Firenze Sage: Obama-Care’s death panel – what death panel?

Obama-Care "death panels" say NO to testing for prostate cancer as too expensive

Obama-Care’s “death panels” recommend no screening for prostate cancer for men. The US Preventive Service Task Force ruled last week that screening for prostate cancer is a waste of money.

The task force claims that screening all adult men with the PSA (protein-specific antigen) test doesn’t prevent death from the disease. It argues that “the number of men who avoid dying of prostate cancer because of screening after 10 to 14 years is, at best, very small.”

Adding to the “costs” of the test are “false positives” — they tell people they have cancer when they don’t about 10 percent of the time. The task force thinks this problem makes the cost of screening higher than the tiny benefit screening generates.

It’s worth analyzing the road to this conclusion, because it tells us a lot about how ObamaCare rations medicine.

First, the task force measures the effect of testing on the death rate from any disease (all-cause mortality). That’s a bogus benchmark, because, as John Maynard Keynes famously noted, in the long run we all die. In fact, death rates from prostate cancer have dropped 57 percent among men ages 49 to 64 and 80 percent among adult men over 75. National Cancer Institute data show that prostate cancers are being detected and treated earlier and that life expectancy is rising as a result.

The task force claims there is no evidence that screening directly reduces prostate cancer. But how, then, did death rates decline, if screening doesn’t work?

It does, of course. As prostate-cancer expert William Catalano notes, PSA screening is why the horror of not diagnosing this cancer until it has metastasized (advanced and spread) has all but disappeared.

Catalano also points out that it’s regular testing — not the test being used — that has likely contributed to raising the odds against the disease.
_______________

Who needs evidence when the Obama-Care cost cutters strike? JAJ48@aol.com

Share

Firenze Sage: Obama the first Asian president

Obama understands all Asians based on his early eating habits?

That Obama ate dog as a boy in Indonesia explains his special affinity and understanding of all Asians? That’s a stretch.

President Obama, born in Hawaii, raised in Indonesia and dubbed by some “the first Asian American president,” looks to be embracing that label with an exclusive, $40,000-a-head Bay Area business roundtable for Asian American and Pacific Islander supporters Thursday.

The diverse swath, also known as Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, includes large communities of Chinese, Korean,
Japanese and Vietnamese; as well as South Asians such as Indians and Pakistanis; and Pacific Islanders such as Polynesians, Samoans and Tongans.

Pan said Obama feels comfortable with outreach to those groups because the president has lived in Asia and the Pacific Islands. “He has a natural relationship with those communities. He understands the model: that we have a lot of strengths and we have a lot of needs, too.”
_______________
What we know for sure is that you cannot lump all of Asia together and claim to know it especially when your knowledge comes from a few years as a small dog eating boy in one country.

JAJ48@aol.com

Share

Firenze Sage: Everything is affordable if someone else is paying [taxpayers]

everything is affordable if someone else is paying

It’s only “fair” the middle class & poor not bear, the brunt of huge down payments?

Thus, in San Francisco, middle class families can get $100 K money from Uncle Sam to buy a house.

There may finally be a solution to helping middle-class San Franciscans who cannot afford to buy a home of their own in the city.

Mayor Ed Lee on Tuesday will announce plans to create the city’s first dedicated funding stream for moderate-income and affordable housing, generating $20 million to $50 million a year for 30 years.

The plan not only would help provide middle-income residents with up to $100,000 in down payment assistance, but it also is designed to stimulate market-rate development and fund 4,500 units of affordable housing.
_______________

And who will the lucky winners of this scam be?
JAJ48@AOL.COM

Share

Aptos Psychologist: Dealth of Liberalism by Tyrell reviewed by Jeffrey Lord in American Spectator

A book by a conservative worth reading: Death of Liberalism by Tyrell reviewed by Jeffrey Lord.

Is Infantile Liberalism and Stealth Socialism truly dead or still quite alive?

The Infantile Left is clearly present in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

And Stealth Socialists like Sam Farr in California — including not so Stealth Obama who openly runs against capitalism — regularly level the playing field according to their Fairness Rules.

It’s only Fair that Same Sex couples can marry says Obama.

It’s only Fair that college students only pay 3.8% interest on college loans which can be forgiven later on.
________________

written by Jeffery Lord jlpa1@aol.com

“Infantile.

The characteristics of a baby or child, says Webster’s.

Being infantile is a charming characteristic — in a baby or child. In adults? Adults charged with the serious responsibility of discussing or actually running public policy?

Never good. As seen here in this story about Occupy Wall Street, replete with photo of a protester defecating on a police car.

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. has been observing and writing about this kind of ludicrous behavior that he terms the “Infantile Left” for some 40-plus years through the magazine that he created and you are reading, The American Spectator.

What brought this memorable photo of a defecating Occupy protestor to mind was reading the stunning, pull-back-and-survey-the-battlefield book that is Tyrrell’s new book, The Death of Liberalism.

The book is nothing less than an autopsy conducted while the battle still rages. An astute recognition that Liberalism’s defenders are being reduced by the day if not the hour to the political equivalent of the survivors of Pickett’s Charge at Gettysburg, the latter known to history as the high-water mark of the Confederacy. A great swarming, savage last-assault across the political battlefields into the incessant cannon and rifle fire of the American majority. Leaving in the aftermath not only massive Liberal casualties on the battlefield, but inducing a sense of crippling psychological failure among the Liberal survivors, of which at the moment the Occupy Wall Street debacle — they of the defecating-on-police-cars and rape tents crowd — is the most vivid example.

The irony? It wasn’t always so.

Classical liberalism, as Tyrrell states, originally “stood for adherence to individual liberty, to tolerance, to reason, and for many of us, to empiricism.” The classic liberalism of a George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and the others known today as the Founding Fathers but one example, if the example most familiar to Americans.

Tyrrell cites this wonderful definition of classical liberalism given all the way back in 1873 by England’s Sir William Harcourt, who made the point in a talk at Oxford. Liberty, said Harcourt,

…does not consist in making others do what you think is right. The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this — that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic government tries to make everybody do what it wishes, a Liberal Government tries, so far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do what he wishes.

Harcourt anticipated the reign of Obama and Pelosi by 139 years. In the style of true conservatives everywhere, he understood the eternal human nature — and its temptations with centralized power.

Tyrrell employs a literary device that originated with the late William F. Buckley, Jr. To wit, separating the original meaning of “liberal” in its classic sense from today’s term by capitalizing the word to “Liberal” or “Liberalism.” It is a useful device to differentiate what has come to mean two very, very different belief systems, one of them appallingly nuts.

For a small sample of just how infantile one can see the Infantile Left at work here in Oakland, California in 2011, in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, at the Pentagon in 1967, in Los Angeles in 1992 or all manner of places in 1986 when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in response to an attack on U.S. military personnel in then-West Germany. Here’s an interesting one with Infantile Left expressing itself on the environment. And who could miss these two bookmarks to the career of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry doing the Infantile Left gig here (as captured in a Swiftboat ad) and here, where he windsurfed as a presidential candidate. And there’s Hillary as potential president

The examples are endless, and you can’t make it up.

(Page 2 of 5)

The details of the Liberal autopsy begin immediately, with Dr. Tyrrell walking slowly around a figurative steel table examining the lifeless political corpse, diligently recording the life of the deceased. Just who were these Liberals, anyway? After 40 some odd-years of experience, Tyrrell knows them well. Liberals:

…who began as the rightful heirs to the New Deal, have carried on as a kind of landed aristocracy, gifted but doomed. They dominated the culture and the politics of the country, unchallenged from the beginnings of the Cold War to the first Nixon Administration. So dominant were they that they could totally pollute the culture with their prejudices and their views. In its place they created Kultursmog, a Kultur whose contaminants were everywhere in the media, among the literate classes, even among illiterates — everywhere. Kultursmog is the only form of pollution to which the Liberals never object. In fact, they deem it healthy.

While Tyrrell doesn’t say it here, the saga of Liberals is not unlike the saga of the late Whitney Houston. At one time the very essence of raw talent refined, polished, sparkling and dominant. Followed by the inevitable results of decline evident after years of what might be called snorting political cocaine — the dependence on sheer racism, a culture that glorifies sexual gratification, a wild addiction to the idea of feel-good emotions replacing hard science, economics and plain common sense. Followed by the inevitable…political death.

No, one does not crap on a police car to make a point about economics.

Rational political actors do not get drunk and leave a girl in a car to drown then resume a lifelong Senate career as if nothing untoward had happened. One doesn’t fan riots or anti-Semitism that results in death and destruction of property, gain fame by making preposterously false allegations of a racial rape — and get to host an MSNBC television show as a reward. Paying off a pregnant mistress with tax-deductible funds after exhibiting one’s streak of anti-Semitism by musing aloud to a reporter about New York City as “Hymietown” shouldn’t make one a serious player in a serious political party. Not to mention that fiddling with an intern and lying about it to a grand jury should cause more than an “ahem” from a party that insists it is fighting some grand war for women. As Tyrrell documents, the list of infantile behavior by the left is long, well beyond the specifics of behaviors by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and, of course, President Bill Clinton. Not to mention the monkey business of one-time presidential hopeful Gary Hart with Donna Rice and the still imploding reputation of ex-Senator and 2004 vice-presidential nominee John Edwards. The plagiarism scandal of Joe Biden has elevated him to the vice-presidency.

But there is more to this behavior that has caused the Death of Liberalism. There are those pesky fundamentals called issues, approached by Liberals with what Tyrrell correctly calls the real objective of the “Stealth Socialist.” (Interestingly, Tyrrell points out that when Republicans are presented with political leaders who engage in likeminded personal misbehavior, they reject them — two of the more prominent examples being the presidential run of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the exploded career of South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford.)

One by one Tyrrell examines issues and events that served as the proximate cause of Liberalism’s death . And the Stealth Socialist issues and events are as momentous if perhaps not as memorable as the personal behavior is tawdry.

• Henry Wallace: The rise and fall of FDR’s Liberal Vice President Henry Wallace, whose Liberalism even in 1944 touched off alarm bells with the powers-that-be within the Democrats’ own party hierarchy. Replaced by Missouri Senator Harry Truman (and in the nick of time — FDR died a bare four months after being inaugurated, placing Truman, not Wallace, in the White House) Wallace set about leading the opening round of what became the Liberal civil war within the party. Eventually, Wallace departed, becoming the 1948 nominee of the Progressive Party.

• The Big Lie: Combined with a laughable yet disturbing sense of moral superiority, the Big Lie is now routinely used as Pickett’s armies used the bayonet. In hand-to-hand political combat the sharp end is pointedly used to accuse of racism those who question Liberalism’s latest panaceas or by shrieking, as Tyrrell notes, that “anyone questioning their latest scheme of alleviating poverty hates the poor.” This use of the Big Lie began with the fiction that Alger Hiss was not a Communist, something that has now been positively affirmed by the release of the Venona files. The longer Hiss lied, the angrier Liberals became at those charging him with lying. More recently when Bill Clinton as president lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky, the Big Lie was employed to insist that “it was a minor infraction of the law, like double-parking one’s tractor in downtown Little Rock.”

• McGovernism: In 1972, a young delegate to Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party convention of 1948 was South Dakota Senator George McGovern — the Democrats’ presidential nominee. Tyrrell examines a now obscure but key moment for the Liberals, that being the formation of the “McGovern Commission.” Formed after the pitched battle between Liberals and the battered remnants of the old FDR-Truman Democrats in 1968 — and it was a battle, with Infantile Liberals taking to the streets of Chicago during the party Convention and getting into a furiously bloody battle with the police of the old line Mayor Daley — McGovern’s task was to reform the party’s delegate selection process. He did — by obliterating the idea that individuals should be elected as delegates to the party’s national convention and replacing it with the now-sacred cow of identity politics. If you were black — and X percent of your state’s population was black — you have a delegate’s seat based on skin color. Ditto with gender, etc. Running himself four years later, using the rules he himself had engineered, McGovern not only trounced the party Establishment and won the 1972 nomination but permanently ousted the dwindling remnants of what FDR historian and ex-JFK aide Arthur Schlesinger once termed The Vital Center.

• Class Warfare: If FDR employed a bit of class warfare during the Great Depression, it was McGovern who immersed the party in this pernicious cycle of greed and envy. The greed for government money — taxpayer money or “free” money as it is called today — combined with the envy of those who achieved without it. McGovern proposed three policies in particular that caught Tyrrell’s eye in his autopsy, three policies he notes that “stand out as beyond the wildest hallucinations of Henry Wallace” — began instantly to clog the Liberal artery that normally channeled a sensitivity to the sensibilities of working Americans. They were:

— “a government grant of $1,000 annually for every man, woman, and child, rich or poor”;

— ” a 37 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget…the savings going to social welfare programs…”;

— “a rise in taxes, most strikingly on inheritance — no one would be able to receive more than half a million dollars from one’s family in a lifetime or at the time of one’s death!”

Richard Nixon, not an especially lovable public persona and while conservative in some respects was not even a figure (as was Reagan) of the conservative movement, made chopped liver of all this. He buried McGovern in a 49-state landslide, a decided change from Nixon’s narrow loss to JFK in 1960 and his narrow win over Hubert Humphrey in 1968. McGovern not only lost his home state, he didn’t even win the “youth vote” — the supposed core of his support.

(Page 3 of 5)

• Advocacy Philanthropy: This new kind of philanthropy was begun by ex-JFK and LBJ national security adviser McGeorge Bundy, a former Harvard Dean. Taking over the Ford Foundation after a disastrous tour as a Liberal architect of the Vietnam War, Bundy shifted attention and dollars away from the traditional liberal think tank idea of developing governmental and public policy expertise. Tyrrell quotes the Manhattan Institute’s James Piereson:

Soon, Ford and other liberal (Liberal) donors were investing in a maze of activist groups promoting feminism, affirmative action, environmentalism, disarmament, and other cutting edge causes, The Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Woman’s Law Fund, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund were among the products of this initiative.

All of this ultimately — one could say deliberately — led the way to a process of circumventing the election process in favor of policy by judicial and regulatory fiat. Thereby infuriating millions of Americans who found themselves subjugated — and subjugated is the word — to policies in which they had little or no role in approving. From abortion to school busing to gay marriage to property rights, the American idea was beginning to drown in a sea of court orders and regulations. Suffice to say, they were not happy.

Things were never the same again for liberalism.

It had become the Frankenstein monster of Liberalism. The happy warrior philosophy that once elected FDR, Truman, JFK and LBJ along with 40 years’ worth of a Congress run by an overwhelming number of Democrats was, by 2012, routinely identified in poll after poll as winning only 20 percent of politically self-identified Americans. Between 1968 and 2008, Democrats managed to win the presidency a mere four out of eleven times. The “Reagan Democrat” — Democrats who abandoned Liberalism in droves just as had Ronald Reagan himself — was born. And in each and every case — from Carter to Clinton to Obama — to win a general election Democrats had to campaign openly not on Liberalism but Something Else. As the Annapolis graduate and businessman/farmer (Carter), the New Democrat (Clinton), the Hope and Change Democrat (Obama). Indeed, when the Democrats’ monopoly on Capitol Hill ended in a rout in 1994, President Clinton quickly abandoned his Liberal colors. Suddenly, for post-1994 Clinton, “the era of Big Government” was over. He won re-election — with a bare 49% of the vote.

By 2008, Tyrrell notes, even as Obama was winning (on the necessary set of false promises) the Liberal historian Sean Wilentz of Princeton could see what was coming down the road in 2010:

Plagued by divisions of race, ideology, and political temperament that dated back to the late 1960s; unable to unite around a coherent set of attitudes, let alone ideas foreign policy and the military or domestic issues; beholden to a disparate collection of special constituencies and interest groups, each with its own agenda, the quarrelsome Democrats made the fractured Republican Party look like a juggernaut.

Two years later in 2010, as Tyrrell notes, “the undertakers arrived to take charge of the Liberal corpse.”

When one adds the traits of the Infantile Left to the Stealth Socialist, how else could 2010 have turned out?

Barack Obama is, as Tyrrell fingers exactly, the Stealth Socialist of all Stealth Socialists.

As president he may be indecisive, but he rarely shimmies from the ideological roots of the Stealth Socialist. How could he?

One could not possibly have the background of being a community organizer, a regular, 20-year attendee sitting in the pews of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church and inhaling Wright’s fiery sermons on “God damn America” or on black liberation theology, not to mention launching a legislative campaign from the living room of the unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn and be anything else.

Think of that background. The implicit demanding of services from the government that is the job of a community organizer. The nonsense pudding that is black liberation theology combined with the Infantile Leftism that was (and is) the behavior of Ayers and Dohrn. It is a snapshot of nothing other than Stealth Socialism in action

Now.

Why should you buy this book of Tyrrell’s?

(Page 4 of 5)

There is a reason — and a considerable reason at that.

Standing back and looking at the spectacular fall that has resulted in The Death of Liberalism, it is important to note that its conservative critics have helped illuminate (if not speed up!) the process of understanding by serving as the chroniclers of that fall.

Importantly, Bob Tyrrell’s book is not a stand-alone.

There is a growing catalogue of important books that have helped educate on exactly what Americans of the late 20th and early 21st century have been living through.

Whether reading Mark Levin’s books Liberty and Tyranny or Ameritopia; Ann Coulter’s Demonic; Sean Hannity’s Conservative Victory; Michelle Malkin’s Culture of Corruption; Angelo Codevilla’s The Ruling Class, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism or Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-in-Chief (a relentless examination of Obama’s socialist roots that have given rise to the Stealth Socialist) — each in their own fashion are providing an in-depth understanding of the failures of Liberalism. Why it came to be, what is its history, where did its distinguishing feature of utopianism come from, why and how does it corrupt, how does it manifest itself and how to beat it have all been critical to understanding Liberalism.

What Bob Tyrrell is documenting here is in the nature of a political suicide — a political idea birthed in poisonous nonsense that has become a political death with immense consequences for America and Liberalism’s now decades-old war with conservatism. He takes one on a tour de force of Rousseau, Marx, the historic connections of the latter with anti-Semitism and racism. He touches on what can only be called the closing of the liberal mind, the visceral refusal of modern-day Liberals to participate in debates with conservatives and finding only time to engage in furious long-distance name calling devoid of a solitary intellectual concept.

Last but certainly not least he runs the numbers that confirm The Death of Liberalism. From Gallup to Pew to Harris to CBS and other scorekeepers, the repeated verification of dropping numbers of self-identified Liberals to the point of an extinguished political pulse is documented.

So what’s next? After any death there is a pause to reflect over the life of the deceased.

The trail of destruction Liberalism has left in its wake is mind-boggling. Tyrrell grimly concludes what we all know:

The budgetary deficits we are facing are staggering, and the federal government’s level of indebtedness is worse. More subtly, our freedoms and our constitutional form of government are making heavy weather of it.

All of which has left Americans with a vast yet terribly necessary job.

That job?

To remember the famous encounter of Founding Father (and classical liberal) Benjamin Franklin after he had emerged from the lengthy proceedings of the Constitutional Convention and was confronted by a woman who inquired as to what the delegates had given America.

“We have given you a Republic,” Franklin responded. ” If you can keep it.”

The election of 2010 demonstrates, Tyrrell believes — with considerable justification — that there are in fact millions of Americans who are determined to do just that. They understand full well the stakes, that a historic moment is at hand. They love America — and they want to keep it.

Something is alive in the land,” Tyrrell concludes. That something? “The Constitution.”

“And something is dead: Liberalism.” written by Jeffrey Lord jlpa1@aol.com

Share

Firenze Sage: David Letterman’s whinge [on Obama’s accomplishments] is answered

Obama's meager record on the economy

About Obama’s meager record defended mightily by talk show host Letterman.

In an interview with NBC News anchor Brian Williams, Letterman asked, “What more do we want this man [Obama] to do for us, honest to God?”


Here’s how the folks at Commentary answered Letterman’s question:

For starters, something better than the weakest economic recovery in the modern era,

the worst jobs record
of any president in the modern era,

the highest sustained unemployment rate since the Great Depression,

a housing crisis worse than the Great Depression
,

unprecedented deficits and debt,

a standard of living that’s fallen longer and more steeply during the past three years than at any time since the government began recording it five decades ago,

a downgrade in the United States’ credit rating for the first time in history,

and a record number of people in poverty.
_______________

None of this means anything to Letterman, the overpaid,ignoramus who pontificates nightly.

JAJ48@aol.com http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/109312
jaj48@aol.com

Share

Firenze Sage: Behold the Biden hovel

Biden has middle class digs? Nope. $172,000 is the medium price for a home in America. Joe Biden’s home is worth $2.8 million -and that’s not counting the “cottage” [home] the government rents from Biden for $12 K to provide him protection.

Yet, he calls himself middle class Joe (Biden).

While it’s not clear who actually calls the vice president that, it is clear that his house and finances tell a different story. Here’s a picture of his home:

one car in front of Joe Biden's middle class home

Zillow.com, a reliable real estate web site, estimates the worth of Biden’s Wilmington, Delaware, home (pictured above) to be a cool $2,856,950. (This does not appear to include the cottage on the Biden estate, which the vice president rents out to the Secret Service for more than $12,000 per year.)

“The vice president and his wife, Jill Biden, reported assets of between $239,000 and $866,000,” according to Bloomberg.

Biden added: “What do they think we think? What do they think we think in our houses? We’re like the rich guys — we have dreams, we have aspirations.” Indeed.

_______________

And Joe Biden gave $380 to charity.

JAJ48@aol.com http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/109312

Share

Aptos Psychologist: individual conscience and service (Romney) or a proletarian struggle (Obama)

Obama's proletarian struggle

Individual conscience and service or a proletarian struggle?

personal conscience of each individual

What makes the individual matter?

For Obama it is the collective force that individuals can exert through mass action such as the Occupy Wall Street movement. Not the individual but the collectivity of individuals subsumed to some greater goal that causes important change according to Obama. Life is a proletarian struggle.

For Romney, “the call of service is one of the fundamental elements of our national character. It has motivated every great movement of conscience that this hopeful, fair-minded country of ours has ever seen.”

Recently, Gov. Romney told graduates of Liberty College that “the great drama is always personal, individual, unfolding in one’s own life… and that Men and women of every faith — and good people with none at all — sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life.”

Life is politics says Obama. Obama tells college graduates at Banard College that the road ahead is a fairly grim proletarian struggle and that they need to be ready to occupy everything. Mass political action is the way to make significant change says Obama.

The contrasting world views of Romney and Obama as to how change occurs through individual actions could not be starker.

What say you as to why individuals matter?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

See Opinion piece in WSJ A Tale of Two Commencements below

“Two days after Mitt Romney delivered the commencement speech at Liberty University, the big evangelical Christian school founded by Jerry Falwell, Barack Obama tutored graduates at Barnard College, the intensely liberal all-women’s school adjacent to Columbia University. As you might guess, the wisdom these two political elders imparted to the Class of 2012 was not the same.

Of course the first purpose for both men was to turn young graduates into believers. Mr. Romney, a Mormon, needs to win over ambivalent evangelical voters. Mr. Obama, a liberal Democrat, expects to have the 22-year-old college graduate vote locked up—if they vote.

Yes, of course, they pandered.
Related Video

Columnist Daniel Henninger on what Mitt Romney and President Obama’s commencement speeches say about their world view. Photo: Associated Press

Barack Obama, by now a master at faux self-deflation, admitted he was pandering: “Now I recognize that’s a cheap applause line when you’re giving a commencement at Barnard.” (Laughter.) He had said the women of this generation will help lead the way. (Applause.)

Mitt Romney solved his more problematic pandering assignment by piling praise onto the university’s late founder, the Rev. Jerry Falwell—”a cheerful, confident champion for Christ.”

But even amid pandering one may find truths about candidates revealed, and so it was in New York City and Lynchburg, Va.

The world that Barack Obama conveyed to the women at Barnard is totally, overwhelmingly political. To be sure, there were references to parental joy at the success of children completing college, but virtually every thought in the Obama commencement address—on the accomplishments of the past or a graduate’s goals—was defined by political activity.

He said they are about to grapple with unique challenges, “like whether you’ll be able to earn equal pay for equal work” or “fully control decisions about your own health.”
Related Media

Read a transcript of Barack Obama’s commencement speech at Barnard College

Read a transcript of Mitt Romney’s commencement speech at Liberty University

The role of the citizen in “our democracy” began 225 years ago at the Convention in Philadelphia, which had “flaws,” to wit: “Questions of race and gender were unresolved.” Nonetheless, it “allowed for protest and movements.”

And so: “Don’t accept somebody else’s construction of the way things ought to be. It’s up to you to right wrongs. It’s up to you to point out injustice. It’s up to you to hold the system accountable and sometimes upend it entirely. It’s up to you to stand up and to be heard, to write and to lobby, to march, to organize, to vote.”

Mr. Obama described his own early job as a community organizer: “I wanted to do my part to shape a better world.” He cited the accomplishments of previous generations of young people who “stood up and sat in from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall.” This, Mr. Obama said, is how “we achieved” women’s rights, voting rights, workers’ rights and gay rights.

Barack Obama seems to inhabit a world of history and personal experience in which good people at every turn are held back by individuals or oppressive forces that one only overcomes by personal or public resistance.

Someone in high school told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis she wasn’t college material. Mr. Obama’s grandmother worked for a bank but hit the glass ceiling. And today there are “those who oppose change, those who benefit from an unjust status quo [and] have always bet on the public’s cynicism or the public’s complacency.” He predicts they will lose “this time as well.”

Enlarge Image
wl0517
wl0517
EPA

The president giving remarks at Barnard College, May 14

Fair enough. That’s how the world works for Barack Obama, though it strikes me he is telling America’s 22-year-olds that the road ahead is a fairly grim proletarian struggle. Be ready to occupy everything. Where’s the joy in that?

There was less tooth and claw in the Romney speech at Liberty University. In a discussion of the uses of religious freedom, one passage in particular separated Mr. Romney from Barack Obama’s default to mass action. “The great drama of Christianity,” Gov. Romney said, “is not a crowd shot, following the movements of collectives or even nations. The drama is always personal, individual, unfolding in one’s own life.” Out of this, he said, “Men and women of every faith, and good people with none at all, sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life.”

Progress, he argued, emerges through “conscience in action,” for him “the nation’s greatest force for good.” Mr. Romney referred several times to the idea of personal service. “The call to service,” he said “is one of the fundamental elements of our national character. It has motivated every great movement of conscience that this hopeful, fair-minded country of ours has ever seen.”

For Barack Obama, life is politics. For Mitt Romney, life includes politics; politics, he said, does not define us.

To wage a presidential campaign in our nonstop media age, the man who sees politics as a battering ram may have an edge. But Mitt Romney, with his politics of optimism and personal conscience, could be onto something that will serve him well.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Share

Firenze Sage: Forget a cancer cure, control soot [EPA]

soot
EPA views soot control more important

EPA’s rules cost the private sector $105+ BILLION compared to $5 billion for the rest of government. And the EPA continues to make outrageous statements. It has been brought to light that in testimony to Congress last September, Administrator Lisa Jackson claimed that further controls of soot would be as beneficial to public health as finding a cure for cancer.
_______________

Which to get rid of first,TSA, Dept of Energy or Education or this one.
JAJ48@aol.com http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/109312

jaj48@gmail.com

Share

Aptos Psychologist: ask Barbara Boxer why Obama’s appointee NRC Chair Jaczko’s ‘vicious mgt style towards women’ gets a pass

jack
JACZKO & BOXER

JACZKO & BOXER act like two scary JACK-IN-THE-BOXes that pop up on cue under someone else’s control? See WSJ 4-20-2012.

Obama appointed JAZCO as chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

nrc
Obama appointee NRC chair Jaczko

JAZCO’S “vicious management style, [of Nuclear Regulatory Commission] abusive outbursts of rage, bullying and intimidating behavior” reduced professional NRC women to tears says WSJ 4-20-2012.

The other four NRC Commissioners Democrat & Republican complained to Obama because JAZCO: 1) withheld information from the Commissioners; 2) altered recommendations; and 3) overrode the will of the majority.

Obama ignored complaints from the Commissioners. The Democrat Party refuses to investigate.

Senate Majority Harry Reid trashes the only female Commissioner KRISTINE SVINICKI, a nuclear engineer.

nrc
nuclear engineer NRC Svinchi

Democrat Senator from CA Barbara BOXER response has been to smear all four Commissioners. Boxer claims that they on are on a McCarthy ‘witch hunt’ and she defends JAZCO.

You can contact NRC Chair JACZKO and Commissioner SVINCHI by phone at 301 415 7000 or at www.nrc.gov


What’s this all about? The progressive left’s ideology opposes nuclear energy.
And the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) sets the policies.

So Obama appoints someone — JACZKO — programmed to: 1) strangle nuclear energy progress; and 2) kill the Yucca mountain repository planned for Harry Reid’s state of Nevada. But JACZKO’s heavy handed style was too much for all of the other Commissioners, both Democrat and Republican alike.

The complaints about JACZKO are strikingly familiar to the complaints made about Obama.The first year after elected Obama focused on health care reform when the public in 2009-2010 was most concerned about the economy and jobs. So Obama overrode the will of the majority of Americans akin to how JACZKO interacts with the four other Commissioners of the NRC.

NRC chair JACZKO is accused of withholding information from the other Commissioners. Remember Obama claim that Obama-Care will not add one dollar to the deficit while at the same time taking 500 BILLLION from Medicare? And three years later there still are no accurate figures as to how much Obama-Care will cost. Or exactly how many millions would be added to Medicare.

JACZKO is accused of altering recommendations. Obama for sure ignores the recommendations of others.

written by ronron4848@gmail.com

Share

Aptos Psychologist: Pot calls kettle black? [Color of Change smears ALEC as racist for advocating voter ID laws]

POT
pot calls kettle black?

Pot calls kettle black? One voice for Black America, Color of Change (COC), routinely smears individuals & groups as racist.

Latest organization COC smears is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC supports voter ID laws as do 70 percent of Americans.

Read below and let COC know what you think of their tactics. Contact form available at Color of Change.org

It takes one to know one? It takes a thief to catch a thief? Hold your arm out and point your index finger. Notice that your thumb points back at you.

COC, per information below, appears to be itself a racist organization that cries racism in the crowded marketplace. And recently a number of CEO’s of large U.S. corporations have ducked and run for cover. So far, Wal-Mart, Johnson & Jounson, AT&T and State Farm have resisted COC’s smear tactics. Caving in include Coca-Cola, Mars, Wendy’s and Kraft.

COC was started in 2005 by former White House aide Van Jones and MoveOn.org James Rucher. Van Jones is the aide who was fired by the White House. CRC wants quotas for government contracts, admission to college, and hiring. Read more below.

After targeting free market policies of ALEC who will be COC’s next target? It’s time to tell COC to stop their smear tactics. Tell Color of Change that 70% of Americans support voter ID laws because they prevent fraud.

COC can be found at Color of Change. org

________________
taken from Discover the Network.org
‘Founded in 2005, Color of Change (COC) is a nonprofit corporation and an Internet-based grassroots activist group. Van Jones and James Rucker (former director of MoveOn.org Political Action and co-founder of the Secretary of State Project) created COC to combat what they viewed as the systemic racism pervading America generally and conservatism in particular. COC’s mission is to “strengthen Black America’s political voice”; “make government more responsive to the concerns of Black Americans”; and “bring about positive political and social change for everyone.”

Toward these ends, the organization COC supports race- and gender-based preferences in government contracting, college admissions, and hiring/promotion policies. Further, COC favors the expansion of the welfare state and thus seeks to discredit initiatives that would restore limited government and rein in public expenditures.

‘From its inception, COC has aimed its criticisms chiefly at prominent conservative and Republican figures. In 2005, for instance, the organization attacked political theorist William Bennett for uttering “racist lies” and pushed to have him dismissed from his broadcasting positions with the Salem Radio Network and CNN.

‘That same year, COC depicted the federal government’s allegedly sluggish mobilization of post-Hurricane Katrina rescue efforts as symptomatic of America’s low regard for black people. “With no one to speak for them,” COC lamented, “hundreds of thousands of people—largely Black, poor, and elderly—were left behind to die.” To drive this point home, COC collaborated with MoveOn.org Civic Action to screen the Spike Lee film When the Levees Broke, which alleged that the federal government had dynamited Gulf-area levees in an effort to flood the black neighborhoods of New Orleans—a view popularized most famously by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Rap singer Kanye West, who cited the government’s inept response to Katrina as evidence that President “Bush does not care about black people,” had a connection to COC at that time: A now defunct website entitled “KayneWasRight.org” was linked back to ColorOfChange.org.

‘In January 2006, COC initiated a Senate letter-writing campaign to galvanize opposition to President Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito “has consistently demonstrated his hostility towards laws that ensure racial equality and protect the civil rights of Americans,” COC claimed. “If history is a guide, Alito’s presence on the Supreme Court will put some of our most basic civil rights protections in jeopardy.”

‘During the 2008 presidential campaigns, COC was part of the progressive effort to associate the Republican ticket of McCain-Palin with racism. In an open letter which it disseminated widely, COC complained that the “hateful language” and “rhetoric” allegedly on display at Republican campaign events was taking on “an increasingly dangerous tone that seems to ignore the precarious state of our progress when it comes to race and ethnicity.” The organization charged, for instance, that attendees at such events had called for “violence against Sen. Obama, yelling ‘kill him!,’ ‘off with his head!,’ and ‘bomb Obama.’” Subsequent investigations, however, showed no evidence that these racial slurs and threats had ever been uttered.

‘In one of its longest-running initiatives, Color of Change has repeatedly smeared the Fox News Channel
(FNC) as a disseminator of racism and bigotry. Beginning in March 2007, COC denounced the station for “consistently attack[ing] Black people, leaders, and cultural institutions.” The following year, COC tried to prevent Fox from co-hosting any of the presidential debates with the Congressional Black Caucus Institute. When Fox News’ Glenn Beck exposed the radical communist past of Van Jones in August 2009, eventually leading to Jones’ resignation from his White House post, COC began a letter-writing campaign to the CEOs of FNC advertisers, demanding that they pull their ads due to “Beck’s racially divisive rhetoric.” In September 2009, COC claimed victory, stating that its efforts had caused Beck to lose 50% of his advertising dollars.

‘In March 2010, COC began an aggressive effort to discredit the Tea Party movement’s “venomous rhetoric,” “racially inflammatory and violent outbursts,” “racially charged imagery,” and “paranoid conspiracy theories.” Said James Rucker: “Republican officials have contributed to this atmosphere with fear-mongering and coded racism, and they have actively courted this element of their party.”

‘In the fall of 2011, COC helped launch a campaign threatening to boycott corporations that gave financial support to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an association that drafts pro-free-market, pro-limited-government legislation for state lawmakers across the U.S. Most notably, ALEC supports the enforcement of voter-ID laws, immigration laws, and Second Amendment rights. Joining COC in its crusade against ALEC were People for the American Way, the Center for Media and Democracy, the Arizona AFL-CIO, AFSCME, the American Federation of Teachers, the Arizona Education Association, Progress Now, and Occupy Wall Street. The combined pressure of these organizations caused a number of companies to withdraw their support for ALEC. These included Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Intuit, Kraft Foods, McDonald’s, Arby’s, and Walgreens.

“In the spring of 2012, COC and its allies tried to exploit the racial overtones of the February 26, 2012 killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin, who had been shot by a “white Hispanic” claiming to have acted in self-defense as permitted under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. Charging (incorrectly) that ALEC had drafted that particular law, COC demanded that AT&T—which was one of ALEC’s corporate board members—abandon the Council or be permanently branded as a racist entity with Trayvon Martin’s blood on its proverbial hands. Further, COC alleged that Florida police had deliberately sought to suppress evidence against Martin’s killer, and that law-enforcement’s decision not to incarcerate the gunman reflected “a pattern of failing to prosecute when the victim is Black.”

“COC’s executive director is Rashad Robinson, who is also affiliated with the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the Right to Vote Campaign. The latter is a national collaboration of eight civil-rights organizations—including the NAACP, People for the American Way, and the ACLU—that seek to combat “voter disenfranchisement” by lobbying for laws that would permit convicted felons, who are disproportionately African Americans, to vote in political elections.

Share