Mitt Dirt for Dem Strategists

by Lance Thompson

President Obama’s poll numbers have declined in the face of a moribund economy, calculated pandering to college students and matrimonial-minded gays, stubbornly high unemployment, and $40,000-per-plate fund raisers.  The standard Democrat response to such well-deserved disaffection for the president is to release some character-assassinating fable about Mitt Romney through the mainstream media.  If the trend continues, I calculate the liberal press will run out of such stories in mid-June, so I’ve prepared a few Romney whoppers that should get wide coverage in the weeks ahead.

Romney Business Failure: a second-grade classmate of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney today revealed that the former governor’s reputation as a turn-around artist is undeserved.  Mr. Mendex Flagrandi revealed to MSNBC host Chris Mathews, in an unrecorded and secret interview, that 7 year-old Mitt Romney’s Bloomfield Hills lemonade stand operated at a deficit and never turned a profit during its entire Memorial Day weekend life span.  Additionally damning was the revelation that Romney never repaid his mother for the business loan that made the lemonade stand possible, nor offered health care to his employees.

Mitt’s Meter Matters:  CNN’s Rachel Maddow is producing a six-part documentary based on Salt Lake City police records which show that Mitt Romney, while an undergraduate student at BYU, repeatedly parked his car at metered spaces that still had time left over from the previous occupants’ coins.  This, Maddow will show, demonstrates a pattern of opportunism and exploitation of other drivers.  Interviewees include a parking enforcement officer who was laid off due to reduced budgets in the Salt Lake City parking enforcement branch, who might still be working if Romney had paid his fair share of parking fees.

Tarnished Gold: The New York Times will reveal that Romney’s rescue and revitalization of the 2002 Winter Olympics failed to address the unequal distribution of gold medals to Third World athletes who failed to prevail in any event.  In fact, the Times story will show, the top one percent of the world’s athletes earned the vast majority of medals, while the other 99% received relatively few.  Despite this obvious inequality, Romney did nothing to redistribute Olympic medals among the less fortunate, less coordinated, and less competitive athletes.  Boris Gretslava, a currently female weight lifter from the Ukraine, is quoted in the article through a translator as saying, “I went to the 2002 Winter Olympics and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

Ann’s Secret Life: The Washington Post, in an exhaustive investigation, has unearthed in a Massachusetts landfill several empty containers of microwave mac and cheese.  This is the same landfill that was used by trash collection trucks that serviced the Romney home during his term as governor.  While Ann Romney claims to have raised her five sons in a healthy, wholesome home environment, the inference that she may have served non-nutritious, chemically-laced and radiation enhanced instant food products cannot be ruled out.  Microwave mac and cheese has been nominated by first lady Michelle Obama as one of the most dangerous of the FDA’s new list of Top Ten Gooiest Foods.

These four stories should help the MSM maintain their smoke screen of gossip and innuendo for a few extra weeks, and keep America’s attention off of Obama’s many and continuing failures.  Of course, the same polls that show Obama slipping also show Americans placing less and less trust in the dinosaur media.  They prefer information that hasn’t been filtered, spun and biased by the liberal press.  So maybe no one will pay any attention to so-called journalists who run with stories like these.  Just don’t expect that to stop them.

Getting Out of the Red to China

 

by Lance Thompson

The cost of China’s widespread and long-standing cyber espionage campaign on American interests was addressed in an article in the 27 January Wall Street Journal.  Former Director of National Security Mike McConnell, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and former Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn cited the October 2011 report to Congress by the National Counterespionage Executive.  The report estimated that “catastrophic impact of cyber espionage” by communist China, including cyber attacks on our national defenses, stealing classified information, violating patents and infringing copyright, have cost the American economy billions of dollars and millions of jobs. 

To finance the unprecedented deficit spending of the Obama administration, the United States borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends.  This debt is not only a dangerous drag on American productivity, it could easily trigger the destruction of the economy.  Much of this debt is owed to communist China.  

Fortunately, these two alarming conditions suggest a convenient remedy.  In view of the staggering cost of Chinese cyber attacks, the United States government should levy a fine against communist China equal to the amount of our debt to communist China. 

Cyber attacks are very difficult to defend against, and their costs are only evident long after the crime has been committed.  There are rarely consequences to the attacker, since the trail of evidence is beclouded in cyberspace.  Thus, the victim has very few options.  He can complain diplomatically, he can retaliate, or he can demand restitution.

Diplomatic complaints to communist China have an unbroken record of ineffectiveness.  From human rights violations to currency manipulation to military intimidation, China has no history of responding positively to diplomatic entreaties.  Further, doing so would merely be an admission of guilt, another gesture unfamiliar to communist China.

Retaliation could occur in many forms.  We could retaliate in kind, and use cyber attacks to steal Chinese secrets, copy Chinese technology, violate Chinese patents and copyright.  But one look at their new stealth fighter or commercial aircraft or automobiles will tell you that their most advanced concepts look like ours.  We would learn nothing from them other than what they took from us. 

On the other end of the continuum is retaliation by force.  Military action is seldom justified by economic provocation, and the United States has always been reluctant to break that precedent.  The middle ground is occupied by economic sanctions, but China trades with the world now, and we certainly can’t bring much pressure to bear as they stand behind a bulwark of American IOU’s.

That leaves restitution.  It is the fairest, surest, least explosive means to redressing the crimes that China has been perpetrating for years against the American government and private industry.  It is a simple matter between two countries–ours and the Chinese.  We don’t require the cooperation or permission of any other nation or collection of nations.  We have been wronged, and we will apply an appropriate sanction.

There will be protests far and wide, some even from people in this country.  But those who protest should have done so while China was waging cyber war against us.  Because we have allowed it to continue, the communist Chinese assume that we will endure this attack without reaction, and they will continue to enjoy the benefits of this one-sided war.

China has financed our reckless spending, and we have given them power over us and our economy.  But if they ignore the rules of behavior between civilized nations, then we should adopt the same attitude.  We should cancel our debt to China as a penalty for their cybe attacks against us.  By doing so, we set an example to the world that attacks of any kind, even in cyberspace, will not be tolerated.

State of the Union 2013

 

by Lance Thompson

Reaction to the President’s State of the Union speech has been as predictable as the speech itself, split along the usual partisan lines.  But Obama’s next one, to be given after the 2012 election, figures to be a game-changer, and here’s an exclusive early look at what it will include:

Good evening.  And a special welcome to the many outgoing Democrat congressmen and senators.  I know you blame me for the staggering losses our party suffered in the last election.  The good news is, you and I have pensions for life.  Incidentally, that’s almost as long as the new, long-term unemployment extension we passed during the lame duck session.  The bad news is, we’ll have to borrow the money to pay for those programs from Uruguay.

I want to thank each and every American who voted for me, especially the record numbers who did so posthumously.  I only wish you had voted more often.

I want to take a moment to look back on our achievements.  We passed a national health care program.  I know the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional last summer, but remember, the law was on the books almost long enough for an average American to read the entire 1300-pages of that law.

I stopped the Keystone pipeline, hobbled the domestic energy industry, and made worldwide oil reserves available to the Chinese.  I think we can all see the results in reduced traffic at the drive-through and increased sales of bicycles and skateboards.  I know a gallon of unleaded will now set you back twelve bucks, but the good news is, you can now pay for that gas with food stamps. 

The size of our military is now one tenth what is was when I took office, and we are engaged in no foreign wars.  Sure, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Maui are now colonies of the People’s Republic of China.  Yes, Mexican drug cartels have surrounded the Alamo.  And, admittedly, the number of rogue states with nuclear weapons has grown exponentially to include Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Luxembourg and Solyndra.. 

But we’re not economizing on our security.  I have doubled the number of TSA airport security officers, and authorized them to conduct strip searches on anyone who even drives past the airport.

Thanks to bailouts and takeovers during my administration, the government now owns 45% of private businesses in this nation.  We have had a 98% success rate in running those businesses into the ground.  By the way, I don’t agree with critics who say that including permanent Obama 2012 bumper stickers on all new GM cars was responsible for that auto company’s plummeting sales. 

The best news is that this nation, struggling with unsustainable debt, massive unemployment, declining international prestige and influence, and worthless currency is not my problem anymore.  Since the election, the Republicans are in charge, so we can go back to blaming them. 

(Since it is not customary for the outgoing President to deliver a State of the Union address, Mr. Obama will deliver his remarks on the ABC program “The View” immediately following the Harry Reid aerobics segment and the Nancy Pelosi cooking demonstration.)

Obama Closes the Arsenal of Democracy

by Lance Thompson

Communist China is building a naval aviation program around its new aircraft carrier and cranking out new submarines at the rate of two per year.  Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, forbids American ships from returning to the Persian Gulf, and is building an ICBM base in Venezuela.  Waves of bombings mark the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  North Korea and Iran are on the verge of fielding nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.  In this time of crisis, international tension and threats from every corner of the globe, President Obama naturally responds by cutting half a trillion dollars from the military budget of the United States.

The excuse Obama offered for this lunacy (and offered at the Pentagon, to add insult to inanity) is that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are “winding down” and that there is no longer a need for the powerful military we’ve had since President Reagan rebuilt it.  Obama, whose administration has spent more than all previous administrations combined, pointed to the need to save money, and fully intends to do that at the expense of our nation’s defenses.

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the new strategy would be to focus on Asia and the Middle East, then identified the high cost of providing health care for military personnel as a reason for the cutbacks in other areas of defense.  Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey characterized the traditional requirement that theUnited States maintain a force able to fight two major wars at the same time as outdated, and “a bit of an anchor, frankly.” 

These decisions and comments come from an administration that only recently had five conflicts cooking–Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.  Obama has shown a willingness to commit troops without congressional approval or even the slightest indication of American interests at stake.  But now he evidently believes that he can “turn the page on a decade of war” and ignore the ever-spreading threats we face around the globe. 

Panetta also said that defense cuts “must be driven by strategy and...not be driven by numbers alone.”  But it is clear that the size and capabilities of American armed forces will determine and limit the missions they can undertake.  In none of the conflicts mentioned above was the United States engaged with a nuclear power.   A few years ago, when our political leaders actually put the nation’s safety first, our military prepared to confront the major states who opposed us.  We created strategies and plans and weapons to counter a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe, a Communist Chinese takeover of Taiwan, or nuclear strikes from any of the growing number of rogue nations eager to join the nuclear club.  Now, however, the Obama administration hopes to avoid the danger of fire by reducing the number of fire departments. 

Obama has been consistent in his three years as president.  He has followed fiscal, judicial, legislative and military policies that have weakened, constrained and threatened our nation.  So this recent decision should come as no surprise.  It only remains to be seen how this country’s enemies will exploit yet another retreat from America’s greatness by this president.

The Magnificent Seven?

by Lance Thompson

The Magnificent Seven, now considered a classic Western, wasn't a hit when it was released in 1960. Based on Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai, this allegorical tale was transplanted to the southern border of the American frontier and populated with a stellar cast of manly actors--Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, James Coburn, Robert Vaughn and Eli Wallach as the leader of the predatory bandit band that terrorizes a small Mexican village. In view of Hollywood’s enthusiasm for sequels and our current political situation, I believe the time is right for a remake.

In the original film, the peaceful farmers of the Mexican village are all hard-working and able to support themselves. For the remake, recast in the villagers’ roles would be the American middle class. They are self-reliant, industrious, and uncomplaining. They are the settlers, the providers, the builders of their community.

The villagers are regularly raided by the bandit Calvera and his gang of thieves. They take anything of value, from produce to poultry, leaving only enough to allow the villagers to subsist and produce more goods for the taking. The villagers are beyond the help of the law--Calvera makes the rules. When one villager suggests hiding a little extra from the raiders, another says, "Calvera never takes everything. He always leaves us something." Calvera would be played by Barack Obama in the new version, and the bandits by his administration's tax collectors, law makers and appointed czars. They prey upon the middle class, taking an ever greater share of their wealth while placing restrictions on how they produce it, what they can do with it, and how much of the proceeds they can keep.

The villagers realize they cannot permit their children to grow up under this brutal system, and decide that they must fight. They are not powerful enough to resist Calvera by themselves, so they hire seven gunfighters to rid them of the bandits. In the remake, those who decide to find champions would be the Tea Party, scouring the land for real conservatives to turn back the liberal tide.

The gunfighters are all loners, and each takes the job for his own reasons. They are warrior entrepreneurs, offering services that are valued by others. Some live by a strict personal code, others hope to make a profit, one just to make a name for himself. On a lawless frontier, they are the only hope against marauding bandits. The gunfighters are the GOP candidates, each one seeking the nomination for his own reasons, but all standing up to a confiscatory power that ordinary people cannot resist.

After being turned away in the first battle, Calvera does not relent. The gunfighters learn that Calvera and his band cannot support themselves. They can't afford to lose--the village's modest earnings are their sole means of survival. Similarly, the government knows it cannot exist without the wealth generated by the private sector. As the government has gone from a guarantor of our freedoms to a parasite on our earnings, its increasing size and appetite require ever greater sacrifices from the American people.

When it is clear that the bandits will not give up, some villagers lose heart and want to submit to Calvera's demands. They think it would be better to serve a cruel and capricious master than perish. These parts would be played by liberals who believe that only the government can ensure people's well-being, and no price is too high to pay. Ultimately, a majority faction in the village turns against the gunfighters, and sends them away, just as a majority of Americans embraced Obama and servitude to the government in 2008.

But the gunfighters don't give up. They regroup, ride back into town, and challenge the bandits. At first, it seems an impossible task--they are outnumbered and outgunned. But they are determined to defeat the bandits, knowing the odds are against them.

Likewise, conservatives in November will challenge an overreaching, overintrusive, overdrawn government supported by the mainstream media and all those who long to be wards of the state.

Will the villagers surrender their freedom and their livelihood to Calvera? Will they trust their lives and their children's futures to his promises to be fair and benevolent? Or will they join the gunfighters to rid themselves of their oppressors, though the price of freedom may be high?

I won’t give away the ending of the original. How the remake comes out is up to all of us.