Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

A Gentleman of Quality

October 24th, 2013 - 8:46 pm

Nations have an existence apart from their leaders. But the men who lead a country are inevitably its public face. What impressed King George III the most about Washington was his simple ability to yield power like a gentleman.

The actual resignation of his command … took place in Annapolis, Maryland, on December 23, when he formally handed back to Congress his commission as commander in chief.

No one who knew Washington was surprised. Everyone else, in varying degrees, was astonished at this singular failure of the corruption of power to work. And, indeed, it was a rare moment in history. In London, George III qustioned the American-born painter Benjamin West what Washington would do now he had won the war. “Oh,” said West, “they say he will return to his farm.” “If he does that,” said the king, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Esteem for the occupant of the presidency has fallen from that height of late. Most readers will already be aware that Angela Merkel has very publicly rebuked Barack Obama for allegedly tapping her phone — as well as those of other heads of state. Two American ambassadors have been “summoned” before the foreign ministers of France and Germany to receive an earful, a very public dressing down, an almost unprecedented occurrence between traditionally close allies.

What is even more remarkable is that blame is being laid not so much on the United States as on Barack Obama himself. Individually and personally. The German magazine Spiegel does not characterize the espionage as a continuation of the “failed policies” of the Bush years, but as what you can expect of a a poorly bred, uncouth and lying man who happens to occupy the White House.

Diplomats are not surprised that the security agencies under US President Barack Obama have reportedly been monitoring close allies like German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He has failed to foster close relationships with other heads of state, causing much frustration around the world.

US President Barack Obama was scheduled to visit the Church of Our Lady cathedral in Dresden during a June 2009 whistle-stop visit to Germany. Diplomats from the German Foreign Ministry had painstakingly planned every last detail. They were looking forward to the photographs of Chancellor Angela Merkel with the US president in front of cheering crowds.

But the White House bristled. The president didn’t want to do that — that was the word in Washington. He reportedly placed little value on such photo ops, and he had to leave as quickly as possible, to get to an appearance at the Buchenwald concentration camp. The haggling went back and forth for weeks, and in the end the White House gave in, but only a little. Obama raced through Dresden. After their visit inside the church, Merkel had to shake hands with visitors by herself. The president had already disappeared.

On this day, at the latest, it must have dawned on diplomats that this US president was different from his predecessors. He was someone who did not attach value to diplomatic niceties nor to the sensitivities of his close friends, which he already had proven as a presidential candidate. At that time he put Chancellor Merkel in an awkward position by wanting to make a campaign speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate. This site was traditionally set aside for sitting presidents, which Obama also knew.

In other words Obama insulted the German chancellor personally, imposed upon her hospitality and treated her like hired help. Nor was Merkel singled out for rude treatment. The French president and even the British prime minister were treated like flunkeys.

Obama angered Nicolas Sarkozy by choosing to dine with his family instead of with France’s then-president during his visit to Paris. The Polish and Czech heads of state informed the president by telephone that they would not install a long-planned missile defense system. And when it comes to Britain, traditionally America’s closest partner, Obama was initially uncomfortable with the long-held notion of a “special relationship” between the two countries. He may have expressed his vision for the friendship when, on his state visit, he brought the queen an iPod as a gift. London was not amused.

The frustration extended well beyond the typical bruised vanities of the Europeans, whom members of the Obama administration like to describe behind closed doors as infantile. An African head of government said during a visit to Washington that he longed for the days of George W. Bush. At least with him, he said, one knew where one stood.

And if on top of that he spied on Merkel — well enough’s enough. Behind the fractured Teutonic phrases a single unmistakable signal pulses through like a drumbeat: people who have met Obama — his fellow heads of state — have found him to be a distasteful sort of person.

The inference is that a man like him can only be expected to listen at keyholes.

The very open display of European pique comes on the heels Saudi Arabia’s astonishng departure from the American coalition. In the last few days the Saudis have rejected a UN Security Council seat and openly announced their intention to distance themselves from Washington.

Pundits have been at a loss to account for the vehemence of the Saudi action. It seems to go beyond the rational policy reasons — their disappointment over its backing of Morsi, frustration over Syria and their fear of Iran.  There is in it a visceral antipathy, an almost palpable hostility toward Obama, as if by one betrayed, not just by a president reluctantly putting the interests of his country first, but by a worthless common grifter.

There is in high council a sense of the personal and the official. King George the III was under no illusions that for the duration of the war Washington was Britain’s enemy. But he was equally certain that as human being Washington was “the greatest man in the world.”

And that is perhaps not the judgment of Obama’s contemporaries. Dan Henninger at the Wall Street Journal recently wrote that President Obama’s credibility was in total collapse. “All of a sudden, from Washington to Riyadh, Barack Obama’s credibility is melting.”

Obama is the face of America, but perhaps the allied leaders now wish to signal in every permissible way how they hoped it were not so. Louis the XIV once said,”I am the state”. But from the signals sent by heads of government the desire is for the opposite: please tell us that Obama is not America.


Did you know that you can purchase some of these books and pamphlets by Richard Fernandez and share them with you friends? They will receive a link in their email and it will automatically give them access to a Kindle reader on their smartphone, computer or even as a web-readable document.

The War of the Words for $3.99, Understanding the crisis of the early 21st century in terms of information corruption in the financial, security and political spheres

Rebranding Christianity for $3.99, or why the truth shall make you free

The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99, reflections on terrorism and the nuclear age

Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99, why government should get small

No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99. Fiction. A flight into peril, flashbacks to underground action.

Storm Over the South China Sea $0.99, how China is restarting history in the Pacific

Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Fidel wrote: Obama is indeed representative of the New Amerika. The realization of this fact means that the animosity toward Mr. Obama should really be directed at the people who made him possible. America is gone. But scorched earth remains.

To which Teresita replied: Obama is representative only of Obama and the Chicago Way. I resent the implication that the country I love and served in the Navy has been transformed to the point where you would call it Amerika. Come 2014 things will not seem so good to the Democrats.

I confess I don't really see the point in "stick a fork in it" pronouncements about America. It could well be true. And yes there are a depressing number of historical precedents. But unless anyone has their own personal time machine and has traveled to the future & returned to tell us all about it, no one actually KNOWS FOR CERTAIN what will happen.

And besides ... muttering "all is lost" frees you up to do, what, exactly? I get that there's some Eeyore-like emotional satisfaction that comes out of "being right" the next time something rotten comes down the pike. But sheesh. Do you have kids? Grandkids? If you did, is that what you would go around telling them, that there is no hope for their future? Is that how you want them to remember you?

I'm not saying don the rose-colored glasses.

What I'm saying is that the course of action is the same regardless. Resist the statist chains and advocate liberty -- when you believe there is hope, AND when you believe all is lost. Because what else are you going to do?

If you sincerely believe "all is lost" and you can't muster the will to resist & advocate, then kindly take yourself off to a quiet corner and go read a book & say no more. Please. Because by muttering "all is lost" you are demoralizing others. And they, in turn, will demoralize still more people. And if there had been a sliver of hope you were not aware of (and there's a high likelihood that, you not being God, there was a LOT you were not aware of), you & your doom-gloom-despair diatribe just succeeded in sucking the very last breath of will out of the patriot spirit. Congratulations, Mr./Ms. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

I know what my father would have expected of me. He loved this country down to his soul, and he was the most stubborn person I have ever known. If at some point I throw up my hands & give up trying then I don't know how I could face Dad in the afterlife. You would have to know my Dad to know the intensity of both his wrath and his love. The latter is way better, I can assure you.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
My comment on the thread lagged bears linking: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/10/18/lagged/?show-at-comment=309900#comment-309900.

"A true gentleman is one who is never unintentionally rude"
- Oscar Wilde

Years ago Secret Service agents told me that with GHW Bush you knew you were a servant but that he was a man you did not mind being in service to. Hillary Clinton is rude to the help. Bill Clinton is a thoughtless sloppy lout but not intentionally rude in a petty manner. Pity anyone whose job it is to take a bullet for Obama.

John Edwards liked to demagogue that there are "Two Americas." It has become a Democratic Party politician stump speech staple. We should take them at their word and say "Yes." We must convince the world that there is an America that Obama does not represent.

Unfortunately for over a third of the electorate there is no escape from Obama's America. For 95% of black voters and 80% of single mothers and 65% of Hispanics there is no escape from the plantation. They will go down with the ship, cursing the Rethuglicans.

America's Design Margin granted dominance through the USN and USAF for 50 years after WW-II was like the Royal Navy's in the century before WW-I. It paid for civility. The big actors could squabble and maneuver but they observed the limits. The small actors and thugs were out there but they too knew there were rules.

In fairness to Obama the rot started before him. The sanctimonious twit Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to trash the Vienna Convention by invading the US embassy. We should have occupied Bandar Abbas and leveled Qom at that time.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Disgrace piled upon disgrace.

It is notable that a deeply chilling thought occurred to me just hours before this posting. Namely this:

Aussie PM John Howard was known as, and even attacked as, George W. Bush's BFF. The two were just tight. Tony Blair and Bush were ideologically at odds, but in the aftermath of 9/11, Blair flew here just to hold his hand and say "we are with you", something Bush never forgot. A number of Arab leaders were staunch allies once they realized that Bush was damn serious about certain matters. Israel never had a better president friend, and they knew it.

Now, go around the entire globe. The ENTIRE globe, dateline to dateline, pole to pole. Find me a friend of Barack Obama, who is going to be there in a pinch, and will have his back. Name one. Just one.

Every ally whom it should not matter who is president, he has gone out of his way to spit in their eye. Are the marxist leaders of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea his "friends"? Syria? Not even that. They may like him in power for reasons every one of us gets, but even they aren't his "friends". Russia or China? Please.

Name one friend, just one, who is not named Reid or Pelosi. (What do you think even THEY would say in privacy w/ a couple of drinks put away?)

We are, courtesy of our Lightworker, utterly friendless. Utterly.

Now, imagine what happens when any particularly large piece of excrement hits a larger fan. What then?

Nice work media, culture, academia. Thanks a lot. We are SO frikkin' impressed.
(show less)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (96)
All Comments   (96)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Obama belittles and insults leaders of the world because, as a clinical narcissist, which is a pathological state and not just a 'political egoism, he needs to feel that he is their superior and that they are in his control. Once he has denigrated them to a low status, he has no further interest in them.

This has nothing to do with America; Obama feels no connection to America. He has no interest in America. Whatever Obama does, whether it is in foreing or domestic affairs, it's always based on him. It's strictly and only based on his psychological requirement to elevate himself to a superior level which is by definition isolate from everyone else - because Obama cannot tolerate equals.

Domestically, Obama has been steadily reducing the economic capacity of Americans to 'make wealth'. His decimation of the small business community by his EPA and Obamacare regulations has reduced the size of the working class population and reduced the ability of Americans to set up and run small businesses. Obama has massively increased the ratio of non-productive dependent Americans, with his food stamps, welfare and Obamacare policies - these are 'his' people. Again, Obama cannot allow equality; he cannot allow others to have any strength-in-themselves. They must all be dependent on him, either financially or on his goodwill.

In foreign affairs, as noted, Obama has isolated America, not out of any policy ideology but because he cannot and will not take any action unless he feels he controls both the situation and the people. Obama doesn't control other leaders; therefore, his reaction is to utterly ignore them. First, he will belittle them to show their inequality to Him; then, he will ignore them as actually 'non-existent'. Unless you are subservient to Obama - you do not exist.

This behavior has nothing to do with ideology, for Obama has no ideology; he has only Himself. And his pathological needs to control and destroy.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Epignosis wrote: "By the way, while we're in this contest, how did Reagan do with the middle? Seems like that was the point I wished to make."

The real point is that there is not a "middle" in the Lame Stream Media sense -- contrary to what the Democrat Party and the media (being redundant, I know) would like all non-Democrats to believe. "Left" and "Right" are not really useful labels anymore. (E.g., at the time of the collapse of the USSR, NPR referred to hard-line communists as "Right Wing Communists").

There are those who believe in Big Intrusive Government -- they identify with Democrats, and amount to about 25% of the voting age population; they vote reliably for the Democrat candidate.

There are those who believe in smaller, less-intrusive government and distrust DC. Those are the Contingent Voters, and amount to about 10% of the voting age population.

Then there are those who are simply confused. We call them Republicans. They amount to about 20% of the voting age population.

And then there is the largest faction -- those who do not even register to vote or do not vote at all. That is about 45% of the voting age population.

If the 20% Republicans can attract the 10% Contingent Voters, they can beat the reliable 25% Democrat voters. Otherwise the Republicans lose.

To put it in absolute numbers, in 1984 Ronald Reagan won the Presidency with 54.5 Million votes. It took 20 years of population growth before a candidate from either party was able to top that vote count. Reagan got the Contingent Voters. And the reliable Republican voters are really the "middle".
(show less)
(show less)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another real point might be that leaders like Reagan knew how to talk to the middle, whether they comprise 10% or 30%. You or I might be so far right of Reagan that he looks liberal in retrospect, but he knew how to address the issues in a way that attracted support from that middle segment that we need so dearly.

Romney, bless his little Rino heart, did not. Add to that the withering attack from the left that created public lies about the man.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
An administration chock full of damn liars-a reflection of the boss. Sebelius blames shutdown as factor in website debacle-http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20131025-sebelius-acknowledges-botched-testing-of-obamacare-website-in-austin-visit.ece?nclick_check=1

May they all rot in hell.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Epignosis stated erroneously: "It is important to remember that the middle third of voters decide the elections. The undecideds or independents who are not committed to either ideological camp - conservative or liberal."

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Sorry, Epi -- you have fallen prey to a lie spread about by the Lame Stream Media. What you believe just ain't so.

Take the time to dig out the votes cast in Presidential elections since Watergate. What you see is that the votes cast for the Democrat candidate increase smoothly at about the rate of population increase, independent of the candidate. Democrat voters are biologically compelled. In contrast, votes cast for the Republican candidate fluctuate wildly, depending on the perceived quality of the candidate -- Reagan yes; McCain no. The "independents" vote Republican, or they do not vote at all.

The implication is that Republicans can win only by running smaller government, anti-DC candidates who will attract those Contingent Voters. The MSM of course pushes the lie that Republicans have to run squishy candidates who can attract the mythical group of middle-of-the-road independents.

Well, the Republicans have tried the squishy candidate route repeatedly -- Dole, McCain, Romney. How has that been working out for them? Why do otherwise smart people still swallow the MSM lie?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps Romney made sense to you. Not to me. He seemed like a Rino's Rino, but that's just my thoughts.

On the other hand, if you said Reagan and Thatcher made sense, I could concur.

By the way, while we're in this contest, how did Reagan do with the middle? Seems like that was the point I wished to make.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps the message was garbled and the point was missed. Thatcher and Reagan were not squishy middle of the road leaders.

They were firm in their beliefs. However, they were masterful in appealing to the contingent voters, with artfully worded explanations, not meanness.
Not "were going to bomb the baxters and pave a parking lot".

It's the crafted message that swings the middle. Note the quote from Thatcher. You move the middle by making sense.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"You move the middle by making sense."
Romney made sense. Romney got plenty of middle. It was a large contingent of conservatives that failed to show up. As said above "The 'independents" vote Republican, or they do not vote at all.'
And I maintain those people made their decision viscerally not logically. One perhaps can give them a logical rationale to justify their feelings, but they are influenced as much by prejudice and emotion as the most fevered liberal progressive.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ohio voters were pounded with vicious anti-Romney TV propaganda for months before the election, with no real answer from Republicans. Good people I know did begin to think of Romney as some stereotypical evil plutocrat. Don't forget, much of the tea party was sidelined by IRS efforts that started in 2009. Then there was the voter fraud. The conservatives should have come out in droves anyway, should have crawled over broken glass to vote against O. Hope they do so in 2014.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
>>>Ohio voters were pounded with vicious anti-Romney TV propaganda for months before the election, with no real answer from Republicans.<<<

and

>>>Then there was the voter fraud.<<<

If the Institutional Republicans go out of their way to force the nomination of someone totally unacceptable to the Conservative Base [which they promise to do, along with funding anti-TEA Party candidates], and the expected voter fraud gets cranked up to 11+; Obama's 3rd term is guaranteed. And yes I know about the 22nd Amendment, but I am not sure that Obama believes in it.

Subotai Bahadur
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, this "middle third" is serious crap. It's like in sports the "winning home run". You need ALL the runs. You also need defense.

The borders of that third move. Let's say there's one guy, a retired shoe clerk Joe Blow in Pella, Iowa, who is the "deciding vote". Meanwhile a good conservative candidate excites the "base" who don't just turn out, but suddenly 49% of the population claim they've always been conservative. Seven millon more people are NO LONGER IN THE MIDDLE. And Joe Blow is still being interviewed at the local cafe by a long line of MSM hacks.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"People who have met Obama — his fellow heads of state — have found him to be a distasteful sort of person."

Add FLOTUS to the list-- her Princeton connection helps to explain why CGI is the only company whose bid was considered for the Healthcare.gov website.

"First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website.

Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company.

Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni. . . .

George Schindler, the president for U.S. and Canada of the Canadian-based CGI Group, CGI Federal’s parent company, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract.

As reported by the Washington Examiner in early October, the Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI’s bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified this week before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI’s bid was considered."

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Devil's advocate (or would that be Beast of ACORN's advocate?) here ....

I'm not convinced that these items in and of themselves constitute the smoke indicating a fire. (Not that there is no fire here -- this IS Crony Central we are talking about). Just saying that these particular associations are very inconclusive, IMO.

What was the class size of Princeton '85? The Princeton '85 alum website says that 1097 people have submitted their photos for the 25th reunion. That would suggest a class at least that large, in all likelihood larger.

The Association of Black Princeton Alumni held a reunion in 2009 attended by 650 black alumni. Once again, I think we can safely assume that the organization's full membership is far greater than 650.

1100++ class members and 650++ ABPA members. The odds that any two randomly chosen people would know one another are vanishingly small. Unless someone wants to provide evidence that FLOTUS and Ms. Townes have, in fact, remained associates in some way or have been in contact (even sporadically) over the years, then I don't see anything other than "guilt by association" here.

George Schindler's political contributions (those listed on opensecrets.org):

August 2012 - $1,000 - Barack Obama (after CGI was awarded contract)
July 2011 - $1,000 - Mitt Romney
March 2011 - $1,000 - Virginia Congressman Jim Moran (D)
c. 2008 - $2,300 - John McCain (presidential campaign)
PAC - CGI - unitemized amount of $ donations, but Daily Caller article says the $ went to both D and R candidates

So it looks like this guy greased both sides of the wheel. The donation to BHO was the same amount Schindler had given to other candidates in the past, including Romney.

If there was some sort of quid pro quo going on here (and again, Crony Central, so odds are, yes), the campaign contribution does not stand out as anything out of the ordinary, but instead seems part of the pattern. Any quid pro quo would have had to involve some other quo than the $1K.

Any honest reporters out there -- keep digging, por favor.

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Did not finish this in time to beat the expiration of the edit function in the last comment ...

Any quid pro quo would have had to involve some other quo than the $1K. For example -- just a shot in the dark here -- who have been the executive hires at CGI since they landed the contract, and are any of them Obama admin people or Obama friends/associates?

Crony hires, kickbacks, earmarks, tax loopholes and special set-asides are the established pattern of the porker political class. It is ALL ABOUT quid pro quo ... usu with both the quid and the quo being measured in $ (taxpayers' $). Nice to be able to be so generous with OPM ain't it.

For example:

2004 - Michelle Obama works as Executive Director of Community Affairs at University of Chicago Medical Center. Salary: $121,910 (Initial hire 2002)

January 2005 - Barack Obama sworn in as U.S. Senator

May 2005 - Michelle Obama promoted to Vice President for Community and External Affairs. Salary: $316,962.

April 7, 2006 - Senator Barack Obama requests $1 million earmark for University of Chicago to construct a new hospital pavilion.

HOWLER: Bernadette Sargeant, a former counsel for the House ethics committee, questioned whether Obama should have put his name on a request that would have sent funds to his wife's employer. "It is not like her salary is going to change because of this benefit," she said. "But, given her title and the stature of her position, it is a prestige enhancement, or could be perceived as a prestige enhancement."

(Note: Earmark requested is not the same as earmark secured. My understanding is that Congress members secure only a portion of total requested amounts. Obama submitted 138 earmark requests for FY 2007 for a total of $330 million. For FY 2008 he submitted $311 in requests, of which he secured $98 million.)


51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment

Add this. CGI is in charge of distributing the Federal relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/26/company-behind-obamacare-website-in-charge-of-nearly-2-billion-in-sandy-relief/

>>>The Associated Press revealed Tuesday that a mere $700 million of the $60 billion federal aid package – 1.2 percent of the total funds – has been given to victims of super storm Sandy.

Nearly a year after the devastating storm, a majority of the 24,000 families that have requested monetary assistance have yet to receive a penny from the federal aid package.<<<

How much of that "aid" has disappeared in theft, bribes, and kickbacks? I am betting pretty much all of it, kind of like the billions of dollars that Corzine stole that just "vanished".

Subotai Bahadur
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
BHO - The Ugly American.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Remember, ''The Ugly American'' was the good guy in the book.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wretchard, coming into this late, so may not be the first to spot this: A few critical words are missing in the quote above re the Polish & Czech missle sentence - above it reads as though they informed Obama - I double-checked and Spiegel has it as:

"The Polish and Czech heads of state were informed by telephone by the president that a long-planned missile defense system would not be installed in their countries."
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
...on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet attack, no less, did Obama inform Poland of the cancellation. "Tee Hee," obama as much as said, "...happy birthday Soviet invasion, and now, no missile defense NOR tripwire for YOU!"
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Fidel wrote: Obama is indeed representative of the New Amerika. The realization of this fact means that the animosity toward Mr. Obama should really be directed at the people who made him possible. America is gone. But scorched earth remains.

To which Teresita replied: Obama is representative only of Obama and the Chicago Way. I resent the implication that the country I love and served in the Navy has been transformed to the point where you would call it Amerika. Come 2014 things will not seem so good to the Democrats.

I confess I don't really see the point in "stick a fork in it" pronouncements about America. It could well be true. And yes there are a depressing number of historical precedents. But unless anyone has their own personal time machine and has traveled to the future & returned to tell us all about it, no one actually KNOWS FOR CERTAIN what will happen.

And besides ... muttering "all is lost" frees you up to do, what, exactly? I get that there's some Eeyore-like emotional satisfaction that comes out of "being right" the next time something rotten comes down the pike. But sheesh. Do you have kids? Grandkids? If you did, is that what you would go around telling them, that there is no hope for their future? Is that how you want them to remember you?

I'm not saying don the rose-colored glasses.

What I'm saying is that the course of action is the same regardless. Resist the statist chains and advocate liberty -- when you believe there is hope, AND when you believe all is lost. Because what else are you going to do?

If you sincerely believe "all is lost" and you can't muster the will to resist & advocate, then kindly take yourself off to a quiet corner and go read a book & say no more. Please. Because by muttering "all is lost" you are demoralizing others. And they, in turn, will demoralize still more people. And if there had been a sliver of hope you were not aware of (and there's a high likelihood that, you not being God, there was a LOT you were not aware of), you & your doom-gloom-despair diatribe just succeeded in sucking the very last breath of will out of the patriot spirit. Congratulations, Mr./Ms. Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.

I know what my father would have expected of me. He loved this country down to his soul, and he was the most stubborn person I have ever known. If at some point I throw up my hands & give up trying then I don't know how I could face Dad in the afterlife. You would have to know my Dad to know the intensity of both his wrath and his love. The latter is way better, I can assure you.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"kindly take yourself off to a quiet corner"
Would that be the same corner to which 3-4 million purported conservative Americans took themselves during the election that gave us the Current Resident for four more years because his opponent did not meet their standards?
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Likely!
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well done Miles. It is important to remember that the middle third of voters decide the elections. The undecideds or independents who are not committed to either ideological camp - conservative or liberal.

That group votes based on reactions to what make sense at this particular time. Which party moves this group slightly off of the middle of the fence, will carry the day.

Therefore, in the dark days ahead, see to it that you bend every sinew to help shape their opinion. Not with a mean spirit, but from the standpoint of wisdom.

One cannot help to call to mind Thatcher's well phrased barb, "the trouble with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other peoples' money to spend".
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
How is this different from what the Republican establishment has done over and over again with no success? (If you just keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different result ...) Giving a group of uncommitted indecisives a wee nudge is farcically inadequate to the struggle in which we find ourselves and reveals a complete misunderstanding of the adversary.
Other than that ...
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
With apologies to John Prine:

Last time I checked my bankroll, it was getting thin
Sometimes it seems like the bottom
Is the only place I've been
Chased a rainbow down a one-way street, dead end
And my President turned out to be an insurance salesman
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
It seems to me that all the WORST people in society become either criminals or politicians. Lying, untrustworthy, whining, self-dealing, not to mention unrelentingly stupid... (and more than a few are probably insane) the Congress as well as the presidency is basically larded over with low-quality people. Any normal, decent person likely steers well clear of high office these days like a healthy man avoids a TB ward. I don't know how this can be fixed, it's like the "profession" itself is poison.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
We have had better and worser Presidents. Congress, on the other hand, has always been the home of the venal and incompetent -all the way back to the Revolution. I know, there have been, from time to time Congressional statesmen, but they have been a notable minority.
To lift your spirits, go review a few of Mencken's pithier comments.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Worse? Worse?????

Go ahead and name names, if you can, but personally I think you're just BS-ing here.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeahbut Reid and Pelosi as leaders strike me as far below the norm, probably record-setting in partisanship and stupidity - which says something about those who selected them.

It is rare today to get a truthful and informed and polite statement out of a national democrat, whatever they may say in private - which my guess is is pretty much the same.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
And look how the ruling class treats anyone who tries to come in from the outside all fire-eyed with ideas about cleaning out the Augean stables of DC. That person is marked for one of two fates by the establishment: co-option or destruction.

Yeah, it *IS* the hive mind. The Borg. No one at the top even has to issue any orders anymore. The flacks know that to do already. Dig through govt databases of tax records, business records, divorce records, and now -- thank you PPACA -- health records that include all sorts of invasive questions about sexual partrners. Mental health records. Gun licences. Bank accounts. Loan and mortgage accounts. Also digging through phone records, emails, GPS tracking on cell phones, anything you have bought at any place you have used plastic (thank you NSA).

At first (a long, long time ago) it was, "oh, the bureaucracy has no partisan bias." Then we realized that wasn't true. Then it was, "okay, so they have a partisan bias, but they don't ACT on it; they're professionals." Then we realized that wasn't true either. Then it was "okay, so they have a partisan bias and they act to help their cronies, but at least they don't go out of their way to PUNISH people who disagree with them." And then we realized ....

Who wants this kind of treatment?

Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves and their family to it?

51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves and their family to it?"

Many won't, voluntarily, but the Stasi will ensure compliance.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 5 Next View All