In the April 5th 2012 Wall Street Journal,  writer Daniel Henninger gave readers a salient excerpt of the mandate section of BIG BRObama’s Hell-th Care bill, also known as “ACA.”

    The ACA calls the act of purchasing insurance a “required contribution.” Naturally, many will wonder if they can get out of this. That depends on the meaning of “required contribution,” as defined in “Chapter 48—Maintenance of Minimum Essential Coverage, (e) Exemptions, (B) Required contributions:

“For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘required contribution’ means . . .: (ii) in the case of an individual eligible only to purchase minimum essential coverage described in subsection (f)(1)(C), the annual premium for the lowest cost bronze plan available in the individual market through the Exchange in the State in the rating area in which the individual resides (without regard to whether the individual purchased a qualified health plan though the Exchange), reduced by the amount of the credit allowable under section 36B for the taxable year (determined as if the individual was covered by a qualified health plan offered through the Exchange for the entire taxable year).”

My emphasis above.

So, where is the VERB for “the annual premium,” which would seem to be the subject of the verbiage following it?  If it is supposed to be “reduced,” that is disallowed because of the “by” clause following it.  “Reduced” seems therefore to be an adjective, but what is it modifying?  The last noun is “Exchange” but how can that be “reduced” ?  Perhaps they mean “is reduced” or “will be” reduced?

And note the lack of the subjunctive in the parenthesis!

One interpreter has claimed that “reduced” might modify premium” but admits that, with so many intervening nouns, it is impossible to say for certain.

Professor William Jacobson of Cornell University has published essays about he has taken sections of “ACA” (i.e. the Hell-thCare Bill) to see if they make sense.  He quotes from p. 780 of the bill:

    (3)(A) The portion of the amounts expended for medical assistance for services described in section 1902(a)(13)(C) furnished on or after January 1, 2010, that is attributable to the amount by which the minimum payment rate required under such section (or, by application, section 1932(f)) exceeds the payment rate applicable to such services under the State plan as of June 16, 2009.

My emphasis.

“Portion” has no verb!  Or does it?  If “exceeds” is the verb for “portion,” does it really mean therefore that the portion is expected to exceed rates from June 16, 2009?  Why would it say that?

Professor Jacobson also quotes another section chosen at random by (appropriately) throwing darts at the thing:

     Section 1171 goes to provide another cost-sharing provision by amending subsection (B)(ii) by adding the following:

‘‘(ii) PERMITTING USE OF FLAT COPAYMENT OR PER DIEM RATE.—Nothing in clause (i) shall be construed as prohibiting a Medicare Advantage plan from using a flat copayment or per diem rate, in lieu of the cost-sharing that would be imposed under part A or B, so long as the amount of the cost-sharing imposed does not exceed the amount of the cost-sharing that would be imposed under the respective part if the individual were not enrolled in a plan under this part.’’

Are you having fun reading this?  I’m not.  This is a tough slog through mind-numbing verbiage which accomplishes limits on cost-sharing, but does not reveal the implications of such cost sharing limitations for people who prefer alternatives to traditional Medicare.  Might this have the effect of eliminating the alternatives to traditional Medicare because of the limitations on cost-sharing? Am I paranoid, or correct, or both?

I would say “Unknown.”  Here is the problem: by using the subjunctive in a contrary-to-fact condition, the paragraph assumes that every individual in America is – in fact – “enrolled in a plan under this part.”  But that is not true!!!  In a contrary-to-fact condition, one assumes the opposite of the truth, to show a potential result, which however cannot occur.  The paragraph, because it takes something that is NOT a fact, and then turns it on its head, makes no sense.

Example: assume that the sun is shining.  I come up to you and say: “If the sun were shining, we could play baseball.”  You can only assume that I am demented, because I have assumed that the sun is not shining, and that we cannot play baseball.  If, however, I say: “If the sun were not shining, we could not play baseball” then all is fine!  (Contrary to fact: Fact I – the sun is shining, Fact II – we are playing baseball.)

See Professor Jacobson’s blog for this and other such examples of vagueness, if not incomprehensibility, taken at random from the “ACA”:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/08/throwing-darts-at-hr3200-day-1/

And from Wikipedia on the unconstitutionality of vague laws:

In the case of vagueness, a statute might be considered void on constitutional grounds. Specifically, roots of the void for vagueness extend into the two due process clauses, one in the fifth and one in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. The courts have generally determined that vague laws deprive citizens of their rights without fair process, thus violating due process.

The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made in Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) by Justice Sutherland:

“

[T]he terms of a penal statute [...] must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

Allow me to emphasize that last part:

…and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness

San Francisco Town Clown Nancy Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill, so we can find out what’s in it.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Really? The Founding Fathers weep at such a statement, as should we all, at the stupid arrogance and contempt for Law that it contains.
 

It is happening again: the Left takes an incident that can match their distorted views of  AmeriKKKa and push it on a daily basis to foment outrage and sympathy for their distorted views.

The Left has taken the Trayvon Martin case in Florida and pumped it into a myth symbolizing – in their opinion – “everything that is wrong with America.”  Protest rallies thousands of miles away across the country make the news, even though the facts of the case are still under investigation.  The “MainStream Media” of course joins in most willingly.

Conservatives also have an incident which they could run with and give outraged speeches about at protest rallies, an incident affecting not just American security, but that of our allies in Europe and elsewhere, namely the whispered assurances by the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that the Russians just need to be patient until after November, and America can be more easily disarmed.

As of March 31, 2012, a search of Google News shows well over 35,000 hits for “Trayvon Martin.”

For “Obama Open Mic” one receives barely 1,000, with most 3 days old.

Allow me to pose therefore a series of questions:

Should not every American be appalled, whether of the Left or the Right by BIG BRObama’s “secret” admission of his future intentions?  (It seems that the reaction in Poland contained more outrage than in D.C.)

Should there not be daily protests in front of the White House demanding MAObama’s resignation?  Or at least one his patented kowtowing apologies, except that this time it would be to the American people and our allies?

Should not Republicans be hitting this topic every day in the House, Senate, and in the various presidential campaigns?

Or am I wrong?  Is BIG BRObama’s statement, which will be delivered “to Vladimir,” really nothing to worry about?  Was it just an easily mocked “gaffe” and ultimately meaningless?

Should we really just send the whole thing down the Orwellian Memory Hole?

To be fair, the “MainStream Media” is of course nothing of the sort: it is truly the LeftStream Media.  As a result, it is quite possible that such protests and speeches would be ignored.  One recalls e.g. Glenn Beck’s 2010 rally, which was pooh-poohed and ignored by the major networks, even though hundreds of thousands showed up to “restore honor” to the country.

It seems that the individualistic nature of Conservatives often works against us: I will admit myself that I do not like to join things, and that I do not “play well with others.”  We also of course tend to concentrate our energies on useful and productive activities, rather than picketing unindicted people’s houses and giving speeches based on fantasies.

And yet, I fear we ought to be learning from the Left that repetition of a claim – even if  the claim is false – tends to make that claim seem true and correct in people’s minds.  Allow me to remind everyone of Vice-President Cheney’s biggest regret from his 8 years with George W. Bush: their decision not to bother countering the constant repetition of lies and distortions made daily by the Left.

Should not the Truth, along with the basic, logical concepts of good government established in 1776, be supported and repeated at least as often as the lies and political fantasies of the Left?

Looking at the cloudy crystal ball of the future known as “American children and their parents,” I offer now a primer on the possibility that our future may be doomed to become a Leftist future, given what too many parents – wittingly or unwittingly – are teaching their children in word and by example.

The following guidelines have been deduced from the last 20 years of observing parents and children at various private and public schools of various economic levels, as well as at the playgrounds and malls and family gatherings, and go beyond just my experiences, but include items from other teachers and assorted professionals from throughout the country.  Obviously I will still not claim any kind of scientific accuracy behind the observations: and yet, when one hears so many similar stories from parents and teachers at conventions throughout the country throughout so many years, when one reads so many similar stories in so many sources, it does make one wonder how widespread the following tendencies are.

And so…

Starting as early as possible, do not let your children experience ANYTHING negative!  Fuss and flutter and hover around them constantly, placing pillows at the end of the slide, assuming that the slide is not TOO HIGH to begin with, and be sure to say: “BE CAREFUL!” so much that your children become risk-averse and want to just sit in front of a nice safe video-screen.

NEVER let your children, when they are old enough (9, 10, 11…),  go to a playground alone, or play outside alone, or meet with a group of other unsupervised, unparented kids to organize a baseball game.  Make sure that the only time they play sports is with a gang of screaming immature adults lining the field and acting like idiots over a muffed ground ball or a fumble in football or, worst of all, over anything in a soccer game.  This will guarantee that they cannot deal with issues on their own and need to be told what to do by some authority!

Make sure that they are told all the time that they are all winners even when the truth is painfully obvious.  Tell them that the other side cheated, or that the referees and umpires are morons.  Tell them that you will file protests with whomever and try to change the outcome.  Criticize the volunteer coaches or managers as the ones responsible for the losses, and claim that they play favorites:  tell your children they are the best players on the team, but because of unfair favoritism among the coaches or managers they did not have a chance!  The deck was stacked against them!

Also important: show absolutely no personal discipline!  e.g. Be sure to pack on the pounds as the years go by, as you grow to become 80 pounds or more overweight.  Drink to excess, smoke the funny or the unfunny weeds, throw the first wife or the first husband away because you “have fallen out of love,” meaning that you were too stupid and selfish and undisciplined  to avoid that affair.  The children of divorce are always well-adjusted!

Buy things you cannot really afford!  Live in a too expensive house, drive a too expensive car, buy so many things that the garage is stuffed with stuff and you need to rent a “storage facility” to handle all the overflowing extras.

Show no discipline in what you do for your children: go overboard on everything!  Spend hundreds of dollars on each child at Christmas, buy them phones when they are 5, and computers at 7, complete with Internet hook-up, so that they can find out about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Licentiousness at an early age. 

Reinforce the idea that they are entitled to all sorts of things without having to work for it!  Do not have them do chores around the house for a small wage: and if you do attempt to have them work for an allowance, give in to their whining when they want more than they deserve.  When they fail to do what they agreed to do, sigh and do the job yourself, because you got tired of nagging them.  Be the first to give into their power plays, and then hand them money whenever they ask for it without any conditions!

Accompany them to R-rated slasher movies when they are in the Seventh Grade, because you got tired of them whining about it, and anyway, at least it is nothing pornographic.  Speaking of whining, let your 10-12-year old daughters dress like street-walkers, because you cannot say No, and anyway, you do not want your daughters to be be considered Amish pariahs.  For the boys, buy those $150. gym shoes and sign the waiver for the tattoo: you do NOT want to be the uncool Dad with a loser son!  Indulge them because they really do deserve it, and it is just easier!

Stay unchurched or unsynagogued or whatever, or even better: drop your kids off at Sunday school or even send them to a religious school, but do not bother actually practicing your religion and entering a church more than twice a year, so that the left-wing sneering about religious people being hypocrites will seem true!

When they are teenagers under 18, tell them you will buy them beer or wine for parties you will sponsor at your house, because the law is really unrealistic and should not apply to you and your realistic-thinking family!

In school…where do I start?!  How about this?   Set an example by NOT reading anything much and by constantly watching TV or surfing the Internet.   When years go by and your child’s handwriting is still an illegible scrawl, just shrug your shoulders and say: “Oh well!  My handwriting’s no good either!  And anyway, who needs it in the era of the computer?”  Trust the A’s and B’s from your child’s public school (and even from some private schools) to mean that everything is fine: ignore your children’s inability to read beyond the 3rd or 4th Grade level , when they are in the 8th Grade.  Ignore their inability to handle fractions or decimals or any kind of higher Math. What are calculators for anyway?   When your 8th Grader is unable to write one logical paragraph, shrug it off: you can always download stuff from the Internet!  And do not bother going to parent meetings: the grades say everything is just fine!  Of course, the newspapers say that the school system has a 25% graduation rate, or is below the already ridiculously low standards set by the state.  But that is not the case at YOUR school!

But let’s assume that maybe your children attend a competent and challenging school!  Be sure then to complain about too much homework!  Argue with teachers about everything possible: if a foreign language is offered, be sure to tell your children it is irrelevant and that the world should learn English.  Pooh-pooh the importance of Art and Music!   And feel free to cheat and do work which your child is supposed to do, because the work is unfair anyway, and everybody else has parents cheating for them!  When grades show that your children are not the geniuses you believe them to be, complain about the unfair grading system, the unfair teachers, and threaten lawsuits unless your children’s grades are changed.

And whether your school is competent or not, if your children get into trouble, contest every detention and demerit!  Demand that their records be expunged, and threaten lawsuits unless your whining brings results.

Claim that everything your children say is The Truth.   Maintain that the teachers and administrators are lying!  When your children bring home wild stories about what happened in the classrooms, Believe EVERYTHING they say because Your Children Do NOT Lie!

This hypocrisy and plasticity about The Truth will help them become left-wing relativists, where the leftist end will always justify the leftist means.

And so…

Combined with the above tendencies to be passively risk-averse, of being unable to deal with problems on their own without needing an authority to dictate a solution to them, of expecting most things to be handed to them because of their winning and entitled natures, of lacking basic physical and mental discipline and refusing to suffer any consequences from any over indulgence, of believing that, because Life is about fairness and NOT achievement, the rules of society should not always apply to them, all of these will produce far too often by age 18 a true blue Democrat who will be unable to think of any reason why BIG BRObama is not the obvious choice for president.

People do change: we can only hope that the modern American children described above do not become a majority, and that somehow they find their way out of the “kulcheral” darkness all around them and can rectify the deviant paths in their backgrounds.

Opponents of The One True Leader in his first term (2008-2012) often lamented his lack of action against the Iranian government.  This paper will show how – as usual – these near-sighted enemies of The People misunderestimated  The One True Leader.

Brilliant as always, The One True Leader played the weakling for years, biding his time, waiting for the right moment.  While Jews and the obsolete faction known as Conservatives criticized his seeming lack of action, he confounded them suddenly in early March of 2012.  Stating that he would support Israel against Iranian aggression, and would authorize an attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, The One True Leader showed the power of Orwellian Principles on the Forgetfulness and Inattention of The People.  Boldly claiming that he did “not bluff” ever, that he always desired to defend the Israeli state, he set the stage secretly for further action.

Did The One True Leader actually desire to defend the aggressive warmongering Israelis?  Of course not!  But the opportunity was always there for a brilliant political play to win the election in November of 2012.

Declassified documents show that special forces were prepared in the winter of 2012 and ordered to deploy to the ships in the Persian Gulf  and secret Afghan bases at the beginning of the summer.  The military of course balked at the timing of such an operation because of the summer heat in Iran: certain generals and admirals complained that such action ought to have occurred years earlier, before the Iranians had extra time for hardening their targets.  The One True Leader brushed these military concerns aside as irrelevant, as all military concerns truly are!

Only the political aspects of a problem are valid!

During the August Republican convention, special forces infiltrated Iran and began destroying certain installations.  The One True Leader announced ex post facto that the situation had become intolerable, and that the covert operation against Iran was unfortunately a necessity.

Independents re-assessed their opinions of The One True Leader, and re-focused their attention on the great victory.  Republicans and Conservatives were effectively prevented from criticizing him during the admittedly short operation.  No loss of U.S.S.A. personnel occurred, thanks to the small number sent into Iran, and that the attacks in September and October were conducted by remote control.

The Iranians understood that the attack was nothing personal: it was strictly politics!  Within 2 years they had rebuilt everything, and were back to countering the true aggressors in Israel, who, feeling betrayed by the refusal of The One True Leader to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program completely, launched their own attack in 2017, which wisely in his third term The One True Leader refused to support, preferring the more difficult path to a lasting peace.

With the Iranian extermination of Israel in 2017-2018, peace in the Middle East – a dream for so many decades – became a reality at last!

July 14, 2089

Submitted as part of the Undergraduate Program in Liberal Studies  -   Alinsky University  -  Chicago, U.S. S. A.

A few weeks ago I was initially heartened by the reading of a letter at Sunday Mass  here in Ohio from the Catholic bishop of my diocese:  the letter attacked the mandate in the so-called HealthCare bill forcing churches to pay for abortion services in their insurance contracts.  It was unusual to hear the local bishop, or any bishop, attack the U.S. government for a policy.

About halfway through the letter, which seemed rather assertive, I concluded that I would be disappointed by the leadership of the American Catholic bishops.  One big indicator was the lack of the name “OBAMA” in the letter.  Nowhere was the name of the pro-infanticide, Democrat candidate for president in 2008 mentioned as the one responsible for this policy.  Nowhere was the Democrat Party mentioned as the one primarily responsible for this assault on Freedom of Religion and on Conscience.

I concluded that –  again – we would be given lip-service with very little action.  The last weeks have seen no further action.  A Google news item search today (Feb. 27, 2012)  shows the story at a low level, after spiking several times early in February.

Have there been public rallies in D.C. led by the top American prelates demanding our basic Freedom of Religion, demanding that, if the government wants to enable the killing of members of every new generation, then by God Almighty the politicians responsible will pay a price by being opposed by Catholics?  Are any rallies being planned?

I hope to be called unfair: perhaps plans are circulating.  The most I can find right now on the Catholic bishops’ website is an e-mail form to send to senators and representatives. 

A large question loomed: why did they not see this coming?  Were they so naive, so blind to MAObama’s pro-infanticide record, back in 2008?  WHY were they not advising Catholics of the risks of voting for a party that stands for abortion, “free” contraception, homosexual marriage, and the perpetuation if not promotion of higher levels of poverty?

The answer is that too many bishops, priests,  and lay Catholics  agree with Democrats on a majority of issues!  They agree with Democrats on throwing money at “the poor” without looking at the long-term consequences.  They agree with Democrats on being opposed to practically all wars regardless of the circumstances, and on cutting spending for national defense.    And they agree with Democrats that governments should offer “free” health care!

And so why this outrage against what has been an obvious danger? 

 Is it because money – direct from the Church and its institutions -  is involved???

For around 40 years the main plague in America, a silent, insidious killer, has been the unleashed force of abortions, the killing of a human being according to the theology of the Catholic Church (and of other religions and according to basic logic, since human beings do not give birth to e.g. simians or cetaceans).  One would think that the Catholic Church would have been leading some sort of resistance movement against it, especially by targeting faux Catholic Democrat politicians.

But no: “pro-choice,” “pro-gay-marriage” Kennedys and Kerrys and their ilk are still treated as if they do not sanction anything immoral: again, this transcends abortion and includes the litany of immoral ideas found in any platform from the Democrat Party.

In essence: the American Catholic  Church has looked the other way on abortion and other immoralities  because it feels the ”concern for the poor” and the anti-military bias of Dems counterbalance them.

That the bishops now huff and puff somewhat can only be ascribed to their concern about money: paying either for the mandate or paying the fines must really be something they did not expect from their Democrat allies.  The only conclusion about “left-wing Catholics” and their bishops that I can make is not pretty:

The status quo of abortion is America is not something to become too upset about…unless it involves the Church’s bank account.

In contrast to this expediency, in contrast to this general silence, I offer scenes from Lutheran pastors speaking out against Communism a generation ago in East Germany, where Protestant churches were centers of resistance to the Communist regime.  In contrast to this pusillanimity, I offer the Polish Catholic bishops who refused to back down in the early 1980′s from their support of Walesa, even after a priest had been murdered by the Polish secret police.

I will repeat that I hope I am wrong about the ultimate intentions of the bishops about opposing the mandate and accepting a diminution of religious freedom.  The Cardinal of New York gives me an impression that - perhaps –  the compromising and soft-touch approach of previous decades  is fading away.

Christ had something to say about believers who are are neither hot nor cold,  who want to protect the status quo and not let their faith rock the boat : He called them “lukewarm” and their fate was also “not pretty.”

Check the Apocalypse (Revelation) Chapter 3:15-16!

The Washington Examiner on January 20, 2012 ran a “Beltway Confidential” article called America Hates Newt Gingrich.  The article lists several surveys showing negative reactions to Gingrich vs. BIG BRObama and vs. Romney.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/america-hates-newt-gingrich/326161

Well, I do not care for him either! 

However, I immediately began thinking of certain successful presidents who were not very likable, and of course Richard Nixon came to mind.  Here was a successful politician who lacked what is termed “charisma,” who lacked John F. Kennedy’s Irish charm and movie-star visage, and who personally seemed very difficult to appreciate.

After his loss to Kennedy, and then his loss in California for governor, Nixon seemed ever angrier, petulant, and simply washed up.  As we know, however, he won two national elections for the presidency, and was later ruined by his (apparently real) traits of being suspicious, vindictive, and arrogant.

So how did Nixon overcome his negative image?

First keep in mind that he was Eisenhower’s Vice-President, and Eisenhower was not seen as very charismatic at all: an historiometric analysis by Professor Ronald DeLuga showed Eisenhower ranking third last in charisma (above Carter and Ford).

Given that his presidency is often portrayed as deficient in purpose, rather inert, and not particularly inspiring, Eisenhower’s emergence in the bottom third of the rankings is not unanticipated. Eisenhower’s steady, but languid demeanor may augment his low charismatic ranking.

http://www.leader-values.com/Content/detail.asp?ContentDetailID=52

 

Nixon had also established himself as capable of handling the Russians, especially through the famous Kitchen Debate with Khrushchev. So what remained to be done?

In the 1966 Congressional elections Nixon campaigned rather relentlessly for Republican candidates, re-establishing his national reputation: his speaking skills were not bad, since he often came across as no-nonsense and highly competent.

To soften his image as humorless, he appeared on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In (saying “Sock it to me!” in a self-satirizing way, as if he were Rich Little imitating Nixon).

His campaign (via Roger Ailes, of FOX Network fame) also attacked his “cold” image (their polling showed voters considered Hubert Humphrey a “warm personality”): they had him appear at “town halls” with a picked audience, and bought 10 hours of television time to broadcast Nixon speaking with “average Americans.”  But sparks had to fly now and then to show Nixon’s real nature, and to avoid making everything seem phony.  One example occurred at a show in Philadelphia, where an Afro-American radio host, no friend of Nixon by any means, was included on the panel to ask him combative questions.  Nixon handled the situation well, sticking to his guns, and was cheered by the Republican crowd.

Thus Nixon created any charisma he lacked naturally by the way his managers (Ailes is given much credit in a book by Kerwin Swint called Dark Genius): Nixon was highly motivated, understood his problem, and listened to people who knew more than he did about solving his problem.

And won the presidency twice, despite the seething hatred of the MSM!

So Newt has charisma problems with the press and – according to MSM polls – is “hated by America.”

Let’s assume these polls are correct: following Nixon’s example, what should Gingrich do?  My ideas are as follows:

First, Gingrich needs to stay positive about his agenda, an agenda extolling more freedom for Americans – and more money – by insisting on some sort of immediate reduction in the size and tax appetite of the federal government, along with a plan to avoid national bankruptcy by having the government do less meddling in the lives of its citizens.  Nixon’s town halls are now cliches: a new variation is needed, e.g. where Gingrich is sitting down with students, women, and other groups known to be less than impressed with him, and they should be genuinely hostile.

If Gingrich can play the teacher handling a disruptive class, persuading them with his humor and ideas, he will see his “likability” numbers rise.  The hostile audience will be disliked, and Gingrich – if he can be trained to stay cool and self-deprecating, and not to talk too much – will succeed like Nixon.

Second, the Mathematics of MAObama should be easy for Gingrich to explain: a poster with the national debt identified with the written number 16,000,000,000,000 on it would get the point across very simply!  In fact, using that number on billboards, running across the screen in TV ads, at movie theater previews, etc. could be a symbol of the campaign.  Gingrich the Historian can point out how many centuries it took for the national debt to hit 9 Trillion, and how many years it took for BIG BRObama to double it almost.

Third, his team would need to address the background of personal hypocrisy with an auto-da-fé moment: if Gingrich has found religion late in life, along with a wife 20 years younger, he needs to sell his metanoia quietly yet firmly, the way Nixon handled the openly hostile questions from the Philadelphia radio talk-show host.

Fourth, like Nixon, appearing on assorted shows – and not just Jay Leno or FOX News Sunday – to soften his image would not be a bad idea.

Certainly if Gingrich becomes the nominee, he will need to face the likability issue: other ideas besides the ones above will be necessary.  Is he flawed?  Oh yes!  But how flawed was Nixon?

In this case, nothing is impossible.  America can be persuaded to embrace Conservative ideas to save the country – and I mean save the country – from its own selfishness, short-sightedness, and bad judgment (i.e. electing spendthrift, nanny-state politicians of both parties), even with Gingrich at the top of the ticket.

Using the Cloak of Invisibility and Sigmund Freud’s pocket watch, I was able to enter Iran and hypnotize Ahmadinejad to see exactly what he has in mind for Iraq.

I: So tell us how you were able to effect a U.S. withdrawal with no troops left behind to ensure stability in Iraq.

A: As you know, we have funneled money into Iraq to opponents of the Zionist Americans and their lackeys in the Iraqi government.  Since this is the Middle East, divide and conquer is an easy technique: Iraq is a collection of tribes all waiting to sharpen their knives on each other’s ribs!   We advised the Sadrites to use parliamentary procedures to ruin the Status of Forces Agreement, which our peace-loving friend Obama was happy to see go down to defeat.  We know that he must say cruel things about us now and then: we understand this.

But we know he wants us to dominate the Zionists: the SOFA dispute was a convenient ploy to allow friend Obama to withdraw his troops.

I: A ploy? Can you explain this?

A: We understand that he is no real friend of Israel (the conservatives in the Jewish press understand this, but fortunately for us many Jews with their Leftism are prevented from realizing this) and that he approves of me: how else to explain his silence when we suffered difficulties from those silly protests in June 2009?

So friend Obama ignores the advice of his own Pentagon to keep thousands of troops in Iraq because of a SOFA dispute about giving immunity from prosecution to U.S. troops!  This sounds like the Iraqis are being headstrong and arrogant.  But you see, no such immunity for the U.S. military exists, for example, in Qatar!  And that is a place where they take their, how do you say it, “R and R,” when they might need such immunity!

So, yes, it is a convenient ploy for fooling those who do not look past the surface.

I: What is this rumor about co-operation with Turkey to carve up Iraq?

A: Well, we have already co-operated in Kurdistan: you remember those incursions we made in June 2010?  To be sure, it was only a few miles deep into Iraq, but friend Obama did nothing, of course.  We Iranians and the Turks: we are still the outsiders ethnically, you see, when it comes to Arabic Islam.  This is why the Saudis dislike us so much: we are Shi’a Muslims, and speak Farsi (Persian).  They are Arabs and practice Salafi-Sunni Islam.

The Turks of course are not trusted by anyone!  They also are Sunnis, but the decades of liberalization have watered them down.  We will co-operate with both eyes open and knives in both hands: the last thing we both want is a Kurdistan with oil money, or an Iraq with oil money.

I: So…when do you invade Iraq?

A: The old cliche’ is “Timing is everything!”  If Iraq will  not fall, it at least will fail: the question is how.  We have a good number of Iraqi politicians in our pay.  We can hollow out Iraq from the inside, until our nuclear program is complete.

I: Why is Iraq connected to your nuclear program?

A: Iraq is our key to Israel.  With bases there – or at least overflight and refueling permission – we can achieve our dream of vaporizing the hated Jews!  This will give us dominance in the Islamic world, despite our not being Arabs.  The Saudis will be helpless before us.

But you see, if Iraq is our key to Israel, it is also Israel’s key to us!  Any Israeli plans to bomb our nuclear facilities would need Iraq’s permission to use their airspace.  Of course, Maliki seems hostile to Israel, and would not give any such permission.  With the U.S. gone, thanks to friend Obama, we know that our people in the Iraqi government will prevent any such permission from ever being given.

But Maliki may not give us access for an attack on Israel: such is the pride of independence!

I: So you are after the oilfields and some military bases: you do not want all of Iraq?

A: The Iranian Revolution must be spread, but it is not greedy!

I: And so…the timing?

A: We follow American politics closely.  Friend Obama’s days seem numbered, this is clear.  A decision to re-deploy thousands of Americans to Iraq could be done by a new president.   So any seizure of Kurdish areas will need to happen between late November 2012 and January 2013.  Any coup d’etat by our allies inside the Iraqi government would need to happen at the same time.  It is also possible that our people will simply be “elected” in the next Iraqi ballot.

(He winked at me oddly at this point.)

I: And Israel’s destruction?

A: That would be telling too much!

I: Please stare at the watch and answer the question!

A: Our scientists are working hard to complete a few nuclear devices: with Allah’s help, their holy work will be ready before 2013.  With America neutered militarily and economically after 4 years of friend Obama, that will be our goal.  The Americans will have no appetite for a war with us: they will not be able to afford a war with us.  We will cut off their oil from the Saudis and ruin both countries.

Israel will be a smoldering ember anyway: what good would it do the U.S. to attack us?  It would not bring Israel back  to life!  Americans will understand this, and will shrug and accept their new role as a neutered former superpower.   A new president, no matter how belligerent, will see how worthless and stupid it would be to challenge us.

I: Do you have any idea why Israel has not attacked your facilities yet?

A: Friend Obama does not support such an attack: the Israelis would need American aid for an act of war like that.  Obviously they do not have it.  The mechanics and politics of having Israeli warplanes flying over Saudi or Iraqi or Turkish airspace would be difficult for a warmonger like W. Bush!  But for a peace-lover and golfer like friend Obama, it is just of no interest.

At this point the watch stopped spinning, and Ahmadinejad jumped up and said he really needed a shave, but that, somehow, the timing was not quite right.

First, I hope things do not turn out the way they seem to right now, i.e. with a loss in an important election.  I do try to be an optimist!

In 4 weeks, Ohioans will vote to preserve  or cancel a bill called Senate Bill 5, which limits the negotiating power of public-worker unions, so that costs for local governments can be brought down from the stratosphere.   Our Republican governor and Republican legislature (23-10 in the Senate, 58-40 in the House) passed this bill, which includes unions for police and fire departments: one can debate whether that was strategically wise.

Second, it is to the credit of Governor John Kasich and the Republicans in the legislature that they passed this bill.

Here is my lament:

Almost immediately, the unions (all of them, not just public sector) organized a “grass-roots” campaign to repeal Senate Bill 5 in a referendum.  A massive propaganda campaign was launched: misleading and even downright lying ads and claims sprouted everywhere.  Door-to-door petitions were circulated: organizers were seen at parks, rock concerts, spring festivals, and churches.  Even my own local Catholic Church was conned into announcing – from the pulpit! – that “Senate Bill 5 takes away all collective bargaining rights from the middle class,” a claim so outrageous that some people resigned from the parish immediately: the pastor published an apology in the bulletin a week later, saying he had misunderstood what the union-member parishioner had said (Ha!), but the damage was done.

Bumper stickers and yard signs popped up everywhere  to “Repeal 5!” in November.

Former Vice-President Cheney admitted in an interview this year that one of the W. Bush administration’s biggest errors, if not its #1 biggest error, was to stay silent in the face of all the lying, distorted charges screamed by the Left, not to bother countering point by point the Big Lies proclaimed, and simply to shrug and assume that the game was rigged by the media, and so it was not worth their while to enter such a debate.

Ohio Republicans have copied that mistaken strategy.  For months and months, as television and radio ads with Very Earnest Policemen and Firemen and Nurses almost cried on camera about the extremely unfair and even dangerous nature of Senate Bill 5, the Republicans responded with…silence.  Only in the last weeks have some ads finally appeared to counter the months and months of falsehoods and warped propaganda.

Things became worse.  In the summer, Republicans saw fit to vote for pay raises….for the legislative staff!!!

Staffers for both Republicans and Democrats in the Ohio Senate got pay raises this summer in the aftermath of state budget cuts and the passage of a law limiting public employee unions, state records show.

Payroll data reviewed by The Associated Press show 19 Senate caucus employees – not quite 20 percent of the staff – got pay hikes since July worth about $160,000 combined. Four employees – the chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, finance director, and clerk – saw bumps of more than $8,000 a year each on salaries already around $100,000.

 

See:

http://www2.ohiovotes2011.com/news/2011/sep/07/ohio-senate-gave-pay-raises-after-state-cuts-ar-726802/

And so they handed the Democrat-Union coalition an ace.  It goes without saying that the Democrat minority in the legislature was quite happy to see this!  Now it is quite possible that the paper-pushing staff deserved a pay raise: but if we are asking the fire departments and police, whose jobs carry the daily risk of death, to pay more for their retirement and hospitalization, this pay-raise – during such a political campaign – was worse than unwise, it was just downright moronic!

It would have been better for the Republican-controlled legislature to vote themselves and their staff a 10% pay cut as proof of the seriousness of Ohio’s budgetary problems.

No, why would they do that???

And so, it is possible that Senate Bill 5 may still be preserved despite all these stupidities.  But right now, I am expecting the worst.

If the worst happens, let us hope that the defeat will be a huge warning to the national Republicans that they absolutely must respond – point by point – to the lies proclaimed by The Left.  They absolutely must go on the offensive with positive reasons why a Conservative solution is the right one: e.g. has anyone yet seen or heard an ad against BIG BRObama’s “Jobs” Bill with the simple counter-argument that if nearly $1,000,000,000,000 has not brought down unemployment at all, but has only darkened our economic future with more debt, how on earth will adding another $500,000,000,000 (and yes, let’s use those zeroes as part of our technique to open people’s eyes) suddenly solve anything?

Plus, like Caesar’s wife, Republicans must remain above reproach: weak candidates or incumbents touched by scandal need to be told good-bye.  Anything similar to the Ohio pay-raise stupidity during an austerity campaign needs to be avoided like the plague.

And if Senate Bill 5 is defeated, expect the result to be “nationalized” by the Dems and the MSM!

Is the America of MAObama the kind of country for which they sacrificed their lives?

What will we tell them, when they see their Land of Liberty becoming less free, as it – unbelievably! – most willingly sells its future to the banks of Chinese Communists ?

To the ghosts of our most recently lost soldiers, what will we say, when they want to know why our president wants to “lead from behind” ? (And a more seriously meant Orwellian phrase cannot be found.)

What will we say to the men of D-Day, when they see an obese, petulant, gimme-gimme country, half of whom pay no taxes?

Our Treasury Secretary announces that a fourth of the country receives government checks; our Democrat president and his party want to spend over a trillion dollars per year more than the government receives; our Republicans timidly quake at opposing the constant nibbling of our freedoms and can only agree on slowing down the speed of our inevitable bankruptcy.

What will we say to our astronauts who have died in service, when they ask why we have allowed our manned space program to fade away, and why we now are hiring Russian rockets for our use, a development so improbable it would be laughable, if it were not so tragically sad?

What will we say to the ghosts of our soldiers lost throughout the ages, when they see that a majority of our children know little to nothing of their sacrifices, cannot even identify the century of the Civil War or the War of 1812, and are increasingly taught that many of our wars were immoral acts of aggression, and hear military service denigrated in general?

What will we tell them, when they hear that seeing the flag and participating in Fourth of July celebrations embarrasses a third of our population?

In one sense it is unfair to blame the situation completely on the present resident of the White House: this present atmosphere has not been created in just the last 30 months. The Downgrading of America has been a successful war of attrition waged by the Left over the last 40 years. However, the atmosphere’s propagandized approval by the Democrats and the mainstream press, and the deepening of its foundations, have never been so loudly and proudly proclaimed.

America is eating itself: I wrote a diary earlier with a quote from – improbably! – Warren Harding, who warned that “our most dangerous tendency is to expect too much of government, and at the same time do for it too little.”

What we must do for our government, our culture, Our Country, is to wrest them away from those who do not believe in freedom and the preservation of God-given, inalienable rights, and who do not believe that people should succeed to the best of their abilities, but rather insist on mediocrity as a national guiding principle.

In History one sees many “turning points,” when a culture, a civilization, or even just a single individual, decided to take one path rather than the other. The present era is placing such a turning point before us: it goes beyond the present debate on national bankruptcy.

I believe more and more that we are seeing a choice between a future where America re-energizes itself and remains a “shining city on a hill,” and a future where the hill is dark and the city in decay.

Will we be telling the ghosts of our soldiers that we have decided to blow out the candles?

The next sentences are:
 

We contemplate the immediate task of putting our public household in order. We need a rigid and yet sane economy, combined with fiscal justice, and it must be attended by individual prudence and thrift, which are so essential to this trying hour and reassuring for the future.

 

(My emphasis above.)

They were written by a man spurned as a political disaster. He was mocked as a blowhard whose prose rambled incomprehensibly.

Judge for yourself:

Discouraging indebtedness confronts us… and these obligations must be provided for. No civilization can survive repudiation (of debt).
We can reduce the abnormal expenditures, and we will. We can strike at (excessive) taxation, and we must. We must face the grim necessity, with full knowledge that the task is to be solved, and we must proceed with a full realization that no statute enacted by man can repeal the inexorable laws of nature.

(My emphasis above.)

Inexorable laws of nature, such as “Nothing is free,” the First Principle of Economics, which is violated daily by the geniuses now in charge, and have been violated by assorted previous geniuses, Democrat and Republican.

Consider more of his economic advice:

I pray for sober thinking in behalf of the future of America. No worthwhile republic ever went the tragic way to destruction, which did not begin the downward course through luxury of life and extravagance of living. More, the simple living and thrifty people will be the first to recover … Herein is greater opportunity than lies in alliance, compact or supergovernment. It is America’s chance to lead in example and prove to the world the reign of reason in representative popular government where people think who assume to rule.

(My emphasis above.)

The man writing the lines which I am quoting was no genius: he believed himself to be a typical American, hard-working with specific talents which he developed as well as he could. Certainly, like all of us, he was not perfect, and made mistakes in politics.

Yet he won his last election with 60% of the popular vote!

He could be politically courageous, and had his own ideas on “fairness” which the present character in the White House might heed. Congress had passed an increase in veterans’ benefits by wide margins right before a mid-term election: he vetoed the bill because it would have been unfair to increase taxes on the rest of America at that time.

The people agreed! When he died, the press estimated that national mourning was greater than it had been for McKinley, and approached the level seen for Lincoln.

A final clue:

America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality. It is one thing to battle successfully against world domination by military autocracy, because the infinite God never intended such a program, but it is quite another thing to revise human nature and suspend the fundamental laws of life and all of life’s acquirements.

(My emphasis above.)

“…sustainment in triumphant nationality.” Such a phrase, with or without its neologism, would never be spoken today by Democrats and even some Republicans!

I offer these quotes as advice to the moral mice in the Republican Party now squeaking nationally and shivering in fear about stopping the Leviathans of Socialism and Surrender unleashed by the Democrats.

This man ended a national recession – one equal to ours, if not worse according to some historians – by insisting that Congress slash taxes AND government spending, along with its interference in the business world. However, he was not completely blind to capitalism’s problems, and did favor protective tariffs (within limits), “pump-priming” public works projects to stimulate the economy (within limits), and opposed child labor so much that he was willing to work for a constitutional amendment against it. He also opposed Southern racism as seen in the KKK, and opposed his predecessor’s overt national racism, who had fired Afro-Americans in certain government positions and replaced them with white Democrats.

To be sure, some of his appointees were corrupt, and after his death, the left-wing press – aided by Republican silence! – used their scandals (Teapot Dome was “small potatoes” according to one historian) to create a myth persisting to this day, i.e. that this man’s short presidency was the worst 2 years in American History.

When you read the speeches, the original documents, and the newspapers from the 1920′s, you wonder how Warren Harding could end up with such a legacy.

I would advise the Harvard graduate now in the White House to read how Warren Harding attacked the recession in the post-World-War-I era. However, I fear that FACTS – as they were for The New Republic and other leftist rags of the 1920′s attacking Harding after his death – are irrelevant to our “most intelligent president ever.”

Check these websites for the speeches (the 1921 Inaugural Address and the “Return to Normalcy” speech) and further analysis:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres46.html

http://livefromthetrail.com/about-the-book/speeches/chapter-3/senator-warren-g-harding

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/may/04/00024/