Obama, Lame Duck Semi-Conservatives
America is now standing at the critical crossroads of fiscal- and Constitutional-destruction brought about by over a century of progressive (we must “progress” beyond the outdated and ill-conceived Constitution if we are to make “progress” toward our Socialist-Marxist utopia on earth) politics. This foolish progressivism has created a severe insolvency fiasco both in the states and the federal government created by 109 years of overstepping the Constitution. Right now the problem seems to be assaulting our states more severely because the federal government has shown itself willing to impoverish the people and the states by destroying the American Dollar, a resource thankfully not available to the individual states. How did we get to this sad situation? It all began with the compromises of the 2010 Lame Duck Congressional Session.
The most sensational sites for this national progressive shipwreck, besides Washington, D.C. itself, are found in a dozen moderate to high profile states. The strikes and nonsense now playing out in Wisconsin are likely to soon see ugly sequels in California, Illinois, Arizona, Nevada and even perhaps in Florida, Rhode Island, Oregon, Washington, and Michigan. Meanwhile two other states in very bad fiscal condition (New York and New Jersey) appear to have a great chance of avoiding Wisconsin’s fate because their two governors (Andrew Cuomo and Chris Christie, respectively) have shown immense backbone and common sense in attacking their state’s debt crisis head on and their state legislative bodies have largely kept out of their chief executives’ way; not so in Wisconsin where the entire Democratic senate had refused to come to work and is now hiding out in Illinois. How did we get to this sad situation? It all began with the compromises of the 2010 Lame Duck Congressional Session.
The situation in the nation stood dramatically better on election eve, 2010 than it stood on New Year’s Eve 2010-2011. The deterioration of the prognosis owes itself to the idiocy of the semi-conservative Republicans holding forth in the 2010 Lame Duck session who caved into President Obama’s demands on virtually all fronts instead of standing strong and letting the newly-elected representatives and senators deal with Mr. Obama’s foolishness in 2011. At that time Mr. Obama’s “strong”-approval rating showed a minus -18 percentage points, while today in many polls the overall (mild + strong approval and disapproval ratings) ratings show President Obama has climbed from 41% overall approval and 56% overall disapproval (a -15% overall rating) to showing him at +2% (51% to 49%) a dramatic increase in the president’s perceived competence after Republicans compromised with the President’s agenda.
It’s to be hoped that House Speaker John Boehner and his chief lieutenants Ryan, Simpson and Cantor and their House Republican colleagues . . . learned volumes from the failures of Newt Gingrich dealing with the clever Bill Clinton and of the recent 2010 Lame Duckers in facing Obama. But just in case they haven’t, here are the lessons they should learn:
1. DO NOT compromise on principles. Make a stand for statesmanship.
2. Do NOT compromise on the Constitution: follow your promises from the 2010 Republican “Pledge to America” 100% to the letter.
3. Do NOT compromise on taxes, spending, deficits, borrowing, the national debt or the entitlement mess. Save our country.
4. Do NOT compromise with our Marxist president on any single thing. He wished to gain re-election. He can only do that IF he appears to American voters as a reasonable and center-dwelling politician. Make the Marxist skunk show his stripes.
5. HOW does the G.O.P. save this country?
By never giving in and fighting the president tooth-and-nail at every step of the way, that’s how. Specifically: don’t swing for the fences, make solid contact on every ball and be content with walks and singles. If baseball is NOT your cup of tea, look at things this way, the battle before them is a marathon not a sprint . . . because every easily-gained compromise makes Barack Obama look reasonable and statesmanlike. Every grudging compromise by Obama shows his true ultra-socialist colors plainly for the entire country to see.
The G.O.P. was elected by landslide numbers across the country to stand up to the president and his apocalyptic philosophy of spending, taxes government interference and unfettered government growth. They must do what they were elected to do . . . bring sanity back to Washington. Sanity without the presidency or the senate means only one thing: deadlock. If the issues that doomed Democrats to wide scale defeat in 2010 are still foremost in the voters’ minds, the Senate and the Oval Office can be won and sanity can prevail. If Obama through slight of forked-tongue can make himself appear “reasonable” to the electorate and re-elected in 2012, there is no limit to the harm that our nation will face (bankruptcy will be the smallest part of it). It’s a strategic battle . . . a chess game.
Rajjpuut has coached children as young as two years old to become strong chess players and helped some of them earn five Colorado Chess Team Championships in the elementary, middle school and high school divisions in Colorado. No matter what the game involved (or the personal, military or commercial requisite) is, strategy always comes down to this:
1) Play so that the opponent’s weaknesses become the key factor in the game. If he’s got an exposed King, a bad Bishop or tripled Pawns . . . make them stink up the board.
2) Play so that your own weaknesses are irrelevant.
3) Play so that your opponent’s strengths are irrelevant or unusable.
4) Play so that your own strengths are the dominant factor across the whole board.
5) Play aggressively if possible; or play defense so tenaciously that the opponent will face a lot of tough situations and in frustration will eventually slip however slightly.
What are the conservative's potential weaknesses? Social-conservativism especially as attached to anti-abortionism is largely unpopular. It is, however, popular to prevent federal funding of abortion, such as President Obama swore he would to get Obamacare passed, IF the G.O. P. can confine itself to that: no problem. And of course the Lame Duck compromises showed Obama that some conservatives will not stand up for their principles.
What are the G.O.P.’s strengths? The TEA Party “Contract from America” and the G.O.P. “Pledge to America say 90% of it all. If 60% of voters became familiar with these documents, Obama would have trouble getting 30% of the vote. The Republicans have also appeared more statesmanlike over the past two years and reasonable; and conservative-fiscal and Constitutional-conservativism is the approach that won the day on Election Day, 2010.
What are Obama’s strengths? People don’t look at the truth of what he’s saying because they want to like him so much . . . thus, he can get away with almost anything and Republicans have not held his feet to the fire. For example, the President has never told Americans that he worked as an ACORN attorney shaking down mortgage lenders to force them into compliance with CRA ’77 and he even went so far as to tell his “car in the ditch story” in at least 150 speeches while the Republicans were so foolish as never to expose Obama’s ACORN activities; CRA and Cloward Piven’s role in the meltdown; or Bush’s efforts to undo CRA ’77 and prevent the sub-prime lending crisis which led to our financial meltdown. This truth has never been revealed or understood by the voters as a whole, and until it has been, Obama will personally seem almost unassailable . . . .
The TRUE CAR IN THE DITCH Story
In January, 2005, President George W. Bush saw that progressive Democrats, ACORN, Clinton and Obama were deliberately pushing the car (our American economy) toward a 500-foot ditch. He jumped in the driver’s seat and grabbed the steering wheel and slammed on the brakes. Despite Democratic opposition for 30 months, he was able to guide it into the nearest friendly-looking ditch by July, 2007.
Since that is the 100% truth which 96% of Americans don’t know and since that underlined word “deliberately” ties the whole thing to the progressive movement and the aims of Cloward, Piven, George Wiley and Wade Rathke and to the ACORN presidencies of Obama and Clinton . . . no matter what obstacles the lamestream-mainstream media throw in their path, that history of treachery must be revealed.
Here are five “fact paintings” to push the point into America’s permanent memory:
#1: In 1975 before CRA ’77 only 1 in 404 home loans was “suspect,” that is issued at 3% down-payment or less. America in 1975 with 62-65% private home ownership is the envy of the world. That solid beneficial status rests upon the accepted standards of long years: a 20% down payment requirement for home buyers and great credit ratings. CRA ’77 FORCED home lenders to knowingly make stupid loans to unqualified recipients at ultra-low down payments.
#2: In 1985 after eight years of CRA ’77 and ACORN operating in Clinton’s Arkansas alone and in no other states: 1 in 196 home mortgages was suspect. That is the rate of bad loans has doubled just from ACORN browbeating lenders in one state, Arkansas.
#3: In 1995 after three CRA ’77 expansions by Clinton (two of them legislatively) and the expansion of ACORN nationwide: now 1 in every 7 home loans was suspect. By the way, Barack Obama worked as an ACORN attorney during this era, browbeating mortgage lenders into making knowingly horrific loans to bad risks.
#4: In 2005 following seven years of Clinton’s 1998 “steroid-version” expansion of CRA ’77: 34%, roughly 1 in every 3 home loans was suspect with many issued with 0% down-payment. Thanks to Clinton’s ’98 steroid expansion of CRA ’77 it’s now easier for ACORN to force home lenders to put an unqualified would-be home buyer into a $440,000 home than it was a decade earlier for Barack Obama and other ACORN attorneys to put the same person into a $110,000 home . . . and it’s now far more likely that the loan recipient a) won’t have a job or b) won’t even have a rental history or c) won’t even have I.D. or d) will list his only “income” as food stamps; or be on welfare or e) will have a terrible credit rating or f) will be an illegal alien.
#5 Luckily Al Gore didn’t win the presidency in 2000. Gore was a big believer in CRA legislation. Instead George W. Bush is elected between the two ACORN presidents, Clinton and Obama, and rather than driving the “car” into the ditch by incompetence as Obama loves to imply, Bush keeps the economy from utter ruin created by the deliberate actions of ACORN in abusing CRA ’77 (a deliberate Cloward-Piven effort to overload the system and create chaos using Saul Alinsky tactics) and prevents it going over the cliff, but rather he steers it into a friendly ditch and away from the abyss the progressives were pushing us toward. It happens like this . . . .
In January, 2005, George Bush makes the first speech (of 19 speeches he’ll make in the next 30 months) on the dangers of the CRA ’77 law and its expansions seeking repeal of the worst aspects of the laws. However, the bill he supports is defeated by the progressive Democrats and various compromise bills will continue to be defeated by them until a very weak version of his bill is finally passed in July, 2007. It is, of course, too little and too late and the sub-prime lending crisis is soon underway. Nevertheless, the new law Bush passed is hailed in August 2010 by Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as saving the country’s economy from a truly hideous recession and an absolute meltdown in housing prices.
These truths, of course, are as unpopular with the mainstream, lamestream media as Bush himself was . . . yet, these are the truths that will set the country free . . . These truths; the “chess-like” strategy mentioned above and simple patriotic stubbornness*** are the secrets to dealing with Mr. Obama and his progressive ilk.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
*** D. Morris at his website dickmorris.com put it like this:
“If the Republicans hold firm in demanding huge spending cuts and Obama does not give in, the question of whether or not to cut spending will dominate the nation's political discourse for months on end and will spill over into the 2012 election.
“To assure that it will, the Republicans should hold firm to their budget spending cuts without surrender or compromise. If necessary, it is OK to vote a few very short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government open for a few weeks at a time, always keeping on the pressure.
“When the debt limit vote comes up, they should refuse to allow an increase without huge cuts in spending. If the debt-limit deadline passes, they should force the administration to scramble to cobble together enough money to operate for weeks at a time.
“If Obama offers a half a loaf, the GOP should spurn it for weeks and months. Then, rather than actually shut down the government, let them accept some variant of their proposed cuts but only give in return a few more weeks' time, at which point the issue will be re-litigated. Don't go for Armageddon -- just keep fighting the battle.
“Same with the debt limit. Extend it for a few hundred billion dollars and then go back for more cuts in return for a further extension. Make Obama pay for each continuing resolution and each debt-limit hike with more cuts to spending.
“Always avoid cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Save those for after 2012. For now, focus on Medicaid block granting and discretionary spending (including some modest cuts in defense).
“Like a guerrilla army, never go to a shutdown (a general engagement) but keep coming up with cuts, compromising, letting the government stay open for a few more weeks, and letting the debt limit rise a few hundred billion, and then come back for more cuts and repeat the cycle.
“And don't just demand spending cuts. Go for defunding of Obamacare, blocking the EPA from carbon taxation and regulation, a ban on card-check unionization and constraints on the FCC's regulation of the Internet and talk radio. Put those items on the table each time, each session.
“Every time the issues come up, every time the cuts are litigated, Obama's efforts to appear to be a centrist will be frustrated. Time and again, he will have to oppose spending cuts. Over and over, he will come across as the liberal he is, battling for each dime and opposing any defunding.
“Obama's campaign strategy has two elements: Change the subject from the 09-10 agenda and move to the center. A tough, determined Republican budget offensive, embracing all these elements and fought in this guerrilla style, will frustrate both and lead to his defeat.”