Liberal Media Spin On Boehner & The GOP As Government Shutdown Looms

Throughout last night and all today, liberal media and even some more moderate outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal, have been crowing about the House GOP's risks, should there be a government shutdown this week.

The continuing theme, as prominently pounded on by CNBC's "Red" John Harwood, and seconded by Harry Reid, is that Boehner & Co. are trapped between Tea Party supporters and the fear of being blamed for any such shutdown.

Wonderboy got into the act yesterday, telling some lies and claiming that a measly $30B of spending cuts is sufficient, so any problems ensuing from the lack of another continuing resolution belong to Republicans. The funniest thing was hearing the First Rookie hypothesize about the disappointment and fiscal damage a family might suffer if they had planned a vacation to a national park. He was grasping at straws to try to imagine what costs might be involved, because he's obviously never done something like that. And at this time of the year, not too many families with young children are traveling, because school is in session.

Take a step back, though, and the Democrats, to me, seem to be in serious trouble. Even Fox News pollster Frank Luntz explained the other evening that Paul Ryan's 2012 budget strikes exactly the right tone with independents concerning excessive government spending. Wonderboy, Reid et.al. are trying to pretend the big deal is whether the federal government endures a partial shutdown for a few weeks.

Everybody outside of Washington sees spending out of control, with no end in sight. The thought of American taxpayers saving a few shekels by having the federal machinery shuttered is no bad thing.

I know it boils down to the question of whether Republicans should extract as much as possible in spending cuts with each small step in the budget process, or risk being blamed for a shutdown while going for more.

But this isn't 1995 or 1996. And Boehner is not Gingrich. Neither is Paul Ryan. This isn't about personalities, egos, or showing anyone who's boss. It's about some principled conservative GOP Congressmen providing spine-stiffening support to otherwise-moderates like Boehner and his older colleagues, to finally get serious about attacking federal spending and deficits.

Sixteen years ago, nobody quoted how much of every federal dollar spent was borrowed from China. Now, we all know it's 40 cents.

That's a huge difference that liberal media pundits just don't get.

Frisco Nan & Steny On Spending Cuts

Frisco Nan's press conference earlier this week displaying her attitude toward any budget cuts was instructive.

Looking shocked and incredulous, she blurted that Paul Ryan's recommended 2011 cuts would affect some tens of millions of dollars for meals delivered to old people. Nan was outraged, claiming this just couldn't be allowed to occur.

It's truly laughable. You'd think that there is really no spending cut Nan could accept. And I think that's actually true.

Then Steny Hoyer was on CNBC yesterday morning spouting his canned lines whenever a budget cut is under debate.

Sputtering unconvincingly, the silver-haired hack began to rant about how Republican tax cuts of trillions of dollars for the wealthy, combined with spending cuts, would drive the economy into another 'worst since Hoover' recession. This was vented with a straight face, as if Hoyer genuinely has forgotten the 25% spending increase in 2009 that the Democratic Congress built in over 2008. Or the largest peacetime surge in spending under Wonderboy during the recent Congressional session.

What's lamentable is that neither Frisco Nan nor her former aide, Hoyer, is capable of saying something along  these lines,

'We agree that, given the current debt and deficit levels, and the strengthening economy, spending can be carefully reduced. Nobody could seriously believe that spending can only be increased, never cut. But we have to carefully assess how to cut so as to cause the least pain and suffering among our poorest citizens.'

I know, it's still pretty nauseating. But this sort of statement would probably seem reasonable to gullible mainstream liberals, and maybe even fool some independents.

But, thankfully, it's just not in Frisco Nan, Steny or Harry Reid to be reasonable. They really believe that spending just has to go up- all the time. Regardless of contexts.

Perhaps the best line was one I heard yesterday attributed to Reid. He apparently complained that he wasn't about to just let the Tea Party determine the federal budget.

Well, look at it this way. If you think the Tea Party had a major influence on last Novemember's elections, then Harry's really out of touch, isn't he? Because if the Tea Party sentiment is as broad as it seems to be, and Reid ignores it, the Democrats will probably lose a few more House seats, and maybe the Senate, in 2012, regardless of what happens to Wonderboy.

Bernard Lewis On The Mideast, Nukes & The End of Days

A recent Glenn Beck program, about which I wrote here, was brought to mind as I read the last paragraphs of this past weekend's Wall Street Journal interview with Bernard Lewis. Lewis is described as among the most authoritative Western scholars on the Arab world.

Writing about nuclear weapons in Islamist hands, the article stated,

"But the mullahs "are religious fanatics with an apocalyptic mindset. In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, there is an end-of-times scenario- and they think it's beginning or has already begun." So "mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent- it's an inducement." "

Scary stuff, isn't it? It completely reinforces Beck's contentions regarding what the Iranians see in the current turbulence in the Mideast.

Curious Reactions To Donald Trump's Interest In The Presidency

As the practical deadline for a presidential campaign nears, Donald Trump is stepping up his public appearances on the topic. Last week he was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, the edited portions of which spanned three evenings on The Factor, O'Reilly's evening program.

Certainly Trump makes waves with his unvarnished opinions and promises of actions, should he be elected president.

But one thing surprises me. So far, all the on-air pundits seem to give Trump a pass, calling him a successful businessman, according him a stipulated track record that qualifies him to be the nation's Chief Executive.

But consider the facts. For example, here's one cite of Trump's company's three- count 'em- bankruptcies.

Yes, Trump's corporate persona has filed for bankruptcy three times. Is that success?

I don't recall, for example, Mort Zuckerman filing for bankruptcy. He also owns US News&World Report.

When I think of Trump, I don't really think of a businessman. I think of a self-promoting real estate developer. Someone who has gambled on economic booms and interest rates, thus requiring court-protected reorganizations over the past few decades.

Moreover, his aggressive, in your face style of negotiation is hardly what major nation diplomacy is about. It may sound tough to say you'll tell the Arab's not to set so high a price on oil. But, unfortunately for The Donald, his economic IQ is deficient in this arena. Oil prices are set via markets. That's not to say that suppliers can't manage their inventories or production. But it's not like OPEC has iron control over oil prices anymore.

If Trump's major claim for being qualified to run for president is his business record, I don't think he has much to show. It's surprising to me that, with his explicit show of interest in running, no major media outlet seems to have done a basic investigation into his business dealings.

I doubt Trump's candidacy, should he decide to run, would survive such a focused examination.

Marco Rubio On The Debt Ceiling

Florida's newly-elected Senator, Marco Rubio, wrote an editorial in last Wednesday's Wall Street Journal explaining Why (He) Won't Vote to Raise the Debt Limit.

There's been a lot of ink spilled by the left on this issue. As I wrote this post on Friday morning, CNBC's political reporter, 'Red' John Harwood, breathlessly explained, after a clip of Indiana Republican Representative Mike Pence, that it looked like the Tea Party-controlled GOP legislators were going to shut down the federal government and imperil the country's credit rating, the economy, peace on earth, etc. In short, the world balances on whether some GOP members of Congress hold fast to demand Democratic agreement to some reasonable spending cuts of only tens of billions, for now.

Treasury Secretary Geithner has been proclaiming that not raising the debt ceiling means defaulting on US obligations, which, of course, is simply untrue. If Tim really believes that, then he's just not smart enough to hold his cabinet position.

Wonderboy's folks even corralled banking crony Jamie Dimon, CEO of Chase, to declare that it was just crazy talk not to raise the debt limit. Good ol' Jamie. Give him a few regulatory breaks and let him visit the Oval office, and he's good for whatever propaganda and scare talk you need from him.

Fact is, though, Rubio and his colleagues who are against raising the debt limit are, I believe, correct this time.

As Rubio notes in his Journal piece, Wonderboy and the Democrats are offering a 2012 budget with a ten-year spending level of $46 trillion. You'd think in this time of serious deficits and excessive spending, the federal government could manage a balanced budget for 2012? No, it can't even do that.

This is Rubio's point. There's no seriousness on the part of Democrats to do anything about spending. They won't discuss any significant cuts. Rubio wrote,

"....instead of simply raising the debt limit, we should reassure job creators by setting a firm statutory cap on our public debt-to-GDP ratio.

Some say we will go into default if we don't increase the debt limit. But if we simply raise it once again, without a real plan to bring spending under control and get our economy growing, America faces the very real danger of a catastrophic economic crisis."

He also notes that in 2006, Senator Wonderboy voted against raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion, saying at the time,

"Raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure."

Hmm. What's that saying about goose...gander.....well, you get the point.

Having attended a couple of Tea Party events in the past two years, I'm not encouraged by the GOP rolling over on this one. I don't think anyone wants a government shutdown. But if our Congressional branch can't direct Treasury in how to prioritize payments while getting spending reduced in order to either meet the debt limit or credibly nudge it up temporarily, then we're lost on a much larger scale than simply the debt limit.

I guess we'll all see how this develops later this week, won't we?

The Rest of Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory

I wrote this post yesterday concerning Glenn Beck's recent programs on the Mideast. Last night, Beck finished his series of three programs focusing on an alternative theory of recent Mideast developments, beginning with Hosni Mubarak's overthrow.

As a good presenter does, Beck began by recapping the highlights of the prior programs dealing with the issue. In doing so, he mentioned an important point I had forgotten to note in yesterday's post. Cass Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, had written a book back in 2005 arguing for military intervention when subgroups of populations were at risk. According to Beck, the UN jumped on this, as did George Soros. Wonderboy hired her as a foreign policy adviser, thus providing an early link to Soros.

Beck contends that the real reason behind the broad adoption of Power's work by the "one-worlders" was to use it against Israel whenever it was deemed to be endangering the Palestinians. However, it became a convenient tool to use selectively against dictators in the Mideast.

I had also forgotten that Beck had already presented convincing evidence that Libya's strongman, Quadafi, had retained Cass Sunstein and George Soros to rehabilitate his image in the US. Also involved was the purchase of a graduate degree for the ruler's son, which became embarrassing for Soros, who funded it, when it became known that the work leading to the degree was plagiarized.

Meanwhile, Beck added the piece of information which he believes was the spark that allowed Soros & Co. to help destabilize Egypt. Mubarak's regime was planning to raise the price of the commonly-used cooking fuel, butane, which would have created a public backlash among the poor in Egypt. Thus, Beck alleges, Soros, Sunstein, Power and, thus, Wonderboy's administration began agitating for more 'democracy,' knowing that the regime was already courting trouble with its contemplated fuel price increase.

The missing piece, as you read this, would logically be,

'Why would Wonderboy and his associates, such as Soros, want to destabilize Egypt?'

Here's where the conspiracy part gets, well, you know, weird, like most conspiracy theories eventually do. It doesn't mean they can't be right. But it does mean you have to make a leap, usually involving some particularly insidious and unpleasant motives.

Beck believes, fundamentally, based upon a ton of written and video evidence which I've personally seen on his programs, that Soros, Sunstein, Ayers, Wonderboy, et.al., are enthusiastic proponents of the 'one world order' view. They also aren't particularly enthralled with Israel, either.

According to this theory, they want to push the US off the world stage as an exceptional, well-intentioned superpower, transitioning to world government of a more multilateral nature, especially led by the UN.

This is why you see the video clips of Ayers and Soros calling for world participation in the election of the US president. It also fits with Wonderboy's notable lack of leadership in the Libyan situation.

Again, according to Beck, whatever destabilizes the current world order which allows US leadership and power is a good thing, to these people. Thus, destabilizing the region which provides most of the world's oil is desirable for this group. Including Wonderboy.

Last night, Beck threw one more ingredient into the mix. It's a theme from other programs- the Twelfth Imam. I won't try to explain any of this myself. For starters, here's a low-rent entry-level Wiki on the twelfth Imam. If you Google the term 'twelfth imam,' you'll get plenty of material from which to choose.

Assuming you've read a little of that background, here's the rest of Beck's theory.

On last night's program, he had an anonymous CIA agent who had infiltrated Iran's government ranks. Needless to say, name, appearance and voice were all masked. He confirmed that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believes that the twelfth Imam's arrival is imminent. He and his ilk take this very seriously. Associated with his appearance is the coming of the Mahdi, and the return of Islam to Jerusalem. The whole process involves tremendous chaos and indiscriminate bloodletting.

Beck hit upon a rather common theme in American and even world politics, i.e., soft-headed, single-minded liberals getting into bed with zealots of either another political stripe or, worse, a religion. In this case, it's the latter. He contends that Wonderboy, Soros, et. al., don't understand, much less care about the beliefs of the Islamists that their own new world order may be at hand. The secular Westerners see the Islamists as convenient agents to assist in deposing the US as the world's dominant power, heedless of the much more focused, religiously-inspired agenda which our various Islamist enemies possess.

In Beck's view, our Western liberals are "playing with fire," unaware that, in the end, it is likely they who are being manipulated by the Islamists, not the other way around.

So that's basically the larger view of Beck's conspiracy theory.

I know, it sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, and then some. It takes some time to absorb it all and consider the implications.

However, I will observe this. Since the 1920s, America's and Europe's liberals and socialists have been, and are, famous for turning a blind eye to Communism's faults and crimes against humanity, the better to overthrow capitalism. How many soft-headed American liberal democrats and socialists found common cause with communists, thinking that the added horsepower of the latter group would be useful, to be cast aside when the goal of deposing the Constitutional Republic in the US, or, at least, capitalism, was achieved?

Progressives are guilty of the same sin, in my view. So, in that sense, Beck's thesis isn't at crazy at all. It would be a reprise of a theme we've seen several times in the last hundred years.

Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory Regarding Israel, Egypt, Soros & Wonderboy

I'm not typically an avid conspiracy theory fan. So I was sceptical of Glenn Beck's recent program last week which explored how the US, seemingly with the coaxing of George Soros' various institutes, foundations and sympathetic colleagues in the current administration, ended up on the sidelines while Libya's rebels attempted, successfully, at first, to overthrow Quadafi. Beck's point was that, if you cared to follow a trail of evidence, Soros and his minions had managed to loosely ally themselves with the dictator.

Last night, Beck presented his case for Soros and his allies, including administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein and his wife, Samantha, Bill Ayres and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, the former 1960s SDS radicals and Wonderboy pals, having discussed and agitated for 'democracy' in Egypt as recently as last November.

I can't do justice to Beck's case here, but I must say, it was very convincing. He connected a lot of dots, so to speak, most of which involved either Soros' funding of activities and publications pushing to destabilize Egypt, and seemingly coordinated efforts within the administration, led by Sunstein's wife, partially funded by Soros.

Beck's point, which was fairly-well made, is that Wonderboy, who already was clearly, at best, apathetic toward Israel, has either deliberately, or by allowing himself to be manipulated, helped to isolate Israel amidst a torrent of North African regime changes which could result in more stridently Islamist nations.

I know it sounds a bit over the top. But there are some background stories against which Beck's thesis plays which lend it some credence. Soros has called openly for Fox News to be muzzled. Meanwhile, none of the liberal network media, nor print, such as the New York Times, will follow up or otherwise touch the bulk of Fox News' stories on these topics. Beck's monologues on these topics are typically lavishly supported with web links, physical copies of books and other publications, as well as video clips. It's not as if Beck simply stands there expounding without any evidence.

It's very creepy to see videos of Soros, then, separately, Dorhn and Ayres all calling enthusiastically for worldwide voting in American presidential elections. And it's troubling to see Beck present evidence that Soros and his cronies are pushing for support of Islamist organizations that are either involved with, or advocating, policies and torturous actions which would be criticized in the US, were these activities fully understood.

As I wrote in the opening of this post, conspiracy theories make me uncomfortable. But this one actually makes a lot of sense. And the administration isn't responding to Beck's contentions, while Soros simply counterattacks Rupert Murdoch. Hardly the sorts of reasoned, positive explanations which give one comfort.