Conservative Refocus

By:  Barry Secrest

Fascinating how we rarely hear the word "messiah" used anymore, isn't it?

Has the seemingly Biblical turmoil in the mideast, along with all of the dark portents swirling all around us, much like an ill wind of doom,  insulated our collective political vitriole, or is it, perhaps, something else?  A recent story at ABC News spoke to this fairly new anti-presidential phenomenon.

The story essentially admonished the President for using his own brand of  "self-specialized" media while locking out the traditional news outlets.  In fact, the reporter went on to state that "the President has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent."  Ann Compton, a senior reporter at ABC News, went on to state that "access here has shriveled."

Interesting choice of verbs, shriveled, but probably not accidental when we harken back to the often breathless omni-sexual reporting done on Obama's behalf prior to the eye opening economic awakening of which the President can, at present, dutifully lay claim. Even high level members of the media appear to be enduring deficits of readership, dollars and job positions, and it appears that most have now taken a duly alarmed note.

Pac-Man Potus and The Obamaphibians

But the story went on to explain that the "current dynamic is different and dangerous," to which we would note Indeed, and in more ways than one, my awakening Liberal friends.  In fact, the President's handling of Egypt, while rarely criticized even by GOP politicians, has officially been panned by a significant number of the media as an abject failure.  Even the patently liberal Newsweek's cover brandished an ashamed looking President with the words "Egypt: How Obama Blew it."  The President's kiss and make-up response, in yet another dollar-blitzing display of Presidential Pac-Man, was to roll out a $ 3.7 Trillion dollar budget that was crafted to appease his "base" no doubt.

Unfortunately for Obama, the media wasn't buying that one either, as even the left-streamers began to doubt the President's rather stark deficit of anti-economic leadership.  But we should also pause here to note that this, possibly fleeting, anti-presidential spate has certainly not flowed to every corner of the media.

There are still those shallow swimming liberal fanatics within the media whose function belongs more to that of the simple-celled Obamaphibians, in that they know not why they swim, or even that they swim, but swim they do nonetheless.

The President's embattled response to an increasingly worried America over his budget was to disingenuously note that his plan would save an estimated $ 1.1 Trillion over 10 years, prompting us all to sarcastically exclaim "hallelujah"...that should really help... in ten years...assuming that we are still here, of course.  The President's artful attempt at grandly raising taxes, whether they be phantom fees or flights of fancy on the one hand, while measuringly cutting spending to on the other and then proclaiming it a quantifiable savings, speaks to a significant artifice to be believed soley by the duplicitously uninformed.

Conservastrology; Noun: The Act Of Conservatively Predicting future Events Based Upon Recent & Distant Historical Errors

Utilizing our skills at historically observing errors of the past, both recent and distant, and applying our findings to current mis-events allows certain of we, the conservatively  inclined, to make various stunningly accurate prognostications. To wit, the question that certain members of both the Left and the Right have been asking is, quite obviously to us, a rhetorical one at best (maybe they have not been paying complete attention to the White House for the past two years).  That question being:  "Why didn't the President use at least one of the recommendations from his blue ribbon budget panel?"

Aw, come on guys!  Don't you at least remember what the President said about panels?  We actually answered this question for you in a prediction of exactly one year ago:

The fact that Obama has, on many previous occasions, lambasted other Politicians' efforts at employing Study Commissions was not lost on us.  The comical and yet revealing truth is that the President has, in his own words, "many times" disavowed employing commissions to study various Government problems as "the oldest political trick in the book at passing the buck." from Extreme Consequences, 2/26/2009

In other words and as predicted, regardless of the findings by the Commission, the entire episode was one of nothing more nor less than complete political sophistry designed as "fire for effect" only.

Meanwhile, the turmoil in Greece that we verifiably predicted would soon arrive here last year has been rather depressingly validated.  A large mob of Wisconsin Union members, and others, descended upon the Capital in a rage, and they were not of the very civilized Tea Party ilk either.  In an article written in May of 2010, we wrote the following:

The President then went on to suggest that "less is more" when it comes to assimiliating news content, while leaving out his obvious sentiments on controlling Government outlays, which would most obviously be "more is less"--all the while-- the following movie and broadway hit song  kept coursing around in our heads as it regards Greece, the country which we soon may be emulating: as in Greece is the word.  From Greece is The Word, May 16,2010

Here, and once again, both we and some few others correctly predicted that the events occurring in Greece would make their way here in one form or another. Here's to hoping that the US does not completely emulate the disastrous rioting in Greece.

Noting that the problems in Greece, having been temporarily mitigated by Eurozone loans was, rather expectedly, of the same exact variety that the state of Wisconsin has recently sought to correct today.  In Greece the riots were prompted by protesting Public Union workers who, despite their faltering economy, ragedly insisted upon maintaining a near-hedonistic work-life which was simply unsustainable.  When the Grecian Government insisted upon several corrections that would put their ship of state back on a near-correct course, the troubles began--in earnest.  The death toll and serious injuries which resulted from the protest riots reached into the thousands, and there could be more in the future.

Meanwhile, and in that same vein, we have yet even to note the fire-breathing inflationary trend that many knew was coming. That obaminable monster, inflation, has just now risen up out of the sea and plundered out on to our shoreline--replete with glistening fangs, devilish eyes and flinty scales--inflation-zilla is here and she's mad as hell.  The question now becomes "how bad will it be?" Are we truly headed down the trail which leads to Greece along with the economic unrest which is citing uprisings throughout the world?

Grecian Formula Number 44

If we take a close look at Wisconsin, we can see the same range of effects coming into play.  The average unionized public salary for a Wisconsin state workers is about $48,348.00, not including benefits, according to the NY times.  When one accounts for the average health benefit amount paid for each Wisconsin public employee by the state, the total comes out to about $ 20,000 for each worker according to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel.  This means that, so far, the average pay package reaches $ 68,348 per employee, and this does not include the state pension plan.

If we were to include the state pension plan, which is fully funded by the state of Wisconsin according to the Wisconsin employee benefits website, at a minimum of 10% of the employee's income per year, the pension plan actually costs the state, on average, a minimum of $4,834.00 per year, making the total Wisconsin benefits package a whopping $ 73,182.00 per year.  At this point many might actually be thinking of procuring a job in the state of Wisconsin after all of this blows over for a cool $ 73,182.00 per year (and you can't get fired!)

Enter the Governor of the state, Scott Walker, seeking to close a $ 3.6 billion dollar hole in the budget, who indicated a number of fixes to balance the budget, and here's where the problems came into play.  The fix was not in laying off thousands of workers nor was it in cutting either benefits or pay.  The fix was in asking employee's to pay only 12 % of the employee health costs and about 5.8% of their pension costs so that lay-offs could be averted; and the weeping and gnashing of teeth began.

Here, it should be noted that many, if not most, small business employers simply cannot afford pensions for their employees while meeting overhead, despite typically paying at least half of their employees' health costs.  The point here being, that while many Wisconsin citizens struggle to provide for their own pensions and pay far more for their own health benefit costs, they still rather generously, provide for their state workers --that-- which they often cannot afford for themselves.  But, that's just not good enough, apparently.  This while approximately 9% of all national workers remain unemployed.

When All Else Fails, There's Always Community Organizing...

When the Governor also wanted to change the collective bargaining agreement so that the Union could not dictate normal workday procedures as mandated by the employees the cries of imperial walker, Walker in the cross-hairs photos and references to Hitler began and with a vengeance.  The state union workers decended upon the capital and the Wisconsin State's Senate Democrats, who were required to be in attendance for the vote, despite their vote not actually mattering, fled the state.  At this point the workers needed a Messiah, a saviour to offer up both solace and support in what the people of the state of Wisconsin were asking the workers to sacrifice.  Enter President Barack Hussein Obama, stage left.

President Obama waded into the fray, not to offer support for the desires of the people of Wisconsin, nor to offer support to the state Government for the admirable balance that had been achieved at clearing the annual deficit.  No, indeed.  In fact, Obama came out in support of the public Union accusing the Governor's efforts on behalf of the people of the state as "unleashing an assault on Unions."  The President actually began mobilizing opposition via his political machine, with both state and national unions, to dangerously increase both the size and the scope of the protests against the state of Wisconsin, thus actually fomenting the chaos rather than controlling it.

From there the President's efforts spread to the state of Ohio, as well to mitigate efforts by Governor John Kasich to also limit collective bargaining agreements in his state in an effort to control costs.  Soon this worker's party blitzkrieg was predicted to spread to other states, as well, including Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and even Tennessee and Missouri, among others.  At some point we must pause and wonder if the President might ever actually realize that he is no longer a community organizer?  Does he understand that he is building opposition against the wishes of the majority of all peoples within these states?  Does he not also see that these public sector unions comprise a fraction of the voters of each state?

Does the President understand that he is governing against the will of the people in favor of the beneficiaries of the people's largesse?

Here it becomes very plain to see the one true fact, that has been most recently in question, emerge, and that is simply that this President has not moderated, he has not gone to the center, nor has he moved to the right even a tittle.  In fact, if anything, the President has now moved further to the Left with this particular presidential departure in favor of the worker's party, which is also closely associated with the forces of Socialism and the Communist party. This, however, does bring up yet another example of the dichotomy of the President's words with regard to controlling debt and reigning in spending.

As recently as the State of the Union Address, on January 26, 2011, the President said this:

"We have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same."

Even earlier, speaking on sacrifice, Obama said this:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Except when a sovereign state is trying to balance its deficit problem?

With regard to the economy and deficits, the President said the following-- he apparently was not referring to quite everybody:

"Everybody’s going to have to give. Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game."

In late November of 2008, the President said this:

"It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.  So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."

Unless you belong to a Union?

On March 24th,2009 Obama said this:

"When we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the wider set of obligations we have towards each other, that's when we succeed, that's when we prosper, and that's what is needed right now."

But if you belong to one of my special interest groups...I'm here for ya?

Finally, uttered on Febrary 24th,1999 there is this:

"Our job is to govern with a sense of responsibility."

Unless it goes against one of my powerful constituencies?

Truthfully, with the recent submission of the President's deficit busting spending bill along with his reaction to the efforts by the state of Wisconsin to reign in spending, certain questions begin to arise in earnest. Has the President been totally candid with the American people with regard to his efforts at controlling an admittedly out of control spending? The only answer that would appear credible based upon the President's own words when contrasted against his actions is a clearly resounding "No."

The next question, which simply must be answered, is one which is quite troubling within the nature of Presidents and presidential authority; Does the office of the Presidency, along with its endemic duties, include the act of aiding, if not abetting to foment, a protest against a sovereign state being Wisconsin, as has been documented by news story after news story? Further, does the President have the right to utilize his or her office in organizing a form of rebellious protests against a state within its internal efforts of governing responsibly?

Finally, does the President's office allow it to use the powers of the office, in order to effect non-election political coercion, in a state that is under the office of the Presidency's Federal jurisdiction? In essence, utilizing the power of the office to effect mass political favoritism on behalf of a clearly documented special interest group with close ties to that same adminstration in power?

We already know what the answer to these questions are, but does the answer now even matter in America?

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

In a grand bow to the "forces of Democracy,"  the people have spoken in Egypt.  President Mubarak, after the hurried gleaning of  a wealth totaling anywhere from $ 40 to $ 70 Billion dollars, eased out of his Presidential palace and embarked to his home on the Red Sea. Thus an Egyptian authoritarian rule that has been in place for generations has ended; good riddance being the operative sentiment here, right?  Well, perhaps, perhaps not.  You see, the only problem with all of this becomes:  What type of "Democracy"  might we witness coming to fruition and at what cost to the Middle East, even the world?  Remains to be seen is the best that anyone can come up with according to even the most knowledgeable of Mideast experts, except for one.

Enter President Barack Obama, who weighed into the Revolution with a number of confused messages both to the leadership of Egypt and also to the people of Egypt.

The President's initial account of the protesters went this way:

"A loose amalgam of forces"

"Some of which doubt the legitimacy of the Presidency"

"There are strains that are troubled by what they saw as as a series of instances in which the middle-class and working class people have been abused or hurt by special interests but their anger is misdirected"

"So I have been amused in recent days by these people having rallies,  I think they should be saying thank you"

The President thinks the Egyptian protesters should be thanking Mubarak? Oops!  Actually, those quotes were the President's descriptions of the millions of Tea Party protesters here in America.  As Americans listened to the President's words concerning the people of Egypt, many could not help but notice the irony at play.  The overall reaction to the protests that were occurring in Egypt as compared to both the President's and Democrats' reaction to another powerful throng of protesters, here at home in the form of the Tea Party and others, were both stark and bordering on the absurd.

Message Impossible

The Obama Administration, over the course of the 18 days of Egyptian protests, began with the President stating on January 25th that the US:

"Supports the Democratic aspirations of all people everywhere."

On the 26th, Robert Gibbs stated:

"Egypt is a strong ally."

On January 27th, Vice President Joe Biden, completely in clown- suit character, stated this:

"I would not refer to Mubarak as a dictator."

On January the 28th, Obama urged Mubarak to:

"Meet the aspirations of the Egyptian people."

Robert Gibbs, also on January 28th, urged non-violence from both sides and threatened ending US aid to Egypt in general.  The Administration was seemingly waiting to ascertain which way the wind was blowing.  As the situation grew worse, on February 1st, the President stated the following to Mubarak after indicating that he would exit power:

"Relinquishing power was the right decision, but the transition to a new government must begin now."

At a news conference, later that day, the President firmly began supporting the Egyptian uprising by stating the following:

"An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful and it must begin right away."

Further, Obama, in praise of the protesters of Egypt, stated the following:

"An inspiration to the people of the world."

At this point, the White House messages over a number of days became garbled with Clinton, Obama and other advisers uttering seemingly conflicting things in a diversity of times.  But on Mubarak's day of departure, which was February 11th, the President's speech set a number of American eyes to rolling around uncontrollably.

The President spoke of elections that are fair and free while many in America must have thought of the election antics by ACORN, SEIU and other groups linked both closely in one sense and yet loosely in another to Obama's campaign.

Obama spoke of bringing all voices to the table in Egypt while here at home the President had mocked members of the Tea Party as "folks waving tea-bags around."  Even now, many interpret the President's meaning on "all voices" as a reference to those of the militant Muslim brotherhood.

The President spoke of the "power of peaceful protest and perseverance" in glowing terms while having totally ignored an equal number of protesters in Washington concerning healthcare and other disagreeable items on the President's economically withering agenda.

Obama spoke to the Egyptian's demand of universal rights even while speaking against the negative rights of governance here at home.

When Ignorance Is Bliss

While the Democrats and even a goodly number of Republicans and Conservatives uncontrollably shiver in excitement at what Liberty has seemingly wrought, there are those few pragmatists among us who are not so terribly sure.  There are, astoundingly, some various  individuals among us who even view these foreign events as "nothing of great concern, we all should be envious of these events," they will say--and indeed we were at first--however, geo-politics must be reckoned into the mix at some point (more on that later). The media, meanwhile, continues its mission of transforming into an over-excited toy poodle troupe of jittery bounciness at the faintest of positive sounding echoes when it comes to protests in foreign lands, but heaven help us all should that same protest occur here at home, and therein lies the rub.

Unfortunately, the time for ringing the liberty bell has not quite arrived just yet. In fact, there may be more riding on these presaging events than at any other time since the rise of the Third Reich.  The question that becomes a burning concern is whether or not a secular Democracy will emerge, or might it become another Islamist Totalitarian Regime? We would all do well to remember the familiarities that definitely exists between another revolution that ran an eerily similar course back in 1979--interestingly, the leader of the Iranian revolution in 1979 was Iran's current President, Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian Revolution also consisted of a fabulously wealthy, mostly disliked dictator with strong allegiances to the United States.  The main comparative difference, in Iran's case, was the battle that ensued between military forces, which were loyal to the Shah, against guerrilla and defected troops, which were loyal to Islamist Ayatollah Khomeini. The Rebel troops eventually overcame the Shah's forces and the Shah beat a hasty trail of retreat only to leave a dark void of power in its wake.  That leadership vacuum, within thirty days, was to be filled by the Western-despising Islamic authoritarian Ayatollah Khomeini.  Khomeini was to then install a Theocracy of Islamic governance that would serve the same sort of brutal dictatorial ends as the Shah's but through the power of Islam's God rather than through the former authoritarian cronyism.  Either way, the end result became the same as even now pockets of often violent protests flame up throughout Iran on a regular basis by those who yearn for true freedom.

Further, the roots of the Iranian Revolution were sown within the fertile ground of an anti-western movement instigated by both populists and nationalists yearning for social justice and economic parity.  Their movement was later to be hijacked by adherents of Shia Islam or Shariah law.  In this way, it is believed that the rapid rise of Islamic extremism, along with the popularity of Shariah law, can be, in large part, traced to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. When similar events are seen now, which eventually culminated in the successful  Egyptian Revolution, we can see many of the same seeds of discontent being nourished.  The one horrifying thing to remember is simply that back in 1979, the infrastructure for a radical Islamic surge was in its infancy.  Now, the Islamic movement has matured and has spread throughout many western nations to the ultimate chagrin of foolish yet well-meaning western populations and governments.

An Egyptian Ground Hog Day

Make no mistake, these movements, both in Iran and Egypt, each have been powered in large part by populists and nationalists yearning for social justice and economic improvement or parity.  As in Iran, the Egyptian population is largely made up of those who advocate adherence to Shariah law with all of the customary trappings that go along with that particular mindset.  Also, in each case, adherents to the tenets of Islam seem to find the idea of Government rooted in ideology to be a holy jihad worthy of pursuit until such time as their goals are starkly realized.  Once dominated by the Mullahs, the next generation of subjects will predictably rail against the strictures of authoritarian regimes as dictatorial and unfair, while older adherents blame the west for compromising and tempting their youth in reprehensible deflection.

Then, in a generational cycle of dismay, these same upstarts will likely occur over and over again in a "ground hog day cycle" of power continually overturning the consent of the governed until a different paradigm of effort is finally realized by the people.  While many have touted the movement as being grassroots, others in Egypt have indicated something else altogether.  In a NY Times article, the Egyptian youth movement is quoted as being made up of Liberals, Socialists and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  So why is it that the Muslim Brotherhood keeps popping up when discussions of concern erupt with regard to the Egyptian revolt?  In answer, one Egyptian protester stated that she knew that the Muslim Brotherhood "always has a hidden agenda."  The woman then went on to explain that "you never know when power comes how they will behave but they are good with organizing."  Indeed, they are quite well-trained at it, we would agree.

But the other points regarding concern over the revolt and who will net power seem to focus on a deluge of naive denial both from many members of the liberal media and even those in positions of high governance here in the states.  National Director of Intelligence James Clapper recently appeared before a US committee and iterated to everyone in attendance that one of the primary players in the Egyptian Revolution, being the Muslim Brotherhood as alluded to earlier, was a secular group dedicated to non-violence. This utterance would, rather remarkably, be akin to our ridiculously stating that America's 700 Club is an atheist organization dedicated to abortion.

The Muslim Brotherhood Is Secular, Obamacare is Cheaper, Stimulus Worked

The simple fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been proven time and time again to be the root organization of factions such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and myriad other radical organizations.  The Muslim Brotherhood is also the entity that Obama seems to mean as he constantly insists that all voices be included.  This was made crystal clear during the Bill O' Reilly interview.

The main point here being that the Brotherhood is dedicated to the wiping out of one of our closest allies in Israel.  The Egyptians have maintained the peace with the Israelis for the past 30 years.  If Egypt were to turn away from a secular Democracy and towards an Islamic Theocracy, all bets are off as to maintaining the peace in the Mideast.  If then the extremists gain a foothold in Egypt and back away from peace with Israel, we could be seeing the beginnings of an Armageddon type of scenario, eventually playing out with multiple anti-Jewish countries sparking offensives with a nuclear powered juggernaut in the Israeli military.  As these fact are looked at through a prism of abject horror, we then hearken back to Clapper's words of either winsome ignorance or calculated misdirection.

With Clapper's now stunning cameo appearances of astoundingly uninformed responses, we have to wonder if it is Clapper who has the President's ear or is it the President who has Clapper's ear as to the true impetus of the Muslim Brotherhood and what the Administration seems to be trying to achieve avowed possible inclusion.

Does the President actually desire the inclusion of Islamic extremism at the freshly set Egyptian table of Democracy? The thing to remember is that these cunning radicals  will most likely not seize at a leadership stake in Egypt until and unless they are in a position to win and do so convincingly.  Camouflage will most likely be the order of the day for now.

Maybe terrorist-affiliated organizations with a long history of radical extremism do belong at that same table of "Democratic governance"...perhaps we should consult both Iran and Al Quaeda in order to ascertain functionality in that regard.