Aid to Enemies; Betrayal of Allies

Obama continues his insane Husseinness.  It is becoming even more painfully obvious that his prior sucking up to Islamist, socialist, and communist nations were not isolated events.  That is his continuing practice – with a vengeance!  It is not enough to become buddies with Chavez and his friends, Hamas and other Islamists in the middle east and in the USA.  It is not enough to turn our backs on Israel.

So now we have the dismantling of our defense shield in Europe.  We have our long time allies saying Obama betrayed them.  We have millions of Americans saying “what the hell are you doing?” (I don’t have a link to that sentiment yet, but I see it coming real soon.)

Most of us agree that American is stretched too thin and cannot continue to be the worlds’ cop. But, if we want to note another clear divide between liberals and conservatives in this nation, it is all about how we sprinkle our resources around the world.

Liberals tend to treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.  Aid is cut off to those most likely to be our friend and aid is increased to those who have declared us their enemy.

Conservatives tend to treat enemies like enemies and friends like friends.  We think helping our friends and cutting off assistance to those who declare us “infidels” and wish our destruction are good ideas.

Obama wants to buy the love of our enemies.  He naively believes if only we are nice enough to them, they will embrace us – their fundamental reasons for their “former” disdain will melt away.  But that is not enough for him.  We also have to demonstrate to our enemies that we are backing down from aiding our friends.

This practice might pluck the heart-strings of the half-thinkers for a few months while they hear the heaps of praise from the fascist nations who are the beneficiaries Obama’s misspent gifts.  Talk about waste of taxpayer dollars.  Shooting ourselves in the foot would be more cost-effective.

Paradigm Shift: More Than Obamanomics

A paradigm shift is what appears to be a sudden shift of values of what is right and true.  A “paradigm shift” is occurring in our nation’s economy, health care, religious values and national defense, all at the same time.  I will coin a new word for this:  Megadigm shift.

To provide some perspective, here are several examples of “paradigm shifts” that have occurred in the social sciences:

• The movement, known as the Cognitive revolution, away from Behaviourist approaches to psychological study and the acceptance of cognition as central to studying human behaviour.

• The Keynesian Revolution is typically viewed as a major shift in macroeconomics.^[2] According to John Kenneth Galbraith, Say's Law dominated economic thought prior to Keynes for over a century, and the shift to Keynesianism was difficult. Economists who contradicted the law, which inferred that underemployment and underinvestment (coupled with oversaving) were virtually impossible, risked losing their careers.^[3] In his magnum opus, Keynes cited one of his predecessors, J. A. Hobson,^[4] who was repeatedly denied positions at universities for his heretical theory.

• Later, the movement for monetarism over Keynesianism marked a second divisive shift. Monetarists held that fiscal policy was unimportant for economic stabilization, in contrast to the Keynesian view that both fiscal and monetary policy were important.^[5]

• Fritjof Capra describes a paradigm shift presently happening in science from physics to the life sciences. This shift in perceptive accompanies a shift in values and is characterized by ecological literacy.^[6]

  ^{(Source: Wikipedia)}

Barack Obama is either blamed for or credited with our current megadigm shift.  But in reality, he is merely the spokesman and facilitator for it.  This shift has been brewing for several decades. I’ve known of Obama’s radical, socialist, communist, racist and terrorist connections since he first began his presidential campaign – he wrote about them in his second book that my daughter gave me two and a half years ago for Christmas.

Most of the people who elected Obama knew of his radical associations – they were not kept secret. A man with this kind of background would not have been elected if this “megadigm shift” had not been brewing within the American psyche for some period of time.  Our current president didn’t come to power via a coup.  He was elected by American voters.  While there was considerable deception via his public rhetoric, most of his value system was already on the table.

The American voter was part of the megadigm shift now unfolding on the national stage:

• Shift from capitalism to socialism and beyond
• Shift from private sector to public sector services and ownership of major corporations
• Shift toward quadrupling the national debt in less than a year
• Shift from being a “Christian nation” to being a “Muslim” nation (in the president’s view) or at best, not a Judeo/Christian nation.
• Shift from discernment in morals and sense of right and wrong to a belief that those are outmoded concepts that are “judgmental, bigoted, and intolerant.”
• Shift from winning wars as a logical and essential objective, to winning becoming a poor, archaic objective because we no longer have the stomach, the sense of purpose enough to sacrifice to win.

These and other components of our megadigm shift are the ultimate consequence of a democracy that lost its self discipline – a consequence of losing faith in our own value system and believing every else’s values are just as good or better.  The people of this nation have lost their sense of history and purpose to the point of accepting the “un-American” principles we fought against for the past six decades.  We are at the point where what appears to be the easy road – the government doing for us what we should do for ourselves – is the most appealing.  And Hussein Obama, with his hoard of czars and community activists will help lead us down that path.  He is leading us toward losing our liberties.

God help us…if half our population can recognize Him.

Getting the job done prevails over racism-Finally!

If my business was competing in the market place to produce the best product for the least cost requiring optimum efficiency and customer service, laws prohibiting me from hiring the most qualified applicants would not help.

In the public sector, especially in the realm of public safety, what justifies limitations on hiring the most qualified people? Racial quotas? Social engineering? Absolutely not!

The public sector is the butt of constant complaints and jokes about laziness and inefficiencies. Is it a coincidence that that is where affirmative action and other efficiency and performance constraining policies are first and most aggressively applied?

One doesn't have to be a racist to see the negative shooting-yourself-in-the-foot outcome of eliminating "the best" to meet some racial, ethnic, or gender quota, or to meet some other social engineering expectation.

Darren Chapel of the San Francisco Examiner begins his article on the recent Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven, CT, firefighters case with some facts. Then, typical of experience-challenged leftward skewed commentators, he derails into opinion that shows his absence from the reality of running businesses and government services.

Here is where Darren loses it when he claims:

"But what's less fair is the playing field of American race relations. Anyone denying that fact needs to take a long look at the available information. What hasn't been discussed in the wake of this decision is the overwhelming income gap and stunning disparity in net worth that white Americans enjoy compared to their counterparts. If we are going to talk about fairness, this is the place to start. The rash of white people claiming discrimination in recent months needs to be noted, and I believe that in this case the firemen had a descent argument, but they're still wrong. They may have lost a promotion, but on average, they still are exponentially better off than their black co-workers."

The firemen are wrong? Because they "still are exponentially better off?" So, folks who are better off are wrong about issues of fairness, and justice, and skills, and merit, and hard work? This is the opposite of every sound principle of human success I have ever learned. So, let us forget about promotion, in school or at work, based on merit. Let's have it all based on quotas and making everyone feel good about themselves. Then we can have a lottery on how many years it will take for this nation to reach third world status.

Darren the Pollyanna continues:

"Justices may strive to make their rulings based on a "colorblind society," but that's not what exists in America. The romantic notion of racial harmony isn't realistic because the playing field isn't even. Living in a colorblind society means that each group is treated exactly the same in all aspects of life, including economics and social mobility. They aren't. To suggest so is pure ignorance. On average, blacks are less likely to go to college or finish high school. They also attend poorer funded public schools on average and are more prone to experience child abuse, substance abuse, neglect, divorce, teen pregnancy, health complications and about every other challenge available. They don't grow up next to country clubs. Most importantly, they are more likely to be poor, a fact that makes economic progress much more challenging."

Racial or any other kind of "harmony" does not require economic or social parity. Poor whites, poor Latinos and poor Asians face the same challenges. Whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians who don't perform well on tests well-designed to identify the best canditates for the job should not be hired for these positions - despite the fact they are poor. It is neither logical nor prudent to hire a less qualified person over a qualified person because of race, gender, ethnicity, or economic status. We have a black President, black generals, (prior) black Secretary of State, black Attorney General and blacks in hundreds of other high positions in government, for crying out loud! Doesn't that count for something?

In the balance of his article, Darren simply reveals his hostility toward "class". He seeks not merely equality of opportunity, but equality of class, income, and wealth. I'm not sure whether to label this thinking Socialism or Communism. In our current political environment, I wouldn't be surprised if these labels were considered a compliment.

Darren and Sonia Sotomayor are both racists in their quest to carry affirmative action to its illogical and counter-productive extreme. The affirmative action pendulum has now swung past its point of equilibrium into the realm of screwing whites. The Supreme Court decision wisely slowed the momentum of that swing.