Columnist.
I just don't understand it. Everywhere we turn, we conservatives are told we need to moderate, be less extreme, be more bipartisan. The public just wants us all to get along and solve our major problems together. Democratic politicians and the liberal media harp on the alleged extremism of mainstream conservatism, the tea party, Sen. Ted Cruz, conservative talk radio and anyone else who dares to call out President Obama and his Democratic congressional cohorts in plain language for what they're doing to the country.
Two snares stand in the way of conservatives' fervent desire to dismantle Obamacare: 1) a possible perception that its problems are limited to the technical issues with the rollout and 2) the GOP's potentially suicidal impulse to bail Obama out. Though the problems with the rollout are far more than website "glitches," they can and will be fixed. But once fixed, substantive problems will remain that will only be corrected if Obamacare is undone.
Could there be more convincing proof that President Obama is more concerned about himself than he is about the Americans he is supposed to serve than his Monday morning speech defending the disastrous Obamacare rollout rather than apologizing for it? Could there be more compelling evidence that he is first and foremost a Saul Alinsky agitator than the fact that he took the offense and attacked Republicans for fighting him on the budget -- a fight that in no way caused any rollout problems -- rather than humbly admit these inexcusable and humiliating problems?
Call me Pollyannaish or insincere, but I am not depressed about the so-called "caving" of the GOP -- for a host of reasons. To put this in perspective, let me confess that I did feel totally dejected after Obama's re-election in 2012. How could he possibly have won, I wondered, given the obvious failure of his policies and the wholesale repudiation of his agenda in the 2010 congressional elections?
Every time we have a congressional impasse over budgetary issues, we hear from liberals predicting Shutdown-mageddon. Why don't they ever join us in expressing concern over the inevitable financial collapse that will result from their policies? We always seem to hyperventilate over these mini-crises involving the temporary shutdown of small parts of the precious federal government, while we totally ignore the real financial catastrophe we're headed toward unless we begin to move in the direction Sen. Ted Cruz and other congressional Republicans are insisting on in these budgetary battles -- defunding Obamacare, reining in spending and reforming unsustainable entitlements.
I respect -- but disagree with -- those who believe that the Republican Party is on a suicide mission by refusing to agree to either a continuing resolution or a lifting of the debt ceiling without some meaningful inroads into Obamacare. If I understand it correctly, they are convinced that it's a dead-end mission guaranteed to hurt the GOP, mainly because polls indicate that people will primarily blame the GOP for the shutdown (and government default, should that occur).
Notwithstanding the naysayers from the left and the right, the bullying White House is running scared, as evidenced by its increasing nastiness, name-calling and petty manipulation of the government shutdown. President Obama must be shocked that his usual demagogic tricks aren't working this time, that instead of the Republicans caving in deference to his dictatorial demands, they are united and holding firm, and that he, not the Republicans, is cratering in the polls.
The arrogance of this president is staggering. He is so convinced he is immune from accountability that he thinks he can thumb his nose at Republicans and refuse even to come to the table and negotiate. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor sent a memo to his party membership providing an update on the government shutdown, lamenting that Obama wouldn't negotiate and quoting author Bob Woodward's describing Obama's refusal as "baffling" and "in stark contrast to" President Clinton's approach.
Why is it just assumed Republicans will automatically be blamed for any government shutdown over a budgetary impasse between Obama and his Democratic Party and Republicans? More disturbingly, why do so many Republicans and right-leaning commentators surrender before we've even begun to fight? Do our moderates believe there is any position President Obama and the Democrats could take that would result in the public's blaming Democrats, rather than Republicans, for a shutdown?
Perhaps Obama was onto something when, as a young author, he zeroed in on the term "audacity" to (subconsciously) telegraph his ambitious designs to fundamentally transform our beloved America. What word could describe better than audacity Obama's refusal to accept responsibility for his dreadful policies; his standing before the American people -- even today -- in the face of the avalanche of evidence proving how terrible Obamacare is and continuing to lie about what it will do; his persistence in mislabeling his unaffordable monstrosity "the Affordable Care Act;" his failure to address the legitimate, undeniable complaints about Obamacare and his insistence -- at all costs -- on cramming it down Americans' throats; and his taking -- in the words of Time -- an "early Obamacare victory lap" just as the horrifying effects of this law are about to descend, in full force, on the American people?
"They tell us, sir, that we are weak, unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be next week or the next year?" Will it be when Obamacare has metastasized into every sector of our economy? "Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope? ... Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power." We are "millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty."
The fascinating issue of America's character arose in a "Ricochet Podcast" featuring the sagacious Norman Podhoretz. Hosts Peter Robinson, Rob Long and James Lileks interviewed Podhoretz on a range of issues, but primarily American foreign policy. Long lamented that President Obama has been making a consummate mess of America's foreign policy, most recently in Syria, yet polls don't seem to reflect that Americans are as atuned to Obama's incompetence as one might expect -- and hope. Nor do Americans seem to be bothered by Russian President Vladimir Putin's denunciation of the United States in an op-ed for The New York Times.
New York Times columnist David Brooks argued on PBS' "NewsHour" Friday night that "Sen. Ted Cruz and similar legislators" are obstructionists who care more about undermining the Republican establishment than advancing legislation. Note that I didn't use "conservative" to modify "columnist" or "David Brooks," though the Times and other mainstream media outlets routinely bill Brooks as conservative. Featuring a left-leaning moderate and depicting him as a conservative is a clever technique the liberal media employ to discredit conservative ideas.
You may say that there is no discrimination against Christians in America or casually dismiss it because Christians need no protection here because this is allegedly a Christian nation. But there is plenty of such discrimination, as I documented in my book "Persecution" a few years back. During the publicity tour for the book, I had a mini-debate with Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz on CNN, as I recall. Dershowitz, who was very respectful and who is unquestionably quite intelligent, advanced a curious argument that night.
Do you ever get the idea that this nation is not only in decline but completely rudderless under the Obama administration? Well, it's not really rudderless; it only appears rudderless because Obama isn't pursuing the same goals as past presidents. Let's first concede that Obama expressly admitted his goal of fundamentally changing the nation -- an alarming thought to most patriots. Let's also acknowledge that Obama's perception of pre-Obama America is largely negative. He has made that abundantly clear during the past five years, with his incessant harping on the state of the African-American community, his articulation of class warfare themes, his virtually overt war on our domestic energy industries and his harsh criticism of American health care, the insurance industry, the "wealthy" and various other targets.
When it comes to President Obama's prowess as commander in chief, "leading from behind," at this point, would be a step up. Some believe that the United States should engage in military action in foreign countries when America's national interests or those of our allies are at stake. Some believe we should rarely do so, perhaps only when we are under attack. Some think we should actively export democracy to other nations, whether or not our national security interests are currently on the line. And some, like President Obama, are literally all over the map, a quagmire of incoherency.
This week, I heard a conservative commentator "admitting" that Republicans don't do enough for black voters. "Why don't conservatives offer solutions?" asked this person. It bothers me that otherwise-sound conservative thinkers fall into this trap -- unwittingly ceding the turf of the debate to their liberal counterparts. The assumption is that unless we offer liberal solutions -- catering and pandering specifically to blacks -- we have nothing to offer.
Once again, President Obama is personally attacking my brother, Rush, this time to shamelessly blame him for congressional gridlock. Nice try, Mr. President, but what really bothers you is that Rush has your number and daily shares it with his vast audience. In an interview last week with CNN's Chris Cuomo, Obama charged that most congressional Republicans oppose the move to defund Obamacare but are afraid of saying so publicly for fear of Rush's public condemnation. Obama made the same type of charge prior to the 2012 elections.
When Mark Levin decided to write his book "The Liberty Amendments" to advocate a convention to propose a series of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, he may not have realized how quickly and deeply his profound idea would resonate. But throughout the nation, people are inclining their ears. The first obstacle Levin faced was the widespread misconception that he is calling for a constitutional convention that could be hijacked by enemies of our founding principles and converted into a forum to hammer the final nails into our constitutional republic by fundamentally and radically changing our founding document.
What will it take for the country to wake up to the destructive ravages of liberalism -- and finally do something about them? Liberals continue to masquerade as exclusive proprietors of compassion, but their policies stubbornly undermine their possessory claim. Indeed, Obama's "fundamental transformation" of America is nothing less than America's decline and destruction in the name of compassion and fairness. You can't scan a day's news without seeing proof of this. Let's look at just two items in today's news digest.
