Comments (0) Maybe Santyana looked into the past to predict the future. Maybe he read that
. . . in the twenty-nice years since the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Americans had already risen in revolt three times, and on each occasion over taxation (A Darn Good History of the United States, 161).
Maybe Congress and the President should read a little history.
Hey, I’m running to Kmart to pick up a Nobel Peace Prize. Want me to pick one up for you?
What I want to know is whether those who say this is racist also say the creators of the blue Obama poster are Communist.
During his 19 years as “America’s Anchorman,” Walter Cronkite ended each of his newscasts on CBS with his trademark, “And that’s the way it is.” We’ve all grown up a bit since then, and what with cable, the Internet, and the blogosphere, we can listen to a lot of alternative voices. For anyone listening, those voices have taught us that wasn’t the way it was then, and it isn’t the way it is today.
No, Cronkite’s was only one view of what was going on then, much like the MSM today gives another, but hardly singular, view of what’s going on today. And that’s the rub because after the most recent election, it’s clear that the MSM’s view is skewered heavily in Barack Obama’s favor, in fact, heavily hardly describes it. And where does that leave us? Without the hope that the three major networks, their cable siblings, and CNN will give us the straight scoop on what’s going on in the Obama administration.
So I ask them–you Chris Matthews and you Katie Couric and you Wolf Blitzer and all or most of your colleagues–was it worth it? Was that tingle that ran up your collective legs and onto the television screen in the recent election a worthy price for your journalistic souls? Does it make up for the loss of your credibility and the trust we’ve placed in your ability to report the facts, no matter where they lead you?
I hope so, because that’s the way it is.
Katie Granju doesn’t believe, neither do I. Either Axelrod or Barack is lying. Maybe a few more–many more?–should say what they’re thinking because this doesn’t pass the smell test.
When President Clinton pardoned “billionaire fugitive” Marc Rich, there was no accompanying video of the sort Sarah Palin’s critics are laughing at as I write this post. But imagine if you can, what that video would look like. Picture Clinton standing in front of a large movie screen as he grants the pardon. On the screen behind him, we see Rich and his partner, Pincus Green, striking deals with Iran, even as American hostages languish in captivity in our embassy in Tehran. We later see them in some smoke-filled back room conniving ways they could screw the Treasury and, by extension, the American people out of millions of tax dollars. Suddenly U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani appears on screen with a grand jury at his side, waving an indictment for all to see. And just as suddenly, we’d see Marc wandering through Geneva’s Les Rues-Bassess, cell phone at his ear.
“Denise, maybe a few donations to the Clinton Library would get his attention. See what you can do.”
“Sounds good. What do you think? A million, $2 million?”
The rest of the conversation is hard to hear because Clinton’s voice grows louder and more firm as he offers up one lame excuse after another for his pardon. “These things usually get handled in civil court,” he claims, “and besides Ehud Barak and Bernard Wolfman and Scooter Libby say Mr. Rich didn’t do . . .” his voice trails off, as Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder appears on the screen. He’s talking to Jack Quinn, Rich’s attorney. We hear him say, “You should go straight to the White House with this. The timing is good.”
On the screen we see words highlighted from a Quinn e-mail. “The greatest danger [to our securing a pardon] lies with the [New York prosecutors],” it says. “I’ve worked them hard and I am hopeful that E. Holder will be helpful to us.”
We then see some more words appear on screen, this time it’s Holder’s words from his assessment of a potential pardon, indicating that he is “neutral to leaning favorable” on a pardon for Rich.
Finally, we get to see Mr. Quinn on screen one more time, this time testifying that Holder called him after the pardon to tell him “good job” and to ask him to think about hiring two former aids, one of whom had already contacted Quinn at Holder’s suggestion.
The video fades to black.
Now, I’ll grant that the video I describe is not nearly as funny–as in “ain’t that Redneck governor funny,” funny–and it’s hard to top a guy in insulated overalls stuffing a turkey into some sort of turkey blender, but you have to admit that my little video would get the blogosphere laughing and talking about how change is good cause we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of either the Bush or the Clinton years. And I mean, can you get much funnier than the irony we see playing out currently, what with Eric Holder being first in line to be the next Attorney General. Now that’s Rich!
As I wrote the other day, Obama is my President. I will not call him Hitler. I will not call him stupid. I will not say he is a fascist. And I will hope and pray for him to do his best for us. That said, I will express my concerns here and again. And here is one of them.
This is a screen shot from Obama’s transition site as it appeared on November 7, 2008 at 19:05:13 GMT that I retrieved from Google cache. Note the words “When you choose to serve” at the beginning of the block quote. Now read the 5th line of the explanation below the block quote: “by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service . . .”
What’s going on here? When have “you choose” and I “require” ever meant the same thing? Words? Just words? Words have meaning, and the moment that you “require” something, my choice goes out the window.
This is not the first time that our President-elect has played with the English language to make a point. Near the end of the recent Presidential campaign, then candidate, now President-elect Obama chided McCain/Palin for calling him a socialist because of his Joe-the-Plumber “spread the wealth” comment. According to Jake Tapper, Obama was stumping for his tax policies the other day and let loose this little gem:
“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this [his desire to spread the wealth] socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
Now, I’m seeing a pattern here. In this case, Obama seems to feel that we become selfless when we involuntarily pay taxes, as opposed to becoming selfless by donating or giving away our hard-earned money. In the case of service, he talks of choosing to serve because that way “you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . for all Americans,” yet instead of allowing us to choose to do that, he’s going to require us to do it.
Apart from his obvious sleight of hand that results in his requiring that we choose or his acting as if mandatory taxes are selfless, there’s a larger point here: You can’t mandate character, so please Mr. President-elect, don’t talk as if character is one of the prizes that comes in your package of promises.
And speaking of character, I had to go to Google cache for that image above because soon after another blogger started talking about that page, someone at Obama HQ airbrushed the word “require” out of the picture. Instead, in the screen shot below, you’ll find the words “by setting a goal.”
We’ll see. As Instapundit points out, this is another pattern we’re seeing with President-elect Obama.
I did not vote for him, and I’m troubled that he comes to the task with so little experience and so many views that I oppose; however, on January 20, 2009, he will become my president, and I will support him. That support will take the form of kudos when he does right, criticism when he does wrong, and prayers that he is protected from harm and granted the wisdom to do the best job possible.
Panorama Theme by 
Themocracy
