I recently found an interesting post on Facebook that is a good example of the political spin machine being used in an attempt to abolish the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of our freedoms along with it. This post had nothing to do with gun control directly but is a fine example of how the left is going about turning the United States of America into a Marxist dictatorship. I don’t even know if this post is real or just made up by someone with a great sense of humor, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is the effect it had. The headline of the post was as follows:
Obama rated 5th best U.S. President ever
Of the total of 44 US Presidents: Obama rated 5th best president ever. I was just reading a Democratic publicity release that said, “…after a little more than 4 years, Obama has been rated the 5th best president ever.”
How does this sit with you? Do you agree or disagree from the information offered in the heading? The Facebook comments ran from outrage to disbelief to mild profanity. I shared the post and then spent nearly an hour monitoring this one story. Many of the responses show how little attention that even high information voters sometimes pay to what they read, or hear. I don’t find many liberals on my friends list so I can only imagine how the low information liberal took this headline and snippet of the story.
It is critical that we pay very close attention to not only the entire item/story but who wrote it, from what perspective it comes, and if there is any fact behind what is written. Some of those who made derogatory remarks are people I am familiar with on Facebook, and as such, know a lot about their political stance. I had a lot of fun making the remark; “take a moment, wipe the egg off your face, and read it again, ALL OF IT!!”
Some came back after wiping egg off their faces and some just went on like nothing happened. The “rest of the story”, as Paul Harvey is famous for saying, is as follows:
1. Reagan, Lincoln, and 8 others tied for first
2. 15 presidents tied for second
3. 17 other presidents tied for third
4. Jimmy Carter came in 4th
5. Obama fifth
For the explanatory benefit of low information voters, this means Barack Obama (Osama bin Obama) is the worst president in the history of America according to this list, even worse than Mr. Peanut, Jimmy Carter The most interesting thing to me is the spin used to make Obama look like a real president, rather than the Marxist wanna-be dictator that he really is. In this day of information overload, people often either don’t read a story, don’t read all of it, or base a decision on a headline or story line that may or may not accurately reflect the content of the story. This is especially prevalent in left wing spin machines such as the Democrat Party and their leftist minion network outlets, along with their allies in the Republican Party establishment.
This is how propaganda works. Propagandists often use facts but twist them to come to a conclusion that has nothing to do with the facts stated. In this case the headline and snippet of the story tells the truth based on the list provided but when one reads to the end and actually takes the time to think about what they just read one comes out with a totally different perspective. Those who read the first five words and then commented made comments that were totally off-base and came out looking rather foolish. I am not criticizing these people as I have done the same thing in the past myself, and learned the hard way that a premature comment is often an “egg on the face” experience that is embarrassing. In this case several came back with a laugh and said, “Oops”.
It was all in good fun but illustrates the danger of jumping in before you know the depth and temperature of the water. People can be led into a lot of bad situations when they jump to conclusions. This one merely made some people look foolish but this kind of situation can lead to tragic circumstances. A good example is the treatment of the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the “Night of the Long Knives” that Hitler used as an excuse to arrest and murder thousands of innocent people who were guilty of nothing but being born non-Aryan or not belonging to his Nazi Party.
Those who seek to destroy our Republic and enslave We the People use this kind of tactic a great deal and we can expect this to only get worse as the battle for liberty intensifies. If liberty-minded citizens have any hope of winning this battle we must make certain that we don’t fall for any propaganda, from any source. Low information voters and those who desire a free ride at the expense of others will either ignore facts, refuse to analyze them objectively, or feed the spin with the hope of increasing their own benefits at the expense of others.
When politicians, in both political parties, talk about how many citizens support some form of gun control they use this same tactic. Polls are designed to get the outcome desired by those conducting the poll. A good example would be a question I saw a while back. I don’t remember the exact wording but it went something like: “Do you favor laws to keep guns out of the hands of mentally deranged people?” Well, of course!!! No one wants to see Charles Manson with a firearm but liberal spinners can use it to say you favor gun control, or stronger mental health restrictions on gun owners. Diane Feinstein recently came out and declared all veterans to be mentally ill http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2013/03/feinstein-all-vets-are-mentally-ill-and-government-should-prevent-them-from-owning-firearms-2497870.html. By using this question in a poll she could say that the citizens support restrictions on veterans owning firearms.
The moral of this story is to look before you leap. Make sure you know the whole story, not just the headlines. Be sure you know what a politician is actually proposing, not just the talking points they put out. Remember the “glories” of Obamacare? Don’t fall victim to a false story, a false “common sense” firearm restriction, or the false flag actions of those who seek to destroy everything we find precious.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Democrat leader of the Colorado State Senate, John Morse, recently stated, publicly, that he just ignores his constituents, and tells his fellow State Senators to do the same, because he doesn’t like their stand on gun control. Now isn’t this just the height of arrogance and tyranny? He is a “servant of the People” who swore to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”? That dismissive and disgusted tone in his voice when referring to “some people” should be an alarm to anyone, including voters registered as Democrats.
Americans, this is what we are facing with increasing frequency from elected officials at all levels and in both political parties. This is truly a “bi-partisan” power grab we are facing. The increasing degree of arrogance on the part of elected officials shows how far they have gone in their plan to take total control over our lives. It is one thing to have “discussions behind closed doors” and another thing altogether when they just come out and brazenly boast about their actions against We the People.
This man and his entire party are trampling on the Constitution and making no attempts to hide it any longer. They are taking an “in your face” stand, daring We the People to do something about it. The bully has thrown down the gauntlet for everyone to see. He is openly challenging citizens to put a stop to tyranny, his tyranny. The entire Democrat Party, and the Republican Party as well, are telling We the People that they can do as they wish and the Constitution means nothing. Republicans posture and beat their chests for a while and then compromise on “common sense gun control measures”, meaning they sign off on taking away our right to own firearms as stated in the 2nd Amendment. The straw argument that “no one should have the right to own a nuclear missile” just doesn’t fly with citizens.
There are some in Congress, and in state legislatures around the nation, that are standing up for us and for the Constitution. They are being pilloried by the political class of both parties and the lame stream media for doing so. Anyone who has the temerity to challenge their “all-knowing wisdom” is declared an “enemy of the state” and subject to a drone strike at any moment because, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, “if the President does it, it is legal”!!!! This is the stuff of dictatorships not a Constitutional Republic.
I wrote a couple of articles last month that address the problem of politicians and their handlers who deny the rights of We the People. In the first one I appealed to people with name recognition and/or immense wealth to “put their money where their mouth is”, and challenged conservative voters to stand behind them in this battle for liberty. In the second one I appealed to citizens who are registered Democrats to think about what their party is doing to their nation, and to their individual liberty.
This attitude of “we know better and will ignore you peasants” has passed the point of concern and has come to the point of outright danger. If they no longer feel any necessity to hide their contempt for American citizens and for our way of life, We the People are facing imminent subjugation. Our rights to self –defense are being gutted by a government that holds the opinions of its citizens in disdain and total disregard. They see themselves as the only ones capable of making decisions that are “in our best interests”.
Our government is engaging in actions that many see as a preparation step for the taking up of arms against its own citizens. The Department of Homeland Security has secured contracts for the purchase of billions of rounds of hollow point bullets, designed for maximum damage to the human body (these aren’t for “target practice”); tens of thousands of fully automatic rifles, the true “assault rifles”, not the semi-automatic kind you and I possess; are re-fitting thousands of armored “Urban Rescue Vehicles”, the kind with gun ports, for use in American cities; and helicopters fly through our skies shooting machineguns in simulated “domestic unrest” scenarios.
Martial Law may be right around the corner. The government could isolate citizens and confiscate their firearms, or kill the citizen who refuses to surrender their protection, over little or nothing, mostly “imagined offenses” as is happening in California right now. They like to throw the mental health issue out into the arena because they know Republicans will hide behind the need to “keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged”. Of course, that category now applies to any veteran, whether they have seen combat or not. And who will define “mental illness”, Sen. Diane Feinstein? Even now people who believe the Constitution is the law of the land and the basis for our nation are called “extremists” by those in power in both political parties. How much of a step is it to declare these same “extremists” as mentally ill for the purpose of denying them their 2nd Amendment rights?
The Democratic Party, and their allies in the Republican Party, have this all designed to destroy the Constitution and to subjugate We the People. Establishment operatives in both political parties have joined forces to impose their will on the citizens of America. They don’t care what we think, what we want, or what is lawful. They desire the power to dictate our lives to us and this Colorado State Senate president has come right out in the open and stated as much. The message to We the People is “agree with us voluntarily or we will impose agreement on you”. Nanny Bloomberg is doing the same thing in New York City, telling people of the nation that he will impose our best interests on us if we refuse to acquiesce voluntarily. This has to stop, and We the People must stop it, if liberty is to be re-established.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
Have you really thought about that? Here’s how he did it.
There are more stories about this than I have toothpicks and we owned a restaurant. (Trust me, you end up with a lot of toothpicks after closing a restaurant.) I have a much different take on things but first “the facts:”
“No worries America”
When you think about it – I mean really think about it – can you even imagine having the desires (plural), let alone the time and energy of what’s left in a 24-hour day, to think of all the places you could go or of all of the friends you could take or could you find enough hours in what’s left of that day to spend $585,000 for a one night stay – even in Paris with an entire security entourage? And just who’s running our country without this brain child of gluttony at the helm?
Rush Limbaugh hit this nail on the head: People like this self-serving hooligan could not and would not (because they could not) do such things with their own money. They couldn’t afford to, even on their Congressional pay and perks. OUR money is paying for this amoral gluttony and whether you are a Liberal or Conservative, if you aren’t mad as hell about this waste and excess then there’s something seriously wrong with you – get out of here. Now.
Biden did spend an evening in Paris in early February, but there are no details in the document about whether this contract is accurate or what the final hotel bill came to. A standard room in the hotel costs about $475 a night, and the royal two-bedroom suite runs about $3,900 a night.The Weekly Standard also points to another government contract for Biden’s London hotel stay in early February. The contract, to the Hyatt Regency London, totaled $459,339. An associated document with that contract said it was for 136 rooms for 893 room nights.
It can cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 a night — and that’s just for the hotel.Biden’s one-day visit to Paris on Feb. 4 required more than 100 rooms at the five-star Hotel InterContinental Paris Le Grand.
The lodging cost taxpayers $585,000.50, according to federal contracting records that emerged Friday.
When Mr Biden and his hefty entourage stayed in Paris for an evening in early February and it cost $585,000.50 for that single night. The Vice President likely rented out more than 100 rooms in the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand, though they must not have gotten a group discount rate.
The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available. However, just like his London hotel, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel. Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer, “Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free.” The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.
Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February.They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also according to the Weekly Standard:
If you want to know how Biden did this against all reasonable human odds, you’re in the right place … Go here.
This is no joke. That’s the only reason I don’t parody this lamebrain administration’s unconscionable thuggary-theft of taxpayer money more. You need to read this linked article and make time for its video. Until then this will only get worse. GOP Old Guard Republicans are no better. They’re lovin’ it just as much. All on the backs of our labors (or entitlement program cut, whatever your case may be – it DOES effect you). Stop it or stop whining.
Contact your legislator today. Tell them to stop this gross spending as they deprive taxpayers who’re paying their overly extravagant bills. If not you, who? We could function better without a government than with this one. Pick your poison. I’ll take my chances with YOU any day.
This was originally posted April 09, 2011 during that threat of government shutdown. It’s regrettable the American people are rounding this corner again. The sharp contrast of lost standards from a mere two-years ago reflects how Obama has effectively “nudged” a serious deterioration of American expectations. This is a most shameful course of action for any American President.
The president has enormous personal discretion in deciding ‘who’ and ‘what’ gets paid during a government shutdown. He can use that discretion to turn a government shutdown into a favorable or unfavorable event for The People; or, as has been the case with this president, to use it against The People to propagandize his own political gain. Legal authorities have suggested this behavior is impeachable. Bring it on.
Those certain to be paid without interruption are the politicians: The White House, Congress and their staffs. Most of us don’t know that “furloughed” federal employees are typically paid retroactively anyway. Of late we’ve been told federal employees were furloughed only to find they didn’t work but they did continue to receive pay. This sheds a glaring light on Obama’s self-serving propensity for imposing harships on people of an entire country, purely for sake of his personal pleasure and propagandizing political gain.
The big question in 2011’s government shutdown was, how does an American President possibly justify denying pay to troops who are defending our country; and to our most vulnerable elderly who’ve built it? Who among us could possibly condone such acts?
Prior administrations have generally accepted that the following services remain uninterrupted:
Services funded by permanent appropriations that don’t expire; and some services funded by annual appropriations, “if there’s a reasonable and articulable connection between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property.”
Services that legally require new appropriations, having expired during a shutdown, can be extended, such as “national security, law enforcement and medical care for those already in hospitals, as well as some that many might find both surprising and infuriating, like ‘the conduct of foreign relations’.” Services requiring new appropriations are the government services most typically subject to shutdown. This president has proven his decisions as anything but “typical.”
Stan Collender of Capital Gains and Games of Roll Call, a political and economic news source, wrote “President has the Upper Hand in a Shutdown.” The article discusses a president’s wide range of personal discretion (excerpted below). It is appalling how much Obama has so radically altered this rationale from a mere two-years ago when first reported:
The Obama administration will have enormous discretion in other ways. Whole departments, agencies and programs are not automatically exempt just because they fall into one of the categories, it will be up to the White House to decide which activities will be conducted if a shutdown actually occurs.
The administration is also free to reject precedents for reasons that include economic and technological changes, new programs and functions, political hardball, and more.
The bottom line about a federal government shutdown is simple: The president has far more room to maneuver and is in a much better position to take control of the situation than Congress. As Clinton showed in 1995 and 1996, when he reclassified some programs several weeks into the fight so that they could operate despite originally being on the shutdown list, the White House even has the ability to change its determinations.
The Obama administration clarified the scope of the potential government shutdown saying that it would impact about 800,000 employees and stop services like IRS paper filling and returns, and close institutions like the Smithsonian.
A senior administration official also said that military personnel would continue to earn money, however they wouldn’t actually receive it until the government is funded again. They’ll be receiving full pay checks until April 8.
There are two areas that guide who will stay working. Government activities will stay open that:
1) Have alternative funding – like user fees or appropriations that aren’t renewed every year.
2) Are necessary for safety of life and protection of property.
Here’s a snapshot of what else stays open and what closes during this potential shutdown:
800,000 federal employees (the same as 1995) the official says is the “vicinity” of workers who would be affected.
Military members will continue get paid through April 8th, but after that are only earning and will get money when the government is funded again.
What services will be suspended? IRS filings with paper claims won’t be processed and audits will also be stopped. Electronic claims will continue. Small business loans and Federal House Administration mortgages will also be halted. (The official noted that FHA had 12 percent of housing market in 1995, and now it’s up to 30 percent)
Another excellent source is by Ed O’keefe at Federal Eye entitled “Government Shutdown: Facts and Figures.” These linked articles provide important, additional information about what is and is not typical in government shutdowns.
In 2011 I wanted to know why Obama, at his personal discretion, routinely opted not to keep paychecks going to our Troops overseas and during his “Kinetic Military Action?” Did he forget he’s supposed to be their “Commander In Chief” and the responsibilities that job truly entails? Did he ever know? Or is it as simple as it seems: Obama only knows how to use those around him in appeasing himself?
Given the countless lies this administration told in trying to ramp up fake consequences of the Sequester, we no longer have to ask these questions. If by now you are not indignantly insulted by the fools this president plays us, nothing can help. These are Obama’s personal choices. It cannot be any more clear than it is why he’s making personal choices that are directly aimed at denegrating us as a people. It is what it is. He is what he is.
Unions like AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) spent $100 million to elect federal, state and local candidates across the country in 2012 and now they want their payback.
Making its way through Minnesota Senate committees is a rehashed proposal to force private business owners and sole proprietors to join a union or be forced to pay a “fair share” penalty.
The bill, Senate File 778, states that any child care provider who accepts clients who are subsidized by the state Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) must, under penalty of the law, join the union or pay the “fair share” fee of $25 per month. There are approximately 9,000 business owners and child care providers that would be affected by this part of the law.
Minnesota Senate State and Local Government Committee met Monday and was greeted by a large crowd of both opposition and support. Chief author of SF 778, Senator Sandra Pappas, who was endorsed by AFSCME and SEIU (Service Employees International Union) in her 2012 campaign, presented her proposal along side union bosses and sobbing testifiers. Executive Director of AFSCME Eliot Seide testified in favor of Pappas’ bill. He was paid over $122,000 last year by the union. According to union members present at the senate committee hearing, both AFSCME and SEIU would see an increase in membership if the bill becomes law.
According to testimony at the hearing, child care providers already have the option to join AFSCME and a total of 57, out of more than 9,000, have already done so.
Republican members of the Senate State and Local Government Committee had harsh words and presented stiff opposition to Pappas’ bills. Senator Brandon Petersen criticized the bill saying, “…you’re talking about unionizing small business owners… Isn’t this just a plan to syphon off dues money for the unions?”
Petersen was visibly frustrated throughout the meeting. Referring to a provision in the bill that would make the State of Minnesota the “employer of record” for all child care providers, Petersen asked, “Home child care providers are not employees. Why are we trying to unionized small business owners?”
One testifier in opposition to the union power grab took it upon herself to call child care providers in Pappas’ district to find out if they wanted to be unionized. Becky Swanson, a licensed child care professional, only found three. Swanson urged members of the committee to return to their districts and find out for themselves if their constituents are in favor of forced unionization.
Hollie Saville also testified before the committee in opposition to the bill. She quipped, “I brought a copy of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence,” as she waved the booklets in her hands, “Perhaps some need a refresher on them.”
Republican Senator Dave Thompson asked Pappas if there was any way to know how many providers who currently take CCAP clients will stop taking low income family clients because of this forced unionization. Pappas simply replied, “no.”
Consequences and the Democrat War on Poverty
Republican Senator Dave Thompson exposed a consequence of the bill. Many in-home child care providers currently take clients who receive CCAP funding. That funding follows the low income family, not the provider. CCAP is a reimbursement to the provider. Thompson wanted it on record that he finds it “unbelievable that you would suggest people give up a large portion of their income OR join a union and pay dues.” Senator Dan Hall suggested this was a form of bullying.
In response, Pappas confirmed that providers would have to pay union dues or fair share fees, or turn away low income families.
By that rationale, Pappas and those who would vote for this bill are aware that some low income families would have to find new child care providers. In theory, Pappas is encouraging the mass exodus of licensed in-home providers and forcing low income families into more expensive, union-backed facilities that will likely have higher costs. These costs will be the burden of the tax payers in Minnesota.
More to the bill than child care
Not only does SF 778 establish a new and expensive state board, a coucil, and other administrative bureaucracy, it also attempts to unionize unlicensed in-home care givers like those caring for a disabled child or aging parent.
According to Katy Chase, executive director of the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association, unlicensed providers are often relatives or neighbors who do not have to meet the requirements of licensed providers. “You’re talking grammas and grampas, families and neighbors,” she said.
“To have them included in a bill that’s talking about negotiating things that wouldn’t even come into play for them — we don’t think they should be included,” said Chase, whose organization will oppose the AFSCME-backed bill.
At the same time, a former union supporter, Kathy Stevens, who provides licensed family child care in Brainerd and was once active in the union effort, issued a statement saying the union engaged in “unethical tactics in signing unlicensed providers.” She said the reason for doing so was to win votes for the unionization attempt.
“Legally unlicensed providers are a mere pawn in the numbers game to obtain votes,” Stevens said in her statement, which was submitted to the Senate committee.
Should the unionization of small in-home child care business owners pass in the MN Senate, it will also likely pass the state House. Both senate and house are led by a democrat majority. Many of the democrats in both the senate and house were endorsed by AFSCME and SEIU in the last 2 election cycles, as was Governor Mark Dayton, who would sign it into law.
“…and I want a fire truck, and a baseball glove, and a cowboy hat!”
So seemed to go President Obama’s State of the Union wish list. It sounded like Christmas with captive parents in the form of the Congress and a few Supreme Court Justices. Repeatedly, he went so far as to challenge Congress to pass bills, that he would immediately sign.
Interestingly, but hardly surprising to me, was the president’s line that the government should work for the many, not the few. It was almost a shame that an address which had at its beginning the admonition that Americans do not expect government to solve every problem, melted into such a typical democrat-soapbox scolding and special interest parade. And by the way, if the people on CNBC, Bloomberg, and Fox Business were not paying attention, the president has also declared the economic crisis to be “over”.
President Obama says he now wants “reasonable compromise” with Congress on bills and spending, and one wonders if he means an actual working together and arriving at a consensus, or more of the usual media-led narrative of Republican obstructionism and of the bogus narrative of Democrats trying their hardest to do the tough jobs. The president warned that “…sudden, harsh, and arbitrary cuts” would cost Americans jobs. Suddenly taking heavy-handed measures that seriously affect an economy, matter.
Speaking of affecting the economy in a heavy-handed way, the president also now wants to reform Obamacare, basing the changes on the Simpson-Bowles commission’s recommendations. The president would also like to reform the bloated tax code – not in any serious way, but to eliminate tax loop-holes (they’re simply costing the government too much money to continue to allow them). Closing his thoughts on the economy, the president says with a straight face that we cannot pass our current debt and deficit on to future generations.
We must rebuild the middle class as well. Predicating a rebuilt middle class, President Obama says, is ensuring people receive training so they can gain employment. This blogger is unsure how job training will create positions for middle class workers to fill, but that is in the presidential plan’s fine print, I am sure. The president’s emphasis on education will first be felt however, by ensuring that three and four-year old children have access to pre-schools. (Again, making something available, is far from making sure that children actually attend those pre-schools.)
Going forward in his wishlist, President Obama wants to see cars completely off oil for good. One would be tempted to ask, what kinds of cars would Americans drive then? With a power grid that is already taxed, and with EPA regulations closing coal-fired power plants, how would electric cars fill that gap? See, the president has thought that out as well, and he would like to see far more investment in alternative energy sources, like solar power and wind power. Along with those switches, he would like to see the power grid revamped to ensure better delivery and usage of electricity. (Who would necessarily pay for that? The president would probably say, “the power creating and distributing companies”. The power creating and distributing companies would, of course, turn and look at their customers…)
A problem that continues to hamper U.S. growth, is the aging infrastructure. The aforementioned power grid is old, and the roads and bridges are in need of new asphalt and paint. The president says CEOs would necessarily flock back to the United States if the country would only build them roads to haul their goods across, and high-speed rail to travel over. “If you build it, they will come” – yes, the president says as much. He would have us believe that jobs can develop as a by-product of paving roads and creating high-speed rail routes.
To ensure fewer families have to struggle to meet their basic necessities, President Obama also would like to see the federal minimum wage increased. Without mentioning the effect of hurting first-time job seekers, and making minimum wage jobs even tougher to get, Obama paints a minimum wage increase as a help to all minimum wage workers.
Toward the end, the president finally mentions some of the less important things bothering Americans. First, he acknowledged a poor, 102 year old lady, who had to wait hours just to vote. There is no word on whether he has decided to invite discouraged voters in Philadelphia, intimidated by night-stick holding Black Panthers, to his next State of the Union Address to address their voting issues.
He also mentioned the unavoidable, and often seized-upon-by-the-left topic, gun violence in America. He made mention in glowing words of a gunned down young girl, from Chicago, killed only three weeks after having attended the presidential inauguration. Despite the murder of the young girl, being committed illegally, in a harsh gun-control city, Obama would like to see more laws on the books to further scare criminals into becoming law-abiding citizens…
So, to recap:
His presidency, marked by massive gifts to special interests, should work for everyone.
The most partisan administration ever wants “reasonable compromise”.
Obamacare, over-reaching and over-promising, needs revision before it is entirely in effect.
The middle class who cannot find jobs now, due to an anemic economy, need to be better trained. Then they will suddenly find jobs.
Oil, which has been for over 100 years the driver of the American economy, needs to be replaced. Ostensibly with something that is as cost-effective and energy rich as petroleum.
Road and rails will bring jobs. We need better roads and rails, and suddenly the jobs will begin flooding back into the United States from countries with potholes and uneven rails.
Finally, minimum wage needs raising. Why? Because the workers who make it already are not being challenged enough by the Obama economy, and need another ball to juggle.
You will pardon me if I scoff at the entirety of the State of the Union address, and at the president’s continuing naivete on anything economic. He shows once again, that he is a great theorist and philosopher, but where the electric-powered rubber meets the newly-paved road – he has not moved an inch where he started, four years ago.
Reported yesterday: “[Obama’s] new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens… . Those who will not are being removed.”
Obama is drenched in Americans’ skepticism about potential for martial law. Gun control fanatics have given more rise to what many perceive as an imminent possibility. Americans’ concerns first arose in 2008 when Obama spoke about instituting “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as our military. Given similar statements he’d made that ultimately were not what Americans believed his words meant (known as “information dominance”) such as “fundamentally transforming America,” Americans are right to remain concerned.
Subsequently in 2010’s Health Care Bill Obama provided for a “Ready Reserve Corps,” dismissed by some as simply being comprised of health care professionals in event of catastrophe. Since then questionable images have surfaced of Obama’s “civilian army” comprising young black chanting thugs quite unlike any military Americans have ever known. That was enhanced by Obama’s official statements defining “Veterans” and “Christians” as “domestic terrorists;” and by now the well known FEMA Camps that make no practical sense. Admittedly, two-years later Americans still know very little about just what is in the Health Care legislation – and why – so these legitimate questions do persist.
A year or more ago it was reported in legitimate Conservative news that Obama was infiltrating our nation’s military with street thugs, changing its composition with characters who’d have less discipline and no particular loyalty to the American People. I find this believable not only because of its source but mostly because Obama has, on many occasions, indulged in and allowed thuggary and, through his silence on a grand scale, has further encouraged it in his governing of America. Those behavioral examples speak loudly, as they should, regardless of the words being used.
Americans have taken comfort in believing our military will stand with us, they having sworn duty to our Constitution, not to any one president or his ideology. The formation of Oath Keepers gave us some reassurance. Oath Keepers had their first annual conference in 2009, understandably so given Obama’s wholly unAmerican handling of the Health Care Bill despite majority demands of The American People in opposing it. From the Oath Keepers site:
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore … to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.
On Monday Dr. Jim Garrow, a well-respected man dedicated to rescuing infant girls from China’s one-child policy and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, reportedly posted on Facebook:
I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.” Those who will not are being removed.
When asked who his source was Garrow reportedly answered: “The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.” Read Garrow’s Amazon bio here. The Examiner reported on this yesterday, adding:
This comes on the heels of Sunday’s report in the Washington Free Beacon (WFB) that the head of Central Command, Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis is being dismissed by Obama and will leave his post in March.
Lest we forget the three high-ranking Generals plus an Admiral who were inexplicably and untimely unseated from their positions immediately following Obama and Hillary Clinton’s “stand-down” orders in Lybia; and their nonsensical lies about a little-known “film” that clearly did not lend to that great American tragedy. Reports of inordinately replacing these officials were buried, curiously superseded by the just as suspicious “scandal” surrounding Lybia and our otherwise renown for his ethics general, General Patraeus.
Oh what a wicked web we weave when we seek first to deceive. God bless our Oath Keepers. God bless America.
Have you wondered why there’s an inexplicably dead silence among media and politicians when it comes to America’s fatherless children? The discussion is always about “women’s rights” or “a woman’s right to choose” or the struggles of “single mothers.” A politician’s rhetoric is as if children are the lone conception thus responsibility of immaculately impregnated women. The seemingly few men who want the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood are just as slighted as overburdened mothers and parentally under-nourished children are.
[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?
At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.
Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.
For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?
Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.
America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness
(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively. I don’t think for a second that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground. The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!
… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation. When we look at our educational system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,
One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood, rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are being raised without their biological dads.
“For over four years conservatives like me have tried, unsuccessfully, to convince good liberals, you know those who actually love America but are misled by the liberal media, Progressives and socialist about what is in the nation’s best interest, that supporting Obama and most Democrats in Congress was ultimately not in the nation’s best interest.”
This article by David Catron is so well written and solidly founded it speaks for itself. His subject brings to bear the unspoken prospect of medical providers holding patients to similar consequences. That happens. I know. With the onset of Obamacare’s personal bank account access and new IRS agencies set up to enforce it, the prospect becomes even more perilous for American citizens.
Providers don’t typically take rescinded insurance payments laying down, even years later. Those can be passed on to unknowing patients years later. Having experienced that is why I (now) always add beneath my signature on medical financial responsibility forms, “I will not be responsible for provider or insurance errors and/or omissions.” So far it’s not been challenged. After all, that is the purpose of signing for financial liability, clarifying what you do or do not agree to pay.
As dreadful as they are to contend with, coverage glitches are better addressed before incurring unknown astronomical medical costs than being surprised by them years later. This was a not-so-long-ago surprise with my Medicare insurance provider, which I’m still contesting with great fervor and to no avail of my credit rating.
On a different note and determined not to leave my family in insurmountable debt when earlier cancer diagnosis threatened the very real prospect of dying, discussing those glitches brought resolve before it became a problem; and before I paid tremendously more than initially told I had to, to live. Sometimes we have to walk the straight and narrow. Praise God for the strength, it saved thousands of dollars I could’ve otherwise knowingly paid and I’m here to tell of it. That was when private insurance was its own man, how that’s changed since Obamacare is anyone’s guess. Where’s Nancy Pelosi when you really need her?
What’s right is right. What’s wrong is wrong. Despite socialist creeping, right and wrong haven’t changed. Regardless how intimidating big monopoly is, ‘big monopoly’ is all the more reason I will not financially burden our stipend income with consequences of someone else’s insidious negligence – someone whose job it is to know insurance; to whom I pay premiums for that very reason; and who is the most reluctant to relay that information when I ask.
As medically necessary as my recently contested care was I knew I couldn’t afford it; and I would not have agreed to the care without assurances of coverage. A friend used to say, “They can’t eat you.” So far they haven’t, though admittedly at times it feels like I can smell a seasoned pot coming to boil.
Something to consider in the context of Mr. Catron’s article. If you encountered a personal calamity of similar nature, please share it in comments.
… conservatives like me have come to the realization that “good” liberals will only change and wake up to the threats posed by Obama once they have experienced the “sting” of his socialist policies. It appears that is exactly what is beginning to happen.
Next time, be more careful what you wish for.
This unshakable belief in his own infallibility regarding government-administered health care was partly due to his hopelessly naïve view of Medicare, which he called “the most successful government program ever.” Never mind that this “success” had produced a $38 trillion unfunded liability, it was somehow “more efficient than private insurance.” Imagine my surprise, then, when I looked at the byline for this scathing piece bemoaning the depredations of that very program. The outraged author of “Medicare made the rules and now punishes doctors for following them” is none other than the redoubtable Shadowfax.
… a lot of money disappears from the bank account of the hospital. And it gets worse. The recent “fiscal cliff” deal changed the rule so that Medicare can now demand refunds for “overpayments” made as far back as 5 years ago.
… The most ironic feature of this program is that it proves our Beltway masters intend to do what Shadowfax and other advocates of government-run health care claimed they would never do — tell doctors how to practice medicine:
“Medicare is … reviewing charts and claiming that the physicians are fraudulently upcoding because we are documenting complete Reviews of Systems when they were not … medically necessary.”
In other words, the ultimate arbiter of medical necessity is no longer your doctor. This program means that the medical need for an examination, test, or procedure is retroactively determined by the government.
The socialist left purports to promote universal acceptance, the provision of basic human needs, and the freeing of spontaneous creative impulses. But due to several fundamental misunderstandings about humanity, which play directly into the hands of totalitarian politicians, socialists actually destroy human rationality, content families, harmonious societies, productive economies, and any semblance of government based on true justice.
The implementation of the value of equality is the cover the left runs under to destroy capitalism, hierarchical political and social structures, and reason as a prelude to human reinvention. Since equality is not an ethic grounded in reality or reflected by nature, this moral imperative wars against nature, and by extension, human nature itself.
Why are those on the left so dismissive of human nature in their worldview? Why do they not account for economic limitations whatsoever? The answer is that they share a deeply totalitarian desire to create values in absolute freedom and to remake humanity as they see fit. This necessarily entails giving the state unlimited power.
Leftists argue that conservatism is obsolete because its assumptions about human beings’ rational nature are ill-founded. Many on the left believe that the Enlightenment’s emphasis on reason portrays a half-human view of people. They claim that they desire to integrate man’s rational and emotional sides in order to restore human relations and a government based on compassion, empathy, and love, rather than rational self-interest.
But primarily because they tend to live in a state of material comfort, leftists are led to believe that civilization is an artificial state of affairs where man is insulated from the demands of nature; and therefore, natural law. Human nature and history do not apply. In other words, man can be reinvented and re-engineered by a socialist vanguard. This endeavor would supposedly save man and eliminate war, poverty, and misery.
Human experience does not support the left’s point of view. The main source of the leftist’s misunderstanding of human nature is that he assumes that man is a product of society. He also directly and irrationally wars against the chief factor that led to human civilization: rationality.
Rationality to the left is a grave enemy. It is a state of mind appearing to the left as rigid, blunt, and alien. The leftist adopts this view of rationality because he fears the regimentation of human life and thought, the formalization of human relations in a market (what Marxists might call “commodifying” human relations), and the withering of emotions such as compassion and empathy. Ironically, it is the pursuit of a society rooted in emotion and not reason that leads straight to the collectivist mob mentality so characteristic of totalitarian regimes.
The left’s emotion-based outlook creates what has been called “repressive tolerance,” or an irrational lashing out against human judgment and all forms of traditional morality. The cultural marxist left cannot accept “civil society” as a place of free-ranging emotions and spontaneous value creation, competition, and destruction in the industrial-capitalist context; to him, society must be co-opted and managed towards the obliteration of value judgment as a necessary step towards domination of the economic system.
Mankind must be economically dominated so that social engineering can proceed from a material basis. In the capitalist hierarchical context the left’s destructive plan is carried out by rewarding conformist behavior or non-critical thought; by suppressing those who succeed relative to others and who refuse to bend to leftist dictates; and by incentivizing failure. This system insulates the entrenched elites from challengers from below and embeds the elites’ fiats in all human relations.
Thus, there is an important flaw in the left’s reasoning (if we may distinguish it for sake of argument from rationalization), one encapsulated well by Michels’ “Iron Law of Oligarchy” or the idea that in every political system, oligarchs have a tendency to rule — the left exculpates itself from its own moral system, which is supposedly based on equality.
So we return to our original problem of man: Is he naturally a rational animal or an irrational emotional animal? The answer is that he is “naturally” neither.
Man has the capacity to reason; and as Ayn Rand shows in The Virtue of Selfishness, this faculty must be actively engaged and exercised or it decays and shrivels. Man has emotional instincts as well, and these are the most fundamental of needs to satisfy for healthy humans. But emotion must be put in the service of reason in order for civilization to flourish. Why is this?
Because a society that operates purely on emotion is not a society at all. It is animalistic in orientation at its very core. Justice itself is a concept that implies the application of uniform standards of behavior in society as a whole. This aspect of civilization proper requires reason, and not empathy or emotion removed from logic.
Without justice, the strong are free to oppress the weak, the clever to swindle the dull, and ruthless megalomaniacs to manipulate and rule the masses. There must be a set of codified morality to guide society, or else arbitrary or pure emotion will cause fluctuations in social relations, occasionally spilling into mob violence.
Only individual rationality can prevent the exploitation of man by man. Emotional manipulation, primarily employing fear, can only be countered with critical reason. The opposite of fear that is blind hope has been the preferred tool of demagogues since the dawn of civilization.
Yet emotion, and the display of it, has an important role to play in human relations. There is no actual dispute on this point here. There is the matter, however, of the role emotion plays in politics. For this matter, we should refer again to the importance of values.
Socialism fails because of its inability to acknowledge human nature and motivation. To quote Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action:
We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly happy. (13)
Socialism sets out to fulfill human happiness through the provision of base material needs, but incentivizes idleness by removing the necessity to produce what satisfies those material needs. Socialism therefore leads ultimately to economic implosion. The system also debases people by destroying virtue, since loyalty to the party trumps all else. It demoralizes society by crushing the human spirit, thereby leading to precisely the kind of widespread alienation it proclaims to cure.
Men, being ultimately demoralized, do not cooperate with their enslavers under socialism, but are rather ambivalent. After society’s values are obliterated, wanton corruption and shameless inhumanity ensue. The result is an unproductive, impoverished, irrational, and vulgar society that collapses according to its own internal contradictions.
The task for the American patriot who seeks to preserve his society intact is to engage in rational discourse and value transmission with his fellow citizens. Individualist ethics, shared humanity, and truth are the weapons to prevent our demoralization and economic destruction.
Most importantly, it is our behavior in our community, our little kindnesses, our kindred observations, our understanding of the point of view of others and our friendly challenges to erroneous thinking that make the difference in the long-run. As Vaclav Havel put it, we must “live in truth” in order to defeat socialism.
Going into election day a Romney win appeared imminent. The experts augured a certain victory for Mr. Romney. George Will predicted 321 electoral votes for the Governor, Dick Morris boldly projected 325 and Karl Rove modestly assured 279 electoral votes for a Romney presidency. President Obama had a four year record that was, from any dispassionate perspective, abysmal, if not criminal in nature.
A Romney victory foretold the Republic’s salvation from President Obama’s oppressive and dangerous regime. This is a president who enacted fiscal policies that reduced America’s credit standing and engendered unemployment, deficits and public debt of record proportions. He was on a quixotic mission to punish productive Americans with greater taxes while cultivating a plantation like dependent state for those suffering under his punitive policies. Mr. Obama has the dubious distinction for being the first president to enlist Marxist class warfare rhetoric by expounding on the evils of America’s free market system. He conducted a shadow unconstitutional government of unelected czars immune to congressional approval after campaigning on a guarantee to have the most transparent presidency in history.
President Obama’s first term was devoid of statesmanship. Instead of demonstrating strong, mature leadership, he displayed petty, childish divisiveness. He blamed his predecessor for his own failures and engaged in inflammatory oratory that pit American against American. The President affronted the Constitution through his obsession for centralizing presidential powers, resulting in massive regulations that stifled business expansion and economic growth. His landmark achievement ObamaCare, although held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court as an enormous tax, is a centralized governmental overreach to control one-sixth of the American economy that will cost $1.7 trillion over the next decade. Additionally, President Obama tramples on the First Amendment rights of the Catholic Church by requiring the Church to comport with anti-life activities of ObamaCare.
Some of President Obama’s most egregious offenses were on the international front. He dishonored America by his disingenuous remarks on his “Apologize for America” tours, and neglected his sworn duty under the Constitution as Commander-In-Chief by refusing to fashion a cogent policy on terrorism. The domino effect resulted in terrorist attacks on American embassies across the Middle East, a dictatorial regime in former ally Egypt, the deaths of four Americans at the American consulate in Libya, and cleared a path for an Iranian nuclear enrichment program putting America’s only Middle East ally, Israel, in harms way.
Many of the President’s 2008 supporters were furious for being enticed by his “hopey-changey” sloganizing. In hindsight they felt duped and their support for him made them feel as though they bought that celebrated bridge in Brooklyn. Their anger was palatable and they would right their wrong by sending him packing from the White House. The burning question that consumed many 2008 Obama voters was whether the President’s dismal record reflected a purposeful effort to denounce America’s Constitution, it’s heritage and reduce its world standing out of pure disdain due to his Marxist upbringing, or was it simply due to sheer incompetence? Neither reason was cause for consolation.
Who would vote to re-elect a President who was only transparent in his capacity for deception and incompetence? Putting aside the suspicion of massive voter fraud, to begin to answer that question it is safe to assume that the President secured his base. I’m referring to the usual suspects who cling to the progressive/socialist democratic agenda every election cycle and cast a democrat vote solely to support some personal mania. They are legion and include the phony celebrity crowd, union thugs, environmental and feminist zealots, the secularist atheists and agnostics infamous for booing God at the DNC convention, abortion enablers, race baiters, anti-gun fanatics, and, of course, the democratic party’s mainstay, the anti-American manic-depressives. His base also includes the “reflexive” democrats. This tragic lot mindlessly votes democrat simply because some influential figure in their life, a parent, teacher, or their butcher, directed them accordingly. This community of misfits is the perennial heart and soul of the democratic base. They are a veritable Neverland of hypocritical pretense, odious self-centeredness and willful ignorance, and fortunately for the Republic this collective operates on the periphery of the American electorate.
Apart from the progressive/socialist extremists wing of the Obama voting bloc it’s important to mine what was the primary issue that was the tipping point for Obama voters. The Third Way performed a study of 800 Obama voters that included democrats, republicans, and independents, and the results showed that an overwhelming number of Obama voters favored increasing taxes on the wealthy and increasing government spending, intervention on “income inequality” issues and government welfare programs. The GOP experts in their search to identify the primary reason for what many believe to be Mr. Obama’s upset victory agree with this evaluation. Former Vermont Governor and ubiquitous GOP advance man John Sununu (R) chalked up the President’s victory to a growing base that’s now “dependent, to a great extent economically, on government policy and government programs.” Linda Chavez, Chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, pointed out that individuals and families living well above poverty levels now qualify for numerous government assistance programs. Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute attributes the Obama victory to the growing wave of Hispanic voters who voted for the President by a margin of 75 percent due to the President’s dependent state polices. MacDonald states that, “It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”
But there is cause for solace for the GOP. Despite The Third Way’s results showing that the President’s non-base voters support a social democratic welfare state, his voter turnout dropped appreciably from 2008. The president’s dreadful record caused many who voted for him in 2008 to suffer from what could only be described as voter remorse, and the 2012 voter results reflected that sentiment. The Bipartisan Policy Center reports that despite an increase of eight million eligible voters in 2012 voter turnout dipped from 62.3 percent of eligible citizens voting in 2008 to 57.5 percent in 2012. This reduction in turnout was mostly in the democrat camp where the democrats had 4.2 percent less turnout in 2012 than in 2008 compared to the GOPs dip of only 1.2 percent. The Pew Research Center’s long view shows that Mr. Obama received less of the popular vote in 2012 than 2008 and was flat or down from 2008 in virtually every age group. Obama is the first president in U.S. history to win re-election despite (a) winning fewer electoral votes, (b) a diminished popular vote total, and (c) a lower aggregate vote nationwide. Guy Benson reported that, at the end of the day, only 406,348 swing state votes separated Obama and Romney, and if Romney would have garnered those votes in the swing states in the right proportions he would have had 275 electoral votes. Additionally, the 2012 election resulted in conservatives retaining control of the House of Representatives, 30 Governorships and in 24 states Republicans control both the Governorships and the legislatures. Therefore conservatives indeed are certainly not relegated to the wilderness of the American polity.
Notwithstanding the President’s atrocious record and his reduced support in 2012 he seduced a particular faction of America to embrace his vision of a new normal of high unemployment as a means to foster widespread government dependency. Thus his obsession to inhibit America’s free-enterprise system is the method to his maddening mission. President Obama’s policies of dependencies caused America’s welfare state to increase 19 percent under his administration. According to the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector there are 79 means-tested federal welfare programs, at a cost approaching $1 trillion annually. In his report, Rector said the increase in federal means-tested welfare spending during Obama’s first two years in office was two-and-a-half times greater than any previous increase in federal welfare spending in U.S. history, after adjusting for inflation. President Obama’s lure of dependency infects those who take the bait with lethargy and despair, ultimately requiring them to repay the price of inducement in the form of higher taxes and depressed communities. Mr. Obama’s “handout hell” brings to mind the sagacious quote, “The American Republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money”.
The President’s ideological vision for a socialist welfare state is a mandate for mediocrity not excellence, and a program to punish success and enable failure. Russell Kirk said, “…to seek for utopia is to end in disaster”. America has bore the brunt of the Obama “hope and change” utopian vision and must now endure four more years of polices that foster decline, fear, and discord. The President will undoubtedly continue his mission into his second term to ignore the Declaration’s First Principles, circumvent the canons of the Constitution, and exert his energy to sully the principles of conservatism that forms the basis these founding documents.
But in the face of such malaise there is promise. The 2012 Obama turnout was markedly reduced and the fundamentals of his socialistic welfare state are baseless and its results have been in free-fall failure since his 2009 inauguration. If, under the Obama mandate, America’s stagnant GDP, which is now less than it’s debt, a loss of American credit worthiness and consistent high unemployment and profligate spending is not sufficient evidence, one must only look to other nations to see the dire effects of a socialist state. The mainstream media can run protective cover for the Obamas regimes rage against America for so long. The public’s conscious awareness of the calamitous ramifications of his socialist policies are at critical mass and his reduced voter turnout, albeit sufficient for victory, is evidence of that realization.
The solution for America’s Obama woes is not more doses of failed socialist ideologies, but a rekindling of the conservative sentiment that enlivens the spirit of American greatness. The principles of conservatism are the foundation for America’s cause of order, freedom and justice. America’s cause provides the unfettered opportunity to reap the practical and moral rewards of our concerted efforts, recognize natural law, and exercise our natural rights.
America was ordained to unleash in humankind the “moral imagination”, the imagination that inspires one to lead a virtuous life. The moral imagination was described by conservative philosopher Russell Kirk as aspiring to the “apprehending of right order in the soul and right order in the commonwealth”, and that the moral imagination “informs us concerning the dignity of human nature, which instructs us that we are more than naked apes”.
Russell Kirk also referred to those “permanent things” that animate a fulfilling life as, “…things in society: the health of the family, inherited political institutions that insure a measure of order and justice and freedom, a life of diversity and independence, a life marked by widespread possession of private property. These permanent things guarantee against arbitrary interference by the state. These are all aspects of conservative thought.” John Attarian aptly describes the permanent things as “… norms of courage, duty, justice, integrity, charity, and so on – (that) owe their existence, and authority, to a higher power than social good”. American conservatism inhabits these ideals inherent in the moral imagination and the permanent things. These ideals are central to conservatism and foster a society that preserves freedoms and inspires the best in our nature, and they take their cues from the Judeo-Christian traditions that form the underpinnings of America’s system of justice.
Conservative values and principles forged the American idea, but progressive/socialist’s have been successful in shaping the conservative narrative. The progressive/socialist’s capacity to fashion destructive public policy is matched only by their talent for canards when defining conservatism in the public square. This is where the conservative’s natural inclination toward restraint, decorum and an assumptive attitude for public acceptance of time honored and successful conservative principles has been turned against them by the intimidating prevarications of the progressive/socialist mob mentality. In order to distract the public from the horrendous results of their policies the progressive/socialist must depict the conservative through a smudged lens of lies and deceits.
In an era of Obama-driven socialist policies destined to damage America but lauded by a liberal educational establishment and its negative ramifications shielded by over 80 percent of the American media, the conservative can no longer assume the public will, as a matter of course, recognize the inherent benefits of the conservative course for America. Conservatives must endeavor to be aggressively proactive with their message and principles.
Solutions have been aplenty for conservatives to take back the presidency to counteract the progressive/socialist assault on conservative America, and the central theme is coalition building. Erick Erickson of RedState proposes that conservative must focus on preserving the conservative brand. Erickson believes that the movement must extricate itself from conservative organizations that are more fixated on the GOP leaders in their groups and not the conservative movement. The focus needs to be on the conservative cache of ideas, not the leaders. Erickson says, “Conservatives need to take their brand back from the GOP and disentangle themselves from the ego driven side of conservative institutions that make it about the leaders of the organizations and not the ideas these claim they’re promoting once they get back off their next donor funded book tour selling books to other donors”. Along with applying state of the art political technology Erickson suggests that conservative grassroots coalition building is imperative. Resolute conservative groups such as Heritage’s Action for America and Club for Growth should be leveraged to build coalitions and grassroots support.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich presented a 25 point report to the RNC that outlines a host of viable propositions, amongst them are campaigns built around “coalitions, long term party building and team efforts versus consultant-based campaigns”. One of the former Speaker’s tactical suggestions is for conservatives to become fully acquainted with the democrat’s strategies by “…build(ing) a library of must reads” that are the blueprints for the democrat’s strategic approach to campaigning. I suggest that number one on that reading list should be “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s tome is the bible for the democratic party’s electioneering efforts, and Barack Obama has the dubious distinction of teaching its tenants while he worked for the criminal, and now defunct, ACORN organizing group.
Conservatives must realize they can execute on all the well thought out strategic and tactical plans they devise, but their best laid plans to take back the White House will fall short if their message misses the mark. Messaging is the means for success. As distasteful and untruthful the democrats messages and candidates may be, as a party they stand aligned daily with the mindset that the perception of their message becomes a reality for voters. The GOP must emulate their opponents vigilance with a conservative message that is clear, relatable and uplifting to the voters.
There will forever be factions of the American electorate that opt to take advantage of its well-intended welfare systems than their own God given talents. And there will always be politicians such as Barack Obama that promise the electorate false utopias energized by destructive policies, cherry coated with bribes, lies and divisiveness. Conservative makes no such promises. Conservatism recognizes humankind’s innate desire to maximize their God given talents and endeavors to lay the foundations for a society to enable man’s potential. This was the vision for America’s founders that caused America to be the greatest country in the history of humankind.
Conservatism rejects the Obama-led progressive/socialist new normal that inhibits potential and is designed to lull Americans into a catatonic state of mediocrity. To quote Pope John Paul II, “Do not be satisfied with mediocrity! The world will offer you comfort. But you were not made for comfort. You were made for greatness.” In the GOP’s quest to craft a coherent message that represents conservatism and resonates with the electorate, the late Pontiff’s remarks are an excellent starting point.
Allow me to ventilate something that’s on my chest and not worry about leftists’ precious feelings.
Racism, sexism, bigotry, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny and bronyism — all abhorrent in their various manifestations. (I won’t lie, I find My Little Ponies strangely erotic.) Yet none of these stupid ideas by themselves killed anyone. They were, well, stupid ideas.
Socialism as some laudable political system that is going to save us all from… work? Dumb meets deadly. And death, except when it comes to kittens and marmosets, is something I find extremely offensive.
It’s true that racism has inspired hateful bigotry and full grown men running around in white sheets and pointy hats. And no, not just Democrats. Well, mostly Democrats, but I digress.
But properly constrained within an economic system that protects property rights, and away from depraved mustached guys with Panzer tanks, then racism is a despicable ideology that leads to idiotic name-calling and not much else. It’s a fetish that grows within the vile petri dish of misguided redneck outrage, and in its most virulent form, not many places outside of that.
And that’s what racism has become in modern America in the majority of cases: a grievance of people who don’t like their feelings hurt, and not a justification for real oppression. Thank goodness all races can become super-rich millionaires simply by whacking little sticks with little balls (but enough about my sex life).
I hate racists and actual racism. There I said it. But I also hate when people misuse the charged emotions and hurt feelings the epithet “racist” provokes to advance an ulterior motive — say, socialism.
Oh, I’m sorry. Am I allowed to say “socialism”? Or has that become one of those unmentionable ‘isms’? We could switch to progressivism, if you’d prefer. That’s the watered-down Kool-aid form, the Flavor Aid of socialism, if you will. (I’m sorry if you found that remark racist. Alright, no I’m not.)
Socialism is pretty much the opposite of everything America stands for. Individual rights for all kinds of people — blacks, whites, Latinos, dwarves, midget dwarves, little people, and even freaks like me. Private property, so that other people (whether they call themselves the IRS or not) can’t steal your bling. Limited government, because who the hell is in favor of unlimited government? That’s right, progressives.
Ask a progressive when the government has gone too far and she’s likely to tell you that it stops at her bedroom. Or the womb. Except if it’s springing for a case of Magnums and a bottle of Fire & Ice lubrigel — then it’s party on!
What progressives don’t get is that in order to buy those Democrat pleasure packs (which will be handed out by Sandra Fluke at the next convention) ‘government’ had to slink into someone’s bedroom like a sexy Anne Hathaway in full black leather bodysuit and knee-high glossy stilettos to slip someone’s wallet out of his side dresser drawer.
Ironically, as he dreamt about Anne Hathaway.
Anyway, the point is there is nothing sacred to a socialist government, and once you give up your economic freedom, pretty much everything else follows. You can complain all you want about Bible thumpers as you’re working on the state farm for vodka and white bread rations, but it’s likely to get you more blank stares than Honey Boo Boo accepting a Grammy for her song about Kim Kardashian. Because the tike’s belt doesn’t match her boots, the little ignoramus.
Disagreeing with a Democrat president who happens to be black is not racist. It may show an affinity for “hate facts,” but it doesn’t mean you think the white race is superior to the black race (or vice versa). It certainly isn’t offensive to point out President Obama has a suspect history of economic failure that just happens to benefit the Democrat Party. Purely by coincidence, one can be sure.
But socialism? There’s a seedy backstory to that ideology that would make even Sasha Grey blush. So we’re not supposed to talk about it, because it’s noble and stuff — at least that’s what my professors kept telling me. We’re talking poverty, and mass murder, and misery, and really bad jokes. (If I hear one more “In Russia bad joke make you” kind of joke, I’m going to beat someone’s groin area with a wiffle-ball bat. There I go again.)
The phony taking offense at anyone who doesn’t adhere to the Democrat Party line, crying racism, and sexism, and bigotry like a five-year-old with a PC version of Tourette’s syndrome, just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore. Some conservatives are on to the left’s Frankfurt School games (and no, that’s not the biennial culinary Olympics for hot dog chefs).
I’ll see your racism, and raise you an ‘ism’ — socialism. And since more than half of Democrats think it’s pretty keen, it’s legitimate to drag the hundred million skeletons out of the socialist closet. One last time. Because it’s politically useful.
The dead bodies, the broke economies, the starvation, the ruin, the shattered lives, the debt piled onto my kids’ backs, their limited futures, the ignorance of history, the blithe insistence that naysayers don’t get it — I find that all pretty offensive. And, as Greg Gutfeld might say, if you don’t agree — that probably makes you a socialist.
As the fall out from Election Night 2012 continues, the right has descended into a nasty round of infighting once again. Fiscal conservatives point the fingers at social conservatives for the loss. Social conservatives point the finger right back, and warn of the right slowly sliding into a party of “leftism light”. The Tea Party is pointing fingers at the GOP establishment for the loss. Yet others are blaming Mitt Romney’s campaign for not being dirty enough, or in the last 48 hours, for the massive failure of Romney’s technology system known as ORCA. Yet others are placing the blame on the libertarians, and Ron Paul and Gary Johnson supporters, who they feel took votes away from Romney.
Regardless, many seem to be missing a vital point of what Election 2012 Night told us.
And what that is, is simple: That too many Americans are amazingly unaware that their liberty and their freedom are being stripped from them slowly but surely in the name of “fairness” and the “social safety net”. The idea of having the government provide for their lives, to support them throughout the entirety of their lives, does not disturb them. This is a very big problem, and one that may not be corrected until America is facing some very dark days indeed.
In truth, it comes as no surprise. The following examples I’m about to share about how this mindset has permeated American culture may be called racist by some. So be it. It’s reality, and it’s reality that’s caught on tape.
How can one, or how can a movement, make a convincing argument that BIG government always shades towards the tyrannical, and is perhaps one of the most dangerous conditions any people can face when you have people like the “Obamaphone” lady, or, from a few years ago, the “Obama money” lady. Popping up in late September, the Obamaphone lady was captured at an anti-Mitt Romney rally, and a short interview with her revealed that she had acquired 30 government issued cellphones, and that that reason alone was why people should vote for Obama. This disturbing exchange can be found here.
The three-year-old clip of the “Obama money” lady is just as disturbing. In that clip, a woman is interviewed and is asked what she’s doing. She simply replies that she’s there to get some of that “Obama money”. When asked, where that money comes from, or what it truly is, she has no answer really, other than to say that she wants that “Obama money”. This shed lights on a mindset that apparently has infected tens of millions of Americans, and that is the idea that the government should provide money to people for reasons unknown, other than apparently that’s just how it should be.
This clip, which was released today, shows college students outside of the White House on election night. Once news spread that President Obama had won a second term, they break out into chants of “Karl Marx”, “socialism” and, not surprisingly, “Obamaphones.” More than anything, this shows that this mentality that government and the ideas of madmen whose theories have been proven to be awful again and again in the last hundred years or so, run across all socioeconomic and racial lines.
To me, what was perhaps the most disturbing in the run-up to the 2012 election and the argument between free-market capitalism and either socialism or communism, is how little impact the words of immigrants in the U.S. who escaped socialist or communist countries, had on the majority of people. In this Business Insider article, a young woman who escaped El Salvador tells of her efforts here in America to educate people about how badly it goes for EVERYONE when either a socialist or communist regime takes over a country. A few highlights of the points she makes include the facts that :
Socialism ended her mother’s small business in their home country
Led people to want to remove free enterprise and individual rights to create “equality.”
Politics made business owners move to other countries and stopped job creation where these businesses started (especially pertinent considering the flood of stories about business closing and laying off people in scores in the three days since the election)
They tried to warn us, multiple times, about where we’re heading. Late in the election cycle, Hungarian-born Thomas Petterfy released a powerful ad warning of the ills that befall ALL people when socialism or communism is implemented in a country. This Businessweek post outlines Petterfy’s story, and his thoughts on what is happening in America as we speak. (The link for his ad is here.)
Now the fact that these two immigrants, who have directly experienced the hardships and misery of socialism and/or communism had little impact on a national scale, tells us much.
But perhaps what it tells us the most is this : That people cannot value the loss of something they never knew they had. And it appears now, more than ever, that Americans are not aware of and do not value their personal liberty, their freedom, their sovereignty, anymore.
To wrap this all up, one famous quote of one of our Founding Fathers has been running through my mind in the days since America decided on socialism and big government for the next four years. It’s the anecdote about Benjamin Franklin being asked by a woman what exactly was it the Founders had created during those fateful days leading up to the creation of this country. His reply was simple, and dramatic.
Well, we lost. Mitt Romney didn’t win comfortably. BUT, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives. In one of the most ignominious highlights of the night, the GOP lost two senate seats – increasing the Democratic majority by two. The current makeup is 55 Democrats to 45 Republicans. In a milestone for the ladies, 20% of the U.S. Senate will be represented by women. However, the night ended a bit like 2004 in reverse.
While the notions of GOP turnout seemed assured, it was rarely monitored, and turnout for the youth (and voter turnout in general) was unexpectedly high. To no one’s surprise, young voters broke for the president (60-36), but represented a larger share of the electorate than four years ago. Romney’s lead amongst independents wasn’t enough to overcome the Latino vote, which he lost to Obama miserably 72%-23%. Lastly, Romney wasn’t able to cut into the gender gap quite as effectively as he wanted to, with the president winning women, overall, by eleven points. However, it’s with unmarried women that Romney had a fatal disadvantage with, as they broke for Obama 67% to 31%.
On states, betting on Pennsylvania proved to another catastrophic play. We haven’t won the Keystone State in almost a quarter century, and it may be time to part company completely. Concerning Wisconsin, the state may have swung right on recent elections, but perhaps the ‘fairness voters’ – voters who may not agree with Walker’s policies, but are appalled that unions would want to revoke an election result – turned out to vote for the president this time. In Ohio and Virginia, Romney’s failure to execute the war on coal narrative sooner, and formulating a response to the Bain ads, contributed to his defeat.
Without a doubt, the Bain ads – the Obama campaign’s first official salvo in their ‘Kill Romney’ strategy – released right after Mitt unofficially clinched the Republican nomination resonated with Buckeye residents, and shame on the Governor’s communications team, who were on the defensive for most of the election cycle. In short, like with Goldwater in ’64, the Obama campaign was able to define Romney – before Romney could define himself. It’s another costly misfire.
However, I truly feel that Mitt Romney ran a good campaign, and did the best he could’ve with what he had regarding resources. It’s hard to be successful when you don’t have a Karl Rove, James Carville, or David Plouffe on your side. It also hurt that he couldn’t run on health care, since Romneycare served as the blue print for one of the most egregious affronts to the constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration.
Yet, if you looked at the field from the beginning, It was either going to be Mitt Romney or Rick Perry fighting for the nomination. Newt and Cain treated this serious event in American politics with the maturity of eight year olds at a lemonade stand – with the lemonade being books. For many Americans, Michele Bachmann failed the threshold question of any presidential candidate, which is do I trust this person with nuclear weapons? Disgraced former Pennsylvanian Senator Rick Santorum failed the conservative test, in my opinion, by voting for Medicare Part D, which added $ 7 trillion to the unfunded liability of the program. That’s 20% of the entire unfunded liability, which we now have to deal with before the fiscal cliff. He voted for Sonia Sotomayor for circuit judge. Santo voted against National Right to Work, Food Stamp reform, a flat tax, and Medicaid reform. He voted for internet taxes, the unionization of FedEx (twice), and No Child Left Behind. He took that one for the team.
Rick Perry, my choice for president, flamed out in one of the most epic derailments we’ve probably seen in a long time. Jon Huntsman was too moderate. Ron Paul was well, Ron Paul. So, we were left with Mitt Romney. Sometimes the pickings of the field aren’t too stellar, and we have to deal with that.
Again, I don’t blame Romney for the loss. Yes, Obama’s record of economic pain, which he has inflicted without mercy on the American people, is long, but his political team, along with the media, were able to spin it just enough to trivialize the fallout. As Ralph Reed, Founder and former Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said at CPAC 2012 last February – we’re about to face “the meanest, toughest, most vicious political team we’ve ever faced.” He was right, and we paid dearly for it.
Given Obama’s record, and Republicans’ inability to defeat him, it begs the question if the GOP should have any business being in American politics. Yes, they still do, but renovations need to be made. We need to do better with women – cough nix the rape talk cough cough – hispanics, and younger voters. The hispanic vote ruined the California GOP back in 1994 when Prop. 187 established a citizenship screening process and barred illegals from using state services was construed as ‘anti-immigrant.’ It was really protecting the territorial integrity of the United States, a core function of a nation in the international system, but that’s a different debate. Regardless, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and California Republicans have been in the bunker ever since.
We need to find ways to protect our sovereign soil, but in a way that doesn’t come off as nativist. Hispanics are hard-workers, religious, and pro-traditional marriage. Or, at least, that’s what was the conventional wisdom at the time. Heather MacDonald posted on National Review yesterday that:
a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.
I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”
So, despite Mitt’s shaky conservative credentials, without a doubt, he’s the most hard-lined presidential candidate on immigration we’ve had in the past ten years – and that didn’t hurt him with these voters. Bain, on the other hand, probably didn’t help.
Nevertheless, I’m not saying we should be for amnesty. We shouldn’t be. Amnesty is unfair and unethical – as is the president’s Dream Act light, which requires illegals to bribe the government $465 from doing it’s job enforcing federal law. However, what 2012 should show all conservatives is that our coalition, which to Paul Krugman’s chagrin truly represents the ‘Real America,’ is static. It’s more rural, blue collar, and white. That’s not enough to win elections. We need to improve outreach with minorities and venture back into the cities, or places where the people are, to make these contests competitive again. George W. Bush won 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, with increased majorities in the House and Senate. It’s not impossible. But it’ll be very difficult trying to chip away at the government’s “role in helping people,” which in Democrat speak for getting these people so dependent on us as possible, so they’re a lock when Election Day arrives.
Concerning the ladies, we need to exert a little more discretion when we talk about rape. While the Democratic National Convention could’ve been Abortion Fest 2012,the senate races in this cycle should have been more appropriately called Rape Fest. It’s odd that we even have to mention this, and some blame the Tea Party for these mishaps. I don’t. The Tea Party is the heart and soul of the Republican Party. As George Will once noted, they’re the best thing to happen in American politics since the Goldwater insurgency. Republicans would not be where they are now without the Tea Party, but that does not mean we should accept every one of their primary victors as serious candidates.
As Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel wrote in The Daily Caller yesterday:
The tea party believes the GOP establishment is ideologically corrupt. They’re right. But replacing the current leadership with obviously unqualified buffoons is no remedy. Republicans have lost at least five winnable Senate races in the last two cycles because they fielded candidates whose only real qualification was being anti-establishment. Many will argue the GOP can only win going forward with more liberal candidates. That’s not true. But the genuine conservatives they find will have to come with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.
The sad truth is that even if the Republican Party did all this — sent its current leaders home and stopped nominating losers — it still wouldn’t be enough. The country is changing too fast. Most people have the sense that America is different demographically from what it was 20 years ago. But unless they’ve been reading the latest census data, they have no real idea. The changes are that profound. They’re also permanent and likely to accelerate. In order to remain competitive outside Utah, the GOP will have to win new voters, and soon.
That’s the Republican reformation plan, Stage B. They may get there. First they’ll have to tackle the basics, like finding fresh leadership and candidates who aren’t embarrassing.
That will take some serious vetting. Furthermore, we’re Republicans. We’re pro-life, and the American people know that about our movement. In elections centered on the economy, you can easily pivot away from such issues. Sadly, some of our fellow party members couldn’t help themselves, they shot their mouths off, and got trounced. There is much intra-party work to do – and it starts now.
Meanwhile, a divided America exists and the government we elected is representative of that partisanship. Michael Barone wrote also wrote in National Review that Americans on the right, and the others of the left, are no longer becoming culturally cohesive.
Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.
As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.
Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.
We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.
An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.
Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.
It’s sort of like this exchange between President Bartlet and Governor Ritchie.
Right now, Obama is in a good position to increases taxes, which will happen when Obamacare’s fully implemented in 2014, nominate SCOTUS appointments, which threaten to curtail our constitutional rights, and to continue this destructive surge in government spending that only shackles people to the will of the state through dependency. It’s up to House Republicans to obstruct Democratic plans, and put forward a deluge of alternatives of their own. Granted, we won’t be able to filibuster Supreme Court appointments, but this president’s agenda, and that of the Democrats, is inherently dangerous to the socioeconomic fabric of the country and we must fight them all the way. Concerning the fiscal cliff, maybe compromise can be reached. Yet, we should also remember that compromise is how we got Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the first round of federal stimulus under the Bush administration. Policies that attributed to the near collapse of the conservative movement in this country.
I’m pessimistic that a deal will be reached. This president’s ego would bust the marble in the Capitol dome – and he exuded poor presidential leadership as described in Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics. Yet, Mr. Will again reminds us that throughout the course of American history there is not a single thing that the American people wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get from the federal government.