Goodwin – "Oh Hill No!" America Cannot Afford Four-More

Editor’s Note – Four more years! Four more years! Wait, sorry, she isn’t Obama, she’s worse! As America’s media breathless awaits for the Democrat Party “coronation” to officially begin today, we at SUA renew our long held position on Hillary Clinton – HELL NO!

Let the “twitter” trending begin. We predict a backlash on her overly crafted roll-out today – America cannot afford four more years of failed foreign policy, lies, scandals, and “resets.” The last two sets of four have just about destroyed America; “HillNo” would ensure its deep burial!

Thank you again to Michael Goodwin for his insightful and steadfast focus on the Clintons, the Obamas, and all who helped them in their dire deeds. In the best interest of America, we need to stay out of the “Bush” as well – no more dynasties!

“Ready for Hillary” – Hell No!

Oh Hill no! Clinton’s stale presidential plan wrong for nation

By Michael Goodwin – NY Post

More than five years ago, a Clinton confidant matter-of-factly described for me Hillary’s Plan. She would ­resign as secretary of state after President Obama’s first term, write a book and then run for president again.

Check, check, and, with Sunday’s official launch, check again. Her to-do list is complete.

HillandBillNO

She stuck like glue to The Plan, which required years of misleading blabber from her and Bubba that she hadn’t decided about 2016. Fish gotta swim, and a Clinton’s gotta run, so there was never an iota of doubt.

But time has marched on and the world has changed, making The Plan, and her, look stuck in the past. What the great Murray Kempton wrote in 1965 of John Lindsay’s first mayoral run — “He is fresh and everyone else is tired” — is not something anybody says of Hillary these days.

She’s been on the national stage for a quarter-century, though because of all the drama, it feels like we’ve lived through several lifetimes with her. Along the way, she’s reinvented herself more often than Madonna. While the spectacle of an aging hoofer trying to keep up with the kids is riveting, the kicks aren’t what they used to be and the odor of desperation is unavoidable.

A presidential campaign headquarters in hipster Brooklyn — really? Announcing on Twitter — really? As Joan Rivers might have advised, Oh, Grow Up!

The sweaty effort to appear fresh reinforces the suspicion that Hillary senses danger in the argument that she’s awfully close to her expiration date. It’s not merely a matter of age, though she will be 69 come next Inauguration Day, which would put her close to Ronald Reagan’s record.

The real issue is Clinton fatigue, a national exhaustion from having been-there-done-that too many times. Her husband’s popularity counts for something, but she’s already milked that cow dry.

She’s got to make a case that goes beyond just wanting the Oval Office. She’s got to earn it and I’m not sure she can.

Here’s another blast from the past — Monica Lewinsky is 41 and wants to reclaim her identity, making her a potential bombshell that could explode without notice.

The arrows, then, all point the same way: Hillary is past her peak and missed her best chance in 2008. Her two elections and eight years in the Senate had made her something bigger and better than a scorned first lady.

Elizabeth Warren and Martin O'Malley
Elizabeth Warren and Martin O’Malley

She was ready to make history and the country was ready to help her. Then along came that fresh-faced senator from Chicago with a better game plan and a more convincing claim on history, and the brass ring eluded her grasp.

Her pain was understandably acute, and her willingness to join his team couldn’t have been easy. Shuffling off to Timbuktu while the big decisions were made in Washington was another stab in the back. But she endured, and even played along with his cockamamie foreign policies, a mistake that continues to damage America and her reputation.

That bad run of experiences could have forged her character into something admirable, but her performance so far has been a disaster. Instead of re-emerging as a smarter and more focused force rejuvenated by defeat and exile, she seems to have learned nothing and changed not a whit.

She still makes ­baby talk about breaking glass ceilings and other coded references designed to get her Pantsuit Posse out of their chairs, but it feels like a re-enactment rather than the real thing. After each bad review and each new scandal, the prospect of another usurper emerging from the shadows must give her panic attacks. Déjà vu all over again.

Will the left’s new darling, Elizabeth Warren, jump into the race? Will Martin O’Malley steal Iowa and puncture her balloon of invincibility?

HillNOWhat about Obama — will he help her or dump her? What price will she pay if she breaks with him on Iran or Israel? What mischief is Valerie Jarrett making?

Hillary would be crazy not to consider all those scenarios and a dozen others, but her first steps are depressingly robotic. Raise more money, hire more advisers, parse and calculate, hide behind her Praetorian Guard, rinse and repeat.

She’s older but not wiser and only a groupie could think it’s working. She’s become a gaffe machine and showed a tin ear by continuing to give paid speeches until a month ago. Then came the e-mail debacle, which evoked a universal “there she goes again” quality.

It brought back a souped-up carload of bad memories — her habitual secrecy, arrogance and, most damaging, dishonesty. If she had come out and simply said she set up a private server for government business because rules are for little people, she would have had the virtue of honesty.

But still constitutionally incapable of being straight, she concocted a silly lie about the “convenience” of carrying only one electronic device, which was promptly demolished when evidence emerged that she had both a BlackBerry and an iPad.

We still don’t know the full story of what she’s hiding in those e-mails, but already there are fresh wounds. Although no Democrat threatens her yet, recent polls in six swing states show that, in head-to-head matchups against a raft of Republicans, she is basically tied or trailing nearly all of them. She makes them all look good.

Most revealing, Quinnipiac University also asked voters in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania and Iowa whether she is honest and trustworthy. Only in Ohio were the numbers split evenly; everywhere else, either a majority or a clear plurality answered with a resounding “No.”

Given her long history, ­changing voters’ minds on something so basic as trust won’t be easy. Her best hope is to fire a withering barrage of mud against an incompetent Republican. Again, we’d be reliving the ’90s, with her spying a vast right-wing conspiracy behind every tree and playing the victim when it doesn’t work. Oh, what fun.

Dog leashes in support of a new Hillary Clinton campaign for the presidency. Credit Andrew Harnik/Associated Press
Dog leashes in support of a new Hillary Clinton campaign for the presidency. Credit Andrew Harnik/Associated Press

There is, of course, a long way to go until November of next year, and events, especially the growing world disorder, will likely reshape the campaign and the public mood numerous times. Like all the candidates, she’ll have to reshape her message, too — after she comes up with one.

So far, something about Hillary does not seem right for the present, let alone the future. Aides have been discounting the early going as a false measure, and assuring backers that she’ll right the ship once she launches.

Perhaps, but she is taking on much more water than they had expected, and her margin for error is shrinking fast. The polls suggest there is a tipping point with voters and inevitable stumbles and scandals could make 2016 look like 2008.

It could be that she’s star-crossed, and the gods will conspire against her again. After all, as Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Warren, like Obama uses nefarious donation sites

Editor’s Note – The left accuses the Romney Campaign of not being specific about what tax loopholes he would close to achieve his tax plan. Then the assumption is the worst of course, like mortgage deductions for the middle class being cut and the like. But why are those running on the left not held to the same level of specifics when it comes to campaign donors?

They will say that they are following the campaign finance laws but in reality, it appears they have found their own loopholes to flaunt. Since they do not have to track donor names when the amount is below $200, that opens the floodgates to money flowing in from nefarious places. The money is coming in the millions, not only into the national campaigns, but as discussed below – into the incredibly smarmy Massachusetts Senate race.

Their loophole around the rules appears to be internet donations through sites that do not utilize or subvert the industry standards for security, and therefore identification. The shear volume and irregularly large proportion of all donations they are taking in is one huge ‘red flag’, and likely, it means there is fire when you see that smoke!

How do these people sleep at night knowing they are doing these things? The answer is, they have no consciences and this is just another example of the methods the “say or do anything to get (re-)elected” group will stoop to. Ethics and/or laws be damned!

$16 million of Warren donations from sites lacking foreign donor protections

by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY – Breitnart

The Boston Globe reported Monday that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren raised $12.1 million for her campaign in the 3rd quarter ending September 30, 2012. That brings the total raised to $36 million. Yet more than 40% of these funds–an estimated $16 million–have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations.

Today’s report, which will be available for full public scrutiny by Tuesday morning, includes $8.7 million raised between August 18 and September 30 after her most recent Federal Election Commission filing–an August 17, 2012 pre-primary report that showed she had raised $3.7 million between July 1 and August 17, and $28 million from the start of her campaign.

Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.

Elizabeth Warren, Native American? Practicing Attorney with no license? Campaign donor irregularities?

Of the $28 million Democrat Elizabeth Warren raised for her Massachusetts Senate campaign at the time she had filed the August 17 pre-primary report (covering contributions to June 30, 2012), 42% (approximately $13 million) came from “unitemized” individual contributions donated on two online websites that lack industry standard security protections to prevent illegal donations from foreign nationals. When the Warren campaign’s third quarter reports are finally available, we’ll see if that percentage remains.

It is likely that her most recent $8.7 million of donations includes approximately the same percentage of unitemized small donations. If that pattern holds, then slightly more than $3 million of her previously unreported donations came from unsecure online websites, bringing the total amount that her campaign has raised through websites that are vulnerable to fraud to approximately $16 million.

According to FEC regulations, political campaigns are not required to list the name, address, and occupation of individual donors who contribute less than $200 in an election cycle.  Campaigns are only required to report the total amount received from these small donors as “unitemized” individual contributions.

The $13 million Warren has reported as “unitemized donations” in her FEC filings up until August 17 constitute an unprecedented 42% of her total contributions. It dwarves the “unitemized donation” percentage of most other Senate campaigns in the 2012 election cycle.

Warren’s 42% of “unitemized” donations is more than double the 15% of her opponent Scott Brown. It is also more than double the percentage of donations of Republican or Democratic candidates in five other 2012 Senate campaigns examined by Breitbart News (Nevada, Missouri, Montana, Arizona, and Nebraska) this cycle, and the range was a low of 1% (Bob Kerrey, the Democratic candidate in Nebraska) to a high of 15% (Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate in Missouri).

According to the New York Times, “In 2008, of donations to House candidates, only 8 percent were less than $200; small donations accounted for 14 percent to Senate candidates.”

The Warren campaign’s prolific fundraising among small donors has been accompanied by disregard for industry security standards designed to prevent fraud and illegal foreign donations. While Ms. Warren is not alone among political candidates in her failure to install basic online security provisions, the scale of her small donor fundraising success suggests that she may have created an online fundraising machine that is particularly vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign donations.

Warren’s 42% puts her in the same category as, and even slightly ahead of, President Obama, who has raised 38% of the $431 million he’s raised from unitemized donations, according to Open Secrets. But, like President Obama, whose lack of online security was highlighted in the Government Accountability Institute’s America the Vulnerable report, Warren seems to have similar vulnerabilities.

As that report found:

The FEC requires campaigns to make their “best efforts” to collect identifying information on all contributors who donate more than $50.30 and even more specific information, such as the donor’s occupation and employer, for donations over $200.

As the report notes, donations less than $50, though, fall under the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, which means campaigns can report all such donations under a lump sum and do not have to make their “best efforts” to collecting information on these small-dollar donors.

Because foreigners can exploit the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, the report  found that “any campaign not using these industry-standard security tools is increasing its costs and unnecessarily increasing the risk of at least two types of potential fraud”:

The Fraudulent High Dollar Donor(s): –the fraudulent high dollar donor is politically motivated and is seeking to avoid detection by making numerous donations below the $200 dollar threshold, over which their donation must be identified; they may seek to exceed campaign donation limits.

The Unintentional Fraudster –a foreign national who is unaware of U.S. election laws but sympathetic to the campaign. Such an individual can easily end up on a campaign donation page. Given that a number of campaigns list the U.S. donation laws in an inconspicuous place on the “donate” page, it is easy to see how illegal donations can be made with no malicious intent.

And the Obama campaign is most vulnerable to both types of fraudsters…

Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages — even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise.

This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.

“This creates a security risk that is compounded by the considerable foreign interest in President Obama’s political history, personal story, and views,” the report notes.

The Warren campaign seems to have the same donation vulnerabilities as the Obama campaign. Though a small percentage of the $13 million in donations may have come from other than online sources  the vast majority came from donors who contributed online at one of two sites:

ElizabethWarren.com, the official website of the Warren campaign, accounted for an estimated $9 million of this $13 million.

ActBlue, a prolific “conduit” website for donations to Democratic candidates and organizations that provides legal “passthrough” services to an estimated 750 clients, accounted for an estimated $3.7 million of this $13 million.

Neither of these websites have the standard credit card industry CVV and AVS code protections designed to prohibit donations from foreign nationals (which is illegal) or “multiple giving” robo-fraud.

Breitbart News has learned that more than $6.2 million in donations to Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Massachusetts Senate seat came through the Act Blue conduit website. $2.5 million of this amount was itemized and reported in Warren’s FEC filings. $3.7 million came from small donors and was unitemized.

Incumbent Senator Scott Brown does not use a similar conduit website to raise money for his campaign.

ActBlue reports that it has funneled $6,290,125 from 162,470 donors to the Elizabeth Warren campaign in the year and one month between the time Ms. Warren announced her candidacy in September, 2011 and the first week in October, 2012. The average donation is $38.72, which is well below the $200 threshold that is required for the candidate to publicly disclose the name, address, and occupation of the donor in its regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.

According to FEC reports, the names and addresses of only 9,556 of these 162,470 have been included in FEC documents filed by the Warren campaign. These 9,556 named donors contributed $2.5 million of the $6.2 million raised by ActBlue for the Warren campaign. Their average donation was $267.98.

This leaves a total of 152,914 donors who contributed $3.7 million to the Warren campaign through the non-secure ActBlue website unknown and unnamed. Their average donation was $24.79.

In July, 2012, ActBlue reported that the $240,000 it raised for the Warren campaign placed her in the top five of funding passed through among their 750 clients.

The ACT Blue website has virtually no protections to prohibit the acceptance of donations from non-US citizens.

According to its website:

ActBlue is an online toolset that makes it easy for donors to connect with the candidates and causes they support… At ActBlue, our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of grassroots donors across the United States…

ActBlue only accepts donations from individuals, and we direct the money as they specify. We disclose every donation made through ActBlue to the relevant bodies, working to keep the lines of accountability between donors and recipients open.

Both the ActBlue website and the Elizabeth Warren campaign website are among the political websites that lack the basic CVV security code protections to limit fraud and the receipt of foreign donations. The Scott Brown campaign website does have the CVV security code protection.

The ACT Blue website, which acts as a funnel to dozens of Democratic candidates in addition to Ms. Warren, appears to be one of the online websites that lacks this basic security protection.

Visitors to the Act Blue website can browse through an array of Democratic candidates to whom they can contribute. When the Elizabeth Warren contribution page is selected, the drop down box allows contributions from residents of any country. When Canada is selected, another drop down box allows the donor to select a specific province instead of a state.

While American expatriates who live in foreign countries but retain their US citizenship may legally contribute to the campaigns of candidates for office in American federal elections, it is illegal for non-US citizens who reside in foreign countries to contribute to the campaigns of American candidates. It is also illegal for the campaigns of candidates for American federal offices to accept donations from non-US citizens or solicit donations from non US Citizens.

The ACT Blue donation page includes this language at the bottom of the page where donors submit their credit card information:

Contribution rules:

1. I am a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien.

2. This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

3. I am making this contribution with my own personal credit card and not with a corporate or business credit card or a card issued to another person.

4. I am not a federal contractor.

5. I am at least eighteen years old.

Despite this language, foreign nationals who ignore these contribution rules could easily donate to Elizabeth Warren through the Act Blue website without any detection.

ActBlue was founded in 2004 by Harvard graduate Benjamin Rahn and MIT graduate Matt DeBergalis. It is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, home of Harvard University.

Executive Director Erin Hill, a Wellesley graduate, is a veteran of Democratic political operations in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.  As her Twitter account shows, she’s a big fan of Elizabeth Warren.

Phone calls placed to ACTBlue by Breitbart News requesting comment were not returned.

While illegal foreign national donors who go to the official Elizabeth Warren campaign website may not have such an easy time selecting their foreign residence in the drop down box, the Warren site offers a drop down code (AA) which seems to serve a “catch all” purpose which they could use.

Donors to the Warren campaign are required to select either their state of residence (the 50 plus DC) or one of eleven other location codes, only five of which are US territories or commonwealth. According the the ISP 3166 two letter country code standards, here are those eleven non state or DC codes:

AA- User assigned

AE- United Arab Emirates (a sovereign independent nation)

AP – not used

AS – American Samoa (US territory)

FM – Micronesia (a sovereign independent nation)

GU – Guam (US territory)

MH – Marshall Islands (a sovereign independent nation)

MP – Northern Marianas Islands (US commonwealth)

PR – Puerto Rico (US commonwealth)

PW – Palau ( a sovereign independent nation)

VI – Virgin Islands (US territory)

The only way to determine how many of these donors are foreign nationals is to conduct an audit of the ActBlue and Elizabeth Warren financial records for small donors.

The race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown remains neck and neck. A poll released by Rasmussen Reports on Wednesday showed Warren with a 2 point lead over Brown, 49% to 47%, which is within the poll’s 5 point margin of error.

Utter hypocrisy – 'fair and balanced' abets misleading America

Editor’s Note – This election season is being called the most hate filled, divisive, and negative campaign – EVER! We still have almost 90 more days to go and the trend seems primed for even worse tactics and discourse – if you can call it that. Two things emerge above all the foam on the surface of this septic tank of rancor – “they all do it”, and “hypocrisy”.

The left accuse the right, and the right accuses the left – but on close inspection, “they all do it” fails under close scrutiny of scope, depth, and quantity, or as puts it, “Fair and Balanced” reporting. If you watch any segment on the so-called fair and balanced network, where someone from each camp emerges with their talking points – its unfair, and totally disingehuous to say they do things “equally.”

Segment after segment, the commentator treats both equally – as to say they’re arguments are equally valid – utterly straining credulity. Just once, it would be nice for someone like John Scott to say: “sir or madam, that is totally untrue, and you know it.” Then to allow the constant changing of the subject and/or bringing in some ancillary issue must stop, or they are guilty of aiding and abetting the propaganda and intentionally mis-leading the public. We dare anyone to prove that wrong – and guess which side we refer to?

Victor Davis Hanson once again nails part of the other cesspool denizen – hypocrisy:

Who gets a pass?

By Victor Davis Hanson – Town Hall

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently said of the Chick-fil-A fast-food franchise that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.” Why? Because Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy is on record as being opposed to gay marriage — as is close to half the U.S. population, according to polls. The mayors of Boston and San Francisco also suggested that the company isn’t welcome in their cities.

Oddly, none of these public officials have lectured President Obama to keep clear of their cities. Yet until recently, Obama was likewise on record as opposing gay marriage. Why the exemption?

Nor have the mayors in question disinvited any black churches from their cities. Yet some pastors in churches with black congregations have been quite loud in their denunciations of gay marriage. Fundamentalist Islamic mosques routinely disparage homosexuals, often publicly so in their literature. Is there something about white Christian males that makes their opposition to gay marriage different from that of their black or Muslim counterparts?

Louis Farrakhan speaks in Chicago - he is welcome with his vile rhetoric yet Rahm Emmanuel does not thing Dan Cathy represents Chicago values.

Even as Emanuel warned Cathy that his company did not reflect “Chicago values,” his own city remains among the most murderous in the world. This year, Chicago youth have killed more Americans than have the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unable to stop the carnage, a desperate Emanuel welcomed in Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan to help quell the mostly black-on-black violence, even though the latter has a long record of racist and anti-Semitic tirades. Is the Chick-fil-A CEO a greater danger to Chicago than gun-toting gangs, or more illiberal than the racist Farrakhan?

Politics — not just race or religion — is also a key to the paradoxical double standard. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just slandered Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Bill Magwood, an African-American, as “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve dealt with.” Reid, furious with Magwood because of his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Reid’s state, also called Magwood a “treacherous, miserable liar,” “a first-class rat” and a “sh-t stirrer.”

In 2008, Reid condescendingly attributed presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success to the fact that he was “light-skinned” and spoke “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

More recently, the crude Reid, in McCarthyesque fashion, claimed that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney had not paid income taxes for 10 years — based on a rumor that an anonymous source supposedly had passed on to him. “His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said of the late George Romney, Mitt’s father.

Reid has demonstrated that he is both vulgar and illiberal, but there are no calls for him to vacate his post. That exemption was not extended to an earlier counterpart, Sen. Trent Lott (D-Miss.). Lott, in similarly illiberal and crass fashion, said at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party in 2002 that America would have avoided “all these problems over all these years” if Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Lott was pressured by both the Republican Party and the media to step down, and he did so in shame.

There is a common theme here. Our self-appointed priests of fairness from time to time freely commit sins of intolerance. But don’t dare hold them to the same sort of accountability to which they hold other, less progressive Americans, whose similarly dumb remarks are not gaffes but rather windows into their prejudicial souls.

We must make allowances for the supposed Biblical conservatism of some black pastors in a way we cannot for the white, Christian CEO of Chick-fil-A. Farrakhan’s hatred cannot possibly earn him ostracism. We cannot extend the anger at evangelical Christians for their incorrect attitudes toward feminism and homosexuality to the Muslims who often share similar views.

Such selectivity is untenable. Classical Western liberalism was predicated on judging people as individuals — and on their merit and performance — rather than collectively as identity groups identified by gender, race and religion. Using illiberal means to advance supposedly liberal ends results not just in hypocrisy and cynicism, but in the current disaster of “Chicago values.”

Politically correct exemption is doomed, because who can sort out the conflicting agendas of various identity groups? Who certifies who’s really black, brown or white in a multiracial, intermarried America — Barack Obama or Elizabeth Warren? Who deserves how much compensation for which particular past oppression?

Can black pastors who oppose gay marriage be judged prejudicial? Is the Asian-American who opposes illegal immigration subject to the same charge of nativism leveled at so-called whites? Can Harry Reid be judged a bigot and McCarthyite if he claims he’s liberal?

A simple antidote to multiculturalism and political correctness is to evaluate all Americans on their actual behavior, regardless of their politics, race, gender or religion — in other words, a return to the ancient liberal idea that one common culture treats all sorts of different people absolutely the same.

The temple of postmodern liberalism – "All Fall Down"

All Fall Down

By Victor Davis Hanson – PJMedia

The temple of postmodern liberalism was rocked these last few weeks, as a number of supporting columns and buttresses simply crashed, leaving the entire edifice wobbling.

Fake but Accurate Identities?

The trivial Elizabeth Warren “high cheekbones” fraud [1] nonetheless offered a draw-back-the-curtain look into the gears and levers of our national race industry. The real story is not that the multimillionaire liberal (and one-percenter) Warren fabricated a Cherokee identity for over a decade (to the delight of her quota-thirsty universities), but rather the notion that if a pink blond at Harvard can get away with faking a career-enhancing minority identity, then anyone, anywhere, can—or rather often has.

Give Ward Churchill his due: he worked at it—unlike Warren, who junked her supposed great, great, great grandparent once she got tenure and being “Indian” was a drag at Cambridge cocktail parties. At least, like the proverbial chameleon on the leaf, Churchill tried to alter his appearance with buckskin, beads, and braids to find an edge his otherwise mediocre talents and white male status would not supply. In contrast, Warren simply by fiat claimed high cheekbones—no beads, no trips to the reservation, no buckskin, no Churchillian effort. Note the connivance of Harvard, which hand-in-glove used Warren’s pseudo-identity to pad its “diversity” goals, which enable a mostly white yuppie left-wing faculty to, well, not feel too guilty about remaining a mostly white yuppie left-wing faculty.

Anyone who has taught in a university has come across the “Cherokee” con, especially given the Oklahoma diaspora in California. By the time I retired from CSU, I was exhausted with “1/16th” Cherokee students, who claimed success with their gambits. This was a world of Provost Liz Smith-Lopezes, José Beckers, Simba Bavuals, and all the other attempts to traffic in victimized identities.

Still, Warren, as no other recent examples, reminds us of the bald fakery in America these days. “Van” Jones was not born Van Jones. Louis (note the Jehmu Greene [2] bowtie) Farrakhan was not born Farrakhan (yet just try to be a cool black racist as the Caribbean Louie Wolcott, aka Calypso Gene). In his twenties, Barry Dunham Obama went from Barry (a not very useful preppie suburbanite-sounding name) to Barack Obama. In the La La lands of academia, high journalism, and big government (though not in the landscaping business, farming, or short-order cookery), we sometimes wear identities in America as we do clothes, a different outfit as the occasion demands, given that our present-day Jim Crow racialists are busy figuring out to what degree pigment, ethnic ancestry, nomenclature, or assumed identity “counts.”

Ward Churchill

Cross the border and you in theory can go from an impoverished Mexican national that lived a wretched material existence thanks to grandees in Mexico City to a “minority” with vicarious claims against the American system who is suddenly eligible for oppression-based, affirmative action recompense. But if your family came from Egypt in 1950, you apparently qualify for very little reparations, even if you are darker than the recent Jalisco arrival. Yet again, score 1600 on the SAT and achieve a 4.5 GPA in high school, and if both Asian and wanting to go to Berkeley or Stanford, well then, who cares about the Japanese interment, the Chinese coolie labor of the 1850s, or the exclusionary acts of the 1920s? Too many Asians doing too well is not diversity at all, so we go into the reverse quota mode of exclusion. Warren reminded us that we will soon need DNA badges to certify the exploding ethnic, racial, and gender claims against society. And just as there are too few young these days to support the retiring Baby Boom generation on Social Security, so too we have too few oppressors left to pay out subsidies and recompense for the growing legion of Warren-like victims.

Isn’t It the Economy, Stupid?

We have had 38 months of 8% plus unemployment. We are setting records in the numbers of Americans not working and the percentage of the adult population not employed. GDP growth was a pathetic 1.7%. The borrowing hit $5 trillion under Obama, who between golf outings and campaign hit-ups of wealthy people, adds $1 trillion plus each year in more debt. To question how to pay it back is to pollute the air or abandon the children. In 2005, Paul Krugman was writing why Bush’s spending was going to crash the economy; in 2012, Paul Krugman is writing why Obama’s far greater deficit spending, on top of Bush’s debts, is not going to crash the economy, given that we need to borrow far more than our paltry $3 or $4 billion a day.

In 2004, the media’s “jobless recovery” was the description of George W. Bush’s 5.4% unemployment rate. “It’s the economy, stupid” referred to George H.W. Bush’s 1992 annual 3.3-4% GDP growth rate. “Unpatriotic” was W’s $4 trillion in borrowing in eight years, not $5 trillion in three. If Obama right now had 5.4% unemployment, 3.4% economic growth, and a budget deficit of about $400 billion, what would the media call it—a job-full recovery, “it’s not the economy, smarty,” or patriotic borrowing?

Paul Krugman

Those with capital—slurred as one-percenters, fat cats, and corporate jet owners unless hit up for Obama campaign donations—are not hiring or buying. Maybe they think oncoming Obamacare will smash them. Maybe they see on the Obama horizon rampant inflation, debt cancellation, or higher taxes as planned liberal remedies for our endless borrowing. Maybe these shrugging Atlases see that fossil fuel energy is not pursued on federal lands, but needless new regulations are implemented.

Whatever the reason, they hesitate—only sorta buying here, kinda hiring there. And the result of millions of these collective hesitancies is an ossified Europeanized economy, run by technocrats without private sector experience and exempt from the sacrifice they demand of others, as they desperately try to borrow and grow the government to ensure a permanent lease on power through the creation of a vast angry dependent constituency. Not near-zero interest rates, not nearly a trillion dollars in “stimulus,” not four years of chronic deficits, not “quantitative easing,” not any classical priming seems able to shock the unwilling and hesitant back into action.

And Then There Is Our Survival

For about three years I have been monotonously suggesting that we were once again in a 1977-1979 Carteresque era, as Obama systematically trashed his predecessor’s policies, denounced “exceptionalism” and “unilateralism,” gave soaring narcissistic sermons on his/our new morality abroad, redefined both allies and enemies as morally equivalent neutrals, and generally suggested that if you were a China, Russia, Middle East, or Latin America, you had justifiable grievances against the pre-Obama U.S., at least during the era when the president was just “three years old.” Last time we did this, after three years of Carter’s sermonizing, calculating nations in 1979-1980 saw that it was time to get up from the table and cash in their chips. So we saw Russia in Afghanistan, China in Vietnam, Iranians in the U.S. embassy, communist insurgencies in Latin America, and radical Islam on the rise, culminating in the annus terribilis 1980. I’m afraid 2012 may be our 1980. For the Carter Doctrine will we get a Johnny-come-lately “Obama Doctrine”?

A “reset” Russia now threatens unilaterally to preempt and take out proposed U.S. anti-missile sites in Eastern Europe (Poland and the Czech Republic should enjoy that, even though it is mere bluster). The Chen case [3] reminds of China’s growing contempt for the indebted U.S. (They did not get the message that a community organizer and Chicago part-time lecturer is a postnational, postracial healer.) The Arab Spring is turning into an Islamist Winter. What the media forgot to tell us about the spike-the-ball presidential trip to Afghanistan is the president’s promise to end Predator drone strikes against al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan—the liberal favorite tool of foreign policy (no prisoners in Guantanamo, no tribunals, no trials, no media videos of the explosions, no reports of the kids and granny blown up along with the suspect, little dollar costs, no U.S. lives endangered, no downside really other than we sometimes are not quite sure whom we blew up below).

The Chen Case

The more we praised and emulated the EU, the more it unraveled and the more its leaders distrust the “lead from behind” America (Obama never quite got it that, when Europeans trashed us for leading and being capitalist, the whining was a psychological mechanism for being happy that someone other than themselves was still leading and somewhere outside Europe was still capitalist). Or alternatively, just as Obama is our Nemesis, so too he is Europe’s: be careful what you pine away for.

If I were a state or clique up to no good, and if I thought Obama might not be reelected, in my final window of opportunity, perhaps around September, I might flex my muscles in the former Soviet republics, send another missile over Japan or South Korea, cruise into Taiwanese waters, put some Argentine Marines on the “Malvinas,” seek readjustment in Cyprus and the Aegean, send some rockets into Tel Aviv, dispatch some suicide bombers from Gaza, and let off more missiles from Iran. Not just to make a statement, or to gain more “please don’t” concessions, but because it was my pleasure to do it—if only for the hell of it.

Ministry of Truth

Around January 2009, deficits became “stimulus.” “Jobless recovery” vanished from the vocabulary. Guantanamo, renditions, and preventative detention virtually ended. And Obama’s successful surge paved the way out of Iraq. Predator assassinations of hundreds of suspected terrorists and anyone nearby when the explosives went off were liberal improvements over waterboarding three confessed terrorists.

The good war in Afghanistan turned bad, and the bad one in Iraq turned good. The Obama “surge” brought peace to Iraq. We were told that we could not just sit by and watch Libyan thugs kill the innocent, but could do just that in oil-scant Syria. Obtaining UN and Arab League approval to go to war without the U.S. Congress was “leading from behind.”

Those who made over $200,000 never paid their “fair share,” but could—and not by paying more in taxes, but by buying a $40,000 a person ticket to an Obama fundraiser. Golf was now longer an aristocratic indulgence, but fresh-air, healthy downtime for an overworked president. Mangling words and abject ignorance—whether “corpse-man” or Maldives/Malvinas—were evident only to nit-picking partisans. A downright mean country redeemed itself with free jet service to Costa del Sol, Aspen, Vail, and Martha’s Vineyard.

Yes, after January 2009, Al Gore lives in a tiny green home. “Two Americas” John Edwards did not really build a 30,000 square foot mansion, with a 4,000 square foot “John’s Lounge.” “Punish our enemies” was the new civility.

What Does It All Mean?

In short, liberalism does not work, contrary as it is to human nature. I wish I could just say that about every thirty years or so, forgetful Americans take an allergy shot of it, suffer the reaction, and then get another three decades of Carter/Obama immunity. But instead statist redistribution and intrusion are an insidious process, no longer specific just to Democrats, but bound up in the growing affluence and leisure of the West—both serving its various needs of alleviating guilt to the masses, subsidizing half the nation, and providing much envied power and lucre to a highly educated and technocratic elite who have little talent for acquiring either in the private sector. That it is not sustainable does not mean that it will not cause havoc as it totters and collapses. Look at Russia and Eastern Europe circa 1989, or the present-day EU, or Greece proper, or California or Illinois today.