for the outrageously incorrect statement that "President Roosevelt went on the television". And yet, Caroline Kennedy is now taken seriously as a contender for the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton, with commentators tying themselves into knots attempting to spin Ms. Kennedy's total lack of experience and qualifications into its exact opposite. Her family name is offered up as a perfectly sufficient reason to give her the job, while Ms. Palin continues to be denounced as a lightweight.

3. Civilian neighborhoods in Israel are bombed, and yet when Israel returns fire, it is denounced as the aggressor by worldwide media and the Arab world. While the international elites pay lip service to Israel's right to exist, they completely ignore the Hamas charter, which declares the exact opposite, even going so far as to cite the phony "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". So Israel is portrayed as the instigator, while Hamas, which fired first, has world leaders lining up to defend it.

4. An Iraqi journalist throws his shoes at George Bush, and is instantly proclaimed a heroic dissenter. Never mind that he couldn't have gotten away with doing so in any other country in the region without being ruthlessly tortured and then killed, and the irony was apparently lost on him and all his admirers.

Is there still any wonder why the oldstream media is heading down the toilet?

Thursday, November 06, 2008

America elects its 2nd black president!

Not to take anything away from Mr. Obama, but remember, Bill Clinton was the first "Black president" - or has everyone managed to forget that?

Forgive me if I'm not quite ready to worship at the altar of Obama. The race was not supposed to be about race, remember? The entire point of the civil-rights struggle was to get past the era of thinking of people primarily by their skin color, to ensure that the rights and guarantees of the constitution apply equally to everyone. Lest you think otherwise, take a look at the primacy of the rule of law in our country, and if you still want to declare America a "racist" nation, do a simple comparison between America and everywhere else. There is a reason that people all over the world flock to America to realize their dreams, and they do so because they know that the institutions we have and the freedom and upward mobility we offer are to be found in similar degree nowhere else on the planet.

All that has been cast aside in an orgy of new racialism, the notion that people are to be viewed according to however much people distantly related to them suffered at the hands of another group. This is the same thinking that allowed us to define the "Us" and "Them" that we have been hearing denunciations of for as long as we've been alive - and yet now, it's not only okay, it's fashionable.

Was there absolutely no suspicion that something had gone wrong at the notion that blacks would be almost homogeneously voting for Obama? In all the approving commentary, self-congratulation, and non-stop analyses of voting patterns, did no one point out that blacks voting in lockstep for Obama was no different from whites voting en masse for McCain? A Jamie Foxx can state that in a choice between a black man and a white man that he'll be voting for "The brother" - what if a white man of any stature had publicly stated that he'd vote for a white guy over a black simply because of race? The firestorm of denunciations would be deafening.

A small group of pundits, celebrities, and others wondered aloud at the fact that Obama's color had no doubt helped his meteoric rise, and when they did, they were quickly shouted down; apparently, some truths are still too much to bear. Thus we are stuck with a conumdrum: The election was not about race - except when it was: it was about race in that it demonstrated how far America has come in its struggle for equality, but it was not about race when Obama promoted his post-racial bona fides, dismissed any notions of his skin color being related to his ascendancy in any way, and merely demonstrated how hungry Americans were for hope and change, no matter how vague such change would be.

By contrast, the election was about race when black voters loudly proclaimed their support for Obama, and their overwhelming unity of opinion on this matter. The election was about race when it came to America's "Downright meanness", and how "They" kept "Raising the bar" to keep Obama from power, according to Michelle Obama. The election was about race when Obama pointed out that he didn't "Look like all the other presidents on the dollar bills", and warned early supporters about what his opponents would say - "...and did I mention he's black?"

But then, once more, the election was not about race when the news media tried to force itself to name Obama's accomplishments, and suddenly he was a man who had "Transcended" race, whose calls for harmony and unity were heard by men, women, and child of all backgrounds, orgins, and ethnicities. The election was not about race regarding Obama's faithfulness to Trinity Church, with its fire-breathing pastor Wright - here was a man who denounced "White" America, who proumulgated the old myth about the government inventing AIDS to oppress blacks, and who called on God himself to "Damn" America. But the philosophy adopted by this "Church" was easily and breezily declared irrelevant by Obama, who told us that such goings-on might seem "Jarring to the untrained ear", as though Wright were not even speaking in English. No, nothing about race here; move along, said the news media, offering up tortured rationalizations to support Obama's careful distancing.

What did "The Issues", in fact, have to do with the race? Very, very little, it would seem, though Obama and his supporters always delighted in stating that such matters were in fact the epicenter of the campaign, especially when shady characters such as Wright, Fleger, Ayers, Khalidi, and others threated to cast a pall on the party. All the expected sober and judicial analysis of Obama's unbelievably expansive and expensive plans was nowhere to be found in the old media, cast aside in the wake of a feel-good vote for "Hope and change": National health care? Obama's got a plan. International affairs? Obama will call for "Talks", and "Reach out to our allies". (Why did no one think of that before?) But no, none of this mattered, because Obama's personal charm and ability to run a presidential campaign were all we needed to know to elevate him to leader of the free world. Gargantuan tax increases? Nope, no waste in the federal government that needs to be eliminated beforehand - we'll figure that all out later.

Clearly, policy was the least of anyone's concerns, which takes us back to what the election was about. If you listen to his supporters, it was about race only when it was detrimental to Obama, and not about race when it favored him.

So which is it, now that the one has been anointed as our savior? Was it about race, or was it not? If it was about race, then now that America has redeemed itself, will the "Oppression Studies" be wound down, and will Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson concede that their "work" is now totally irrelevant? Will the news media stop trying to discover new Ku Klux Klans, and taint the rest of us with whatever shrapnels of 19th-century thought it can find? Or will the left continue to try and have it both ways? That's a "Race" you can bet on with full confidence.

p.s. - don't forget to check your pay stub after the inauguration; you'll see two new federal withholding items: The "Hope" tax, and the "Change" tax.

Monday, November 03, 2008

Last call for sanity

It's almost time to vote, and before you enter that booth, you ought to have asked yourself a few questions, such as:
-Do you believe that America is broken, and needs repair?
-Do you believe that wealth can be created by government?
-Do you believe that you have been given a generally fair look at your choices?

If you can answer these questions honestly, then you should have no problem selecting the lesser of the inherently undesirable choices, and for the presidency, that would be John McCain.

Why not Barack Obama? Because he doesn't pass the most basic tests. He has, over the course of his incredibly minimalist career of getting elected to higher positions than whatever he currently occupied, joined the chorus of anti-American voices from around the world, promised the impossible, and contorted himself into more positions than a Kama Sutra manual about his past statements, associations, writings, and practices.

He has childish views on diplomacy, he makes vapid statements regarding his policies that either collapse or simply make no sense under any level of scrutiny, and he employs, enables, and empowers those who believe that America should be torn down and rebuilt in the fashion of some quasi-European socialist-aspiring worker's paradise.

The paper trail of these declarations is substantial and voluminous, and yet, in a display of hubris and arrogance that would make George Bush's supposed "squandering of the goodwill of the world" look like child's play (if it were true, which it ain't), the news media, despite its internet-empowered, 24/7 prognostication, has steadfastedly averted its gaze from anything and everything that might even hint of a less-than-godlike view of Barack Obama. William Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? Steven Pfleger? Tony Rezko? Khalidi whatsisname? Non-entities, according to the news, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even wondering if there's anything with these associations worth thinking about. No, the news media, which pounces on even the slightest mispronunciation of a word by a Republican, could not be bothered to conclude that Obama was lying about either his church attendance or the content of its sermons, and its bizarre gyrations in rationalizing such developments would be shameful, that is, if anyone in mainstream news were capable of feeling shame.

But you might say, "Well, that's mostly in the past; what matters right now are the issues", and conclude that Obama leads the way in painting a vision for America - but if you were to actually look at his proposals, rather than skim whatever reassurances the New York Times has managed to brew up today, you might just be a little apprehensive at the constantly changing definition of "The Rich", who will be taxed more, or the billions of new Federal dollars for a smorgasbord of government programs that try to spend money even faster than the old programs which do the exact same thing, or the massive new giveaways to foreign countries, as though the current hundreds of millions were just not quite enough, even as they are sent to highly questionable and undesirable regimes.

So you might say, "Well, at least Obama will project a better image of America abroad", in the hopes that having a black man would make everyone "Respect" America again, just as though their earlier lack of respect was in any way warranted. In this area, you would once again be disappointed - if you really believe that Guantanamo Bay is filled with peaceful goat herders who were wrongly captured by a tentacled, growling George Bush, and you would like to see such people simply released into America, along with complimentary citizenship, welfare payments, and "Affordable Housing", then you might want to ask the 9/11 hijackers if it made any difference to them which president was in office as they made their sickening plans. Since they're dead, we can't really ask them, but if you believe in your heart of hearts that such people would have thought better of their intended actions if only a more soothing and reassuring president of the U.S. was in charge, then of course, Obama's your guy. And since President Obama would get us out of Iraq, withdraw from Afghanistan, and just generally fold down the American military presence abroad, then we will enjoy peace and prosperity at home and abroad, and there will be no terrorist attacks, just like during Bill Clinton's reign. Oh, except of course, for U.S. embassies in Africa, the first world trade center bombing, Khobar Towers, etc....

And if you truly belive that Sarah Palin is some sort of pro-life, gun-toting hick who's dumber than a post, just take a look at Joe Biden, with his president-Roosevelt-got-on-tv-and-spoke-to-America-during-the-crash-of-'29 bit, and ask yourself if the news coverage has been as fair as you've convinced yourself it has.

Make sure to answer those three questions fully and honestly before you pull that lever.

Good luck, America - you may really need it.