February 9th, 2014
By Barry Secrest
It's happening tectonically, throughout the entire continental shelf of American politics.
The backlash towards the political left even now has reborn, as Obama has ultimately proved himself to be the long ago predicted Pied Piper of Establishment Progressives, leading to a long overdue inner-beltway exodus. Indeed, no amount of skullduggery nor media leveraging should be able to separate the Socialist- Democrat party from its grand comeuppance coming in November.
Both US healthcare and finances, by election time, will lie increasingly tangled and bloodied if not mortally wounded, within the nettlesome briars of culpable blame. Unlike in previous legislative agendas which ostensibly affected only those it sought to aid, there can be no gradual improvement in the body politic of US healthcare, especially when the poison of excessive Liberalism finds its full circulatory purchase.
Much like an executioner's cocktail of impending doom, America's healthcare can now only worsen in both severity of cost and decimation of care, and there will be no secondary avenue of blame available for the liable, at least not this time around.
Of a certainty, this time as opposed to most others, it's profoundly different due to the fact that the overarching agenda sought only to serve its own selfish ideological aims-- but even worse--by the use of an element that most Americans find sacrosanct and inalienable even unto natural law, that being eviscerated individual health plans by edict with impaired economic prosperity served as the missing but so-ordered affectation.
However, the upheaval doesn't stop there, but rather the cracks within the mantle of establishment US politics also stretch deeply if not inevitably into the foundation of the Republican cabal as well. The formerly useful idiots of a trusting voter-party have now come full-circle outstripping by leaps, if not bounds, if not even leagues, those of their own elected leadership. This phenomena can increasingly be seen in the prevailing imperious postures of both the Democrat party and its own GOP commiserators, each to its own and undeniably towards their formerly loyal opposition.
The game, as they say, is now up and the sight is not pretty at all--especially for an America now soaked within the ichor of dually elected leadership default, almost as a sacrifice to the demi-Gods of Statism. The lies of the political left's overall impetus will inevitably pound hard into its own Leftist membership, as the low-information supporters will also gain a wide array of experience into the laws of unintended voter consequence and meaningfully.
Which brings us to one of the heralds of obtusivity, demagogic pundit Michael Gerson. He, who unlike most GOP opinionists, seems rarely admired from within his own subset, but grudgingly adored by the nominally opposed mainstream media....he begins:
Gerson: A political backlash has commenced within the Republican Party against tea party and libertarian groups that have limited interest in securing Republican victories and majorities. Elected leaders, party officials and business groups have begun pushing back against self-destructive legislative strategies and unelectable primary candidates.
CR: Here, Gerson spouts nonsensical establishment Republicanisms like a Saudi gusher.
The backlash is occurring, alright, but it should be seen only as the omni-desperate ploy that it is from the party-control stalwarts from within, that being those whose consistency in failure is only rivaled by their obstinate establishment vacuousness.
The limited interest exhibited by true Conservatives, which Gerson speaks of, is but a powerful electorate symptom that the Republican Party leadership has mostly lost its way. What good is a Republican majority if it's led by Democrat-lites," Gerson? But then also, which "unelectables" does Gerson have in mind?
Might he be referring to Conservatively disavowed John McCain (for President) or might Gerson have in mind, Mitt Romney (for President), who, by the way, actually lost the 3 million Conservative votes which could have won the last major election for the GOP?
Both of those, by the way, were the moderated selections of a repetitively cannibalizing GOP leadership.
It becomes even more fascinating when any major Republican candidate loses, the establishment GOP will typically leap into action tossing the unusable candidate into a crumpled and tangled heap of losing candidates and then redesignate them as either Conservative non-electables or Tea Party Whacko-birds, even after having dutifully funded them....neat trick.
Gerson: But the GOP's political reaction often concedes a great deal of ideological ground to anti-government populism - what its advocates describe as "constitutionalism." Our national recovery, in this view, depends on returning to the severely constrained governing vision of the Founding Fathers, as embodied in the Constitution.
Many Republicans now seem to be saying: Yes, this is the conservative ideal, but it is just not practical to implement at the moment. This cedes too much. In a new essay in National Affairs, "A Conservative Vision of Government," Pete Wehner and I argue that the identification of constitutionalism with an anti-government ideology is not only politically toxic; it is historically and philosophically mistaken.
CR: Not true, once again, but this time in even bolder spades.
Gerson, it should be pointed out has never, ever, liked the Tea Party nor has he been a indefatigable fan of the US Constitution. Indeed, there are some few Liberals who would actually agree with certain aspects of the Tea Party's goals, at least more than so-called Republican-Gerson. First up, of the establishment Republican lies which are also, by the way, borrowed from the Obama regime , is the one about the Tea Party's being anti-government.
The Tea Party, and by default true Conservatism, is not at all anti-government; au contraire, the Tea Party's heroes, it can easily be pointed out, all hail from our founding governmental Fathers. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams--all figure dominantly as the Tea Party's greatest heroes. Does Gerson not wonder why so many of our number show up in those oft establishment despised tri-foil hats?
So, Gerson's founding hero, in Alexander Hamilton, is an authoritarian banker incipiently opposed to libertarian Thomas Jefferson at each and every juncture...makes perfect sense in a very telling way.
Nor should it be lost on Gerson, with regard to the political Left's greatest heroes-- including "patriots" such as Chi-Comm mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung, or Marxist revolutionary Che Guevera, or even collectivist extraordinaire Saul Alinsky, for Heaven's sake.
In fact, we, of the Tea Party, love our government as founded and as America's primary foundation for success, but we also understand what happens when government becomes far too big and excessively authoritative, if not tyrannically unwieldy.
The worst of big oligarchic government, throughout human history, will use its various officialdoms as henchmen to attack the very things and the very people which tend to lend a nation its mantle of greatness. Meanwhile and as an example, let's look at the excessiveness of the NSA's domestic spying, or the President's actual bugging of the entire Associated Press building, or the attacks by those who control the IRS on those who loyally oppose such authoritarian excesses, as formerly described.
Further, let's not forget the government's takeover-by-proxy of the US healthcare system, additionally, a massive debt that threatens our economy at $17 trillion dollars, and the withering train wreck which has unfolded from there. All of the things we initially warned America about have now but largely come true, and in a scant five years while the GOP sits around navel-gazing with what is essentially a thumbs-up-its-rump approach to each of these exacerbative problems.
So, which one of us is right, Gerson, or has everything played out uncommonly well for the GOP at this point?
Gerson: It is not enough to praise America's Founders; it is necessary to listen to them. The Federalist Founders did not view government as a necessary evil. They referred to the "imbecility" of a weak federal government (in the form of the Articles of Confederation) compared to a relatively strong central government, which is what the Constitution actually created. Though they feared the concentration of too much power in one branch of government, they believed that good government was essential to promote what they called the "public good."
And they assumed that the content of the public good would shift over time. "Constitutions of civil government," argued Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 34, "are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages. . . . Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen."
CR: As if someone in our government actually is listening to our founding fathers?
"And the words fell from his pen as the manure from a horse, only the manure being of greater value since it can at least be used as nourishment for one's garden"
There can, at this point, be no active doubt, that our government has strayed obscenely, from the charters of freedom. The problem with folks like erstwhile Gerson is that sooner or later they often begin to believe that their shriveled-up-phallus of ideas will be regaled as mighty and potent, and perhaps they actually will to some, but only to those of the more diminutive subsets who can pleasurably receive and appreciate, such miniscule insertions.
Banker and Federal reserve precursor Hamilton, it should be noted, had nothing but problems with Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson, nor is Hamilton considered anywhere near the likes of the more familiar Tea Party's heroes. Ergo, since we are dragging out Founder quotations, let's try another:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington
Sounds far too much like the father of our nation was of the Tea Party, does it not? Further, most people don't actually think of Hamilton when they consider Founding Father heroics. So, which hero do you prefer America?
Washington or Hamilton?
Gerson: In the tradition of the Federalist Founders, Abraham Lincoln believed the federal government should be capable of adjusting to changing circumstances and active in pursuit of national purposes. In his "Fragment on Government," Lincoln described a number of matters requiring the "combined action" of government, including "public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism" and "providing for the helpless young and afflicted."
Conservatives naturally want to be seen as defenders of the Constitution. But "constitutional conservatives" need to recognize what both the Federalist Founders and Lincoln actually envisioned for the republic they respectively created and preserved. Far from being constrained by the political and economic arrangements of an 18th-century coastal, agrarian republic, the Founders fully expected the United States to spread across a continent, undergo economic and social change and emerge as a global actor. And they purposely designed a constitutional system that could accommodate such ambitions.
CR: So, this time Gerson dredges up Lincoln, one of the first actual Republicans who as President also navigated and presided over this great nation through its lone Civil War--overseeing 1.5 million casualties and 620,000 deaths.
Granted, it may not be politically correct but I personally have often wondered how a President with such a horrid American death record, could somehow be seen as greatest.
Indeed, taken as a comparative measure of today's US population, that number would be over 6 million souls lost.
But Lincoln's legacy doesn't end there, for instance here are but a few grand feats of Liberty which Lincoln stunningly achieved:
- Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus.
- Lincoln “detained” Maryland's entire legislature, thereby blocking a vote on state secession.
- Lincoln sent troops to occupy Kentucky, also in an attempt to block a vote on secession.
- Lincoln later expanded martial law to all states
- Under martial law, the President became the law, and in effect, a dictator.
- Lincoln actually sought to deport the freed black slaves out of the US and into various colonies because he did not feel they belonged to life within America.
No wonder Lincoln often surfaces as one of Obama's greatest American Heroes.....
All of the liberty eviscerating atrocities aside, could peace and an end to slavery not have been achieved, without that terrible war, or is that a question which should never perhaps be considered? Aside from that particularly heretical point, most individuals should not logically doubt that Lincoln, also, had in mind a vast array of government involvements into pretty much every activity under the sun partaken by its sovereign citizens.
Further, Gerson's assertions seem to point to a mindset that fails to consider or perhaps forgets the fact that the Constitution has been nominally relegated to executive toilet paper status and throughout the vaunted halls of government, at least at this particular point and back in the modern day.
The question it would seem, in this, the nadir of supposed enlightenment, belongs not to the Constitution's flexibility, but rather to its ultimate loss as the principle compass of the Republic's Rule of Law, or lack therein as the case may be.
Gerson: This is not to argue that the Founders would be happy with the current size and role of government. But, after protecting a variety of essential civil liberties, they placed such matters mainly in the realm of democratic self-government. They made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail. But they placed few limits on the public policies that durable majorities might adopt in the future - leaving "a capacity to provide for future contingencies."
CR: Did you note the strategic placement of the two "Buts" within the above paragraph?
"The Founders would not be happy with the current size and role of government "But," and "they made it procedurally difficult for majorities to prevail, But"--it would seem that the "Buts" have the floor with regard to Gerson's incipient gratuities regarding anti-Constitutional behavior.
Gerson: In our time, durable majorities have endorsed the existence of Social Security and Medicare. These roles of government were not envisioned by the Founders. But they do not violate a principle of our system nor run counter to the prescient mind-set of the Founders. People are free to argue for and against such programs. But this debate can't be trumped or short-circuited by simplistic and legalistic appeals to the Constitution as a purely limiting document.
CR: Nevermind the fact that both Social Security and Medicare now find themselves at the very heart of an increasingly extreme US unfunded liability problem. Duly noted, as well, that the rise of Medicare (and let's not forget Medicaid) has proliferated the annual increases in private premiums due to the cost-shifting of healthcare expenditures into the private sector --which is primarily due to what has become inarguably morose reimbursement ratios from the government to the actual providers.
Oh, and why do we have an unfunded liability problem? Easy: Because the government has been spending the funds which were allocated to a highly secure lockbox with a very large hole in the bottom. Indeed, "we have met the enemy and it is us," in other words.
Gerson: The broad purposes of the modern state - promoting equal opportunity, providing for the poor and elderly - are valid within our constitutional order. But these roles are often carried out in antiquated, failing systems. The conservative challenge is to accept a commitment to the public good while providing a distinctly conservative vision of effective, modest, modern government.
CR: According to whom with regard to the broad purpose of the modern state?
The Broad purpose of the modern state should be no different than when it was initially founded, however, it is certainly not as a forced charitable organization attending to the poor and the elderly, nor should it be the guarantor of an equality which can never humanely exist on this earth-- those auspices would be more in line with the broader purpose of a modern collectivist state within the throes of its ultimate demise.
Most Americans would submit that a broader purpose to the modern state should go something like the following:
"In order to form a more perfect Union the modern state should establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our descendants' Posterity"
Gerson, it would seem, has taken both his and many others' of the slightly political right into the heretical ideology of statist government as propitiated towards secular revisionism. Expounding on the ideas of Republicanism by applying the stunted lip service of complete constitutional denial will not guarantee any of Gerson's egalitarian goals.
Indeed, Gerson speaks the language of one who waits patiently by the vat as the Kool-Aid is being stirred into potency.
Gerson concludes by stating:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among conservatives: thinking of government as a precious national institution in need of care and reform. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
A precious national institution, like an innocent little fuzzy kitten, Gerson, seriously man?
No Republican in his right mind would view government in such a profoundly ignorant way, quite frankly. Gerson is nothing if not a heretic to his own cause, whatever on earth that might be, it should be noted at this point.
What if, just for a bit of black humor, we adjusted Gerson's assertions a tittle or so, and watch what happens:
"A shift in mind-set is first required among the establishment: thinking of the US Constitution and the citizens it serves, as a precious national institution in need of care and affirmation. This would honor the Founders. The real Founders."
Now, ladies and gentlemen, which of these paragraphs would seem more in concert with the true intent of the Founders?
You see, the Founders entire reason for establishing a just and balanced government was to take every precaution possible so as to keep the US government from becoming the very thing it has now become, and therein lies the fatal flaw with Gerson's ridiculously pitiful assertions, and certainly the greater establishment's mindset as a whole.
The greater good of government was never before, nor is it now, the ultimate goal.
December 19th, 2013
1. the quality of being great, distinguished, or eminent.
"Elgar's greatness as a composer"
illustriousness, high standing;
By Barry Secrest
The story's headline popped up on my screen from a Rasmussen Polling update, which I still receive, for reasons unknown. You see, since Scott Rasmussen actually left the organization back in August, the Rasmussen updates have now become infinitely useful if not at least for brief interludes of mirthfully absurd hilarity.
For example, despite all evidence to the contrary, Rasmussen of late has continually entreated us to almost daily updates reassuring the script' apparatchikate that Obama's popularity remains safe at around a 47% approval rating. A finding that is about 10 points higher than most other polls, which currently indicate that Obama is at his absolute lowest favorability in the history of his Presidency, and largely due to the Affordable Health Act.
This, it should be surmised, might explain the particular article that left me well beyond speechless. It was the title that actually got to me: "The Greatness of Obamacare"
My cursor autonomously shot over to the hyper-link, blinking frenetically. After a brief hesitation, I decided to go in....I wasn't disappointed when I immediately noticed the bizarre but still vaguely familiar name, Froma Harrup byline....
At some point, those of us who were never infected with the self-narcotizing Obama Stupivirus, having completely overtaken certain portions of America, can begin to at least wonder if there is no known cure for the more stubbornly pervasive cases.....Take it away, Froma:
Harrop: "During the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act, it's been hard to defend the law, much less to call it "great." But great it is -- for the American economy and for the American people, rich ones included.
The program has already succeeded in one of its key backbreaking missions: to curb the exploding costs of health care. The president's Council of Economic Advisers issued a report this month containing lots of good news on that front."
Well, at least the extraordinarily Progressive Harrop got the "backbreaking" part correct.
The law even now threatens to be the final straw which ultimately breaks the broad back of an economy which has suffered one shock after another since Obama began his "Great Society II' experiment in existential Pathos. But, don't take it from me....although my loathsome critiques over the past five years could fill volumes.
The media has, in fact, been rife for the past 12 months with news emanating solely from Obamacare's economic detritus, despite the fact that the complete centralization of US healthcare is just now oozing into motion. Below are but a few of these stories from only these past several days:
"Finally, we see the familiar curse of unintended consequences as the fantasy of better, more affordable insurance with more options runs into the reality of higher costs and fewer options. The failed exchange and the cancelled plans were just the beginning"
"It is hard to find the words to adequately describe how much of a disaster Obamacare is turning out to be. The debut of Healthcare.gov has been probably the worst launch of a major website in history, millions of Americans are having their current health insurance policies canceled, millions of others are seeing the size of their health insurance premiums absolutely explode, and this new law is going to result in massive numbers of jobs being lost. "
"Sickcare [Obamacare] is unsustainable for a number of interlocking reasons: defensive medicine in response to a broken malpractice system; opaque pricing; quasi-monopolies/cartels; systemic disconnect of health from food, diet and fitness; fraud and paperwork consume at least 40% of all sickcare funds..."
The actual results for our brief bit of research yielded 226 million responses, hardly any of them favorable, leading us to the singular conviction that Obamacare has, in fact, solved nothing initially, beyond severely curtailing the services we formerly, as a nation, had available.
For example, Medicare for our seniors has already been severely impacted by a loss of funding to the tune of over $ 700 Billion dollars as a direct result of Obama's 2012 edict, which authoritatively robbed funds away from Medicare and swept them into Obamacare.
Even more hilariously, if you can call it that, Harrop divulges her source from all of this good news as emanating from...wait for it..... "The President's Council of Economic Advisors," Yeah, like they don't have any skin in the game. The President's Council consists of exactly three academians, two of which are former "Brookings Institute" Progressives. The Brookings Institute, it should be pointed out, is a well-known Hard-Left think tank funded partially by billionaire, Left-Wing Capitalist George Soros and his Open Society Institute, who want to see America taken down hard and in the worst of all possible ways.
Further, the website "Discover the Networks" has this to say about Brookings...
November 16th, 2013
Juan Cole may know Mideast studies, history, the coffee bean, and even Eastern religions astoundingly well, but this Radical Michigan Professor knows next to nothing about political ideology coupled with sound argumentation....
Conservative Refocus Rebuttals
I was admittedly intrigued at first glance.
The article appeared on my screen as being heavily read the world over, as I reviewed the media articles for that evening, but it was the title that drew me in:
I lived to See the Day when the Pope and the President of Iran are more doctrinally Flexible than the GOP
The website, "Informed Comment" is ranked fairly highly in the world index for site traffic. My fascination substantially grew as I wondered what, by the evidence of such a title, could this individual possibly be saying to cause such a stir on the web? Needless to say, I was both relieved and alarmed at the same time as I emerged from having read the article. The argument from this supposedly 'erudite' and heavily educated buffoon had all the substance of a shadow, and yet this University of Michigan Professor was getting insane amounts of media play.
It seems that this fellow had stepped out of his ordinary role of Mideastern studies near Dearborn-istan Michigan, and embarked onto the battleground of ideas--and with a target-rich environment of specious professorial rants to boot. Which, by the way, is our favorite playground here at Conservative Refocus.
The Professor begins with this specious diatribe:
The United States has all along been a society dominated by the wealthy, and more especially by the business classes. But businesspeople are not all cut from the same cloth. You had high-minded responsible businessmen like Benjamin Franklin and you had mean-spirited businessmen, including the plantation slave-owners.....
Once a Leftist always a Leftist
Cole incepts his Alinsky style attack immediately establishing class warfare as the nadir of his problematic theme, which is literally always the first arrow nocked from the Left-swung quiver of proselytizing Marxist-extremists.
In essence, Cole begins by foundationally layering the idea that the wealthy dominate pretty much everyone, and that they are the singular reason for America's economic pain, despite historical US wealth and standards of living to the contrary. Cole then tries to establish a split between an original founding father as being a good businessman, while oddly including slaveowners in his remarks for the reason of stealthily linking the root idea of modern-day businessmen as slave-holders.
Once again, these are essential Marxist tactics as established by Karl Marx himself. Indeed Marx was expert in setting up labor as being the victim and the bourgeoisie, or business class, as being the cruel overlords.
This, despite the fact that business cannot solely force anyone to do anything, while Cole's Big Goverment "Teddy Bear" can essentially do everything up to and including harassment by taxation officials, listening to and recording everything you do and say over the phone or on a computer, or even bugging your parents' and co-workers' phonelines.
In fact, Cole's God-on-earth, that being Statist Government, has proven his antiqued argument as being nothing if not completely fabricated, especially when Obama routinely forces those big, bad, wolf Business execs to do Big Government's bidding or else....
Fortunately, Cole's leaky ideas simply will not hold water in an America where middle-class businessowners are the rule rather than the exception, as Cole, now serially decoded, yet continues:
In recent months we have been bombarded by news items emanating from the really, really do-absolutely-nothing GOP-dominated House of Representatives, which when it does do something usually does something downright mean. Also rigid and unthinking and narrow-minded and wrong-headed. There, I’ve repeated myself. It might have been enough to say “GOP.” And some of the Republicans in the Senate haven’t been much better.
Seriously, Cole? The "Do nothing" GOP-dominated House has been quite busy trying to save America from the ravages of a radical Leftist political machine, which will stop at nothing in establishing an indebted welfare state in America, not to mention threatening yet another war overseas. So far in 2013 , the GOP controlled US House has taken up over 483 items for vote, while the Democrat controlled Senate has taken up less than half of those items, 203 to be exact, according to the website govtrack.us .
So who is it, exactly, that's doing nothing? Well, at least Obama is doing something:
The standard mantra by those in the media who continually effort disparagement of the Right-Wing opposition party has always been to vilify for doing nothing that which is not in the political Left's most keenly desired interests. This is often also referred to as "Gridlock" by the media and the political Left, which is actually how the US Government was brilliantly designed. The chief reason for such gridlock being so that nothing could be done, by the official government powers, without meaningful checks and balances holding government in equilibrium to the People's will. It's the entire reason for a bi-cameral Legislature and completely separate Executive and Judicial branches of government in the first place. But, why have we had to keep repeating this particular fact over the last 5 years?
Next Cole uses the words, "Downright Mean" to technically describe his overall political analysis, which is rooted in emotional frustration towards the Right.
"Downright mean?" Not to those on the political Right, it isn't. But how about Obamacare, which is being thrust upon an unready nation by the President and his Democrats--is not that truly "downright mean?" A nation, in fact, which neither likes nor needs the healthcare mandate as established by poll after poll. Or how about the 26 states that sued the central government for being forced into a healthcare deal with the Devil? Is not the forcing of unwanted mandates on over half an unwilling nation "downright mean," as well?
Cole then refers to the GOP as "unthinking?" Well, how about the President's having railed against those wishing to raise the debt limit in 2004 as being unpatriotic, only to later rail for the debt limit to be raised in 2013 while accusing the opposition GOP of holding the US hostage? So, was the President holding the nation hostage in 2004, by his own words? Or, we could talk about Obama's words regarding "entering into a dumb war" while authoring an entire movement to bomb Syria, but only with a "pinprick bombardment"...So, is that a smart war?
How About "Unthinking" as in "Passing a law so that we can find out what's in it?"
In fact, Cole now takes to using emotionally charged adjectives to support his argument, while offering up nothing of substance to augment his position.
Typical for the model, to be certain, Cole now goes even further:
At a time when Pope Francis I has called for the Church to be less rigid in its attitudes toward e.g. gays as persons, and when President Hassan Rowhani of Iran has sought a more reasonable tone toward the US and Israel, our hard line Republicans have become more and more blinkered.
Conversely, while Cole offers up an analogy, seemingly without fruitive basis, on Republican intransigence--Obama has shown a truly remarkable willingness to compromise with international opposition, while remaining rigidly opposed to any type of capitulation with Conservative opposition in the US Legislature:
So, why exactly is that Juan?
"Earth to Cole, Earth to Cole, come in Cole, come in"
In fact, Cole now reaches for an argument, while offering neither rhyme nor reason for including these two subjects within his overall opinion in the first place, which seems to careen wildly like a pinball on meth, throughout. What in the Sam Hill do gays have to do with the debt limit or the Republicans or the Church as it is applied to US politics at this juncture? What is Cole's opinion even about exactly, and why was this scatter-brained argument about nothing, thus far, so highly ranked on the web ? Before the President's phone call to Iranian President Rouhani, Obama was threatening to attack Syria "because of Iran," while the US House under the GOP was fully against such a move, so where might this surreal argument of Cole's be leading?
So far, Cole seems to be the one who is astoundingly blinkered to offering any type of coherent argument. More from Cole:
The House of Representatives has just passed a budget that would keep the government operating until later this fall, as the fiscal year ends, but only if the Senate and President Obama agree to defund the Affordable Health Care Act, which is the law of the land and cannot be defunded.
Funding the government and halting implementation of the Health Act sounds like a pretty good deal, quite frankly, bearing in mind the fact that even many Democrats, not to mention the rest of America, have come out against Obamacare. It was Obama himself who delayed implementation of the mandate on employers for one additional year, while also generously subsidizing both Congress and its staff after their initial howling wails of disapproval. The horrid effects Obamacare had already taken on US business was ghastly and everyone knows this fact, so isn't it only fair to delay implementation for all? For Heaven's sake, even Cole's Proletariate, the Unions themselves, have come out against Obamacare demanding a waiver; does Cole even effort to think about these damnable facts?
Cole: Note that the GOP House did not actually pass a proper budget. It doesn’t believe enough in government to do that. It just permitted the government not to close down altogether, but only if it can impose its minority views on the rest of the country. President Obama ran twice on health care reform and if the country had wanted to get rid of the AHCA, it could have voted for Mitt Romney but it didn’t. The GOP House has wasted a lot of time attempting to repeal Obamacare, which it cannot do at the moment because the Democrats have the Senate and the presidency. They know this. Governing for them has become like a strange ritual.
The GOP House, in fact, has passed several budgets every year, each quietly tabled by the US Senate, while on the other hand, Obama and the Democrats have failed to pass any US budget for Obama's entire Presidency. The 2009 budget was passed by Bush in 2008, by the way. Indeed, Obama will most likely go down in history as being the first US President to have never passed one single budget, nor have they even offered up one for a vote. Bad argument, Cole, try again.
As for the GOP's holding the minority view on Obamacare, a recent poll by Rasmussen indicated that well over half of all Americans both support a partial government shutdown to cut spending and delaying implementation of Obamacare, over 53% in fact. So, who is in the minority Mr. Cole? The Republicans' hands are largely tied when it comes to governing, as Obama and the Senate seem to want to jealously clutch the reins of the nation, while forcing the House to fund ongoing government plunder with aplomb, a thing that the GOP has grown tired of. Unfortunately for Obama, that old saying that "Congress holds the purse strings" should now become evermore starkly clear, especially with a President seeking to rule as Potentate without oppositional input. Conservatives now appear to be drawing their own "Red Line"--it will be interesting to see whose line actually holds.
Cole: The reason the GOP wants to do away with the Affordable Health Care Act is that big business does not want it, and the Republicans in the House of Representatives no longer represent the American people. They represent big business and it alone. Big business deserves to have some representation in the US government. The 2000 biggest corporations are half the US economy. But they don’t deserve to be the only voice that is heard there, and they shouldn’t be able to undo the will of the majority of voters with a whispering campaign on the Hill.
Yes, indeed, when it comes to Obamacare, neither big business nor small business, neither big people nor small people--and even many who were fooled on the political Left--are now dawning to the idea that Obamacare is pretty much bad for everyone. Even Congress and their staffers wailed for an Obamacare waiver after passing the blasted thing, to which Obama generously responded with a 75 % subsidy. Here, once again, Cole rails against big business with a broad stroke, while completely forgetting the fact that the academia in which he gains a living is one of America's biggest business interests of them all. Isn't it truly absurd to hear an academian rail at business, while conveniently leaving out the fact that the academian world is nothing but big business for Big Left?
Don't agree? Okay, let's see.....like business, the Universities and Colleges charge for their services, they have employees, their customers are their students, and they sell education like the bestest snake oil that ever came out of a bottle, while throttling their customers with obscenely priced college loan levels and the like which they can barely, if ever, pay back. Oh, and they DON"T PAY TAXES while raking in extraordinary levels of income.
Now, doesn't that sound like a rather lucky "mega-business" model to you?
Cole: The GOP is willing to try to destroy the AHCA, even though this act benefits some 30 million Americans who otherwise lack health insurance. Apparently they are supposed to do without medical care until they get deathly ill, at which case they should take a chance on Emergency Room Treatment. This proposition is a non-starter. The heroic health care professionals in ERs cannot possibly serve all those 30 million. And, it is much more expensive for taxpayers to pay for emergency room care than to simply fund the AHCA. It is only business interests that would benefit from the latter’s demise. Not the middle classes who pay the taxes and don’t have Caribbean tax havens. Not the poor, whose health suffers from lack of medical care and physician access. Children are much less healthy later in life if their mothers had no regular physician visits, and lack of such visits raises the risk of miscarriage and infant mortality.
Yeah, but wouldn't you like to know what the dirty little secret about those 30 million people who still won't have coverage is, Juan? It's because many simply didn't want the coverage then, and certainly don't want it now, and they won't have it in the future whether Obamacare is maintained or not. It's just that simple. In fact, many of those who didn't have coverage before were undocumented illegal aliens, many more of the people were unneeding young people, and even a slew more were folks eligible for MEDICAID who had simply never signed up.
Probably because they didn't want a government handout, among many other reasons; so, what will we have to show for our worldclass healthcare system if Obamacare is fully implemented after about a decade? I think most of us already know the answer to that question...
A Flimsy Argument With Many Openings
Cole: The GOP House, in trying to get rid of Obamacare, is literally acting as baby-killers. They are set on this course the way the Inquisition used to be determined to burn heretics at the stake. They are loyal servants of the corporations, the way the Aztecs were loyal servants of the gods to whom they sacrificed innocent victims.
Seriously? This Liberal in Juan Cole is actually so moronic that he would accuse the GOP of being "Baby-Killers," while knowing that his own party of radical Liberals will defend to death the killing by abortion of babies in the womb to the tune of over 1.3 million children every year? This is one of the Democrat Party's bellwether positions. It's "Baby-Slayers R' Us" over there in the political Left--and this singular wit of an academian actually has the nerve to call the GOP baby-killers?
This college guy has more holes in his argument than Miley Cyrus's entire wardrobe.
But then Cole uses the term "burning heretics at the stake" by the GOP?
Cole, have you ever looked at the history of the Democrat Party as it relates to the Ku Klux Klan? Seriously, Juan Cole couldn't debate a walnut. The Democrat Party was founded on the principles of denying freedom to the slaves. Don't believe it? Watch the Movie "Lincoln" and see which group of ideologues are forever trying to end slavery. It wasn't the Democrats, nor was it the Liberals. In fact, it was the Conservatives, the leader of which was brilliantly played by Tommy Lee Jones. Then the word "inquisition" is used by Cole...
Wait until the Obamacare death panels are formed if you want to see a real inquisition, folks. The "sacrifice of innocent victims?" Ever seen an aborted fetus? Even been to a Democrat National Convention? Yet, here again, Cole brings up Big Business and the GOP's serving them as if the Democrats have no big business sponsors whatsoever, when in fact, Obama has made it beyond painfully clear of his ties to Mega Business, not to mention all the other Democrats and their big donators. Here, Cole falls into the uneducated myth that Democrats don't have big business interests, when in fact, anything but is actually the truth.
Cole: The Grand old Party of Scrooge likewise cut $4 billion a year in food stamps. Having deregulated the banks and encouraged the demon instrument of derivatives and driven the country into the ground with their economic policies, the Republicans now want to heap further punishment on the very people they have made homeless. Before the apogee of GOP policy in 2008, 11 percent of Americans were poverty-stricken and food insecure. Every year since the Great GOP Depression of the 21st Century, the percentage of food insecure people in America has been over 14. The GOP, having advocated baby-killing through the abolition of Obamacare, nowwants to engage in baby-starving.
Yes, the GOP cut $ 4 Billion in food stamps, but only after finding out that the Obama Regime had actually sponsored public service messages trying to sell the SNAP program to Illegals and beamed them into Mexico, for God's sake. We actually had individuals who owned mutiple homes buying food stamps while government workers who signed up the most people were given bonuses. The Obama Regime doubled the program spending, since 2008, to the point that over $ 80 Billion per year was being spent in 2013, which is money that the US can ill-afford to fritter away these days.
Nor was it the Republicans who caused the economic meltdown of 2008, but rather, it's now a widely accepted fact that the US Government's forcing of the "Community Reinvestment Act," in mandating that banks lend to people who simply could not afford the loans. This is now a well-documented fact that only those "not in the know" would even bother to try and argue. Banks were culpable, no doubt, and yet who bailed these banks out after the fact, and then kept bailing them out, Cole?
Cole: Not since British landlords actually exported food from Ireland for profit during the Great Famine of the 1840s have we seen this kind of hard-heartedness in an elite.
Have we had a rash of mass killings? Should we have gun control? No, because a handful of huge corporations such as Colt and others make billions off semi-automatic pistols and rifles. The GOP doesn’t represent the children who are shot down by the mentally unbalanced with those weapons. It represents the manufacturers and the retailers who make money off the sale of military-style weapons to civilians.
Well, at least Cole gets his "hard-heartedness of the Elite" statement right, but in fact, it's the academians who are in truth held out to be the actual "Elites" in America, certainly not the business types. Nor does the uproar of our government's efforts at confiscating weaponry come from corporations. Au contraire, it is the people themselves who have smothered the legislature with calls each time "gun prohibition" is tried. Here Cole seems to forget his overall stance on baby-killing, as well, when he tries to trot out his "children shot down" argument.
An Argumentative Snag
How can there be some sort of arguable difference between willfully killing the young by parentally approved forcep termination, as opposed to death as wielded by the mentally unstable? Ergo, is there truly a difference between a parent wanting their unborn child dead and a spastic with a gun wanting that same end, especially when it comes to stability?
Cole: Has Egypt had a military coup and engaged in a bloody crackdown? A congressional delegation including Michele Bachmann promptly went off to Cairo to assure the generals that they fully supported the human rights violations. Ironically, Bachmann’s policies in the US differ little except by denomination from the Muslim Brotherhood she hates, and the secular officers would arrest her as a fundamentalist and cultist if they knew what she advocates.
Is Iran’s new president positioning himself for serious negotiations with the US? Sen Lindsey Graham calls for war on Tehran, and Congress passes stringent new sanctions that amount to financial warfare on that country.
In Egypt, the military intervened because Muslim Brotherhood death squads were roaming the streets and wantonly killing, and even crucifying, anyone who disagreed with them, especially Christians, and at former President Morsi's approval. How can anyone be in support of that? Apparently, Cole does unsurprisingly support this. Nor was the fact of Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood, while largely turning on the Egyptian military after the fact, lost on any of us. The people of Egypt were howling for the military to act when Morsi suspended the Constitution, while installing a Shariah based Islamic Republic. Have we seen anymore civilian uprisings against the military controlled government in Egypt since the government coup? I rest my case.
Cole: This Congress, and especially the House of GOP Scrooges, represents narrow and mean-spirited interests, not the broad mass of Americans. Indeed, it seems obvious that if only they could find a way to legalize slavery again, the GOP would be perfectly happy to sell us down the river for the sake of our plantation masters.
Yet more revisionism? It was the Republicans who freed the slaves, Cole; certainly not the Democrats, while Cole seems to also forget that Lincoln was, in fact, one of the first Republicans. Further, when it comes to the True Scrooges of US politics, are not the Conservatives seeking to stop the thievery of our future generations, i.e. children, from the untenable debt that the Left has built up in only the last five years? It could easily take the upcoming generation decades to work down this horrendous debt, nor will such an effort occur easily. Are not the Scrooges the ones who work to deny the next generation a start with a clean slate?
Further, what is this battle all about, if not the massive debt that even now threatens our national security? Raising the debt limit only worsens our national economy, which still teeters on the edge of insolvency.
Cole: It is the policy of a cult, not of a national party that has a hope of gaining the presidency.
Surely Cole must be referring to the cult trying to elect Hillary in 2016; you know, the same cult that pushes illusory global warming and out of control spending as a panacea to the masses.
Cole: They should take a lesson from other cults that have attempted to rule in a narrow and injurious manner, producing public anger and backlash against them.
Indeed, I suspect the GOP has taken a number of lessons from the current cult in power, which initially referred to its leader as "God-Like" and, by the way, Obama did say "the waters will reside under my presidency," and I expect Cole actually believed him. Nor can Cole, whose arguments leave holes that semi-tractors can drive through, deny the fact that a backlash is even now occurring by the growing "Victimhood of Obamacare"--nevermind a host of similar backlashes over the past five years.
The US has never been so divided in my lifetime, in fact.
Cole: Indeed, that (Backlash) was exactly the charge against deposed Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi. There won’t be a coup against the GOP Scrooges, but it seems very likely that there will be a wave of public revulsion that reduces them to further isolation and irrelevance.
Here, Cole even supports our earlier argument against Morsi as being correct; no surprises there. But the public revulsion that Cole hopes for will never come to pass, because it's already here and it's painfully palpable. A Democrat Senator even unwittingly alluded to a "Civil War" as a result of Obama's ongoing governing against the will of the people in support of his radical agenda, recently.
No, the isolation and irrelevence Cole pines for actually proliferates in the backbone of America and is directed against the current regime, as could be seen in the recent protest by bikers who descended on DC on 9/11. At some point Obama and the Left will find no avenues of plausible escape from the fact of their incessant governing failures.
However and unfortunately, nor will the American people.