► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Bill Clinton’

Obama Unchained

by Mojambo ( 52 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Iran, Politics at November 13th, 2011 - 4:00 pm

VDH points out the hypocrisy of both the Right and Left when it comes to political rhetoric and action. Reagan gave us illegal immigration amnesty, W. gave us massive debt, Wilson, FDR and Earl Warren violated the constitution, Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize winner lol) continued the predator (actually expanded) drone strikes. Look for Obama to have a “wag the dog” moment overseas.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Richard Nixon went to Red China with political impunity. Had a Democrat tried that, he would have been branded a Commie appeaser. To this day, liberals cannot conceive that during the two world wars, progressives like Woodrow Wilson, Earl Warren, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt trampled on civil liberties in a way unimagined by Dick Cheney.

Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal illegal-immigration-amnesty bill in history, and ran larger yearly deficits than Jimmy Carter had. “Read my lips” George H. W. Bush agreed to huge tax increases. And George W. Bush ran up the largest debt of any eight-year president, outspending Bill Clinton more than fivefold. The latter, remember, bombed Belgrade without either congressional or United Nations approval — and without anti-war protests. Without an opposition, almost anything goes.

In other words, right-wing presidents can sometimes act left-wing, and left-wing presidents can act right-wing — to the embarrassed silence of their respective bases, but to the private delight of their greenlighting opponents.

We have no better examples of that irony than our two most recent presidents. George W. Bush was still damned as an uncaring reactionary by the Left even as he pushed for big-government programs such as No Child Left Behind and unfunded entitlements such as Medicare prescription-drug coverage. Barack Obama was alleged to be squishy about hunting down terrorists, even as he increased targeted assassinations tenfold and found plenty of opportunistic former legal critics of Bush’s national-security protocols to write justifications for them.

In terms of the Obama presidency, there is now no anti-war movement. It simply vanished in January 2009. Former outrages like Guantanamo, renditions, and Predator-drone assassinations almost magically became A-okay. The left-wing base dared not continue its old Bush slurs, given its support for Obama’s liberal domestic agenda. Quiet conservatives were perplexed over whether to be outraged that Predator-in-Chief Obama proved to be such an abject hypocrite, or relieved that, better late than never, he had morphed into a Bush-Cheney national-security disciple.

The result is that for the next year or so, Obama can more or less do whatever he wishes abroad. If he chooses to bomb a country that poses no direct threat to the U.S. without congressional authority, like Libya, or to assassinate a U.S. citizen-terrorist, like Anwar al-Awlaki, the Left will keep mum. And the Right, for different reasons, probably will, too.

What, then, should we expect abroad in the waning months of Obama’s four-year term, with continuing economic bad news at home?

Suddenly, intelligence agencies at the U.N., and in the U.S. and Europe — after once denying, during the supposedly trigger-happy Bush administration, that Iran was close to getting a bomb — now warn us that Tehran may actually test a nuclear weapon after all. Iran poses an existential threat not only to Israel, but to the entire notion of nuclear nonproliferation in the key oil-exporting Gulf. Its missiles could reach southern Europe.

If we get to the scary point of Iran’s going nuclear in 2012, expect the Obama administration — up for reelection and without much of a domestic record to run on in these hard times — to consider a preemptive strike. Be assured that if it does, there will be no outrage in the Democrat-controlled Senate, no campuses on fire, no ad hominem Moveon.org ads in the New York Times— all the sorts of anti-war hysteria that once sought to turn a moderate like George W. Bush into a caricature of some trigger-happy yokel from shoot-’em-up Texas.

And conservatives? Again, they would mumble that an Obama “wag the dog” strike would cynically be all about the president’s reelection. Or they would at least note the irony, given the Nobel Laureate–in–Chief’s prior demonization of Bush’s use of military force. Nonetheless, Republicans would largely grow silent if — a big if — a strike were successful and ended Iran’s nuclear threat.

[…..]

Read the rest – Obama Unbound

I’m sorry. I really am.

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 55 Comments › )
Filed under Caption This, Climate, Environmentalism, Humor, OOT, Open thread, Politics at November 6th, 2011 - 11:00 pm


[via]
Have you ever been cruising around the internest looking for something interesting and find yourself clicking on a link that you really shouldn’t have? That’s what happened here, and I am truly sorry.

Once I clicked, the only way to bleach my brain was to pass the image on to others, such as yourselves, so that we may share the misery together and prevent it from ever happening again on The Overnight Open Thread.

Special Comments: I thought personal behavior didn’t matter after Paula Jones

by Phantom Ace ( 189 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at November 1st, 2011 - 2:00 pm

The Progressives defended Bill Clinton’s indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky loud and obnoxiously. They claimed personal behavior doesn’t reflect job performance. Whenever proof of Billy Boy’s sexual assault of women like Juanita Broadrick or Kathleen Wiley, Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers was presented the Left would say it didn’t matter. The American public agreed. Bill Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating after everything was known about him. In fact during the Monica scandal Clinton’s approval went up! So the Left won that argument.

Fast forward 11 years after Bill Clinton left office and now allegations of sexual misconduct matter. Herman Cain was accused falsely of sexual inappropriateness by two women back in the 90’s when he headed the National Restaurant Association.. He was cleared of any wrongdoing and a settlement was reach with the accusers. The Progressives now all of a sudden care about sexual harassment. This is hypocrisy. They spent eight years defending Bill Clinton from accusations but all of a sudden they care about sexually inappropriate behavior.

Let’s take a look at what our old pal washed up Jazz Guitarist and failed blogger, Charles Johnson, has to say.

So there are no cases of rich powerful connect Left Wing politicians using women as chattel? Does Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank ring a bell? Not in the fantasy world of Chuck and his magical pony tail.

To play devil’s advocate let’s assume Herman Cain did something sexually inappropriate. So what! I thought it was settled that being a sexual predator doesn’t matter anymore. That’s what the Progressives and the American public agreed upon. Why does it matter what Herman Cain was accused of doing?

Let’s discuss this hypocrisy.

The Education Bubble

by Mojambo ( 85 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Business, Education, government, Progressives, unemployment at November 1st, 2011 - 11:30 am

The Sultan Knish points out that our ever emphasis on churning out college graduates has ultimately been self destructive. We have neglected manufacturing and private sector  jobs and instead prefer to have the government do the hiring. The “geniuses” with the MBA’s from Columbia, Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Wharton  are the ones who created the economic mess that we are now in. It would have been better if at least  1/2 of the MBA’s instead went to trade school and learned how to service an engine or fix a leaky pipe. “Pump enough money into education and the jobs will create themselves” has been manifestly wrong!

by Daniel Greenfield

Flip through enough of the 99 percent signs and you realize that the majority of that demographic aren’t complaining about the lack of financial regulation or income inequalities, so much as they’re upset that they took on loans to pay for college degrees to get jobs that don’t actually exist.

The fault here isn’t Wall Street’s, it’s a policymaking apparatus that decided the way to deal with the loss of manufacturing jobs was to get as many college graduates out there as possible to create the industries of tomorrow.

This was Clinton’s platform and it’s Obama’s “Winning the Future” platform, pump enough money into education and the jobs will create themselves. The Dot Com boom in the nineties seemed to back up that policy with entirely new companies springing to life with valuations in the hundreds of millions and twenty somethings at the helm. But a good deal of those companies were nothing more than the foam on another bubble– and more problematically the cream of the tech companies were created by college dropouts. Even more problematically, the tech companies liked to save money by importing Chinese and Pakistani employees on H1-B visas as cheap labor, while their lobbies insisted that this would protect “American” innovation.

But the real problem was that swapping manufacturing for college degree jobs solved nothing. American companies that manufacture anything become the tip of an outsourced iceberg. All the companies with the shiny logos depend on Chinese manufacturing and raw materials. They can’t create anything that the People’s Republic of China can’t take away from them when the time is right.

[……]

And yet the tech industry is the closest to a college degree success story that we have. The failures are legion.

The problem with the “college degrees for everyone” approach is that creating more college graduates does not proportionally create more jobs, it creates more unemployed college graduates and devalues the worth of a college diploma. Too many college graduates mean that employers will look for higher degree levels. High school diplomas used to be a certificate of competence, then that was devalued through promotion in a system where teachers were expected to move students up to the next class no matter what. When college became the new high school, it was devalued in the same way. There are city and state colleges with students who are barely literate, not in the “kids these days use too many abbreviations” way, but in the “functionally illiterate” way.

If the goal is to move everyone to the highest level of education possible, the result will not be a more educated population, but an educational system with lower standards and a population that is less educated than ever because actual education becomes more inaccessible as the standards are lowered.

Make sure that everyone can “afford” to take out college loans and the marketplace will compete for students with traditional universities offering a large buffet of “educational choices”, most of which are not educational or represent any kind of career path outside academia, and private colleges offering useful sounding degrees that no employer will look twice at.

For the liberal politicians it’s a triple score. Money pours into academia which they can use as their own think tanks. The educational system gets four years or more to process students through more sophisticated indoctrination mechanisms. And then the students who can’t find jobs join the ranks of the usefully disaffected because somebody must be to blame… and it can’t possibly be the people pulling the strings of the people shouting at them through megaphones.

Clinton told working class voters that the manufacturing jobs were gone, but their kids would all have college degrees. Obama went one better by telling working class voters that they would be retrained to hold down “Green Jobs”, even as they’re falling faster than the Green companies and their sweetheart government pork. Those lies are what make the class warfare rhetoric out of DC so doubly despicable.

Politicians have never honestly talked to voters about what happened to the American economy, instead they fell back on the same mantra of opening up new markets through globalization and creating new jobs through education./

None of this is new. The country with the highest degree rate in the world is Russia. The USSR ran its citizens through its educational system at a rate that Elizabeth Warren could only gasp in awe at. But what was its education actually worth? About as much as American degrees are becoming worth. If you throw enough money and manpower at the educational system, you will have a really big educational system. What you will not have is anything of worth to go with it.

[…….]

According to the OECD (another useless globalization organization wrapped around a WW2 fossil) the Israeli educational system is a hopeless failure. In its 2009 evaluation claimed that Israeli students were behind Turkey, Dubai and Russia in math and science. Yet peculiarly enough Israel keeps collecting Nobel prizes and turning out minor things like instant messaging, drones and Kinect. When reality contradicts statistics, it’s wise to go with reality. That’s a skill most politicians haven’t learned, but it’s a rather valuable one.

The universalization of education is not about remaining competitive in a global marketplace or any of that other nonsense piously repeated by politicians with their hands in more pockets than a thieving octopus– it’s about promoting the homogeneity of ideas across a population. Which is why the importance placed on universal education increases as a country becomes more culturally diverse or internally divided.

The original Department of Education was created two years after the Civil War. The Kalamazoo School Case, which set the precedent for forcing taxpayers to fund public education and created the entire system of property tax school robbery we live under today, took place during the same period. As was the National Education Association whose Committee of Ten played a key role in the standardization of the national curriculum.

[……]

When this is understood, the failure of innovation in the system is also obvious. The educational system is not a means of empowering thinkers, but of standardizing a static consensus of ideas. It’s a great way to learn liberal dogma, but an inefficient way of learning anything else. The expansion of the system is not about remaining competitive with China, just as funding more “Green Jobs” is not about “Winning the Future”, it’s about shaping the voters of tomorrow.

[……]

The system would rather have 10,000 subsidized jobs that it creates than 10,000,000 jobs in the free market. It would rather have a middle class of 5 million college graduates, (40 percent of them government employees), than have a free market middle class of a 100 million, (only 30 percent of them college graduates and less than 0.5 percent of them government employees.) And it would rather have an angry mob camped out near Wall Street, than have a viable economy.

The educational bubble isn’t creating a new Middle Class that will keep social security viable, it is creating dissatisfied people who feel that they are entitled to better and don’t know who to blame. Like the rest of the government, the education bubble is too big to fail, which means that by the time it fails, so will the whole country.

Read the rest – The Education Bubble