He's No Roosevelt

            It is often said that history repeats itself. If this old saw is true, we should search the past for the wisdom necessary to deal with perilous times such as these.

            I have long been an admirer of Winston Churchill, who led the British effort to resist and eventually to defeat Hitler. One of his greatest achievements was to persuade Franklin
Delano Roosevelt to join him in that effort. It is not an exaggeration to say that these two men saved the world.
            A study of the cooperation between these two giants to defeat Nazism can provide useful lessons for us today. The circumstances parallel those of today in a striking yet alarming way.
            In 1940 Britain stood alone among Western European powers against a Germany that had swept all military resistance off the map. In fact, Britain faced imminent invasion itself. But Hitler chose to invade Russia instead. This gave Churchill the time he needed to look to America for the arms and supplies he needed to build up Britain's defenses. FDR found a way to do it, first with the Lend-Lease program and then with a full conversion of America's manufacturing might to the production of weapons of war. Together, Churchill and Roosevelt prevailed.
            Today, Israel is surrounded by Islamists who seek its annihilation. It desperately needs the backing of the United States to fend off Iran and the fanatic Islamists rising to power on all sides. But can Israel count on us?  
            It is clear to me that President Obama, unlike Roosevelt, is not willing to give Israel America's full support. Should regional conflicts erupt into all-out war, I doubt that Obama will deploy America's arsenal in defense of Israel. The signs are all there.
            In the four years of his presidency, Obama has cultivated a friendship with Islam, but not with Israel. He traveled extensively throughout the Middle East on his apology tour during which he praised Islam, signaled his support for Muslim causes, and bowed to the Saudi king. But, during his entire presidency he has not visited Israel,  his number one ally. Not even once. Further, every meeting with Premier Netanyahu had been contentious and frosty, to say the least. When Netanyahu requested a face to face meeting with Obama when he came to the United Nations in late September, Obama told him he was too busy. Not too busy, of course, for fundraisers and for appearances on David Letterman and The View. This has not escaped the notice of Islamists.           
            If anything, Obama's policies of leading from behind in Libya and non-intervention in Syria have emboldened jihadists and America haters everywhere, as we have seen on the anniversary of 9/11. Our enemies know they have nothing to fear from a weak America. Meanwhile, this administration if falling all over itself to apologize for hurting Islam's feelings. As the caskets of four dead Americans slain in Benghazi are laid to rest, and American flags are being burned across the Muslim world, Obama minimizes these events as "bumps in the road."
            How will our Islam-loving president characterize Iranian missiles raining down on Tel Aviv? More "bumps in the road"?
            A beleaguered Netanyahu may remind us of Churchill. But as Muslims around the world desecrate our flag, stone our embassies, and kill our representatives,  President Obama's weakness and lack of resolve tell us that he most certainly is no Roosevelt.          

Platform Follies

            Former President Bill Clinton gave a masterful speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte on September 5th. Once again he showed that he has no equal in political oratory, although I couldn't help recalling that the finger he wagged at us throughout the speech was the same finger he wagged when he denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Be that as it may, his persuasive arguments in favor of President Obama's reelection made us believe that the President's multiple failures were actually successes. There was no fault to be found in a dismal economic record, intractable unemployment, and a $16 trillion debt.

            Clinton needed to revive the fractious atmosphere on the convention floor after the embarrassing vote on the Democratic platform. First, Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa failed after three tries to secure a two-thirds voice vote to approve the platform. Then he brazenly lied and declared the vote passed, producing a chorus of boos from the delegates. That's when President Obama stepped in.
            The issues in contention were dual exclusions from the platform. The first was the absence of any mention of God, which was an affront to people of faith, especially black Baptist ministers. The second was failing to affirm Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which angered Jewish voters and other firm supporters of Israel.
            So what did Obama do? He forced the platform committee to put God and Jerusalem back into the party platform. His aides scurried to explain that Obama had been unaware of the original platform omissions, that they did not reflect Obama's real positions, and that they were the result of some kind of technical glitch. All lies.
            We know that Obama is not a religious person in the traditional sense. Oh, he has strong beliefs. He believes that government is the only god, the source of all goodness, and he is its anointed Messiah. People no longer need the God of religion... except maybe Allah, of course..
            On that score, we know that Obama is a Muslim. In spite of all his efforts to prevent the TV replay of speeches in which he professes his Muslim faith, he cannot prevent the Internet from doing so. We know of his support for a Palestinian state, for his coziness with the Muslim Brotherhood, and his weakness in support of Israel. I could go on.
            The point here is that President Obama's positions do not mirror those of the American people. He has taken minority positions on abortion, on same sex marriage, on religious freedom, on energy, on health care, on small businesses, on taxes, on job-destroying regulations, on government spending, on the Middle East, and on and on.
            When the platform committee came back with a revised proposal to include God and Jerusalem, it was greeted with boos from the anti-Semites and the secular wing of the party, thus showing that the President's policy of divisiveness is dividing his own party. 
            What does all this prove? Obama cannot pander to all minorities and win.             

"You didn't build that."

            Vice-President Biden may hold the record for the most verbal gaffes uttered during this electioneering season, but President Obama may have given us the one that will last forever.

            "You didn't build that." This putdown of entrepreneurs is etched in stone. In a country whose fabulous success derives principally from individuals who built their own businesses with their ideas and their sweat, Obama's insult reveals not only his lack of understanding of the free enterprise system, but also his socialist belief in government as the solution to our problems.
            Americans think otherwise. As Ronald Reagan put it, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem."
            Obama's failure  to appreciate  American determination and ingenuity reminds me of  foolish statements by other people who lacked the vision to see beyond their noses. Here are some of my favorites:

            "Man will never reach the moon, regardless of all future scientific advances." __ Dr. Lee DeForest, radio pioneer.

            "There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." __ Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923.

            "The telephone has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." __ Western Union memo, 1896

            "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." __ Lord Kelvin, 1895.

            "Everything that can be invented has been invented." __ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner of Patents, 1899.

            "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." Ken Olsen, DEC Corp., 1977.

            "I don't know what use anyone could find for a machine that would make copies of documents. It certainly couldn't be a feasible business by itself." __ the head of IBM, rejecting the idea put forth by the founder of Xerox.

            "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C,' the idea must be feasible." __Yale University professor grading Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service (Smith went on to found Federal Express).

            "We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." __ Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

            "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value." __ David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings to invest in the radio in the 1920s.

            "A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." Response to Mrs. Fields' idea.

            Cookies, anyone?

Fundamental Change

            What scares me the most about a second term for President Obama is the very real possibility that our Constitution will be shredded permanently.

            I don't know why Congress has not objected more vociferously to the Obama executive orders that violate established laws. And I don't understand why this is not a major campaign issue.
            Exhibit One: No Child Left Behind. Obama waived provisions of the law that he didn't like, effectively making enforcement of this law arbitrary.
            Exhibit Two: Obamacare. The president waived certain requirements of the law for hundreds of favored businesses and groups, especially labor unions.
            Exhibit Three: Immigration. Having been rebuffed in his attempt to grant amnesty to illegals,  Obama created a new class of illegal immigrants who could stay in this country legally and permanently.
            Exhibit Four: Welfare. President Obama decided that the law's work requirement no longer applied to recipients of welfare. You can sit on the couch for as long as you like.
            One might argue that taken individually none of the executive orders are calamitous. But taken together they point to a fundamental change in the way we govern ourselves. In the words of Thomas Sowell, "When a President can ignore plain language of duly passed laws, and substitute his own executive orders, we no longer have 'a government of laws and not of men' but a President ruling by decree, like the dictator in some banana republic." Indeed, we would no longer be a free people who choose the laws we want to live under.
            Why is the next election so important? Because the next president will probably appoint two Supreme Court justices. A 5-4 liberal majority would no doubt rule that Obama has the constitutional right to circumvent any law through executive order. And that would be the end of the fundamental principle underlying the balance of power in our three co-equal branches of government. Congress would be toothless, and Obama would become the dictator he has always aspired to be.
            In my view, Barack Obama is committing an impeachable offense by systematically and repeatedly violating his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws passed, and not just the ones he agrees with. Yet, Congress remains quiet, oblivious to the pain of having its teeth pulled one by one.
            Candidate Obama did promise us a fundamental change, didn't he? Well, here it is.

           

Lies and More Lies

            Is it any wonder people keep the media in such low esteem. The announcement of Paul Ryan as Romney's choice was met with an immediate trashing by TV pundits and newspaper editorials. Now, I don't mind others having a position on issues. What I do mind is parroting outrageous lies without questioning their veracity.

            Exhibit One: My daily paper, The Virginian-Pilot wasted no time in publishing a Herblock cartoon portraying Paul Ryan as a person who would end Medicare.
            Exhibit Two: On 8/16 it published a vicious slander from the pen of longtime leftist icon Maureen Dodd of the New York Times. After slicing and dicing Ryan with her acerbic tongue, she concludes in her inimitable fashion, "Ryan should stop being so lovable. People who intend to hurt other people should wipe the smile off their faces." How gifted is Ms. Dowd in being able to divine another person's malevolent intentions!
            Exhibit Three: A short letter to the editor from a Virginia Beach moron who declared his decision to vote for Obama because "Ryan wants to cut all entitlements for the middle class and elderly, including Social Security and Medicare." This is the kind of guy who would have drunk Jim Jones's Kool-Aid, no questions asked.
            Why do people buy into the outrageous lies spewing from Obama's campaign headquarters? On Medicare alone, any person with an ounce of critical thinking would know by now that Ryan's plan would preserve Medicare as is for anyone 55 and over and that Obama's plan would take over $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. But repeat lies loudly and often enough and some people will swallow them whole.
            Because he cannot run on his record of failure, the only strategy left to Obama is a smear campaign  featuring  lies accusing Romney of being a felon, not paying income taxes, poisoning children, murdering women, and now, according to Vice-President Biden, putting blacks back in chains. These reckless, unsubstantiated accusations are McCarthyism at its worst, and none of them have been repudiated by the president. To update South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt's question at the McCarthy hearings:
            Have you no sense of decency, Mr. President?

I Remember

            Obituaries on August 14 celebrated the lives of two people I knew and admired.

            The first was Johnny Pesky, the veritable icon of the Boston Red Sox. I started following the Red Sox in 1948 when Pesky was the Sox third baseman and continued admiring him as he became coach, manager, and all-around ambassador for the team he loved. After admiring him for sixty plus years, I felt I knew him. I especially remember the time the Red Sox were staying in Detroit's Pontchartrain Hotel, as I was, and Pesky was entertaining a group of younger players in the lobby with stories of Ted Williams and Bobby Doerr and the glory days of the 40s and 50's. I stood and listened in awe. He was a truly special baseball man and an even better person. He will be missed.
            The other was Helen Gurley Brown who revolutionized women's magazines during her years as editor of Cosmopolitan Magazine. I knew Helen personally while working for Hearst Magazines in the 70s. Even though she was a fabulous success and a great star in the magazine world, she was a lovely person who cared for and appreciated every person around her. I was one of those people.
            One morning in 1970 Kate MIllett and a band of feminist extremists moved in and occupied Helen's office at the corner of 57th Street and Broadway in protest of an article in Cosmopolitan they had found offensive. Hearst Magazines President Dick Deems burst into my office and asked me and a co-worker to get over to Helen's office to take control of the situation. My colleague went up to her office, but I stayed outside the building's entrance, because Deems had said that Helen had not arrived yet and, for her safety, should not be allowed upstairs.
            Sure enough, I caught sight of her heading in my direction along 57th Street. I hurried over to her, swung her around, and told her she shouldn't go to her office because of the occupiers. While I was explaining the situation to her, we realized we were being followed closely by a rather large woman who had been posted at the building's entrance, ostensibly watching for Helen as I had been. Reacting to the threat, Helen took us into a building on the corner of 57th and 7th Avenue where, she said, she knew the people at the MCI radio station on the third floor. The tail followed us into the elevator and stood behind us as we rode up.
            The elevator doors opened to MCI's floor, and Helen walked out into a mass of people, including several New York City police officers. I found out later that the police were there to provide protection for a Saudi prince who was being interviewed on radio. Perfect. I blocked  the tail to prevent her from following Helen. The doors closed. Helen was safe, and the threat fizzled.
            The next day Helen's secretary came to my office with a package for me. In it was a bottle of wine and a note. It said, "To my favorite bodyguard. Helen." She had not forgotten.
            Neither have I.

Maine Cuts Medicaid

            Some news items just don't seem to get the coverage they deserve. At the very bottom of page 2 in the 8/2/12 edition of the Wall Street Journal was a short piece by Christopher Weaver that really grabbed my attention. In it, Weaver says that the state of Maine has moved to strip about 30,000  Medicaid patients from its state-run health program.

            That is stunning news. It seems that the Supreme Court's June ruling on Medicaid might have released states from the law's ban on striking current Medicaid enrollees. The article suggests that other states have taken notice and are planning similar cuts.
            Why is this big news? Because one of the reasons Medicaid has become such a budget buster is that its rolls are inflated with hundreds of thousands of recipients who shouldn't be there. We're not talking about removing the safety net for children or the indigent. Nobody is arguing for them to be bumped off the rolls. On the other hand, Maine is targeting some people, for example, who earn up to 133% of the poverty line. That's just about $30,000 a year for a family of four. Should the safety net really be meant for them?
            There's more. Under Obamacare, an estimated 30 million people who  claim they can't afford medical insurance would be added to the Medicaid rolls. And that's in addition to the ones already on Medicaid. Remember when  Obama promised that costs wouldn't go up? It's no wonder states are refusing to take them on.
            Maine's move is being challenged, of course, by Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services. The nanny of HHS, like her boss, has no interest in seeing a reduction in the number of people who are dependent on the government.
            Heck. Adding another trillion or two to the federal deficit is no problem... Just as long as the people who are happy being slaves to the government continue to vote.