Category Archives: Conservative views

by Barry Kelly | April 25, 2013 · 7:30 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 47

IT IS WHAT IT IS

We are a great nation and we have the best law enforcement, intelligence collection, military, and counter-terrorist capabilities in the world. Unfortunately, we have a tentative president, who, for reasons no one who knows or is willing to talk about, thinks American influence in the world is too strong and America with the rest of Western world has much to be ashamed about. Only by diminishing our power through a socialist transformation can the world find equality and peace, he thinks.

The “black flag of jihad” as used by various Islamic terrorist organizations (since the late 1990s) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The president and his administration don’t want to acknowledge that Islamic Jihad in all its forms is a danger to our way of life. Islam and Christianity have a history. And it is not a peaceful one. The Crusades, the Muslim military sweep through North Africa, followed by the Muslim invasion of Western Europe, the fall of Cordoba, the last Islamic center in Spain are all part of this history. The war continues today and it is an Islamic war against Christian nations. All the Arabs who were dancing in the streets of Islamic countries when the twin towers fell were not all members of an organized terrorist group or active Jihadists but all were Muslims. It is what it is. Muslims do not like us. Moderate Muslims may not be active Jihadists but they condone it and support it. Billions of Saudi dollars have supported radical Islamic Wahabism schools throughout the world. Our president attended one.

He also attended a strident anti-American church for 20 years. He comes by his disapproval of America’s past history naturally. He has a right to hold those beliefs. Unfortunately, the attitude of the president permeates through the entire administration. How else can you explain their

View of Mosque 2 (Photo credit: TushyD)

efforts to cover up Jihadist actions like Ben Ghazi, the constant reluctance to use the word terrorism, or the term war on terror? This president who rushes to judgement at the drop of a hat on other issues, preaches the need to gather all the facts, wait until the investigation is complete, “there is no evidence a terrorist group was involved.” He often ends his preaching with “don’t blame an entire group of people.” Mr. President, Muslims have been involved in nearly all bombing terrorist acts for more than the last two decades. (Yes, I know about Oklahoma City.) Many, if not most, of the mosques in America and elsewhere preach a form of Jihadism. Directly or indirectly, Islamic mosques support radical Islamic fervor. What’s not to profile? Profiling is a common-sense approach to law enforcement and protection of citizens.

Like it or not, we are in a war that has deep Islamic roots. It is what it is.

“John Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.” (itmakessenseblog.com)
US Imam Calls On Muslims In US To Wage Jihad (joemiller.us)
State Dept. Erases ‘Muslim,’ ‘Islam’ From 2,000 Page Terror Memo… (redflagnews.com)
Islam is the Ultimate Sleeper Cell (itmakessenseblog.com)
Boston bombers – media just doesn’t get it (culturaljihad.wordpress.com)

1 Comment

Filed under Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, foreign policy, Intelligence & Politics, Obama, Terrorism

Tagged as America, Benghazi, Islam, Jihadism, Muslim, terrorism

by Barry Kelly | March 25, 2013 · 7:30 am

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 41

Duty, Honor, Country (Photo credit: Roger Smith)

LYING IS THE ISSUE

I’ m positive President Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Mr Alinsky published his guidelines for Progressives. He put forth several rules but the essence of his teaching is that the issue is never the issue. The practical effect of that simple statement is Progressive politicians and supporting radicals should never get bogged down in political battles over any issue. They should remain focused on using all issues to destroy the existing government structure and all opposition. The pragmatic advantage of Mr. Alinsky’s theory is that radicals are free to take any side of any issue at any time. How can you debate against a team using Alinsky’s rules? The answer is you can not.

But there is a serious weakness in Alinksy’s dictum that radicals can change their positions at anytime. It is not a pragmatic flaw. It is one derived from generations of codes of honor. There is a reason why parents tell their children not to lie. Parents look their sons and daughters right in the eye and with all the seriousness they can muster tell them, “You are only as good as your word, if you have nothing but your word you will be respected, don’t say things if you don’t mean it, and people must be able to count on your word.” Did President Obama never hear those words? Maybe not if we judge him by what he says.

Let’s look at some examples. I realize that those of you who are emotionally tied to the Progressive Movement or left wing of the Democratic Party will not believe the president’s shifting positions damage the trust Americans give to their leader. My definition of lying is when a person knowingly makes a statement they know is untrue. Mistakes or errors are not lies. The following are all summarized statements or positions of Candidate Obama, President Obama, or those of senior staff members who were speaking with his approval. You judge if the president was lying or not.

*Under Obamacare you will be able to keep your doctor and your current insurance plan.

*Obamacare will save money.

*President Bush’s spending that increased the National Debt and saddled our children with paying our bills was unpatriotic.

*Sequestration was a Republican idea. I’ll veto any attempt to change it. Terrible things will happen if sequestration is not stopped: Air flights delayed, teachers, policemen and firemen laid off. Thousands of jobs lost.

*We do not have a spending problem.

* The White House was not aware of the dangers to the Ben Ghazi Consulate.

* I told our security officials to do everything possible to help the Americans fighting in Ben Ghazi.

* My energy policy includes all of the above, both green and fossil fuel resources to make America energy self-sufficient.

*Taxes should not be increased in a struggling economy.

*My plan is to reach out to Republicans to bring our finances under control.

* (An open mike slip in a comment last year to President Medvedev of Russia): “Tell Putin I will have more flexibility after the election.”

I believe there are enough lies associated with the issues above to cause many of our citizens to lose trust and confidence in President Obama’s word and, therefore, in his presidency. Alinsky followers may believe the issue is never the issue but a lie is always a lie. Alinsky’s morality is not ours.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series.

http://www.factsandfictions.com

Eight Decades of Insights 36 (factsandfictions.com)
Eight Decades of Insights 33 (factsandfictions.com)
Obama Quotes Radical Socialist Saul Alinsky In Speech To Young Israelis (patdollard.com)

2 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, General, Medvedev, Obama, Progressives, Putin

by Barry Kelly | March 14, 2013 · 8:14 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 40

TRIBUTE TO PAT BOONE

Last night as I was watching Fox Business news, a rarity, anchor Neil Cavuto was interviewing Pat Boone, a famous singer and successful entertainer. During the interview when Cavuto was musing about what President Obama is doing, Mr. Boone pulled out the red-covered book by Mr. Saul Alinsky titled Rules for Radicals and commented that the president is following the guidance contained in this book. Cavuto, following a long line of intellectuals, scoffed at the idea the president was using Rules for Radicals to govern the country and, murmuring pleasantries, politely blew off Mr. Boone. Even worse, Cavuto said he had read the book but didn’t believe President Obama was following Alinsky’s rules.

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on February 12, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Where has he been? We depend upon our media and especially those wearing the mantle of an economic guru to recognize that conservative intellectuals similarly blew off Das Kapital by Karl Marx, the writings of Lenin, Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler, and Chairman Mao’s Red Book. How different the world might have been if only enough of our opinion leaders had paid attention. These men and their followers meant to carry out the logic and guidance put forth by their writings. All fought their way into power.

Once in power, they transformed their societies and governments. Freedom fell to centralized control by the elite. There were not anymore votes. Millions perished in the name of differing ideologies. Economies were destroyed. Are we so special that our nation cannot be transformed and freedom lost? I don’t think so. The Republican party, the opposition party, is in disarray struggling to understand what is happening. They, too, do not understand Alinsky. The essence of Alinsky’s teaching is: the issue is never the issue. What is hard to understand about that? Take any of President Obama’s points engraved on his teleprompter. He uses whatever side of any issue to destroy the opposition, the Republican party. After they are marginalized he will have total power to transform America just as he promised.

Listen to that promise, America.

Take something as straightforward as closing the White House to tours. His first position is that the “Republican-caused” sequestration will cause economic havoc. Streets and airways will be unsafe. Thousands will lose their jobs. All his lackeys preached the sky is falling. Closing the White House to tours was just another cheap dig to show up Republicans as monsters, locking school children out of their planned visit to the White House. That backfired and Obama’s narcissistic mirror showed falling ratings. So change sides. It was the Secret Service who closed the White House tours, not the president, “who has never made a mistake.” I served President Reagan in the White House and know a Secret Service director would not ever close the White House for tours without being positive he was carrying out the president’s wishes.

President Obama is following Alinsky’s guidance right down the line. I wish he wasn’t. Wake up, you intellectual gurus of America. Show the courage and insight Pat Boone showed last night.

Childish Regime Shuts Down White House Tours to Punish You (rushlimbaugh.com)
House Republicans call on Obama to end vacations until White House tours resume – @thehill (thehill.com)
Eight Decades of Insights 36 (factsandfictions.com)
White House tours may resume for students, Obama says (cbsnews.com)

1 Comment

Filed under Alinsky, Barry Kelly, class warfare, Conservative views, Eight Decades of Insights, Intelligence & Politics, political solutions, Politics, totalitarianism

Tagged as Barack Obama, Hitler, Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, Mein Kampf, Neil Cavuto, Obama, Pat Boone, Republicans, Saul Alinsky, White House

by Barry Kelly | March 4, 2013 · 12:59 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 38

OBAMA’S LEGACY

The president has almost four years left to serve. It is presumptive to judge his legacy at this point. But it is not too early to look at the last four years and discuss what he may want his legacy to be. After all, aren’t presidential or anyone’s legacies derived more from results rather than words?

English: President Obama in Tucson: “The Forces that Divide Us are Not as Strong as Those that Unite Us” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I can not score the president’s work on important issues, such as unemployment, energy self-sufficiency, taxation policies, immigration, debt reduction, balance of trade, strategic military, or foreign policies. Or even health care. You see, I believe none of these issues in themselves are important to President Obama. He gives constant partisan speeches on the issue of the moment. Sometimes on both sides of the issue. But the issue is never the issue. In President Obama’s world issues are the tools used to destroy the opposition. He has total flexibility and even moral authority to use any side of any issue at any time to attack the opposition. How else could any rational person, let alone a sitting President, be openly in favor of Sequestration, sign it into law, threaten to veto any legislation that tries to change its implementation and blame the Republicans for the projected spending cuts?

Let’s take the immigration issue. Obama’s only interest in immigration is to secure the vast majority of the Hispanic vote for the Progressive Party, formerly called the Democratic Party. The last thing he wants is for the Republicans and the Democrats to work together to bring about an immigration policy that is good for the Nation, fair for the immigrants and acceptable to both parties. If that happens, how can he use the immigration issue to attack the opposition. Remember when he was first running for President, he clearly told Hispanics that he would bring about immigration reform as his first legislative effort. But, no, socializing the health industry was a more important use of the issues available to him. The Hispanics could wait. They would vote for him anyway. His analysis was brilliant. The opposition still hasn’t figured out what happened. Except one seventh of the US economy is now under federal government control. Not a bad start when your real program is to transform American into a Socialist (elitist) top down managed economy like Europe or Cuba.

When you can take a issue, such as Debt Reduction, that the vast majority of Americans favor and turn it into a partisan attack on the Opposition that is a political genius at work. President Obama even has respectable, or formerly respectable Democrats, chanting “there is no spending problem.” Where have they been. I thought every informed American knew we are borrowing forty cents for every dollar we spend. How can that not be a spending problem? Turning to Clint Eastwood‘s talking chair we learn if the rich were just willing to pay a little higher taxes, the debt could be paid off. The truth is if we taxed the rich at 100% it would make very little difference in the national debt.

The only result President Obama and his insiders want for a legacy is, they transformed America into a one party government run by a progressive elite. At this point they are on schedule.

by the author of the Jack Brandon thriller novels. http://www.factsandfictions.com

Pages: 1 2

4 Comments

Filed under Alinsky, class warfare, Conservative views, Intelligence & Politics

Tagged as Barack Obama, Democratic Party (United States), DREAM Act, Hispanic, Immigration, Progressive, Republicans, United States

by Barry Kelly | February 26, 2013 · 1:49 pm

EIGHT DECADES OF INSIGHTS 37

OBAMA‘S SEQUESTRATION

Sequestration is as dumb as GOING OVER THE CLIFF. Can you even remember what that was about? We’re talking about 2% of the annual budget. Of course we don’t have a budget even though an annual budget is required by law. So sequestration is 2% of what the president might spend. I’m sure he will try to exceed his past record of overspending one trillion plus. Two percent wouldn’t even be noticed in the final accounting. Government spending will still be more this year than last. How is that for fiscal discipline? Oh, don’t overlook that the 2% is only to be applied to discretionary spending. Mandatory spending where we really spend money won’t be touched. We will still spend one trillion plus more

English: President Barack Obama signs the Budget Control Act of 2011 in the Oval Office, Aug. 2, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

than we take in. Taxing all the rich people in America at the 100% rate will not pay down our $17 trillion debt so you could notice the difference. Only drastic spending cuts, inflation and growth can make real inroads on our national debt. What combination appeals to you?

Where did sequestration come from? It seems very clear that this is one of those Alinsky issues where the issue is never the issue. How else can you explain President Obama being on both sides of sequestration? The idea, according to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance committee, came from President Obama. Some White House staffers said the same thing when the White House backed sequestration. Author Robert Woodward also reports the idea came from the president. It was the president who used sequestration to force a Republican House to come up with a balanced plan. In Obama terminology debt reduction is done through revenue (disguised word for taxes) and investment (another disguise for increased government spending). There would also be token cuts in the rate government spending increases. Isn’t it strange the Congressional Super Committee failed to reach agreement? Without further deep cuts in federal spending, sequestration cuts will have a marginal effect.

When the failure of the super committee was apparent, President Obama said he would veto any bill to change sequestration. Now when sequestration is imminent, it is now longer the president’s child. He claims it was a Republican idea. It is now an issue to be used to blame the hapless Republicans, who are outgunned when it comes to explaining their views with a message they don’t have. The really stupid part of sequestration is that it is an across the board cut with no discretion for the executive to cut marginal programs and not vital ones. This is a power President Obama doesn’t want for if sequestration hurts no one, he cannot use it to diminish the opposition party. The far left, where Obama lives, is salivating at the chance to cut the defense budget. In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, sequestration is much ado about nothing. Watch the president’s actions. Pay no attention to his words. Like the weather, if you don’t like them just wait a few days.

By the author of the Jack Brandon thriller series. www.factsandfictions.com