UNSOLICITED OPINION


'Editor's' note {well, real editors get paid - still:}

Received what can only be called a complaint re: the name-names politicalization of the NNBriefs of late, to which I penned an unpolished reply. As I imagine there are others with like sentiments I share it here:


[HT:NP {actually Ms. Nancy has a new/married last name I can't recall - my apologies}]

- excerpt -

re: the Brief, yes I admit its become very political - ironic, given that I used to pride myself on its 'apoliticality' (i.e., focusing on issue background facts only, also suppressed by the old media). However, as I've come to be truly concerned that an Obama administration, particularly with a Democrat controlled congress, would be highly detrimental to my nation and likely set the foundation for a country (especially in judicial nominations) for a country profoundly different for my children in terms of their liberty and security, I've decided to counter what I believe to be the intolerable bias of the media by focusing on the many, many aspects to Obama's candidacy they're simply suppressing. Articles we're unlikely to see in the MSM is the charter of the blog (left side-bar) - and in Obama's case the spin by omission and outright misinformation have reached such a degree that correcting for it consumes the entire blog. I frankly am not enjoying it anymore and look forward to resuming my background/issue factoids format after the election - hang in there (I am).

- end -

Addendum:

While I'm fond of reminding folks that we don't elect Tzars in this country and that our system is structured to provide a tempering balance through division of power, it doesn't make the populace immune to ideological demagoguery which, in concert with a sympathetic media, can dupe the electorate long enough to allow the implementation of government programs, laws, and influential 'institutions' that essentially jury-rig subsequent developments (see: our education system, which has now produced generations of young people who weren't taught the detrimental effects of socialism to national affluence and individual liberty, and the media; now so imbued with liberal thought its become literally incapable of even recognizing its own bias - with incalculable harm to our nation).

This isn't fighting the good fight re: conflicting policy options nor just another example of our sloppy, difficult, cherished democracy in action. They're about gerrymandering our system, a piece at a time, to ensure end results - albeit frequently not coming to full (and likely irreversible) fruition until our children have children.

Exaggerated? I hope so. But consider:

1) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact government run healthcare [aka; Single-Payer system or Nationalized Health Care] , making the populace reliant on the government - and so the political party that promotes it - for an essential service. Does anyone think such a program would diminish over time or, once the populace has acclimated to it, it stands any chance of being revoked? Comparatively, does anyone really believe that over time it won't evolve into just another mechanism for imposing social engineering/politically correct mandates upon the populace? (Really? you're not overweight - according to the government - are you?) [Programs]

2) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will enact 'The Fairness Doctrine', a law target at (and only at) radio that would make it logistically and financially impossible to continue the numerous opinion talk shows colloquially dubbed 'conservative radio'. For the record I am not, generally, a fan of these shows as they tend to be as extreme/sensational as their liberal counter parts {with the notable caveat of being profitable}. Nonetheless, intermixed with emotional opinion you'll hear facts {some admittedly dubious - some very well researched} that the MSM will never share with the populace. As such they serve as a The predominant dissemination mechanism for alternative (to the MSM) information/opinion (i.e., output - the internet is the input, as its not filtered for us by our media elites). It also represents a good example of 'sloppy, difficult' democracy in that it has plenty of junk citizens must exercise their own judgement to grade. Obama and company intend to literally silence this unregulated forum by, well, regulating it in ways know to everyone knowledgeable with the industry of for-profit radio will kill them. Think of the implications this loss of the only viable counter to the liberal MSM would have on future popular opinion and elections. Those promoting it have - that's their whole intention. [Laws]

3) An Obama administration in concert with a Democrat controlled congress has informed us they will support the implementation of EFCA: "Card Check" for union organizing. This will strip employees of their right to a secrete vote re: if they'd like to unionize, and is nothing more than a government mandate to instill intimidation by forcing employees who don't support unionization to decline face-to-face with 'organizers' - and so be known as dissenters. Anyone not seeing the horrendous extortion this represents is simply unfamiliar with the history and tactics of labor unions continuing to this day - it's in your interest to educate yourselves - starting with how union membership has skyrocketed wherever states have allowed this practice. In addition to the uncompetitiveness it forces on business in the short term (think Detroit), it institutionalizes methods guaranteed to consistently grow the ranks of those beholden to the government - meaning the party that supports it - for that portion of their livelihood gained through union extortion (and paid for by the rest of us). Think of the future ramifications to an ever growing (reversing the private sector trend of diminishing union membership) number of such beholden voters; monetary incentive trumps virtually all else: they'll be bought and paid for forever. [Institutions]

That's just three (of many) examples of Programs, Laws and Institutions having long term repercussions to our system of individual-based self government that Obama and company have said they'll enact...

But as disturbing as what's been said is the growing evidence of just how much is being denied Americans for consideration during this, the world's most important job application process, such as:

A) There is no evidence whatsoever that Obama has ever been an ideologically unifying force in the past that he tells us (and the media let him get way with) he'd be in the future. Just the opposite, his record is one of extreme partisanship and inflexibility - so much so that nonpartisan analysis ranks him as the single most liberal Senator in the nation. Common sense should mutually exclude this fact from any claim to 'moderation' or 'unifying' intention - but alas, not in the current media climate which consistently attacks the source (in this case, the report) instead of investigating (not concluding - that's for us to decide, but 'merely' discussing at length) the validity of alternative contentions. (if only we had journalists that specialized in investigating - outside of 13 year old DUI's of candidate spouses, that is).

B) Then there's Obama's long list of past associations (see this map for a graphical representation of its scope, albeit obsolete as the list continues to grow). Here again the MSM runs constant interference by again and again saying that even discussing any such is somehow a 'smear campaign'. One instance, repeated ad nauseam might qualify as such - but once again we've the exact opposite of what the MSM claims: a long and growing (despite the MSM's best efforts) history of identified associations that are neither casual or fleeting but are repeatedly, consistently, with those having truly extreme social views and agendas as compared to those of the majority of Americans (which I'll remind the media again continues to be center-right). Who over the age of 30 doesn't recognize the legitimacy of taking such past consistency of association as an indicator of future conduct? And is it not more likely that Obama's associations have shaped his character, as it does the rest of us, than that such a number spanning decades somehow didn't effect him in any manner (and what would that suggest about his nature)? I find it insulting on its face to suggest - yet the MSM seems to have convinced a measurable segment of the population that they're inconsequential and not worth worrying about. I personally consider it infinitely more likely (that's politically-correct speech for; "adults know") that Obama's aforementioned uber-liberal ranking is the result of these past associations - and once that causation is recognized what does it say about his future pursuits?

C) Most disturbing of all is the extreme degree (although he's not alone) to which so much of Obama's past has literally been 'sealed' - i.e., barred the American voter. How is it possible that anyone, anywhere, considers anything off the table when it comes to vetting for the position of worlds most powerful person? Moreover, how is it possible - in this country - for that to be tolerated by a populace supposedly raised to understand (and defend) the responsibilities of the self-governed and by extension the criticality of wide ranging exploration and discourse? I find it baffling and alarming in the extreme that these two states could exist and not automatically exclude Obama from serious consideration - but that's what is is occurring. I find this to be a distasteful (and frightening) example that, with sufficient control of our communication mediums, reasonably savvy Americans can be duped into accepting nearly anything if there's no countering opinion to consider (not a dig at anyone's intelligence; we're busy - and in the absence of someone {anyone} making us aware of an alternative view we've rarely the time to develop it our selves and the herd mentality prevails). Imagine hiring for a position at your work where an applicants resume was full of popular buzz words and catch phrases re: his skill set but lacked any explicit prior accomplishments - and under the education section listed his college but noted that his GPA was 'personal/decline to state'. Would any of us hire such an applicant? So why would we when discussing the Presidency of the United States of America?

Again, these are but some few examples - if one were to avail themselves of what's available on the internet (and grade intelligently) - of why this election cycle in general and the candidacy of Barack Obama in particular has become alarming to me.

Last example: that his entire diatribe hasn't even addressed the potentially (which by definition makes it 'the') most immediately pressing issue of this election: national security in the context of the ongoing Global War On Terror, and the continuing convergence of suicide bombers with portable WMD intended to be used against us when they come to fruition. How is it that this horrific specter - known to be factual in intent if not capability as yet - isn't the headline topic of this election? Should we not be having an exhaustive national debate on the mechanics of asymmetrical war and its utter reliance on intelligence gathering to interdict attacks vs. the after-the-fact reprisal model of 'law enforcement' Obama and the Democrats somehow think will be sufficient to deter suicide bombers? I happen to believe the likelihood of such an attack actually occurring to be fairly remote - but considering the consequences, is it responsible to play the odds on this issue? I don't think so - but we're not really talking about that - why? A: Because that's an Obama 'weakness' - better to concentrate on the troubled economy as that's (erroneously) laid at the feet of Republicans in many voters' minds. What will any of us possible say to our children if this unthinkable scenario comes to pass because we chose not to take it seriously (enough) to assure its prevention due to political ideology?

Rhetorical, I pray - but we're afforded, nay; empowered with the responsibility - to directly influence the course of this nation. It's a great, great power - and responsibility.

For the record, I'm not a Republican nor a conservative nor even a person of faith {all of which often surprise those who learn them}. I'm just a working stiff who takes his citizenship seriously, all the more so as I'm also a father. Sure I've political beliefs of my own and they naturally (and rightly) steer my voting patterns. But when I 'reverse engineer' what I believe an Obama administration - again in conjunction with a Democrat controlled Congress - would mean potentially short term and almost certainly long term, I must agree with one mantra from 'the right' which simply rings true to my ears: Obama is simply 'too risky' to put in such a position of power. 'He's cool', and/or 'new' and/or 'historic' and/or 'change' don't meet the high standard demanded by the consequences of our choice.

I've reached this conclusion by dispassionately (and trust me; with McCain that's easy) stepping through the probabilities of cause and effect - and once again feel left with an inadequate 'lesser of evils' choice. But a lousy choices doesn't mean parity between them, and one is clearly more dangerous than the other when thought through.

That's what compelled me to share some examples of why I feel this election is wrong in many ways and why it's so important we the voters get it right regardless.




SAH