August 22, 2014

Unlike ‘Mission Accomplished,’ Press Barely Mentions Obama’s ‘JV Team’ Ridicule of ISIS

The press never let George W. Bush forget about that “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln after Saddam Hussein was overthrown and his government’s military was routed in Iraq. They often pretend that Bush said it, or adopted it. He did no such thing, saying only that “Our mission continues.”

So while the press has come close to making a claim Bush 43 never made an article of faith, it is virtually ignoring something current U.S. President Barack Obama actually said, namely that, concerning ISIS, “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” Kristina Wong at the Hill is a rare exception. She reminded readers of what Obama said in January as she reported Thursday on how the nation’s defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely disagree (bolds are mine):

(more…)

August 17, 2014

Nixon’s Resignation, 40 Years On

From a tough standard to no standards.

_____________________________________

This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

_____________________________________

Friday, August 8 marked the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon’s resignation announcement. He resigned the next day.

I saw and remember that speech.

As a college student in a hurry to get out, I was taking summer classes at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio (the real Miami, not that latter-day interloper in Florida). Living off-campus in a sweltering second-floor dump posing as an apartment, I headed over many evenings to the one male dorm which remained open for its cooler temps, beckoning piano, and working TV.

Most evenings, I was typically the only person in the dorm’s common area. Not that night. Perhaps twenty students were there. The heckling and hollering in which I eagerly participated was fierce.

I thought back to Nixon’s reelection in 1972. After Nixon crushed George McGovern, perhaps a dozen bitter, unhinged Miami students paraded around campus, screaming at the top of their lungs in anger at the outcome well into the wee hours of the morning. I went past them during a late-evening jog, thankful that I could probably outrun them if they set their sights on me.

Wherever they were almost two years later, they must have been beside themselves with glee. My perspective was relief that just desserts had been delivered to a man who had betrayed his nation.

Though not a particular fan of Tricky Dick — a take which my late mother later shared, when she informed me that 1972 was the only time she couldn’t bring herself to cast a presidential vote — I nonetheless understood that this clearly shady guy was far better than what we would have had to endure with McGovern.

I was also fully aware that the press had been at war with the onetime ardent anti-communist Nixon for over a quarter-century, going back to his exposure of Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy and his 1952 Checkers speech.

They thought he was gone for good after two stinging electoral defeats. The first was his “loss” in the 1960 presidential contest to John F. Kennedy; Nixon bowed out gracefully on election night rather than spend months pursuing clear electoral improprieties which arguably erroneously swung the election to JFK. The second was the California governor’s race in 1962, after which he declared, “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around any more.”

The press and the left thought they had marginalized conservatism and even the Republican Party forever when Barry Goldwater lost to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. They were furious that Dick Nixon could get past them — recall that until the advent of cable TV and talk radio, roughly a dozen media entities had virtually ironclad control over deciding what was news in the U.S. — and rise from the ashes of political oblivion to the presidency in 1968. They were absolutely beside themselves when he trounced McGovern four years later.

As president, Nixon did not govern as a conservative. His administration did as much as any to inflict the scourge of racial quotas and affirmative action on the nation. He imposed wage and price controls, which, as Milton Friedman accurately warned, would end in “utter failure and the emergence into the open of the suppressed inflation.” He opened relations with Red China, which four decades later is now this nation’s largest foreign creditor and is still working on destroying us.

The June 1972 “third-rate burglary” known as the Watergate break-in by people associated with the Committee to Re-elect the President — or CREEP, perhaps the dumbest self-inflicted acronym ever — ultimately exposed Nixon’s overarching paranoia. He was aware of at least some of the shenanigans of his underlings before the 1972 election, and he subsequently engaged in reckless behavior in covering up that knowledge after that.

Whether what Nixon did rose to the level of deserving impeachment is another matter.

The articles drawn up by the House Judiciary Committee seemed compelling enough at the time. But the conduct described is tame compared to what was seen during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and compared to what we’re seeing now from Barack Obama.

Significantly, each of the three articles against Nixon refers to the presidential oath of office with this language:

… in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed …

In other words, the House’s impending impeachment in 1974 was primarily predicated on the idea that violating one’s oath of office in and of itself meets the threshold of a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” whether or not the specific offending actions described in the articles themselves do. If that’s the basis for impeachment, Nixon earned it, and deserved to be thrown out of office if he hadn’t resigned. That said, though the articles describe some actions which are crimes, many are not, and that Nixon committed any of them was never proven at the courtroom level.

If violating the oath of office is supposed to be the primary benchmark, it is beyond dispute that William Jefferson Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives in December 1998 was earned. Further, that impeachment effort was supported by crimes Clinton obviously committed. He made “perjurious, false and misleading testimony” to a grand jury; he made perjurious statements in writing and in deposition testimony in the Paula Jones case; and he encouraged witnesses to give false testimony in sworn affidavits and testimony. All of these crimes were committed in court-related proceedings or in preparation for them.

The country is now paying dearly for the Senate’s 1999 failure to carry out its duty to convict Clinton. Completely opposing the standard to which Nixon was about to be held in 1974, it proved not only that violating one’s oath of office isn’t enough to get you thrown out on your ear, but also that committing brazen crimes won’t even cause that to occur – especially if your political views align with those in the leftist establishment.

No wonder Obama, his administration, particularly his “Justice” Department, and his regulatory army believe they’re untouchable.

August 15, 2014

Latest PJ Media Column (‘Nixon’s Resignation, 40 Years On’) Is Up

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Sunday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

August 14, 2014

Politico Pity Party: Obama Is on a ‘Vacation From Hell’

Does anyone remember a media report expressing sympathy for former President George W. Bush when adverse events happened during his Crawford, Texas “vacations”? (Given that he and Laura lived there, calling a visit to your place back home hardly seems to qualify as some kind of “vacation”)

Well, this evening, Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown took pity on President Obama for his “vacation from hell.” Excerpts follow the jump.

(more…)

August 13, 2014

Publisher Rejects Fellow Soldiers’ Book on Bowe Bergdahl, Because ‘the Right’ Might Use It

Remember all those books that the publishing houses rejected during the eight years before Dear Leader took office because they might get used by “the Left” to hurt George W. Bush? No you don’t, because it didn’t happen.

But now, things are different. Fellow soldiers of released 5-year Taliban captive Bowe Bergdahl are trying to publish a book on their side of the “he was a deserter” controversy. A divison of publishing giant Simon & Schuster has rejected their submission. That isn’t necessarily unusual, but the contents of a rejection letter from one of the publisher’s representatives certainly is.

(more…)

August 12, 2014

Thank You, David Horowitz: ‘Obama Deliberately’ Lost ‘The War in Iraq’

Ex-hard leftist Horowitz understands how the far left thinks, and nails it at National Review:

Obama’s Treachery and Republican Silence
When will they stop pretending this is a normal presidency?

Barack Obama deliberately set out to lose the war in Iraq, and he did. He defied the advice of his joint chiefs of staff to secure America’s formidable military presence and keep 20,000 troops in country, and left Iraq to its own devices and the tender mercies of Iran. In doing so, he betrayed every American and Iraqi who gave his life to create a free Iraq and keep it out of the clutches of the terrorists.

Iraq is now a war zone dominated by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State, whose rise Obama’s policies fostered.

As to his question concerning when Republicans, i.e., the Republican establishment, will “stop pretending this is a normal presidency,” they’ve had six years to see it, and, with far too few exceptions, are still treating the Obama presidency as part of the normal ebb and flow of politics. It’s not.

FLASHBACK 1:

  • Jan. 25, 2009 — “The hope is that Barack Obama won’t bungle his way into losing what George Bush and the US military won.”

In hindsight, it really wasn’t a “bungle.” As Horowitz asserted, Obama deliberately lost.

I underestimated Obama.

FLASHBACK 2:

  • August 19, 2009 — “Remember, this war is this administration’s and this Congress’s to lose, because the Bush 43 administration won it — twice.”

So sad, so true. With the majority of the country in ISIS/ISIL control, it has been lost — and, barring a philosiphical and tactical sea change, it’s going to take a different U.S. president to get it back, if anyone ever can.

August 9, 2014

Press Mostly Ignoring Feinstein’s Warning That ISIS Wants ‘To Attack Us in Our Backyard’

Yesterday, Roll Call and The Hill both relayed Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s call, in Roll Call’s words, “for a broader military campaign against ISIL, not just the targeted missions authorized by the president.” She believes it is needed because “It has become clear that ISIL is recruiting fighters in Western countries … and possibly returning them to European and American cities to attack us in our backyard.”

Searches at their web sites indicate that the Associated Press and New York Times have not reported Feinstein’s stark warning, which directly contradicts the President’s January ridicule of ISIL/ISIS as the equivalent of junior varsity basketball players. At the Politico, in a worry-wart piece on “Obama’s liberal problem,” Seung Min Kim and Jeremy Herb shamefully omitted Feinstein’s “in our backyard” warning — while covering the rest of what she said.

(more…)

July 23, 2014

Press Ignores General Amos’s Criticism of U.S.’s Poor ‘Leadership’ and Inadequate ‘Courage’

It has been eight days since Marine Corps Commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member General James Amos spoke out against the current lack-of-leadership climate in Washington.

Specifically, in a question-and-answer session at the Brookings Institution on July 15 (PDF transcript here), Amos noted how badly the situation in Iraq has deteriorated since U.S. troops’ departure in 2010, and questioned whether it would have happened if there had been “the right leadership, the right mentoring, the right government and courage” in place. This was a de facto callout of the Obama administration for failing to consolidate and secure the victory achieved in 2008. If this kind of criticism occurred during a Republican or conservative administration, it would be front-page news. Instead, a Google News search on “Amos Iraq” (not in quotes) returns roughly 10 relevant items, and the Associated Press has nothing relevant. The video and a transcript of Megyn Kelly’s related interview of Oliver North Monday evening follow the jump (HT to a longtime emailer):

(more…)

July 22, 2014

Politico’s Simon: Perry Sending National Guard to Border ‘To Shoot Small Children’

Roger Simon “joined Politico as its first chief political columnist” in 2006. A couple of items on his resume include being “the only person to win twice the American Society of Newspaper Editors Distinguished Writing Award for commentary,” and a 2013 National Press Club humor-related award. Judges for that award said that “Simon’s writing is witty, specific and based on sharp observations of politics and the media.”

Perhaps, but at least one of his recent tweets is bitter, loony-tunes leftist rubbish. Proving once again that it only takes a slight scratch beneath the surface of a supposedly mainstream liberal journalist to find a hardened, vitriolic radical who hates (yes, that’s the correct word) those who dare to disagree with him or her just screaming to come out, Simon tweeted the following in response to news that Texas Governor Rick Perry is calling up 1,000 National Guardsman to serve at his state’s border with Mexico (HT RedState):

(more…)

July 20, 2014

D’Souza’s Next Film

“America” was great, but he needs a follow-up.

___________________________

This column went up at PJ Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Friday.

___________________________

Sunday evening, I ventured to a local theater to see Dinesh D’Souza’s America: Imagine the World Without Her.

It is an outstanding effort by a man who clearly loves his country and is deeply concerned that everything unique about it is slipping away — to the detriment of the entire world.

D’Souza correctly calls out and identifies the pieces of an orchestrated, five-front attack by those who wish to remake these United States. To do so, they must first convince enough of us to disregard and denigrate this nation’s accomplishments and its exceptional and unprecedented contributions to human well-being and dignity. That campaign, much of it embodied in Howard Zinn’s execrable textbook, A People’s History of the United States: 1492 to Present, a publication scandalously used in thousands of schools, is an attempt to shame each and every one of us into stifling our patriotic instincts, forgetting our national pride, and memory-holing any positive elements of this country’s founding. D’Souza correctly notes that liberty’s enemies cannot accomplish their desired transformation without tearing down what is already present.

The following, while no substitute for seeing the movie, summarizes the five themes of the left’s attack. The rebuttals which follow are largely D’Souza’s, but some are mine — so you’ll have to go to the movie to see which is which.

We stole much of our land from the Indians. As seen in the title of Zinn’s book, the revisionists’ narrative goes back to Christopher Columbus — which is pathetic, given that Christopher Columbus never landed in the U.S. More substantively, Indian tribes were continually remaking the U.S. map by conquering and either driving out or enslaving other tribes — but our doing so, which did not involve genocide or enslavement, was apparently the only malign enterprise.

What horse manure. D’Souza notes that the Sioux have turned down a $1 billion reparations offer because they will settle for nothing less than getting “their” areas of the Upper Midwest back. Somehow, we’re supposed to ignore the fact that they took that land from other tribes. The Indians, like virtually the entire rest of the world, subscribed to the “conquest ethic.” The U.S. was among the first, if not the first, nation on earth not to automatically impose colonialism, tyranny or worse on those it defeated in war.

We stole half of Mexico. Actually, we conquered Mexico, gave half of it back, and made American citizens of everyone living in the American Southwest — something the conquest ethic-driven Mexicans under Santa Ana would never have dreamed of doing had they somehow turned the tables.

Slavery stole the labor and lives of Africans. Slavery is indeed this country’s original sin. But our Founders, who knew that they could not have formed a full union at the time of the Constitution’s adoption unless they allowed the practice to continue, nevertheless sowed the seeds for its destruction in the nation’s founding documents. No less than Frederick Douglas declared that the Constitution was hostile to slavery.

The abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, capitalized on this disconnect when they sensed that the nation’s moral compass could be moved. It was, but not until a horrible, four-year war — a war D’Souza says is the “first time in history” a war was fought to end slavery — took the lives of over 300,000 Union and over 200,000 Confederate soldiers. My opinion: The impossible task of “reparations,” if ever undertaken, would have to include payments to those who whose relatives died to end slavery, or it would be objectively unjust.

Our military adventures have been about plundering the world for its resources. For starters, if that were so, there would be no Japan Inc., Korean corporate giants like Samsung (MacArthur had to retake almost all of what is now South Korea, which had been lost to Communist troops), or independent German corporations. We would have taken those countries over and run their industries ourselves. Today, Iraq’s oil would exclusively be our province. None of this is the case.

Until Vietnam, when a left-dominated U.S. Congress deliberately chose to abandon before it could become self-sufficient and self-defending, the best thing that could happen to any country in the long run was to lose a war with or be successfully defended by the U.S.

Capitalism is theft. The left seems to understand that much of this core argument no longer works. That’s because capitalism obviously creates wealth where none formerly existed — it apparently required high-tech liberals to prove this obvious point beyond doubt — and continues to lift people out of subsistence-level lives around the world at an astonishing rate. Their backstop is the ”you didn’t build that” argument made by the likes of President Barack Obama and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. D’Souza reasonably asks, when businesses and their owners flourish, if they end up getting more in public benefits than those who don’t own or never built businesses. The answer, unless they engage in the cronyism game, is obviously “no.” So why should they be expected to hand over even more than the wildly disproportionate share they provide to fund public services?

D’Souza then moves to recent political history, particularly chronicling the influence of Saul “Rules For Radicals” (with an admiring nod to Lucifer) Alinsky. I wonder how many left-leaners might begin to question their beliefs if they realized that many of the strategies Alinsky developed arose from his acknowledged first-hand observations of the inner workings of the murderous Chicago mob?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are indisputably disciples of Alinsky. Obama’s allegiance is plainly seen in his governance. Thus far, Hillary’s has been primarily visible in her college thesis, which proposed taking Alinsky to a new level. Then-Ms. Rodham believed that instead of radicals toiling as perpetual outsiders trying to coerce governments to do what they believe they should do, radicals needed to become the government.

Though I understand the limitations of time, this is where D’Souza fell down a bit. A friend who has seen the movie noted, and I agree, that many people leaving America will believe that “restoration,” D’Souza’s one-word theme for what genuine reform-minded Americans should be focusing on in the coming years, will be far more likely if Obama is somehow prevented from doing critical damage in his final years in office, and a Democrat, be it Mrs. Clinton or Lizzie Warren or anyone else, fails to win the White House in 2016. At best, that only slightly improves the odds.

In case anyone has missed it, a significant portion of the federal government’s bloated bureaucracy, whose interests have historically been job preservation and perpetuation, now sees its primary mission as carrying out the Alinsky agenda from within. Thousands of apparatchiks with the mindsets of Lois Lerner, Tom Perez, and Al Aremendariz pervade this government. There are no meaningful checks and balances on their actions and dictates. There never will be unless a massive downsizing of their size and influence takes place.

Recognizing current and future political dangers is important, and America does a great job of that. But it’s far from enough. We need a way out of the regulatory tyranny we see flexing its muscles virtually on a daily basis — and we need someone like D’Souza’s to cinematically expose its ugliness and suggest solutions.

July 18, 2014

Latest PJ Media Column (‘D’Souza’s Next Film’) Is Up

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Sunday morning (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.

July 13, 2014

Salon Author: Let’s Make Google, Amazon and Facebook ‘Public Utilities’

Richard (RJ) Eskow, ”a writer, consultant, and Senior Fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future,” is a certified “respectable” lefty. So as much as the idea which follows may seem laughable, it shouldn’t be dismissed as the unhinged rant of someone with no influence engaging in some isolated “thought experiment” which isn’t shared by others in leftyland.

Eskow, in a Tuesday column at Salon, advocated regulating Internet titans Google, Amazon and Facebook as “public utilities.” His justification is that they “define our lives,” they’re “close to monopolies,” and besides, employing a breezy myth still held by many in the press, “Big Tech was created with publicly developed technology.” Read on (the headline overstates Eskow’s position; bolds are mine):

(more…)

July 12, 2014

Postivity: Iraqi Veteran’s Home Remodeled For Him While He Was Away

Filed under: Positivity,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 6:00 am

From SUISUN CITY, California (HT Daryn Kagan):

From mid-June, 2014

There was a homecoming in Suisun City on Tuesday. The family moving in came from the military. They arrived home in a limousine. And having moved so many times before they said this is it, no more, they’re done. But there was a twist to this story.

It was not just a twist, but a surprise. The surprise began with flags adorning the lawn and home. Marine Corps Master Sgt. Jacinto Bernardo wasn’t expecting the flags when he got home, but it was very appropriate considering he spent 21 years in the Marine Corp. Another surprise was the condition of the house when he returned home.

He didn’t want a limo and he never expected the media. After a long trip home from his posting in Okinawa, all that newly retired Sgt. Jacinto Bernardo wanted was an In-N-Out burger.

“We did it for you brother, alright?” said Sgt. Bernardo’s friend, Jeremy Epperson. “We did it for you.”

The newly retired veteran was speechless while looking at a home that was completely upgraded from the one he and his family bought in Januray, and had expected to see.

“We chose it because it was the only thing we can afford, sir,” said his wife, Julie Bernardo.

Sgt. Bernardo added, “I knew it would take a lot of time and a lot of effort and money.”

And it did, but not by him. Instead thank Epperson, his old boot camp and Marine pal, who took one look at the place and deemed that no retiring Marine should return to such a mess.

He rounded up volunteers, money, and put $70,000 worth of work into the house as part of a program he’s calling Homecoming Heroes.

Go here for the rest of othe story.

July 11, 2014

Chuck Hagel Must Resign

Filed under: National Security,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 2:14 pm

No Secretary of Defense with a conscience would allow this.

From the New York Post:

In a stunning display of callousness, the Defense Department has announced that thousands of soldiers — many serving as commanding officers in Afghanistan — will be notified in the coming weeks that their service to the country is no longer needed.

Last week, more than 1,100 Army captains — the men and women who know best how to fight this enemy because they have experienced multiple deployments — were told they’ll be retired from the Army.

While they’re still in harm’s way, these soldiers now have to worry about how they’ll feed their families once they return.

The honorable thing to do would be to give them the requisite 60-90 days’ notice when they return.

But from here, it looks like the Pentagon is saving money by starting that clock while soldiers are still on the battlefield.

Imagine the blowback if Bush 43 had done this, which of course he never would have thought of doing.

Chuck Hagel must resign — Even if he somehow didn’t know about it. If he won’t do so voluntarily, President Obama must demand his resignation and get it — or fire him, now. If he doesn’t, the presumption has to be that Obama is fine with treating combat troops this way.

July 8, 2014

Do You Agree, Brian? Williams Says Shevardnadze ‘Admitted That Too Much Democracy Was a Bad Thing’

On Monday evening’s NBC Nightly News, host Brian Williams used a perhaps revealing verb to describe a belief held by former Soviet foreign minister and Georgian president Eduard Shevardnadze, who died on Monday at 86.

It would be good to look back and learn how Shevardnadze came to say what he said a decade ago before getting to how Williams framed it. As reported in Doug Martin’s obituary at the New York Times (bolds are mine throughout this post):

(more…)