Obama: Demagogue

Follow @SpookdBlog

Demogogue-in-Chief?         [ScottStarnes.wordpress.com]

Periodically, we find material that we feel deserves broader distribution, 

so we invite credible authors to post guest columns. 

Today, we're posting a column by Dr Sarah Thurow, a retired professor of political philosophy and literature. She specializes in classical political thought and has many years' experience teaching American government. 

                                                           ------------------------


Barack Obama, you are a fraud, a hypocrite, and a demagogue.

1. You claim to place great value on “diversity” and “tolerance” and to support the redefinition of marriage to include same sex unions, yet you think it is quite proper and moral with respect to people who believe that abortion is a sin to compel them to violate their own religious belief by providing free abortions for their employees. Apparently you only believe in “tolerating” the “diversity” of people who agree with you.

2. You claim that your healthcare program is so good for all of us (not just those who cannot afford medical insurance) that all of us must be compelled to participate in it or punished if we choose to opt out, yet you don’t see any problem with you and our other “representatives” being exempt. This is the attitude of a ruler, not a representative.

3. You claim to respect the Constitution and to adhere to the principles of the American system of government, yet you demonize the other party rather than attempt to find a common ground. Anyone who does not agree with and who does not support your programs you regard as unreasonable, unworthy of argument or persuasion, or simply wrong. That is characteristic of a totalitarian, not a democratic government. No matter how sure you are that your opinions are not opinions but truth, our system requires you to not only tolerate but actually listen to and argue with other claims to truth.

4. You continually claim that you are most concerned for the well-being of the middle class. Yet it is the middle class that will bear the greatest burden of your healthcare program, facing increased premiums and co-pays with no additional employer assistance because their employers are also facing higher costs. Your overall project of increasing government entitlements is also going to hurt the middle class because they do not qualify for government support (and most of them don’t want it), but they do not earn enough money to be comfortable paying the taxes to fund these programs.

5. Finally, you are the image of the classic demagogue, with one new element that is distinctly American. You came to power with the support of two classes who have nothing to lose by your programs.

The one is the class that always supports a demagogue, the poor who are dependent on the government for the necessities of life. They are not to be blamed for supporting someone who promises to give them more than they are presently getting.

The other class, however, is very much to be blamed. They are the rich liberals who assuage their consciences by using the government to care for the poor. They get to feel good about themselves while using tax money for their benevolence. They can afford to pay higher taxes without affecting their comfortable lifestyle.

But when “charity” is compelled it ceases to be charity and becomes a tax burden. It both undermines true charity and impoverishes the one class that truly understands charity.

In ancient democracies (classical Greece) a demagogue inevitably led to tyranny because, in securing the support of the poor, he promised to take from the rich and “redistribute” wealth. This initial act of injustice (the injustice of taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another) paved the way for other unjust acts.

But the middle class cannot. The middle class would – and does – voluntarily give what they can, and work as volunteers when they can, to aid those less fortunate than themselves. Because they are close to the condition of the poor and are aware that it would not take much to put them in similar circumstances, they have a true empathy with them, unlike your rich liberal supporters.

America was supposed to be safe from such degeneration because we had a strong middle class. So long as that class remained the majority, the poor would not go without aid and the rich would not have their property unjustly confiscated. The middle class could identify with both.

But you and your party have discovered how to subvert the American solution. You have discovered how to get the rich to support a government that supports the poor. But you have done this by putting the real burden on the middle class.

The inevitable effect is that the middle class will shrink. Some will drop off into the class of people supported by the government (Marx’s “proletariat”) and others will be resourceful or lucky enough to rise into the class of the rich who can afford to live well while still paying excessive taxes.

When that transformation is complete, the American experiment in self-government will have failed.

We will be a nation of rulers (you and your rich liberal class) and ruled (the rest of us, those who still struggle to take care of themselves independently and those who have given up the struggle and accepted dependence on the rulers).

You wish for a place in history, for fame.

I predict that you will have it.

Obama's Legacy          [theamericanrose.blogspot.com (Matthew Rosario)]

You will have it as the one who most contributed to the failure of the American experiment in self-government.

You will have it as the first of our new rulers, our new “benevolent” tyrants under whom we will be given what is “good for us” according to you and your ruling class, under whom we will be relieved of any need to think for ourselves or consult our consciences -- because you and your class will tell us what is true and necessary to believe.

Marine Corps Disaster?

Follow @SpookdBlog

Click here for related story [Military Times]

The Military seems to have changed a great deal during this Administration; it seems to be falling apart, perhaps for lack of leadership from the Commander-in-Chief all the way through the ranks.


We are scratching our collective heads on the changes the USMC Commandant is instituting -- or should we say, re-instituting, to reinvent the Military to what it was ten years ago. 

When did the Marines [et al] change from a Military organization to a social gathering!

In the referenced article, Marine Commandant Jim Amos raises issues and calls for reforms to correct the many problems rampant in the Marine Corps, and in the Military across the board.

We fear we may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg.




Here is the gist of General Amos' reform package:

1) Sergeants and corporals will live in the barracks with the troops
2) Officers and NCOs will be in and out of the barracks regularly at all hours
3) Officers and NCOs will have "staff duty" requirements
4) On-Duty Marines will wear service uniforms
5) Two NCOs, plus a Firewatch, will be on duty per barracks
6) No TVs or video games allowed in the watch-standers place of duty; watch-standers will patrol the barracks throughout the night.
7) Marines or corporals will no longer be promoted in groups -- but rather on personal assessments.

Every one of these changes were standard operating procedure when I was on Active Duty.  Has the Military eroded to such an extent that command authority has disappeared.  Could this situation explain some of the horrific situations we see in our Military today?

I'm reminded of a similar degradation of the Military under President Jimmy Carter, when we were required to adopt a "kumbaya feel-good" approach to running the Military.

When I was a detachment commander at Ft Bragg [1975-78], our new Brigade commander, Colonel Sydney T Weinstein [later Lieutenant General/DCSINT] ordered a Saturday morning "Commanders Call", and, in a shrieking tirade, demanded that the commanders fix the problem with the 525 MI Brigade's rowdy and undisciplined enlisted troops.

When he was finished with his histrionics, he shouted:
"Any questions?"

So, naturally, I raised my hand, causing smoke to billow from his ears, and he demanded:
"What part of what I just said do you not understand!"

I replied:
"Well, Colonel, I'm curious as to why you're telling your commanders of this problem"
-- which caused more shrieking and stamping of feet, and fire blowing from all his orifices.

He replied:
"Because YOU, as commanders, are responsible! Who else do you think is going to handle this problem!"
I responded:
"Well sir, have you noticed that big, fat ugly guy sitting next to you with all the stripes on his sleeve?

Weinstein replied:
"Yeah"

I advised:
"Well, he's your Sergeant Major, your chief of all things enlisted.
"He's the only guy you should be talking to right now about problems with his enlisted troops. By demanding that we do his job, you undercut his authority, and that of all the non-commissioned officers in your command. You might want to discuss this issue with him, tell him what you want accomplished, and then back him up with full authority to accomplish his mission. He's your guy!"

Colonel Weinstein then turned to his Sergeant Major and asked timidly:
"Is what Davis is saying true?"

The Sergeant Major leered at the colonel and growled:
"You're God Damned right!
"Why don't you let me do my goddam job and quit undercutting me with your namby pampy West Point horse-shit!"

[The sergeant major was not one to mince words.]

Colonel Weinstein then glared at me and demanded to know how I knew such things,
and I replied:
"Well, Colonel, before I was an officer, I was a non-commissioned officer, that is, a sergeant. I've spent my entire life around the military as a dependent or as a soldier, so I picked up these pointers from NCOs and officers.  May I suggest you consult with your Sergeant Major on a regular basis and you'll find he can manage a great number of the issues that confront you on a daily basis."

Colonel Weinstein then closed the meeting, after which the Sergeant Major came to me and said:
"Captain, I still think you're an asshole, but I respect you for standing up to the colonel, and I'd be proud to serve under your command in combat!"

I thanked him for his kind words, and advised I would seek him out at the first signs of our next war.

Tom Weinstein and I had a turbulent relationship since my detachment, responsible for training all USFORSCOM units in tactical intelligence, took its direction from the FORSCOM Commander rather than the 525 MI Brigade or 18th Airborne Corps Commander.  But, he left me alone since his Brigade took the credit when all the commendations came in from the commanders of the units we trained, and from the Pentagon.  And, he did write my Officer Efficiency Report, so we reached a productive working accord.  I later briefly served under him at the Pentagon where he was Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, and I edited the Black Book -- a highly classified daily intelligence brief for the Pentagon General Staff. 

Weinstein's management style, unfortunately, never improved.

ObamaCare: End of the Middle Class?

Click here for full story [Washington Post]

Here's a great analysis of the impact of ObamaCare by Kathleen Parker. 

We generally agree with her views, and we couldn't agree more with this piece.  We'll cover the highlights, and refer you to her full analysis.  As the Geeks like to say [to sound cultured], this is "Spot On".  Feel free to pass this analysis along to your friends, and even to Democrats.

Perhaps Parker's piece inspired Senator Cruz [R-TX] to present his strategy for defunding ObamaCare, which briefly, entails funding the Continuing Resolution in segments, leaving ObamaCare unfunded.
[It's more complex, but it has great merit; Mr Obama calls it extortion; we think it's sensible.]

But, we've digressed.  Back to Ms Parker's analysis; her bottom line appears to be
"ObamaCare will destroy the Middle Class" -- and we agree.

Popular approval for ObamaCare is down to 39%, from 51% nine months ago.
a) American youth, at the lower end of the wage scale, or unemployed, can't afford mandatory health care premiums.  Those under 27 can still get coverage under their parents' insurance -- but, there is still the increased family premium to pay.
b) Though promised otherwise, Americans cannot keep the insurance they like.
c) People who can't afford the mandatory health care face criminal penalties and fines.
     1)  Those over 40 will be forced to pay close to $4,000 per year for coverage
     2)   Those over 60 can expect to pay close to $7,500 per year.
d) Those protesting most loudly are the unions, who now realize they were double-crossed.

Is Obama's Red Line an Unemployment Line?

The economic impact as companies dodge the massive expense of ObamaCare:
a) Companies are trimming workers' hours from full time [40 hours] to part time [30 hours]
b) Large companies are firing workers or offering them early retirment to reduce overall benefits costs.
c) Small companies are trimming employees to fewer than 50 to avoid mandatory health benefits
d) Bottom Line:  Massive unemployment!

Lobbying makes a difference as large companies were granted a one year delay in extending coverage for their workers.

And, as we expected, and many predicted, Mr Obama has offered Congress an exemption to exclude them from ObamaCare -- with their health care underwritten by the American taxpayer.  This gambit is designed to induce Congress to block Conservative efforts to defund ObamaCare.

Ms Parker encourages a delay by Congress on taking action on ObamaCare, but she recognizes that may work to Mr Obama's advantage. 

Given that, we think Senator Cruz may have the best approach.

As a footnote:
Unaddressed in all these discussions are the rather unique provisions and authorizations in ObamaCare, to include a police enforcement organization, criminal sanctions against patients, hospitals and doctors, authorization for a private army, and authorization for the Surgeon General to take control of DOD in the event of "a national 'medical' emergency".