Saturday, June 30, 2012
Obama versus Romney--too close to call
Why is this race for the Presidency so close?
What can possibly cause about half of our population to remain fixated on Obama, his lies, and his progressive/socialist policies? Considering all of the negative information about Obama and his presidency that is readily available, it seems to be some sort of weird miracle that there are still so many people in his camp. It is as though people like him and they are willing to ignore his personal failings, his administration’s failings, and his terrible policies for the nation, which is a tragic form of madness!
In a hundred years I would never have imagined that so many of us are progressives/socialists/communists and not staunch middle-of-the-road conservatives. So I began to search for a few reasons for this truly odd behavior.
Reason number 1: The demonization factor. Radical progressives have demonized so many good rightist leaders and politicians that the average citizen has been swayed away from his normal beliefs.
Reason number 2: Buying votes. By sending money continuously to many of our citizens in need, or by promising new and better benefits, through all of the entitlement programs and policies he has either fostered or biased, the latest being Obamacare, Obama and his party have outright bought the votes of many citizens.
Reason number 3: Lying about taxes. By disguising the Obamacare tax situation, he has gotten away with a large tax increase, which allows him to disperse even more largess to his constituents.
Reason number 4: The Biased Media. Not only does Obama have the Bully Pulpit of the office of President, he has by far the majority of the media in his camp, so that he is blessed with a favorable press regardless of the actual situation. Most newspaper pressrooms and TV news programs are 9 to 1 left- leaning.
Reason number 5: Deviousness. Liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists are the most devious, lying people in existence, and use their smarts to further the leftist cause very loudly by nasty means. Their leftist cause is defined for them by a few so-called elites that actually do not have the interests of Americans or the nation first in their minds: their focus is on gaining power for themselves and their supporters to rule and prosper. They are constantly tearing down their center and right adversaries with fabricated or blown up accusations that end up being dead wrong, but the damage has been done in poorly attentive minds before the retractions slyly and quietly surface.
Reason number 6: The convinced minorities. Three major groups of people believe that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party have their interests at heart more than do Republicans. These are the Blacks, the Hispanics and the Muslims, that, taken as a block, count for quite a percentage of our citizenry.
Reason number 7: Ignorance. Unfortunately, many of our citizens are not well informed about Obama and his leftists and where they are taking the nation, and in their ignorance they accept the propaganda of the Democratic Party as the true stuff. Some are reflexive voters that follow the party every year out of pure habit, not realizing that the party of today is not their party of yesterday. I also suggest that many of our citizens do not know very much about their own government, how it operates, and whether those in government power are following the Constitution or not in their lawmaking. Worse, they don’t even care, it seems.
Reason number 8: The Conservative Alternative. It seems that we conservatives have not articulated the conservative message effectively to the majority of citizens in a timely and straightforward manner. We appear to use sound bites that are not readily contrasted with the leftist message, and we appear to refuse to lay our message out in detail, perhaps fearing that it gives too much ammunition to the enemy on the left.
Reason number 9: Leftist Drift of the Congress. A startling fact has emerged recently regarding the membership of the Socialist Party of America. Fully 70 of our congressional representatives are now, or were recently, members of this socialist organization according to this party’s October 2009 news letter. Our congress has been infiltrated by socialists, as has our presidency. These representatives are carrying the leftist message, and the anti-conservative message, however disguised, to their constituents throughout the nation, and thus further influencing voters leftwards. Conversely, that these men were elected to office means that they appealed to their constituents. Fully 33% of Americans now look upon socialism favorably, again according to this party’s October 2009 newsletter, which illustrates the success of these, “our” representatives, in influencing us towards socialism.
What can possibly cause about half of our population to remain fixated on Obama, his lies, and his progressive/socialist policies? Considering all of the negative information about Obama and his presidency that is readily available, it seems to be some sort of weird miracle that there are still so many people in his camp. It is as though people like him and they are willing to ignore his personal failings, his administration’s failings, and his terrible policies for the nation, which is a tragic form of madness!
In a hundred years I would never have imagined that so many of us are progressives/socialists/communists and not staunch middle-of-the-road conservatives. So I began to search for a few reasons for this truly odd behavior.
Reason number 1: The demonization factor. Radical progressives have demonized so many good rightist leaders and politicians that the average citizen has been swayed away from his normal beliefs.
Reason number 2: Buying votes. By sending money continuously to many of our citizens in need, or by promising new and better benefits, through all of the entitlement programs and policies he has either fostered or biased, the latest being Obamacare, Obama and his party have outright bought the votes of many citizens.
Reason number 3: Lying about taxes. By disguising the Obamacare tax situation, he has gotten away with a large tax increase, which allows him to disperse even more largess to his constituents.
Reason number 4: The Biased Media. Not only does Obama have the Bully Pulpit of the office of President, he has by far the majority of the media in his camp, so that he is blessed with a favorable press regardless of the actual situation. Most newspaper pressrooms and TV news programs are 9 to 1 left- leaning.
Reason number 5: Deviousness. Liberals, progressives, socialists, and communists are the most devious, lying people in existence, and use their smarts to further the leftist cause very loudly by nasty means. Their leftist cause is defined for them by a few so-called elites that actually do not have the interests of Americans or the nation first in their minds: their focus is on gaining power for themselves and their supporters to rule and prosper. They are constantly tearing down their center and right adversaries with fabricated or blown up accusations that end up being dead wrong, but the damage has been done in poorly attentive minds before the retractions slyly and quietly surface.
Reason number 6: The convinced minorities. Three major groups of people believe that the Obama administration and the Democratic Party have their interests at heart more than do Republicans. These are the Blacks, the Hispanics and the Muslims, that, taken as a block, count for quite a percentage of our citizenry.
Reason number 7: Ignorance. Unfortunately, many of our citizens are not well informed about Obama and his leftists and where they are taking the nation, and in their ignorance they accept the propaganda of the Democratic Party as the true stuff. Some are reflexive voters that follow the party every year out of pure habit, not realizing that the party of today is not their party of yesterday. I also suggest that many of our citizens do not know very much about their own government, how it operates, and whether those in government power are following the Constitution or not in their lawmaking. Worse, they don’t even care, it seems.
Reason number 8: The Conservative Alternative. It seems that we conservatives have not articulated the conservative message effectively to the majority of citizens in a timely and straightforward manner. We appear to use sound bites that are not readily contrasted with the leftist message, and we appear to refuse to lay our message out in detail, perhaps fearing that it gives too much ammunition to the enemy on the left.
Reason number 9: Leftist Drift of the Congress. A startling fact has emerged recently regarding the membership of the Socialist Party of America. Fully 70 of our congressional representatives are now, or were recently, members of this socialist organization according to this party’s October 2009 news letter. Our congress has been infiltrated by socialists, as has our presidency. These representatives are carrying the leftist message, and the anti-conservative message, however disguised, to their constituents throughout the nation, and thus further influencing voters leftwards. Conversely, that these men were elected to office means that they appealed to their constituents. Fully 33% of Americans now look upon socialism favorably, again according to this party’s October 2009 newsletter, which illustrates the success of these, “our” representatives, in influencing us towards socialism.
Labels: Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama, Romney
Friday, August 12, 2011
Our Socialist Neighbors
What is it that turns people towards socialism and communism?
Here are a few possible reasons:
1. They are poor and need all the assistance they can get; and, they have the vote. So they flock to the party that promises, promises, and promises a better life. They forget, however, that the same promises were made in the last election, and the one before that, and still remain unfulfilled.
2. They are not so poor but see turning socialist as a way to a more plush, exciting and event-filled life, with lots of confrontations, and lots of marching militantly around with signs, and they see that paying for entitlements with other people’s money is no sacrifice for them.
3. They are reasonably well off, but their hearts bleed for the not so well off. They believe in the infinite perfectibility of Man and Utopia, so they work for these (unrealizable) ideals. Often these people are well educated by our progressive universities, have atheistic leanings, and come out swinging for socialist programs, not having the leavening of hearing the other side of the story—ever!
4. They are reasonably well off and see turning socialist as a means to increase their personal power. They thirst for the power of office to do something for the downtrodden, which the downtrodden gladly accept at the 10 cents on the dollar appropriated that manages to filter down to them.
5. They are very well off, and do not need government assistance, nor is their wealth easily attacked by the government, so they have the time, energy, and means to indulge themselves in progressive movements, mostly for the power trip it entails, and for the ideal of a Utopia at the end of the day(while they know very well that it has been proven that Utopias can never be realized!). Thus, they are first class hypocrites, mouthing such empty slogans as Hope and Change!
What is it that turns people towards socialism and communism?
Here are a few possible reasons:
1. They are poor and need all the assistance they can get; and, they have the vote. So they flock to the party that promises, promises, and promises a better life. They forget, however, that the same promises were made in the last election, and the one before that, and still remain unfulfilled.
2. They are not so poor but see turning socialist as a way to a more plush, exciting and event-filled life, with lots of confrontations, and lots of marching militantly around with signs, and they see that paying for entitlements with other people’s money is no sacrifice for them.
3. They are reasonably well off, but their hearts bleed for the not so well off. They believe in the infinite perfectibility of Man and Utopia, so they work for these (unrealizable) ideals. Often these people are well educated by our progressive universities, have atheistic leanings, and come out swinging for socialist programs, not having the leavening of hearing the other side of the story—ever!
4. They are reasonably well off and see turning socialist as a means to increase their personal power. They thirst for the power of office to do something for the downtrodden, which the downtrodden gladly accept at the 10 cents on the dollar appropriated that manages to filter down to them.
5. They are very well off, and do not need government assistance, nor is their wealth easily attacked by the government, so they have the time, energy, and means to indulge themselves in progressive movements, mostly for the power trip it entails, and for the ideal of a Utopia at the end of the day(while they know very well that it has been proven that Utopias can never be realized!). Thus, they are first class hypocrites, mouthing such empty slogans as Hope and Change!
Labels: Communists, Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialists
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Obama Report Card
Report Card on Obama's First Two Years
By K.E. Campbell ( with permision)
Two years ago today, Barack Obama was inaugurated as president of the United States. Are you better off today than you were two years ago?
Numbers don't lie, and here are the data on the impact he has had on the lives of Americans:
January 2001/ Current/ % chg/ Source
Avg. retail price/gallon gas in U.S. (regular conventional)
$1.83/ $3.104/ 69.6%/ 1
Selected commodities:
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
$43.48/ $99.02/ 127.7%/ 2
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
$38.74/ $91.38/ 135.9%/ 2
Natural gas, Henry Hub, $ per MMbtu
$4.85/ $4.48/ -7.6%/ 2
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
$853.25/ $1,369.50/ 60.5%/ 2
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
$3.56/ $6.33/ 78.1%/ 2
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
$9.66/ $13.75/ 42.3%/ 2
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. fob
$13.37/ $35.39/ 164.7%/ 2
Consumer Price Index (for all urban consumers)
211.1/ 219.2/ 3.8%/ 3
Producer Price Index: finished goods
170.3/ 183.0/ 7.5%/ 3
Producer Price Index: all commodities
171.0/ 189.9/ 11.1%/ 3
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
7.6%/ 9.4%/ 23.7%/ 3
Unemployment rate, blacks
12.6%/ 15.8%/ 25.4%/ 3
Number of unemployed
11,616,000/ 14,485,000/ 24.7%/ 3
Number of fed. employees, ex. uniformed military (curr = 12/10 prelim)
2,779,000/ 2,840,000/ 2.2%/ 3
Real median household income (2008 vs 2009)
$50,112/ $49,777/ -0.7%/ 4
Number of food stamp recipients (curr = 10/10)
31,983,716/ 43,200,878/ 35.1%/ 5
Number of unemployment benefit recipients (curr = 12/10)
7,526,598/ 9,193,838/ 22.2%/ 6
Number of long-term unemployed, in millions
2.6/ 6.4/ 146.2%/ 3
Poverty rate, individuals (2008 vs 2009)
13.2%/ 14.3%/ 8.3%/ 4
People in poverty in U.S., in millions (2008 vs 2009)
39.8/ 43.6/ 9.5%/ 4
House price index (current = Q3 2010)
198.7/ 192.7/ -3.0%/ 7
S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index: 20 city composite (curr = 10/10)
146.4/ 145.3/ -0.8%/ 8
Number of properties subject of foreclosure filings, in millions
2.82/ 2.8/ 1.7%/ 9
DJIA (12,403 on 6/3/08, date BHO clinched Dem. nomination)
7,949/ 11,825/ 48.8%/ 2
NASDAQ (2,480 on 6/3/08)
1,441/ 2,725/ 89.1%/ 2
S&P 500 (1,378 on 6/3/08)
80/ 1,282/ 59.2%/ 2
Global Dow
1,356/ 2,153/ 58.8%/ 2
U.S. rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
5/ 9/ n/a/ 10
Consumer Confidence Index (curr = 12/10)
37.7/ 52.5/ 39.3%/ 11
Present Situation Index (curr = 12/10)
29.9/ 23.5/ -21.4%/ 11
Failed banks (curr = 2010 + 2011 to date)
140/ 164/ 17.1/ 12
U.S. dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
89.76/ 82.03/ -8.6%/ 2
U.S. money supply, M1, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
1,575.1/ 1,865.7/ 18.4%/ 13
U.S. money supply, M2, in billions (curr = 12/10 preliminary)
8,310.9/ 8,852.3/ 6.5%/ 13
National debt, in trillions
$10.627/ $14.052/ 32.2%/ 14
Sources:
1 - U.S. Energy Information Admin.
2 - Wall Street Journal
3 - Bureau of Labor Statistics
4 - Census Bureau
5 - USDA
6 - U.S. Dept. of Labor
7 - FHFA
8 - Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller
9 - RealtyTrac
10 - Heritage Foundation and WSJ
11 - The Conference Board
12 - FDIC
13 - Federal Reserve
14 - U.S. Treasury
Labels: Liberalism, Obama, Socialism, Spending
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Liberals-- Profile of Main Characteristics
I present here my descriptive observations of Liberals or Progressives over the past ten years in phrase form:
Socialistic
Elitist and Intellectual
Moral Relativist
Atheistic or Agnostic
“Living Constitution”
Pacifistic
Moral Equivalence of all Societies
No Discrimination in All Domains
Welfare State
Statist
Multiculturalism and Diversity
Political Correctness
Total Control Syndrome; Power Hungry
Strict Social Liberalism Education
Intolerance of Objectors
Redistribution of Wealth
Arrogance
Materialistic/Materialism
Gun Controls
Abortion
Tax and Spend
Scientism
Darwinism
Cannot Accept the Truth about Islam
Righteousness
Infallibility
Uses Civil Law to force conformation to policies
Internationalism
Open Borders
Gay Marriage
Anti-Religion
Anti-American
Leftist with a Marxist or Communistic or Progressive touch
Pseudo-realism
If this is the type of person you admire, the sickness is spreading.
Additions welcome!
Labels: Liberalism, Progressivism
Monday, August 23, 2010
Brief Comments on the Day
The Mosque at Ground Zero
I agree that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque or a gathering center. I believe it is grossly insensitive for them to select a site so near the 9/11 attack by Muslims. I also believe that any so-called religion has as its basic tenet that they should rule over everyone must not be coddled in the US. We didn't sign up for an underhanded manner of subverting the nation in the name of Allah.
Attitudes Being Expressed
Too many Americans seem to have sympathy for Muslims and the religion of Islam. The problem is that Islam has two faces to its members, and a frightening face to unbelievers: that of a religion; and, that of a governing body with its own lawbook--Shariah. They want Shariah in the US. We do not want to have Shariah introduced in the US. Major conflict here!
Iran versus Israel
A number of well-informed watchers have stated that it is a 50-50 bet that Israel will attack Iran before the end of this year. The problem with this is Iran's possible reaction involving the US, thus taking us to war.
At the end of the day, if Iran does obtain nuclear weapons we will face a far larger threat to our nation and way of life, I believe. Watch for it!
Labels: Iran, Islam, Liberalism
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Amnesty NO!
Many steps too far over, around and against the people!
This purple people eater administration is running our nation into the ground. Amnesty is the latest kick they are on, and with stealth orders to refuse action against illegals, if Congress fails to pass their stupid comprehensive immigration bill, which features amnesty over everything else.
This Hispanic vote-buying gimmick should be roundly condemned by Americans as being totally contrary to the will of the majority of citizens. We seem to be in the grip of a dictator.
Labels: Amnesty, hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obamania
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Truly Annoying Things
The top of my list of truly annoying things
Absolutely at the top of my list is the entire Jihadist thing out of the Islamic Middle East. Perhaps annoying is too mild a word. It should be more like hate! With many thousands of people killed in the name of Jihadism, I see this scourge to be eminently destroyable!
Following along with that, the number two thing on my list is liberalism in all of its dishonest glory. For the sake of power and influence, they distort the world around us, and try to impose their odious, arrogant and atheistic thought processes on us and on our children. They are ready to sacrifice our way of life for an impossible ideal or Utopia that has no chance whatsoever of being realized. Many appear to have been raised in homes for anti-American people. The idea of being forced into using the politically correct-multiculturalism mindset of the left is simply obnoxious.
The third item on my list are the spendthrift souls in our Congress and the Administration that believe somehow that we can spend our way out of the debt hole, when anybody can tell them that ultimately you have to pay the Piper. This is not fair for us, for our children, or for our children's children. They seem to believe that government is the answer to all problems, including employment, when any fool could tell them that it is the private sector that generates jobs, not the government.
My fourth annoyance is tied to the current economic situation where, because of our financial troubles and our president's fiscally and diplomatically irresponsible policies, we are becoming ever weaker in the international scene. This cannot be a good thing! We have seen stupendous wars growing out of such weakness in the past, and they are too horrible to mankind to be allowed to happen yet again.
So those are the top four of my peeves or hates. There are a lot more to go!
Labels: Democrats, Fiscal Responsibility, Jihadists, Liberalism
Friday, February 05, 2010
Where Went Transparency?
Do politicos lie, or just bend the truth?
For a moment, let us return to the idea that some politicos say one thing and do another. Not that they do this in every situation, or for every statement they emit, but they do it often enough to merit extremely close attention to their words versus their actions.
It is clearly, clearly reserved for those times when they read the tea leaves; that is, when they realize that a significant sector of the public wants to insist on one way and the politico wants to go in exactly the opposite direction. Thus, they claim up front that they are going with the public desire, but behind the scenes they are working in the opposite direction.
This tactic was employed by Clinton quite often, and it appears to have been fully embraced by Obama. It is designed very cynically to misdirect and neutralize some part of the public as to the real intentions of the politico and his party at a critical point, such as before an election or a key legislative vote.
The open government theme of transparency is one perfect example of such a meme out of many that is readily embraced by the public, so stated as absolutely necessary over and over by Obama, and almost totally reversed in practice by him and by his party once he was elected.
A video of Democratic legislators and Obama horsetrading away on national TV to buy votes for the Obama Healthcare bill would be instantly devastating to the entire gaggle of politicos shown!
Labels: Democrats, Liberalism, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
My Government II
There is a long list of liberal legislators that would not survive in my government, headed by Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Waxman, and Feinstein, How they got elected speaks to the lack of smarts in their home constituencies, corruption in the voting process, or the inability of their voters to connect the dots correctly. These people propose anti-American and anti-constitutional solutions to national problems, and should never be allowed inside the Capitol building again, even as visitors.
Labels: Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Liberalism, Pelosi, Reid
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Socialism in the US?
The Socialist Platform of 1928
Extracted from “The Conscience of a Conservative”, Barry Goldwater, Appendix A.
A brief summary of Appendix A shows that: 1) many socialist objectives had been achieved by 1972; and that 2) the ideas of the Socialist Party have not died since 1972, but are quite well and alive in the current Administration and Congress. We can expect to see these kinds of policies and legislation rearing their heads again; in fact, they already have.
1. Nationalization of natural resources…(Dams, others)
2. Public ownership of power systems…(TVA, others)
3. National ownership of railroads and other means of communication and transportation…(AMTRAC, FCC, etc)
4. A national program for flood control, reforestation, irrigation and reclamation..( US Army Corps of Engineers and other agencies)
5. Government relief of the unemployed by public works programs…(unionized wage laws for public employees)
6. Loans to states and municipalities without interest, and grants in aid…(huge grants in aid)
7. Unemployment insurance…(part of Social Security)
8. A network of public employment agencies…(US Employment Service)
9. A system of health and accident insurance and old age pensions…(Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)
10, Shortening the workday…(wage and hours laws)
11. An anti-child labor law…(achieved in various acts)
12. Abolition of the exploitation of convicts…(partly achieved)
13. Increase of taxation on high incomes, corporations, and inheritances…(was achieved)
14. Appropriation by taxation of all lands held for speculation..(not achieved)
While a few of these programs may not be purely socialistic, in sum the direction is indeed Socialistic. It would seem that the current Administration is borrowing ideas from the Socialist Party Platform, with their control over large financial institutions, the automobile industry, heavy stimulus funding being handed out, and the general direction that was precursed in 1928.
Labels: Liberalism, Socialism, Stimulus
Thursday, April 23, 2009
It is Good if a Majority Says So!
NORMALIZATION
Rules for social behaviors are not the responsibility of a majority.
The idea that a majority “normalizes” a given behavior seems to me to be pure moral relativity, where the crowd’s behavior defines the good and the bad. This is as opposed to moral absolutes, where either a religion or a government, or even an atheist group, defines for all a moral code to be followed, and sets forth clear rules for social behaviors. Many aspects of the moral code are thus found to be incorporated into the laws of the land.
If moral degeneration takes place in a society and the established moral code or the laws are flouted by the majority of citizens, what is the proper response? Should the code or laws be changed to reflect the changing behavior of the crowd, or should they be more strongly enforced for the greater good?
Not reinforcing the existing codes and laws opens the door for flouting other rules of behavior as well in order to let the code or law follow the preferences of the citizens.
The fear this creates is one of supporting nihilism and hedonism, and eventually evolving a society with few rules and few unacceptable behaviors.
The syndrome of: “well, just one more little change” to the code and all will be well, is an exceedingly slippery slope. To me a moral code that has been fashioned by both wise souls and by experience over centuries is an organic whole, such that little modifications here and there may well unravel that wholeness, and hence unravel significant behaviors of the society.
For those that believe in God-given moral strictures, tinkering with the moral code to please the crowd is a flat out sin.
Labels: hypocrisy, Liberalism, Secular Humanism
Friday, March 27, 2009
A Call to Identify and Profile Elites!
Just who are the so-called "Elites?"
The accusations flow swiftly from Republicans: Conservatives, Libertarians, and other hangers-on. They accuse these Elites of malfeasance against the nation to their own benefit, and to the detriment of the average citizen. They accuse Elites of manipulation of the Congress and the President to favor policies and legislation that will profit the investments and the companies that comprise Elite portfolios. They accuse the Administration of furthering tax policies that favor the Elites. The accuse the Elites of influencing our governance in international affairs to their benefit. On and on the accusations fly that it is the Elites that are harming the nation for their own selfish objectives.
So I ask in all sincerity for those who accuse the Elites of any malfeasance to stand up now and name the names and tell the story of these Elites, who they are and what damage they are doing that we should react to, and what their profiles are.
Perhaps many of us are afraid of stepping up and telling the story of the Elites and their roles in directing the nation. Well, I did so in one of the very first posts on this blog, and, of course, I received no responses. It was a useless exercise then, and I suspect it will be so again, because of fear of retribution from these powerful people. Let others do the dangerous work of resetting our nation onto a better course, if they can. Or, just let the nation go in whatever direction they take us, and hope for the best in our lifetime. What about the nation that we will leave for our children, and our grandchildren? They must count for something in our lives today.
So my question stands. Who are these elites that are pushing and pulling us in directions that we may not agree that we should go? Tell us, please!
Here is my original post on the subject in 2005:
Pseudo-Masters: Elites
Who are the Elite? For years I have heard the term “Elite” to refer to some group of people that are supposedly of superior intellect and human insight, and who want to have the power to guide or direct our lives into more “rewarding” channels. From an number of bloggers I have read a definition for Elite groups that goes like this: The Elite today are composed of most university professors, the media owners and editors, many Hollywood activists, the current leadership of the Democratic Party, a bunch of columnists and writers of Left bent, and a slog of very wealthy, progressive limousine liberals. No one, however, ever identifies the lot of them by name in a list I’d call “The Elite.”
There must be a reason behind this refusal to name names, and point fingers at the crowd that wants to rule us anonymously from walled and guarded bastions behind the scene. My first idea is fear of reprisal by one of several means, each one of ever greater total impact: 1) lawsuits for defaming the name of some rich family; 2) attack on the list-maker in the media; 3) attack by means of stealthy economic sabotage; and even 4) harassment and physical intimidation by threatening phone calls or actual bodily harm.Those of us that want to know the enemy and try to battle them ( or convert them to reason) are handicapped by the lack of specific intelligence as to just who the enemy is.
When one pops up in the media, they are dealt with, especially the moonbats of the left, and the outspoken pseudo-elite from media. I would hazard a guess that some of the elite are drawn from the communist or Marxist party, the socialist party and the humanist party of today. For the communists and the humanists, I know of their manifestos that set forth their grand and provably-impossible, Utopian ideas for governance. The socialist party statement of principles serves the same purpose.
The interesting point is that most of these people seem to have four common characteristics: 1) foremost, they are well-to-do or wealthy and their ideas for everyone hypocritically do not include sharing their wealth or reducing their large salaries; 2) they thus have time to play “ If I Were King” Utopian games which soothes their huge egos; 3) they have a higher than normal IQ and believe strongly in their intellectual and organizational abilities to do things better; and, 4) they somehow get connected with the radicals that swarm around in dark, stinky tunnels, and believe they are helping someone important to a better way of life, or some other altruistic idea, fostered on them by the radicals. They are deluded, duped and end up buying into the song of the radicals. Or else, in their ego-driven games, they believe that their participation in radical left movements will bring them into political power here in the US. Added: They may well be right!
I would like help in building a list of organizations and individuals that are of this mindset. My starter list is given in the archives under “The Shunning List.”
The Shunning List
The only weapon I have as a private citizen, other than the vote, against the blasphemers of the constitution and laws, the Elite, the America haters, the obstructionists, and the liberal twits is to ignore them. They do not respond to logic, they do not respond to patriotism, they do not respond to ethics, or etiquette, nor do they speak with a straight tongue. When I thought about it, I decided to make a list of those who I felt had earned the right to be ignored; in short, to be Shunned.
Thus was born The Shunning List. What does shunning entail? Act as if that person does not exist. Do not read their words, do not listen to their speeches, do not watch them on TV or in the movies, and do not socialize with them. Further, those who rise to their defense will likewise be shunned (I hope none of my favorite people defend any who are shunned!). I would not interfere with these people, nor constrain their rights as citizens, but I do not have to be assaulted by their thoughts.
How are the people selected for the list of The Shunned? By their words and deeds as seen through my own filter. My filter is that of a Christian believer in God, where love, truth, honesty, conservative thought, and fighting evil are all paramount.Categories of The Shunned: There are a number of broad categories of people I am inclined to shun, but I would seek evidence to confirm my suspicions: Secular Humanists and Liberals, Socialists and Communists (Democrats are always under suspicion for actually being one of these!), the Hollywood Activists, Liberal Professors, Activist Judges, those who hate America worldwide, and terrorists and their organizations.I have no time for such people.
Of course, I cannot achieve a full and complete shunning! I would be foolish not to pay attention to what the internal and external enemies of our country are saying and doing! This isn’t meant to be a “head in the sand” tactic, but rather a selective approach to the shrill cries and demagoguery of the Left, and a constant reminder of where these people stand in the pantheon of nuts. Many of them go to legal extremes to carry their point, or try to, such as the ALCU. But I would avoid supporting them in any way I can, such as not going to their movies, or buying their books or other products. There will always be those trusted bloggers who will analyze the latest rants from the Left and summarize them for the rest of us, so I can avoid much of the drivel directly, unless I have the urge to take the measure of one of these nutcases from time to time.
The reason for this Shunning is simple. If I immerse myself in the evil words and images, and the awful actions and speeches from the Left on a daily basis, it will affect my disposition in a horrible manner. My rage at some of these idiots is fierce and body-wrenching! So, as a self-protection measure, I am pulling back, and simply voting with my Shun list. There is a sense of gratification in adding a new name to the List! There! Take that, you wacko! Lurking in the back of my mind is the thought that maybe others feel the same way. What if they joined me in creating a Super List and actually Shunning the people on it? A grassroots effort would be promoted simply to trivialize and ignore the irrelevant kooks in our society! Inculcating an “Oh, Him!” reaction to the Listed Ones. And letting the world know who is to be listened to about America and who is on The Shunning List. We might soon be able to retire some of these pains in the ass to their Malibu or Cape Cod homes.
Added: This is not easy now in 2009 with the Left in charge of the nation, led by Barack Obama!
A list of names is all I will present for the moment. Later, I plan to use quotes to illustrate why that person is on the list, much as John Hawkins has done. But, go see his site and read the reasons for his list. I am developing a list of organizations as well that deserve our contempt and shunning. Here, however, paying attention to them may be far more important, so the list will serve to alert a few people to the left-driven organizations we must deal with over time.
The Shunning List(This list comes from my reading and TV viewing, but my somewhat aging memory has been greatly aided by John Hawkin's list of the most annoying liberals for 2002, 2003, and 2004, whose blog, Right Wing News, is outstanding!)
Al Franken
Al Gore
Al Sharpton
Alan Colmes
Alec Baldwin
Andrew Sullivan
Barack Obama
Barbara Boxer
Barbra Streisand
Barney Frank
Bernie Sanders
Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Bill Maher
Bill Moyers
Bruce Springsteen
Bryant Gumbel
Carol Mosley-Braun
Charles Rangel
Charles Schumer
Cher
Chevy Chase
Chris Dodd
Chris Matthews
Cinthia McKinney
Dan Rather
Danny Glover
David Benior
David Souter
Dennis Kucinich
Dianne Feinstein
Dick Gephardt
Dustin Hoffman
Ed Asner
Eleanor Clift
Eleanor Smeal
George Clooney
George Soros
Gore Vidal
Harry Belafonte
Henry Waxman
Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean
Howard Stern
Ibrahim Hooper
James Carvelle
Jane Fonda
Janet Reno
Jennifer Aniston
Jesse Jackson
Jim Jeffords
Jim McDermott
Jimmy Carter
John Corzine
John Edwards
John Gere
John Kerry
John Zogby
Julianne Malveaux
Kitty Kelley
Kofi Annan
Larry King
Leonard Pitts
Leslie Moonvess
Linda Ronstadt
Martin Sheen
Mary McGrory
Maureen Dowd
Max Cleland
Maxine Waters
Michael Moore
Mike Farrell
Nancy Pelosi
Ralph Neas
Noam Chomsky
Norman Mailer
Paul Krugman
Peter Arnett
Ralph Nader
Ramsey Clark
Richard Berthold
Robert Byrd
Robert Scheer
Robin Williams
Ron Reagan, Jr.
Rosanne Barr
Rosy ODonnell
Russ Feingold
Sean Penn
Susan Estrich
Susan Sarandon
Ted Kennedy
Ted Koppel
Ted Rall
Ted Turner
Teresa Kerry
Terry McAuliffe
Tim Robbins
Tom Brokow
Tom Daschle
Tom Harkin
Walter Conkite
Warren Beatty
Whoopi Goldberg
William Kuenstler
Woody Allen
Woody Harrelson
Several names have been removed from the original list as they have died in the meanwhile. R.I.P.
Many authors have railed against the Elites and their practices in the previous few years, including, in no special order:
Mona Charin-Useful Idiots
Bill O'Reilly-Cultural Warriors
Bernard Goldberg-100 People Who are Screwing Up America
David Horowitz-The Politics of Bad Faith
David Horowitz- Unholy Alliance
Jed Babbin-Inside the Asylum
Laura Ingraham-Shut Up and Sing
Keir Alfia and Alan Lipton-A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos
Bernard Goldberg-Arrogance
David Horowitz- The Professors
Peter Schweizer-Makers and Takers
Grover Norquist-Leave Us Alone
Ann Coulter-Traitors, and many more
Labels: Democrats, Elites, Elitists, Government Handouts, Liberalism, Pelosi, Reid
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Shudders of the Day: "Spend and Tax" Liberals
Watch out, Guys and Gals, we are well on the road to socialism!
So many shuddering events and statements have surfaced that I am overwhelmed:
Hillary putting blame on the US for the Mexican drug cartels: we use the drugs--Duh!
The latest budget of the Obama administration has over 8,000 earmarks.
Now we are going to create an Obama army, dedicated to him, using taxpayer dollars, under the guise of National Service!
This Administration is seeking authority to close down firms that become a hazard to the economy (in their opinion!). This is totalitarian!
The budget has a provision that puts aside over 600 billion dollars for health care. Our tax dollars are to be banked by the government to pay for the care of low income people. There has to be a better way than a massive government bureaucracy that returns little on the tax dollar.
Now there is a proposal to fund the media by the government! Shades of controlled printing we saw in Russia.
The other media proposition in parallel is aimed at shutting down talk radio, especially rightist stations such as Rush Limbaugh, under the guise of "fairness."
It isn't Obama that writes legislation, it is the Pelosi and Reid staff members that are going wild! They need to be stopped!
Ever heard of "Tax and Spend Democrats"? The new kind of Democrat is: "Spend Now, Tax Later."
Do you find it hard to keep up? That is the plan.
Labels: Earmarks, hypocrisy, Liberalism, Obama, Pelosi, Reid
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Alinsky's Rules
These are the rules of the Radical Left for sowing dissention. You can see them in action daily if you look sharply for them. Paraphrased from :
Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA
RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Watch for them.
Reference The American thinker for more:
September 25, 2008
Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths By James Lewis
"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."
-- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."
-- The Nation
A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.
Alinsky boasted about his close alliance with Frank Nitti, Al Capone's second in command in the Chicago Mob during the 1930s. Al Capone's Mob were domestic terrorists, and not for any noble cause either. They poisoned the Chicago politics of their era. Alinsky's close alliance with Frank Nitti tells us something crucially important today. Alinsky was also a lifelong ally of the Stalin-controlled Communist Party, at a time when Stalin was known to have murdered tens of millions of people. He was proud of building a bridge between organized crime and the power hungry Left. That tacit alliance may continue today.
Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."
Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.
A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.
Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.
Teaching hatred for the normal majority is the key to power for radicals. But Alinsky taught that you can't easily hate millions of people. To do that effectively you need a one-person scapegoat to focus all your hatred on. "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." That is the politics of personal destruction, and it doesn't matter if the target is black like Clarence Thomas, or a woman like Sarah Palin, or a severely wounded war veteran like John McCain.
That is why Obama is now instructing his followers to "get in their faces" of those Americans who are not down for his cause. Obama acts like a nice guy, but he is a political warmonger. He's been very clear about that: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." That's the language of gang war.
Today we can see the Left's rage reaction to John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. The New York Sun quoted one feminist saying "All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows ...People were flipping out. ... Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president -- our potential next president."
The "comedienne" Sandra Bernhard suggested that Sarah Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks in Manhattan" if she dared to go there.
A British Leftist writing for Pravda (!) called "Sarah Palin - The Devil in disguise...
Sarah Palin, Mrs. Nobody know-it-all shreiking cow from Alaska, the joke of American politics, plied with a couple of vodkas ... cheap little guttersnipe ... suppose you shut up ... you pith-headed little bimbo from the back of beyond ... So next time suppose you keep your mouth shut and while you're at it, make sure the members of your family keep their legs shut too. ... "
That warlike rage has been systematically whipped up over decades by the Left. That's what college "Women's Studies" does, just as "Black Studies" is deliberately designed to whip up black rage and victimhood. Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis is a case in point.
Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals
"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "
Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.
Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.
These claims require proof; but we have been looking straight at the evidence since the first Clinton term. Bill Clinton fits the diagnostic description of psychopathic personality, now relabeled "antisocial personality' in the DSM IV, the official diagnostic manual for psychiatry. Three out of the following seven criteria nails the diagnosis:
1. Failure to conform to social norms ...
2. Deceitfulness ... or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness ... ;
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. Consistent irresponsibility ... ;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
I would give Mr. Clinton credit for Numbers 1, 2, 6, and 7, and possibly 3 (impulsivity) and 4 (irritability and aggressiveness). Dick Morris, who advised the Clintons for 20 years, describes dramatic scenes that certainly fit the description. Or Bill's inability to stick with a meeting agenda, impulsively running endless bull sessions at the White House. As for 5, his picking up women opportunistically and in a way that put his career, not to mention his family life and American security, at risk. The Monica affair showed an impulsive, reckless president who got into power by endless lying and conning.
Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.
Normal people slow down in School Zones where kids might run across the street -- not because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket but because they can't stand the thought of hurting kids. They don't need to cheat compulsively on wives and husbands to prove how irresistible they are. Normal people have internalized some modesty and humility, and are capable of respect and love for others. A common feature of psychopaths is the inability to feel authentic love and respect for others.
True psychopaths are often charming, seductive, and treacherous. They make natural con artists. Many psychopaths are extremely manipulative -- and what is more manipulative than stirring up hatred among victim groups to empower oneself? That is Jeremiah Wright, the diabolical Father Pfleger, James Meeks, and by his own definition of radicals, Saul Alinsky.
The worst are "malevolent psychopaths" -- people who sadistically hurt others. Hitler and Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, and probably many famous Western intellectuals fit the description of malevolent psychopaths. That is tragic and shocking. Historian Paul Johnson presents compelling evidence for malevolent psychopathy in the life of Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, and many others in his important book Intellectuals. Western intellectuals have been the home team of Leftist radicalism for a century now.
But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:
"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"
That is a laugh line, believe it or not.
Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.
Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:
"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."
If that doesn't send a shiver down your back, you haven't been paying attention.
James Lewis occasionally blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com
on "Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths
Labels: Elites, Liberalism, Radicalism
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Retreat is Ugly, Retreat is Deadly
Obama the Messiah enters into Foreign Policy
Seems to me that the collective wisdom of the “leave Iraq” crowd was that: a) we were a cause of unrest, death and terror; and that once we withdraw, if things go sour and genocide begins, b)we can always go back into Iraq to fix it once more.
Was it Ramsey Clark that voiced this stupid idea on behalf of moonbats everywhere?
This is nonsense simply because we have done nothing to alter the multiple tribes and cultures within Iraq, nor could we, and we have not been able to proof Iraq from the gentle ministrations of Iran, which means that the current Iraqi government will fall apart in a short time once we depart.
Were we to stay longer with a reasonable force, a few years more, however, there would be a better chance of a stable Iraq emerging from the chaos that is just under the surface now. We made the choice to go in; now we are making the choice to go out, I believe, before Iraq can cope effectively with its internal contradictions and external threats.
Going back into Iraq would be nearly impossible to pull off, I suggest, because it would be in the face of Iranian and AQ infiltration, support and threats, which a basically pacifist government would be reluctant to challenge yet again.
What a memorial to our casualties, and especially the deaths, and our lost treasure, in that awful place. It is the retreat that pacifists order, out of totally misguided humanitarianism.
It would appear to me that a renewed insurgency and genocide is just around the corner; say, a day after our last combat troops leave, which day, in some 16 months from now, AQ and others will have marked on their calendar in red and planned for in detail.
Oh, it isn’t our responsibility then, is it? Smacks of how we abandoned Nam,”with honor!”, refused them financial support, and turned our heads away from the communist takeover and genocides that followed in Laos, Cambodia and Nam itself.
That is the false pacifism we practice.
Labels: hypocrisy, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Liberalism, Pacifism
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Obama Fault List--IIb
The things that concern me so far are:
1. His global warming push, now subtly renamed "climate issues", as exemplified by his staff appointments, which will probably end up massively increasing spending of dollars we don't have. All for a false conclusion that GW is largely caused by CO2 when it provably isn't.
2. His pushing, together with congressional dems, for yet another stimulus package of 850 billion dollars that we don't have on top of the 700 billion already thrown down the hole. It is apparent that no one knows how to cope with the downturn, least of all, Obama.
3. His hands-off policy idea on the piracy that is going gangbusters off the East Coast of Africa.
4. His share the wealth ideas, which means stealing from me to give away.
5. His poorly masked anti-gun stance, which will pop out very soon now.
6. His anti-military feelings, and desire to pull out of Iraq far too fast.
7. His amnesty push, which in essence is simply a political move to gain voters.
8. His socialistic ideas that will creep into view real soon now!
9. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, which is welcomed by the resident lefties there.
10. Leon Panetta as head of the CIA: Send the little man to do a big man's job.
11. Appointment of gaggles of liberals to second and third level positions in the government.
12. The cultivation of worship of Barack Hussein Obama.
13. The huge inaugural effort that is largely a waste of money, and a crowning event for his Messiah image. A 45 million dollar boondoggle (Correction: it will top $170 million), and I don't care where that money came from.
14. Obama, in his first working day, is asking Congress to repeal DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act). Here we go!
15. Pro-Life changed to Pro-Abortion on the White House Website.
16. Obama's Government is buying preferred stock only, which will drive common stock out of the reach of common men, leaving the Government as the sole propriator of banks, and major industry.
17. Obama is planning to stop the offshore drilling and the oil shale mining that Bush ordered, in spite of the push for oil independence--somehow.
18. Now Obama is diddling into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in what appears to be favoritism towards Gaza and Hamas. Ignorance is telling, isn't it?
19. Obama orders Gitmo prison closed, but has no valid idea where to hold or prosecute the 245 prisoners remaining. Brilliant!
20. Obama is issuing an executive order lifting the ban on worldwide funding of abortions by the taxpayer. So, he is funding murder. Way to go!
21. I expect him to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" to shut down conservative talk shows such as Rush. There is nothing fair about it.
22. Obama set forth ethics rules for his staff, then excused the rules for one of his appointees, murmering later that he can violate his rules as he sees fit. My, my, your imperial magesty!
This list is growing far faster than I had thought it would. It may require daily updates!
Labels: Global Warming, Liberalism, Obama
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Obama Fault List--I
The things that concern me so far are:
1. His global warming push, now subtly renamed "climate issues", as exemplified by his staff appointments, which will probably end up massively increasing spending of dollars we don't have.
2. His pushing, together with congressional dems, for yet another stimulus package of 850 billion dollars that we don't have on top of the 700 billion already thrown down the hole.
3. His hands-off policy idea on the piracy that is going gangbusters off the East Coast of Africa.
4. His share the wealth ideas, which means stealing from me to give away.
5. His poorly masked anti-gun stance, which will pop out very soon now.
6. His anti-military feelings, and desire to pull out of Iraq far too fast.
7. His amnesty push.
8. His socialistic ideas that will creep into view soon.
This list will undoubtedly grow in the coming years.
Labels: Liberalism, Obama
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Left or Right, America?
Is the Public Turning Left?
It would appear that with the population aging, we should see a long-term trend to the right, not the left. This election, while an interesting interlude, does not portend any long-term move leftward, but, rather, it reflects a public dissatisfaction with "the way things are".
Much of how things are is not attributable solely to the right wing, or to the president, although one can see the pundits attempting to reinforce that idea in the minds of the electorate. In my opinion, the majority of Americans are indeed center-right in their outlook and in their hearts. I believe that many citizens have felt betrayed by the incumbent right, and hence voted against them, as opposed to voting for Obama and the left.
I also believe that some citizens felt it time to shake up the established rightist legislators, administrators, and judiciary by putting power to the left--temporarily, in their minds (which may well turn out to be a disaster for them and for the US). A year or so as underdogs just might bring Republicans and their conservative constituents to heel, so to speak, it is thought by some.
Many believe that the GOP itself has been moving leftward as well, which requires drastic correction to hold the right.
The undecideds, the independents, or whoever sits officially uncommitted to a party, were even more willing to vote Democratic, for the same change reasons, plus the Obama-factor, the Messiah factor, which has been very palpable to the public.
In my opinion, it is also true that the public is tired of the Iraqi war, with its loss of life, crippled men, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on an obviously dubious, although noble, idea: a free and stable Islamic Iraq that aligns itself with the US after we withdraw. The bad decisions and strategies in getting where we are now in that process have extended the time and resources needed beyond conventional reason, and with the Iraqi government showing its independence from our ideas now, we are not moving forward. To top it off, we seem to be going backwards in Afghanistan. Something needs to change here, the success of the "surge" notwithstanding.
Then comes the meltdown of our market, and the hard impacts it has had on every man's retirement funds and other prospects. Fortuitous, perhaps, but quite devastating to Republican chances in the election. Now here is a crisis of the first order, that was not foreseen, and was not headed off by the incumbents. The current administration is to blame in the eyes of the public, I suggest, which has driven many voters to the left by default. More of the same was not a good bet.
These factors support my contention that the public is not veering leftward in any permanent sense, but has been forced there by the current circumstances and the prospects for the near term. They will return when they see the leadership, the plans, the goals, and the issues and solutions that they approve of unmasked for their vote.
The beginnings of that are in Newt's American Solutions; which seems to be trying to become a non-partisan movement.
Will it be under the Conservative flag sooner or later? It would appear so, but with heavy bipartisan support.
Labels: Conservatism, Liberalism
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Obama the Socialist
See this!
Besides being found out to be a true member of The New Party, Mr. Obama has consistently voiced a socialist platform, although it is disguised sufficiently that the uninitiated would not pick up on it. Taken with his abominable associations with Wright, Ayers, and others, there is enough smoke to be sure that a fire is in there somewhere. How so many Americans can fall for this socialist/marxist I do not know. The Left is very close to winning now. I hope we can correct course before we are enslaved in a neosocialist government, and trapped in Constitutional revisions by fiat from the Supreme Court. We may have to start a Thatcher type revolution to escape their clutches.
Watch for further reregulation and government takeovers of major segments of the economy. These nutcakes will destroy America given enough time in office.
Labels: Liberalism, Obamania, Socialists, The Leftwing
Monday, September 22, 2008
Must read: The Drumbeat, by William Staneski
First of all, I agree with Staneski that liberals have thrust these attitudes onto the public: toleration, diversity, non-judgmental, egalitarianism, politically correct, multiculturalism, globalism, and collectivism.
Second, what I fear, and what Lawrence Auster has pointed out often, is that many so-called conservatives have bought into these same attitudes, to the peril of us all. True or traditionalist conservatives, however, forcefully reject these attitudes:
Toleration, when not reciprocal, becomes mere weakness.
Diversity, when referring to people or cultures, is only worthwhile when there is a solid and deep common ground, and shared values, to spring from. Diversity for its own sake is leveling.
Non-judgementalism is a copout to excuse the exercise of the above toleration and diversity. Good judgment is an attribute to be cultivated, not suppressed. One must exercise judgment for it to become a sharp tool.
Egalitarianism is meaningless: people are incommensurate in many dimensions, including mind, body, soul, culture, wealth, health, liberty, freedom, religious belief, energy, drive, i.e. every attribute I can think of, and they will remain so as they have for millennia. Equal opportunity is our heritage, but not equal outcomes.
Politically Correct: this is a curse born of over-toleration, extreme non-judgementalism, pervasive non-discrimination, and unreal egalitarianism. PC constraints inhibit clear thinking and clear debate.
Multiculturalism: we are in fact living in a multicultural nation, but its working vector should be towards assimilation, not maintenance of minority cultures for their own sake. Let the private minorities maintain their own cultures by themselves if they wish, but not to the detriment of our society, as Islam threatens daily, for example.
Globalist: after we have taken full care of our own nation, it is appropriate to lend a helping hand elsewhere.Charity begins at home, as does defense. The UN is not worth supporting further. There are global threats that must be met and vanquished in the name of self-defense--Islam, pandemics, and nuclear proliferation, to name a few. However, man-made climate change is not one of the threats: it is a man-made tempest designed to further seizure of power and promotion of global government.
Collectivist: In no political or economic sense does a true conservative ascribe to collectivism, but collective defense is an obvious truism.
Labels: Conservatism, hypocrisy, Liberalism
