Monthly Archives: November 2012

The Grand Besmircher


Yesterday, Obama urged critics of UN ambassador Susan Rice’s misleading Benghazi “full Ginsburg” on the Sunday talk shows to leave her alone and dared them to “go after” him instead.

Is there any button this guy won’t push? How thrilling to watch Big Brother Barry defend the honor of a distressed damsel (and she’s black too!).

All demagoguery aside, I agree with Obama: They should go after him, and the reporters might have immediately obliged by asking him why he sent Doctor Rice on all five Sunday talk shows to spin misleading talking points when, as Obama claimed yesterday, Rice “had nothing to do with Benghazi.” And if I were Rice, I would be asking him the same thing.

John McCain and Lindsay Graham have been assigned the role of White Republican Bullies in this melodrama, but as I recall, they were only responding to questions about whether Rice could be confirmed as a possible Secretary of State after her full Ginsburg. If her reputation has been “besmirched,” as Obama correctly claims, the grand besmircher is Obama.

You might remember that Colin Powell dutifully appeared before the UN Security Council to make the case for the presence of WMD in Iraq, and when no WMD were found after the war, his reputation took a bit of a hit, which I am sure still infuriates Powell and is probably the reason for his inexcusable behavior in the Scooter Libby case and his later endorsement of Obama. But at least the Bush administration believed there were such weapons in Iraq as did the CIA and every significant intelligence agency in the world, the loony claims of WMD truthers notwithstanding.

To send Rice out to blanket the airwaves with what were at best sketchy talking points and at worst bold faced lies was a reckless, risky maneuver almost guaranteed to injure if not destroy her credibility and harm her career.

So by all means, the politicians and press should “go after” Obama, just like the media went after Bush.

But I am not holding my breath.

It’s Good To Be The King


Pundit Bill Kristol has taken some heat from Republicans this week for suggesting that they ought to accede to Obama’s desire to raise taxes on “the rich.”

I agree with Kristol.

For one thing, it would promote political hygiene. Who wants to see Obama firing up Air Force One to tour the country as he’s done for most of the last 4 years (surrounded by the now familiar adoring union moonies) preaching about how the GOP wants to screw the “middle class” to benefit “millionaires and billionaires”? I am sure there are people out there who cannot get enough of that, but they have to be in the minority…right?

Yes, I know, snarling about fat cats and the rich is what Obama does best (Frankly, it’s the only thing he does. Like all revolutionists, he really isn’t any good at mere governing.). Sure, there is the possibility that Obama will simply raise the stakes by demanding higher taxes than the expiration of the Bush rate would produce.

Still, it’s better to allow Obama to do his worst. The media has already spun the election as a stinging rejection of conservatism and a smashing triumph for massive government, regardless of the actual results. Soon the politicized perception will become the reality, and just about everybody will believe that what Obama wants is what “the American People” want.

Kristol noted that half of “the rich” are Hollywood liberals anyway, so why not give “The Boss,” George Clooney and Anna Wintour what they say they want – higher taxes. I know, of course, that The Boss and company won’t really pay the higher taxes; their army of tax attorneys wouldn’t stand for it. But hey, hypocrisy isn’t a crime.

I say, give Obama what he says he wants on taxes and move on to the real issue – spending, particularly entitlement spending. Again, I know that the Democrats will then employ the usual bait and switch tactics they’ve been using for years against presidents like Reagan and Bush, the Elder: Get the Republicans to raise taxes in return for a “promise” to cut spending; pocket the higher taxes and then fughetabout the spending cuts.

I know the Democrats have succeeded with this strategy in the past, but I think they may be unable to use it this time when it has become so obvious that, as Mark Steyn wrote, “There’s nothin’ holding the joint up.”

When the higher taxes on George Clooney and Jeffrey Katzenberg don’t yield anything, the Democrats will have to come up with something else, which will have to be much higher taxes on the middle class (See Europe).

So let’s stand aside and clear the way for Obama to take us down the road to ruin. He has already shown that he really doesn’t care about no stinkin’ Congress anyway (See his unilateral trashing of the Welfare Law’s work rules and his implementing of the “Dream Act” in spite of Congress’s rejection).

What’s to be gained by drawing the drama out. The sooner Reality becomes apparent, the sooner we can remove the rubble and start to rebuild.

So, Why Did Asians Vote For Obama?


The other day I wrote about the perplexing fact that more than 70% of Asian-Americans voted for Obama. I can understand (somewhat) the mindless century-long Jewish attachment to the Democratic Party (the Democratic Party is the American Jewish religion), but Asians?

I noted that Asians are the prime victims of the liberal Democratic policiy of racial preferences in college and professional school admissions. Quotas are used to keep down the number of Asians as they were used against Jews decades ago.

Yesterday, I came across a New York Times report on a law suit challenging admissions policy for elite New York City high schools:

The complaint, filed with the United States Education Department, seeks to have the policy found in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to change admissions procedures “to something that is nondiscriminatory and fair to all students,” said Damon T. Hewitt, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, one of the groups that filed the complaint.

At issue is the Specialized High School Admissions Test, which is the sole criterion for admission to eight specialized schools that, even in the view of city officials, have been troubled by racial demographics that are out of balance [my emphasis].

Although 70 percent of the city’s public school students are black and Hispanic, a far smaller percentage have scored high enough to receive offers from one of the schools. According to the complaint, 733 of the 12,525 black and Hispanic students who took the exam were offered seats this year. For whites, 1,253 of the 4,101 test takers were offered seats. Of 7,119 Asian students who took the test, 2,490 were offered seats. At Stuyvesant High School, the most sought-after school, 19 blacks were offered seats in a freshman class of 967.

“I refuse to believe there are only 19 brilliant African-Americans in the city; it simply cannot be the case,” Mr. Hewitt said. “It is a shameful practice and it must be changed.”

The test-only rule has existed for decades, as have complaints about its effect on minority enrollment. In May 1971, after officials began thinking about adding other criteria for admission, protests from many parents, mostly white, persuaded the State Legislature to enshrine the rule in state law.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Thursday that the schools were “designed for the best and the brightest” and that he saw no need to change the admissions policy or state law.

“I think that Stuyvesant and these other schools are as fair as fair can be,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “There’s nothing subjective about this. You pass the test, you get the highest score, you get into the school — no matter what your ethnicity, no matter what your economic background is. That’s been the tradition in these schools since they were founded, and it’s going to continue to be.”

A bill introduced in the Assembly last session sought to give the city power over admissions to the schools. But it was not brought to a vote, said Michael Whyland, a spokesman for the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver. “We’ll look at the issue and study it,” Mr. Whyland said. “Of course we want to make sure everyone has equal access to all our schools.”

A city Education Department spokeswoman, Deidrea Miller, said the department “has launched several initiatives to improve diversity.” Those include a free test-preparation course aimed at poor students…

One student at Bronx Science spoke the truth which will probably land him in sensitivity training hell:

“African-American and Hispanic parents don’t always seek out extra help for their kids and their kids don’t score as high,” said Manjit Singh, a senior. “But it’s the same test for everyone, so how can it be discriminatory? If you can’t handle the test, you can’t handle the school, and you’re taking up someone else’s spot.”

What a strange idea: “You get the highest score, you get into the school, no matter… your ethnicity…[or] economic background.” Let’s hope Bloomberg doesn’t go wobbly like he has on the police “stop and frisk” policy that has mainly kept New York, since the 90’s, from descending into a state of nature .

The stereotype about Asians is they care deeply about their children’s success, particularly in education. So again: Why are Asians voting for Obama and the Democrats?

New Boss, Same As The Old Boss

Obama and his “veto pen” surrounded by adoring party hacks.


I don’t like to make predictions because I hate being proven wrong. But I can’t help but climb out on a limb and predict that we are about to witness a process that will lead to the country’s plunge off the “fiscal cliff.”

If you saw Obama’s first post-election public event yesterday, you should be afraid. Billed as a speech about the above mentioned crisis, the setting was clearly a campaign rally with an audience of Democratic Party hacks complete with the usual “diverse” group of adoring party zombies providing the backdrop.

True, Obama avoided the poisonous scorched-earth rhetoric he has been excreting over the past 4 years, but it’s hard not to conclude that he’s teeing the Republicans up to take the fall.

Expect the same strategy and tactics he employed to kill a bargain before the election to be deployed now: He will keep demanding more in tax increases until he reaches the point where the Republicans are faced with an offer they cannot accept. Obama will immediately begin touring the country in campaign mode, blaming the Republicans for throwing the country into the recession everyone has predicted will happen in the absence of an agreement.

In other words, he has already started campaigning for the 2014 midterm election of a Democratic House and a filibuster proof Senate. This is what Paul Krugman urged Obama to do in his most recent column. Was it Stalin who said, “You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette”?

Obama is not a consensus politician like Bill Clinton; he’s a revolutionist. He really does want to obliterate the opposition and transform the country into a European-style, massive government welfare state. And he has the psycho-pathological confidence in his ability to mobilize his Red Guard style supporters to get the job done. Who among his supporters cares if unemployment skyrockets as long as the Chinese subsidized checks keep coming? With more unemployment, he’ll just get more government dependent supporters. And he knows the press will run interference for him.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, I was wondering why CIA Director David Petraeus had to resign merely because he had an extra-marital affair. The reason, we are told, is that someone in such a sensitive national security job may not lead a double life because it exposes him to blackmail which threatens national security.

But isn’t the same true of the President?! Clinton’s mouthpieces argued that he shouldn’t have to resign or be impeached because, after all, the Lewinsky affair was only about sex. I don’t remember any of them bringing up national security and blackmail. Is the Presidency less “sensitive” than CIA Director? I’m only asking.

I considered Clinton to be a lowlife, but I prefer his political pragmatism (remember “triangulation”?) to Obama’s ruthless Alinskyism.

The Best Is Yet To Come


Here’s a sensible election postmortem from the always sensible Mark Steyn in an interview with Hugh Hewitt:

…[Hewitt] But it brings us, the last thing I want to ask you about, eight out of ten millennials, 18-29 year olds who are not white, so you’ve got Asian-American, Latinos, black, eight out of ten voted for Barack Obama. That is a terrible demographic, Mark Steyn.

[Steyn]: Yeah, and I would say what Barack Obama did was quite brilliant. I’ve lived in places where politics is tribal. I’ve lived in Belfast, and in the province of Quebec, you know, in both places you basically have secessionists and loyalists, and people vote tribally. The present Democratic coalition is one based on tribal identity. You vote because you’re a woman, you vote your lady parts as Obama advised them. If you’re black, you vote based on your ethnicity. If you’re lesbian, you vote based on your orientation. The Republican Party asked people to vote as citizens, to say that that is your most important identity. You might be lesbian, you might be Hispanic or whatever, but you’re a citizen, and you vote as a citizen. And I’m very wary of just going down the route of identity group pandering, because I think it’s ultimately destructive of cohesive, it’s the biggest argument in favor of big government, because you say well, we’ve got all these competing identity groups, we’ve got a bunch of Muslims on one side of the street, and then a bunch of gay guys on the other side of the street, and only big government can mediate the competing interest of the fire breathing mullahs and the hedonist gays. And I think you damage the polity going down that path…

And I’ve been wondering how California does it; that is, how do they keep the lights on (at least most of the time) and pay their bills despite being totally broke? I know how the federal government does it – by borrowing from China and printing money, but California, unlike Washington which hasn’t had a budget in years, must “balance” its budget.

Today’s lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal explains how and lists some of bills coming due:

…Lawmakers have been borrowing and deferring debts for the past decade merely to close their annual deficits, and those bills will soon come due. The legislature has raided $4.3 billion from special funds and deferred $10 billion in constitutionally required payments to schools.

The state has also borrowed $10 billion from Uncle Sam to pay for jobless benefits and $313 million this year from the state disability insurance trust fund for debt service on those federal loans. Democrats have proposed replenishing the state’s barren unemployment insurance trust fund by raising payroll taxes on employers. Expect that to happen now.

Then there’s the more than $200 billion in unfunded liabilities the state has accrued for worker retirement benefits, which this year cost taxpayers $6.5 billion. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System says it needs an additional $3.5 billion and $10 billion annually for the next 30 years to amortize its debt.

The state has $73 billion in outstanding bonds for capital projects and $33 billion in voter-authorized bonds that the state hasn’t sold in part because it can’t afford higher debt payments. Unissued bonds include $9.5 billion for a bullet train, which will require $50 billion to $90 billion more to complete. Sacramento will also need more money to support an $11 billion bond to retrofit the state’s water system, which is planned for the 2014 ballot.

So Californians are now the highest taxed people in the country (at least those who pay or can’t avoid taxes), and as Obama said Tuesday night, “The best [read: worst] is yet to come,” now that the Democrats have a legislative “super majority.”

Enjoy.

The Pander Race To Nowhere

They Who Must Be Served


The election is over and the postmortem season has begun. The conventional wisdom is: The Republican Party is doomed unless it panders to the groups the Obama campaign put together to eke out a victory.

The coalition is the young, hip graduates of our left-wing educational system, Hispanics who want us to ignore immigration law, women who believe the taxpayers ought to provide them with free abortions and contraceptives, and other folks who think the system is rigged against them because it doesn’t redistribute to them enough of the fruits of other people’s labor.

When it comes to saying how the Republicans are supposed to attract such voters, the purveyors of conventional wisdom go silent except for the immigration issue, about which many Republicans believe their party should try to out-pander the Democrats.

In other words, let’s reward illegal behavior to win votes; never mind that rewarding illegality always produces more of it.

I think the Republicans should ignore the savants’ advice to go gooey on these issues because, in reality, the Democrats will not be able to satisfy these groups either.The government will not be able to find jobs for Ivy League graduates in women’s studies, nor will it be able to provide work and benefits for the unskilled illegal immigrants who are in this country now, let alone the unskilled immigrants that new liberalized legislation would encourage to come here.

Earth to those celebrating the Obama victory: There is no money to satisfy your demands, raising taxes on “the rich” isn’t going to provide anywhere near enough of it, and the Democrats aren’t going to be able to keep their promises.

Events, not demographics, will determine the political future. Does any rational person believe that Obama’s Iranian policy will stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and will prevent an Israeli attack within the next 6 months? Does anyone really believe that Obama will agree to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in any meaningful way? What will the deficit and debt be next year or the year after or 4 years from now? $18 trillion, $20 trillion?

As Harvard’s Niall Ferguson said a couple of months ago: The choice is between whether we deal with the entitlements or the entitlements deal with us. It now looks like the latter.

Back to the postmortem. I am puzzled by the large number of Asian voters who went for Obama. What has the Democratic Party done for Asians, most of whom are self-employed professionals like physicians and small business people?

More importantly, Asians are the prime victims of the racial discrimination that results from racial quotas in colleges and professional schools. Asians must have much higher grades and test scores than blacks and Hispanics to be admitted to the elite schools. Which party considers racial preference a sacred cow?

And while I know it is upsetting to hear this, no group envies and despises Asians more for their great success in this country than their fellow Democrats in the black community.

In the end, the Democratic Party will go out of business because they will, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, run out of other people’s money to spend on their supporters. It won’t be the wars or Bush or the fundamentalists who wage war on women that get us. No, it will be the entitlements and the absurdly extravagant public employee union benefits and all the other promises the Democrats have made that they haven’t a clue how to keep.

Jews And Abortion


Why are Jews obsessed with abortion?

According to polls (look them up yourself), 90% of Jews describe themselves as “pro-choice.” But what percentage of abortions are performed on Jewish women?: 1.3%.

Talking to Jews, you quickly come to the conclusion that abortion is the primary reason for their cult-like loyalty to the Democratic Party.

Here’s another statistic: The groups with the highest percentage of abortions are “Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women (non-Hispanic black women have almost twice the percentage of their Hispanic sisters).

But more than 77% of blacks believe that abortion is immoral and consider themselves “pro-life.” Interestingly, almost the same percentage consider themselves “pro-choice,” which could mean that either a lot of black folks don’t understand political abortion lingo or they consider abortion immoral, but think people should choose for themselves.

Yet, you rarely see a black or Hispanic activist out promoting abortion or the virtues of Planned Parenthood. In fact, an awful lot of blacks consider abortion a rich, white woman issue, and they consider such appeals made to black women as promoting “genocide.”

A couple of decades ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an unsigned editorial suggesting that the wave of teenage pregnancies could be controlled by the then new birth control drug called Norplant, which was subdermally implanted in the upper arm and effective for 5 years. The two editors responsible for the editorial underwent a full Spanish Inquisition which included attacks from fellow columnists permitted by the then managing editor, hours of sensitivity re-education, and charges of genocidal racism hurled at them by a furious black community.

All of the outrage came from the left. I don’t recall even one Jewish liberal (pretty much a redundancy) coming to the editors’ defense. Not one thought it a good idea to distribute “free” Norplant to anyone, let alone black women.

Why is it that back in the 1950s when women had few choices of birth control, abortion was not a political issue? Does anyone remember Truman, Eisenhower, or Kennedy’s position on “reproductive rights”? No you cannot because none of them had a public position on the issue. Jack Kennedy’s Catholic religion was an issue, but amazingly if you think about it now, no one asked him where he stood on abortion. Yes, he said in his famous address to Protestant ministers that he would not be dictated to by his church on the matter of birth control, but he never said what he actually thought about it, and no one seemed interested in asking.

And then there’s his brother Ted, who was “pro-life” right up until the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade, after which he became the chief mouthpiece for the abortion industry.

Which brings me to why Jews and other Democrats who rarely avail themselves of abortion are nonetheless obsessed with it. Abortion, like race and sexual orientation etc., is a powerful tool in organizing groups for the benefit of the Democratic Party. The civil rights movement, run mostly by religious leaders, used the injustices inflicted on black people for political purposes, and rightly so.

But politicians of other stripes observed the power wielded by the movement and realized they could use the same methods and weapons to mobilize lots of other groups. They particularly noticed that anyone who questioned the tactics of any civil rights leader could be bludgeoned into silence by the charge of racism. Hence was born a slew of isms: sexism, homophobism, ageism…

This is the modern, post-60s Democratic Party: a conglomeration of politically motivated, moral autocrats armed with and ever ready to deploy accusations of bigotry, in service to the Democratic Party.