» 2012 » November

Unexamined Premises

Monthly Archives: November 2012

Stay Hungry, Honey Boo Boo

November 29th, 2012 - 11:17 am


The last two Democratic candidates for president have been Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Neither man grew up poor — Clinton’s boyhood home was, in fact, one of the larger houses in Hot Springs, Ark., while Obama was a pampered, dope-smoking student at the elite Punahou School in Honolulu — but neither did he come from the moneyed aristocracy. By contrast, the GOP has nominated two scions of the Connecticut WASP oligarchy, George Herbert Walker Bush and George Walker Bush; John McCain, the son and grandson of admirals in the U.S. Navy; and millionaire Willard Mitt Romney, the son of the former governor of Michigan and failed presidential candidate George Romney.

You see where I’m going with this.

Clinton defeated Bush I in an election that Poppy never should have lost in 1992, consigning him to one-termer status, while Obama handily defeated both McCain (another GOP millionaire, who married his money) and Romney, who has now effervesced into the political ether as if he’d never run for president, which I’m still not sure he actually did. Only Bush II managed two wins against the donkeys, first by running against a guy who was ever dumber than he was (Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.) and later by running against a guy who was even richer (John Kerry, who also married his money).

Now you see where I’m going with this.

American’s don’t like plutocrats in the White House. With the rare exception of a JFK or an FDR — to the manner and manor born, but with the common touch — they prefer men who have fought their way up from humble circumstances to grab at the highest rung of the ladder. Men for whom losing means losing everything. What would Bill Clinton be today had he failed in his daring gambit to unseat Bush the Elder? A has-been southern governor with a wandering eye and the gift of the gab, working the rubber-chicken circuit on behalf of lesser men. Or Obama? From non-entity to non-entity in the blink of an eye. They both fought like hell to win because, with their outsized egos and ruthless ids, the alternative was unthinkable. By contrast, here’s Mitt Romney‘s La Jolla consolation prize for losing Ohio.

In California, a teardown.

And this little dump in Massachusetts:

How the other half lives.

Not to mention the compound in New Hampshire and the ski house in Park City, Utah, and whatever else may suit his fancy down the line.

Now you definitely see where I’m going with this.

Now, this is America: buy all you can eat, if you can stomach it. But the point is, there was no personal downside for Romney in losing the election. Everything in his life continues as before, and he’ll be living off his investment income forever — and living a life completely disassociated from the vast majority of his fellow citizens.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

The Real Housewives of Benghazi

November 14th, 2012 - 12:08 pm

Just a week after the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama II as, unaccountably, president of the United States, the full extent of the looming disaster is beginning to dawn on the American people. Forget the looming fiscal cliff, the Senate majority leader’s irresponsible decision to exclude the soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security system from any budget agreement, the retention of the corrupt Eric Holder as attorney general, or the bruited nominations of the inept Susan Rice as secretary of State, the arrogant John Kerry as secretary of Defense, and the incompetent John Brennan as the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Those things, if they come to pass, will cause us plenty of heartburn down the road to Alinskyite serfdom.

For now, though, simply consider the state of the U.S. military, whose moral collapse was signaled by the surprise resignation of CIA director David Petraeus last week as details of his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, slowly became public — a scandal that quickly ensnared Gen. John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and another woman, Jill Kelley. By now, you’ve read most of the salacious details of this French bedroom farce, which would be funny if it weren’t so serious — with one door at Centcom after another flying open to reveal lissome bare-limbed married ladies and half-uniformed generals scrambling to get their pants on as the press explodes in orgiastic satisfaction. With its mission accomplished — getting Hussein re-elected and condemning America to four more years of potentially fatal economic disaster, foreign policy malevolence, and domestic fascism in the form of Obamacare, bureaucratic regulation, and executive orders, the media is only too happy to start poking around in the bedrooms of the soon-to-be-formerly famous and powerful.

It’s richly ironic that after celebrating a Democratic Party campaign that was almost entirely based on explicit appeals to female sexuality, including free birth control and the abortion of the inconvenient as a constitutional right, the media now finds itself back in the drag of Tom Wolfe’s Victorian Gentleman, prudishly cluck-clucking over the remarkable fact that when institutional barriers between men and women break down — barriers erected not out of sexist animus or irrational prejudice, but in recognition of the biological reality of boy meets girl — all sorts of things start to happen. Including rampant sexual activity from the top down; as David French observes here:

In the military — as elsewhere — sexual scandal is simply called “drama,” and “drama” (with its related fights, substance abuse, and sometimes even suicide attempts) can dominate military justice in deployed environments. During my deployment, I was with an all-male combat arms unit on a small, isolated base and thus missed most of the controversy that sometimes consumed entire units. But go to Balad — or one of the other larger bases — and it was everywhere. The larger DFACs (dining facilities) were the deployed equivalent of singles bars, and the omnipresent port-o-pot was a favorite location for clandestine couplings.

Whoever decided that “women’s liberation” required the sexual integration of the armed forces did his or her country a signal disservice.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

David and Bathsheba

November 9th, 2012 - 6:42 pm

YouTube Preview Image

Ever since the September 11 attack on our consulate and CIA station in Benghazi, “the dog in the night-time” of the scandal the media did its best to bury during the election campaign has been David Petraeus, the Iraq War commander turned spook-in-almost-chief. Throughout the orgy of misinformation, disinformation, finger-pointing, blame-shifting and general confusion, Petraeus remained adamantly silent, a hostage to fortune somewhere within the bowels of the CIA building in Langley. The one man who could have cut through the administration’s fog machine said nothing substantive as ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were laid to rest.

And now, just a couple of days after the election that returned Barack Hussein Obama II to executive power in Washington, he’s gone — resigned in the wake of an affair that likely occurred more than a year ago, apparently with his biographer, Paula Broadwell — who herself is under FBI investigation, reportedly for trying to access the general’s classified emails. Further, Petraeus will now not testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Benghazi next week.

And that, if Congress acquiesces and does not immediately subpoena Petraeus and either compel him to testify or force the administration to again assert executive privilege (as it did with Attorney General Eric Holder in the Fast and Furious mess), will be that — we’ll never know, and Obama will do his best to completely bury, what happened in Benghazi.

More details no doubt will dribble out over the coming days and weeks, but here’s what we can reasonably surmise. Although the official story is that the affair was uncovered by the FBI’s investigation into the emails, nevertheless it appears from the wording of Petraeus’s resignation letter that the affair began some time after July 2011; he became CIA director fourteen months ago. Therefore — unless he concealed that information from his vetters, which is highly unlikely given everything we know about the man — the Obama administration had to have known about the relationship from the start. Which means that, in effect, Petraeus confessed to his own “honey trap” and handed Valerie Jarrett, the Javert of Obama’s White House, a termination card, effective whenever she and the president cared to play it. And play it they did, right after the election and just before his testimony on the Hill. Well played, indeed.

On the other hand, if the affair began before Petraeus was being considered for the CIA post, and he didn’t reveal it, his reputation will never recover. As Ronald Kessler notes:

The investigation began last spring, but the FBI then pored over his emails when he was stationed in Afghanistan.

The woman who was having an affair with Petraeus is a journalist who had been writing about him.

Given his top secret clearance and the fact that Petraeus is married, the FBI continued to investigate and intercept Petraeus’ email exchanges with the woman. The emails include sexually explicit references to such items as sex under a desk.

Such a relationship is a breach of top secret security requirements and could have compromised Petraeus.

At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.

So, one way or the other, we can begin to understand the silence emanating from the Langley Home for Lost Boys over the past several months. Right from the start, the Agency was fingered by the White House and by Hillary Clinton’s State Department as the fall guy for the Benghazi fiasco, especially once they understood that their “hateful video” legend wasn’t going to fly, and once leakers within the Agency began slipping the embarrassing details of what happened that night to their favorite journalist mouthpieces.

Pages: 1 2 | Comments bullet bullet

The Election, in a Moral Nutshell

November 6th, 2012 - 9:16 am
YouTube Preview Image

If the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was making us believe he doesn’t exist, then what are we to make of the Obama administration’s fixation on female sexuality, and its weird insistence that young women should be free to have sex whenever they wish, have their birth-control provided at public expense, and have carte blanche to kill the unwanted product of any liaisons without consequences? That they are, in short, nothing but sex objects?

Convincing American women that it is a moral good, practically a moral imperative, to murder their unborn children for reasons of personal convenience — what they call “choice” — is one of the Democratic Party’s signal accomplishments. Still, this campaign-closing ad is truly breathtaking.

Agree or disagree, the “choice” is yours. And today you get to do something about it.


Thumbnail Image courtesy shutterstock / Dionisvera

Related at PJ Media: