Mr. Netanyahu, tear down those settlements !
Random Thots may owe Barack Obama an apology, and maybe not. It is possible he has a habit of putting his feet on our desk when talking to foreign heads of state. Or maybe his father was just not into teaching him manners.
If we need to apologize, so does Haaretz. It’s a good photo. All it lacks is a cigar.
Bob B
For facts and graphs that will blow you away (the HuffPo will probably charge me with inciting violence with that cliché) you have to go to A Goy and His Blog. Here is but a sample of his work. This Goy has done a great service. Paul Ryan move over, here comes the Goy.
I apologize for the size, but you can click it to enlarge. My webmaster is a lazy cat named Loosey and, like the government , is no help at all.
There is much more on this blog site. Do not fail to take a look.
Bob B
Rules for Radicals is the book written by Saul Alinsky, the man who Chris Matthews referred to as “one of our heroes”. Random Thots has just published a review of Rules for Radicals which you can access at the Book Reviews sidebar on our Homepage. What follows here is commentary on factors surrounding the book. Go to the review if you wish to read about the book itself.
Alinsky has been called the founder of modern community organizing. He set up activist organizations and trained their members to follow his methods. The man and his work are pertinent today because Alinsky played a significant part in the early lives of our current President and our current Secretary of State.
No one, including Saul Alinsky himself, would dispute that he was a radical. He reveled in it. His teachings were aimed at how best to bring down a government, in this case the United States government, to pave the way for a Marxist replacement. We have good reason to explore the fascination Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had with Saul Alinsky
In some circles much is made of the fact the three were Chicago centric. So was Milton Friedman, it’s irrelevant. Hillary Clinton chose Saul Alinsky as the subject of her thesis at Wellesley College. That could be interesting. When the Clinton clan aspired to move from the Ozarks to DC, Hillary Clinton asked Wellesley to secure her thesis from public access. Wellesley complied, though no such request had ever been honored before.
But you can read the actual thesis here, courtesy of Random Thots. Read through it if you wish. There is nothing in it that merits condemnation. Miss Rodham’s interest in Alinsky’s work was academic, a fascination with a significant figure within the sphere of what she foresaw as her future. Alinsky was aware of her study and offered her a job. Hillary turned him down.
By the time young Obama was recognized as worthy of a leadership role Saul had died. But those carrying on his work invited Barack to join them, and he accepted. It was before his time at Harvard. Obama underwent training with the Industrial Areas Foundation, an organization Alinsky founded in 1940, and which carries on his legacy today. Thus began the community organizing that Obama so often quoted as a qualifying factor in his quest for the Presidency.
ACORN has been referred to as a spawn of Alinsky. I have found no direct connection between ACORN and Alinsky, however as Charlotte Allen reported in The Weekly Standard “ACORN’s founders certainly had Alinsky’s principles in mind when they founded the organization in 1970”.
When you put all we know about Obama together, his embracing of Marxist Liberation Theology, launching his political career from the home of William Ayers, siding with the Socialists in matters involving Argentina and Honduras, quasi nationalization of members of the automotive and financial industries, and a hell-bent-for-leather drive to expand government, one could reasonably assume Obama is a true believer.
That also seems to be the conclusion of T David Alinsky, son of Saul. In September of 2008 The Canada Free Press reported:
In Artful Dodger style, Barack Obama, plays down his mentorship with Communist author Saul Alinsky. But Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, credits Obama for “learning his lesson well” from the Communist guru.
Indeed, Alinsky Jr. who credits his late father for the success of last week’s Democratic National Convention may have done something that Obama’s detractors couldn’t: blown the cover on the presidential hopeful’s communist leanings.
Says Alinsky’s son L. David Alinsky of his father’s influence at the Dem Convention: “ALL the elements were present: the individual stories told by real people of their situation and hardships, the packed-to-the rafters crowd, the crowd’s chanting of key phrases and names, the action on the spot of texting and phoning to show instant support and commitment to jump into the political battle, the rallying selections of music, the setting of the agenda by the power people.”
“The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style, the Communist guru’s son wrote in a letter published yesterday in the Boston Globe.
Reading Rules for Radicals will provide the reader with greater understanding of Obama’s methods and insight into what his goals may or may not be, essential knowledge every voter should have.
With a sad face, Charles Krauthammer declared, “we are witnessing an historic moment” with the passage of this health care bill which “will not be repealed.” Charles realizes, as did many among the thousands that rallied in Washington, that this is less about health care than it is about power over the people through expansion of government.
If indeed this is the tipping point it appears to be, the change will be felt around the world. For if America becomes socialist brethren with Russia who will be the umbrella for the smaller nations of Eastern Europe? If America’s leaders are kindred in fiscal philosophy with the leaders of other Socialist nations what happens to the prosperity that supports our international generosity?
We have taken the first step on the left path at the fork in the road. As has been said, Democracies demise is knocking on the door when 51% of voters realize they can vote largess for themselves. We are there.
Abraham Lincoln closed his Gettysburg Address with a dedication to the hope “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Well, Abe, you got 146 years and 4 months. Never in the history of this great nation has one party worked so hard, so deviously, and so corruptly to enact legislation counter to the will of the governed as the Democratic party has done with the passage of the Obama/Pelosi health care bill.
Bob B
From Paul Ryan
President Obama said in December: “If we don’t pass [this health care legislation]…the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are (sic) unsustainable….” On first hearing, this argument sounds ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in the first decade alone? On the other hand, if the president means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive rationing of health care.”
ACORN is The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It is the embodiment of the teachings of Saul Alinsky. A review of Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicalswill be published here at Random Thots early next week. In the video here, Barack Obama, once a community organizer himself, assures members of ACORN that his agenda as President will be shaped by their input.
The Obama Campaign Fund gave $800,000 to ACORN. This is money that came from a broad spectrum of contributors specifically to support the election of Barack Obama. A portion of these funds were then redistributed to the activist group ACORN. So spread-the-wealth actually started before the election.
Bob B
The New York Times Online has a regular feature called “The Idea of the Day”. The idea for Feb 17th was that capitalism causes neuroticism. The idea was centered on a study printed in a publication by the name of “Eurozine”, based in Germany. Here are some excerpts.
“There is good reason to assert the existence, […] of a new type of capitalism, neuro-capitalism”
“…what links capitalism with neuroscience is not so much strict regulation as a complex system of systemic flaws. Repressive late nineteenth-century capitalism, with its exploitive moral dictates, proscriptions and social injustices, was a breeding ground for the neurosis diagnosed by scientists in the early twentieth century as a spiritual epidemic.
The article is long and your time is valuable, so I will spare you from the rest of it, except the conclusion. It is too entertaining to miss.
“The psychologically relevant question of how the self will relate to a mood-enhanced, more capable version of itself is rendered irrelevant by the fact that the requirements of the new capitalist reality make an individual improvement of this kind appear a highly desirable option. Indeed, as a consumer and commodity value appropriate to capitalism, it has already been in currency for some time. Alongside globalisation – the capitalist rationalisation of space and time – we are witnessing the epistemic and technical rationalisation of the neural foundations of the self, or what Walker Percy called the abstraction of the self from itself”
Now, dear reader, if you consider yourself a capitalist, and if you understand what the authors have just said in this their summary and conclusion, then I must consider their premise may be valid after all.
Or perhaps you think our nations leading newspaper is just putting us on. It’s true, the item is ridiculous to the point of being funny, but I am afraid they are serious. Lest you doubt me I offer this, another sample from the “Idea of the Day” feature. It was submitted by a reader and published immediately following Obama’s election.
The free market did I embrace,
Derivations and hedges took place,
Now I’m short on my cash
I’m feeling the crash,
The redness, it shows on my face.
— Thank God America is now Socialist.
We have a tough row to hoe to reclaim America. I am writing a blog. It is not much, but it is my best. What are you doing?
Bob B
Posted in Political philosophy, Political polemics
Tagged New York Times, Obama, socialism
Michael Medved has written an excellent column entitled Reconciliation: Disdain For The Public, Disregard For Democracy. Here are some excerpts.
The legislative tactic known as “reconciliation” uses a soothing word to mask an ugly reality. Far from the dictionary definition of “restoring to friendship and harmony,” the Congressional term “reconciliation” suggests the spurning of cooperation and the brute use of partisan power. Worst of all, in the case of Obamacare, it also involves a dangerous, destructive violation of democratic principle.
The original idea of reconciliation, first employed in 1980, involved desperate efforts during the Carter era to bring the exploding federal deficit under control –a goal embraced by both political parties. [It was intended only for] budgetary and tax policy adjustments designed to produce spending and taxation levels in line with previously declared Congressional goals. The attempt to use reconciliation to jam through Obamacare represents a drastic and dangerous departure from original intent.
More important, it violates democratic principles at the very heart of the idea first articulated in the Declaration of Independence – that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In what sense do the “governed” consent to Obama’s health care take-over – when every national survey, and the avalanche of constituent communication with Congress, indicate impassioned and overwhelming opposition to the so-called reforms? The most recent Rasmussen Survey shows that independent, unaffiliated voters – the same voters who placed Obama in the White House – oppose his health care proposals by a margin of 64% to 32%.
The President and his allies assure nervous Democrats in Congress that the public will readily embrace the new legislation once they’re presented by a fait accompli —promising that even though the majority hates the reforms now, the public will ultimately learn to love it. This obnoxious attitude expresses the very essence of liberal elitism: the idea that enlightened policy-makers know best, and that the great unwashed will eventually appreciate the fact that their betters imposed changes that were ultimately good for them.
Well said, Michael
PART II
Obama says the costs of health care are too high. In that, he is correct. The reasons he gives are, doctors are dishonest, insurance companies seek profits and there is administrative waste in the system. Rubbish. Dishonest politicians may be the problem but dishonest doctors are not. And does he think unprofitable insurance companies will pay out more benefits than profitable ones? Everyone is for eliminating waste. No one has ever succeeded. Obama has said he can cool the planet, so perhaps he, as no one before him could, can eliminate waste. Just do it Barack, no new law required.
I love this country, but I do have a big gripe. We are the most litigious nation on earth. Ask a surgeon how much he nets for each procedure and how much he has to pay per procedure, to protect his life from destruction by tort lawyers. One gall bladder specialist told me, insurance is two thirds of the cost of a gall bladder operation. A study by the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) found medical malpractice premiums to have risen 2000% since 1975. That is 4 times the inflation rate. In another study cited by the MMS, 93% of doctors in Pennsylvania acknowledged practicing CYA medicine. I guess the other 7% wouldn’t admit it. The MMS study reported that 25% of medical procedures are ordered for litigation protection, having no medical justification.
Obama and the Democrats have steadfastly rejected efforts to address tort reform. The two largest special interest groups that lobby and financially support Democratic politicians are unions and the tort law community. Measured by campaign contributions, the tort law community is the larger of the two. There is no plausible reason for denying medical tort reform other than the corrupting influence of this arm of the legal community. A good many fine gynecologist felt compelled to leave their practices as the result of one lawyer who made a fortune and a reputation suing members of their specialty. Thousands of women, perhaps tens of thousands had medically inadvisable Caesarean section deliveries purely as a consequence of this lawyers’ successes in court. The lawyer is John Edwards, one time candidate for President on the Democratic ticket.
to be continued, Part III Foreign Policy
Bob B
One of the things Obama said when presenting his budget proposal was “Our government is so deeply in debt after what can only be described as a decade of profligacy.” and “We have to address the failure that led to [this crisis], and that includes the failure to rein in spending.” and “It would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children’s future to pay our way today.”
With these very words he proposes to dramatically increase spending and raise the debt our children must pay. The audacity of the man! Has he always thought we were fools or did he just conclude so when we elected him President?
The American people know the quality of our health care has no peer. We also see what is wrong with our health care system. It is too costly, too complex and so burdened with lawsuits that some doctors are leaving their practices. Those that remain find it necessary to prescribe tests dictated by tort law and not medical need. Obama proposes a plan that fixes none of the problems, adds to the cost, threatens the quality and increases the power of government over the people.
The American people don’t want it. Obama knows they don’t want it. The Democrats know they don’t want it. But the people be damned, Obama wants it, and he is willing to throw even some Democrats under the bus to get government run health care imposed on the people.
Obama’s goal is single payer healthcare. Single payer, just one payer – the government. He who pays has control. He who is the only payer has total control. When speaking to friendly audiences Obama has stated clearly and on the record that single payer is the goal. It may take time, he says, we may not be able to do it in one step. Just as clearly, when speaking to general audiences he denies that it is the goal. To whom is this man lying, to the unions and ACORN, or to the people? It has to be one or the other.
To be continued
Bob B
RANDOM THOTS 