In a recent article which can be found here, an editor of the Vanity Fair magazine tells the American electorate to "Man up" and stop acting like angry, hormonal teenagers. Here are a few points I would like to highlight about this piece of writing:
1. He believes the American electorate to be a bunch of self possessed teenagers who are acting out at their parents, i.e. the government. It has to be mentioned that this is a definite liberal sentiment, that "they" (statist, modern liberals, socialist etc.) know what is best for you, just like your parents did. They want "the best" for you but with that comes the erosion of your personal responsibility by the statist government. Some examples include New York state regulating your salt intake, and a general push in some states to not allow vending machines on school campuses for "the good of the children." It also includes determining if you should receive healthcare if your 65 years old or a new born infant because some government bureaucrat has decided he knows better the a physician does.
2. He also is still clinging to racism alledgedlly perpetrated upon President Obama by the American people especially those that love their guns and are just angry white folks. Look at Lt. Colonel Allen West in Florida, look at all the African American voters that stood within and with out the tea party this last election. This has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with the Obama Regime's agenda and a congress that was owned lock, stock and barrel by statist and followed regime's whims. Even then the regime couldn't always do what it wanted. People forget about the statist super majority and the senate and healthcare almost failed anyhow.
The gentleman from Vanity Fair attempts to sound a moderate but it is evident he is not. He clings to the liberal argument that the majority of this country is racist and hates Obama when in reality its the Obama Agenda that is truly despised. He wants to get back to the days of "moderate" President Bill Clinton which he apparently forgets was forced to the center after the statist attempted to pass healtcare reform during his first term and was "shouted at" by us angry teenagers. He also points out that what makes this national "teenage backlash" worse is that us right wingers like our guns and that statement further implicates this gentleman as another statist that just doesn't get it.
Statist will never understand conservative principles of freedom, liberty, nor personal responsibility. They want to take care of us.... The only problem is "We The People" grew up between 2008 and 2010 and we want our government back.
YOU WILL BE IMPEACHED IF YOU DO THAT. YOU HAVE WASTED A TURN. IT IS NOW NOVEMBER 2010.
>CAMPAIGN FOR ALLIES IN CONGRESS
IT'S TOO LATE FOR THAT NOW.
>WAIT
IT IS NOW 2011. WAR IS GETTING WORSE, PEASANTS ARE MARCHING WEEKLY. STATES IN THE FOREST ARE WINNING CHALLENGES AGAINST YOUR PROGRAMS IN COURT. YOU ARE IN AN OVAL OFFICE. THERE IS 20% REAL UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE FOREST. YOU HAVE 35% APPROVAL HEALTH. YOU HAVE NO GOLD LEFT. CHINA WANTS YOU TO GIVE THEM GOLD BACK. YOU HAVE NO CONGRESS LEFT. YOU HAVE NO MEDIA LEFT SINCE NO ONE BELIEVES THEM. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO?
“Somebody pointed out to me that when you're in a car and you want to go forward, you put it in ‘D,’” he said. “You want to go back in the ditch, you put it in ‘R.’ So I just want everybody to think about that.”
That doesn't make sense, does it. Those of us who are part of the country class know what cars are, and know how they work.
Democrat economic policy in one photo.
So there's this metaphor, where the economy and general state of the government is because someone drove it into the ditch. If you weren't aware of the CRA that caused the mortgage crisis or the democrats who resisted regulation of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac or the democratic congress that's been in charge since 2006 and wrote the bailouts (signed by fiscally irresponsible Bush who "abandoned free market principles"), you might just be willing to think that his metaphor makes sense. There are several more examples over at American Thinker, where they noticed the car metaphor sucks as well.
But, see, the people who drove us into the ditch were, in fact, the democrats.
We're at 9% unemployment, possibly as much as 17% real unemployment (which covers those who are unemployed but no longer looking for work) - we're in no way, shape or form "out of the ditch". Keynesian stimulus, like Japan's Lost Decade, never works - and it isn't working now. More "D" isn't going to help.
It's Uncle Sam charging more deficit spending on the credit card the Chinese gave to us. Democrat are using spending on credit to buy us bread and circuses right up until there's no more credit to spend. In no way, shape or form are we out of the ditch.
But Obama doesn't drive, and probably hasn't in a long time. I shall break it down further.
Pictures make everything better.
See, when you're in the ditch, and D got you there (because it almost always does), you probably want to try some R. More D is not going to get you out of the ditch.
Now, if he wanted a metaphor, he could've said "if you keep turning right, you'll end up in the ditch". It's an absurd metaphor, given democrat policies being the root of our current woes, but it at least is somewhat consistent with how cars work. Of course, the rebuttal, that when you turn left, you get hit by a truck, is also true.
---
To continue the car metaphor, though, the people riding in the car are seeing a lot of warning signs. The guys in D just keep going past them.
Because Obama knows nothing about economics, and neither did Bush and the 2006 Dem Congress, or the Arlen Specter RINOs.
The rest of the country is yelling "STOP THE CAR!!!" Hundreds of thousands to a million plus marched on DC in a Tea Party that the ruling class pres decided to ignore. Another few hundred thousand showed up to the "Restoring Honor 8/28" rally. All these folks are shouting "STOP THE CAR!" And the ruling class isn't listening. And those bought off by the ruling class aren't listening because the guy in "D" is paying them off.
And there's one passenger who's looking between the rest and starting to see that the train never stops, is always on schedule, no matter what the guy in "D" says, and won't make an exception - and is beginning to see that there's no way to miss the train - especially by driving between the cars. The undecided passenger is starting to see that they guy going "slow down" is good, and the guy going "STOP!!!" has the best plan, even if it doesn't sound very... moderate.
Economic reality is always on time. It just doesn't care what time you think it is.
But the ideologue leftists and the leftist ruling class think if you just apply a little more D we'll make it past. Socialism works every time it's tried - just ask Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, China, Ukraine, Belarussia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland...
And just like how socialism always works, more D always works. Just ask Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry.
For those who require refreshers on Economics, try here. Driver's Safety, try here.
Mr. President, please watch them. Please stop the car. Please listen to us.
Please listen to Thomas Sowell: "For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before."
We've seen Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry. We've watched Last Clear Chance and the Incredible Bread Machine. We know how this ends.
President Obama came out yesterday and was attempting to align himself with the Tea Party movement.
Oh yes, a definte laugh, or should this be a sign of concern for the mental state of our leader? This is the same man who TRIPLED the deficit of his not so popular republican predecessor. This is also the man that has spent more money than ALL OTHER presidential administrations combined. This is the man who has done everything he can with the support of the most liberal congress ever to centralize power in the hands of the federal government. The Healthcare bill fiasco, the 2nd stimulus, tripling the size of Americorps, attempting to shackle the populace with cap and trade all belong under this man's name. He now expects you all to believe that he is a fiscally responsible conservative president, that favors limited government and that the populace being wary of the government is a good thing? One word will some that up:
WOW.
Now he says that the Tea Party has misdirected itself. It should be angry with the republicans still in office. Guess what Mr. President.... We are. We are mad at both sides of this mess because it took both for us to be in the situation we are in. But right now YOU and YOUR party have exclusive control of the federal government. You and your party are spending out of control, yes we do know that the occasional RINO votes along with you, they are being revealed and being marked for replacement in the coming November election as well. You and your ilk, Mr. President, think the citizens of this country are stupid and cannot keep up with politics nor understand the arguments. The Tea Party itself, made up of both democrats and republicans sees right through you, your party and your lies.
Mr. President, the nation is very disappointed with you, even your misguided followers, who think you are not doing even to "fundamentally transform" these United States. Now it is the citizen's turn, Mr. President, on 2 November we intend to fundamentally transform Washington D.C.
This is everything that Barack Obama and the left preach. They attempt to indoctrinate people, seems they like to focus on children. Speaking of which I know several schools across the country got their "education" video whose return address comes from the Department of Education via 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
They also attempt to create rights to shore up their voting base. Seriously folks? High speed internet isn't a right, for a list of rights try reading the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. Is high speed internet a nice tool? You're darn right it is. Does it warrant a government subsidy so those who can't afford it or it isnt available in an area can get it? Absolutely not. "Chairman Julius" Genachowski, and former FCC chairman Michael Copps need to keep their "collective" hands off the constitution and focus on monitoring radio stations for curse words. However, Copps seems to want to do otherwise by stating very clearly:
"You will need and you are entitled to have these tools and services available to you. I think it is a civil right."
Guess what "Chairman" Copp, try heading to a public library. Most of them today have high speed internet and that type of technology in place. We don't need to spend any more money that we do not have on goods or services that the left feels is a "right" so that they can get re-elected. We have already done that with Americorps to increase the number of government subsidized volunteers, and we are about to reap the "so called benefits" of a government option healthcare system. America was already the world leader in "private interest" volunteerism and "had" the worlds' best healthcare system. There was no need to spend the money on two of these issues.
Most importantly Leftist want to redistribute wealth to low income families or if you prefer take money away from those who have worked their rear ends off to get what they have. This can also cause those lower income families to vote for whomever "shows them the money." However, that money has to come from somewhere, and its the taxpayer, or worse yet it gets borrowed from China or Japan. The leftists' believe that even if you have whatever it is they are subsidizing that they will just go ahead and give it to you any way because the extra income is "useful." Really? Useful to get you reelected? Useful to help that low income family? Will that low income family use that money wisely? Will that money have oversight to determine if it is being used for it's intended purposes?
Clear examples of leftist ideology, and clear examples of why the leftist way never works. It is impossible to oversee and fund a subsidy in our current economic state without the raising or creation of taxes (another leftist pillar). You can't create rights out of thin air. If you do you asking for the destruction of a nation due to the populace losing all its iniative and its will to work or produce anything of economic value. You can't indoctrinate people either, if you do, today you risk completely alienating the popualce due to the internet and the growing number of citizens that are "doing their civic homework."
One can clearly see all these elements of the leftist plan at work and the good news is that people are now seeing it for what it truly is and people are throwing it back in the leftist "collective" faces.
2 November is approaching, please be sure to register to vote and discuss the issues with family and friends.
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
Yesterday, the UK Independent posted this zany piece of tripe:
It is always tempting to home in on the absurdity of the Republican right in America, the almost comic quality of some of their views and the ludicrous nature of the accusations they hurl at President Barack Obama.
The paranoid and hate-filled world of the "birthers", the Tea Party people and all the rest is so alien to the British experience as to be incomprehensible. We tend not to take them seriously, or assume that the Republicans' constant lurch to the right inevitably renders them unelectable. We may be making a mistake. The huge size of the rally held in Washington at the weekend – where several hundred thousand people turned up to hear the Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck announce that America was "turning back to God" – provides further disturbing proof, if any were needed, of the growing popularity of the hard right.
The paranoid, hate-filled world of leftist Hillary supporter Philip Berg? Or is it because Obama brings up the birth certificate issue every time he gets the chance as a way to ridicule people he doesn't agree with? And what better way to address the birth certificate issue than to pass a law preventing it from being conclusively addressed? It's a funny soundbite on the surface, but since the long-form certificate has been hidden rather than shown to the public, it's just another indicator that transparency isn't valued at all by Obama. (Showing it would be a 5-minute solution to what the left claims is an issue.)
That part about "we don't control control every branch" sounded kinda ominous. As though he mentally punctuated it with "yet".
Tea Party hate? Oh, that's right, Brits do tend to be in favor of high taxes on the colonies. We've seen this before.
That means you, you snotty redcoat.
The root of the problem is in the second sentence, though. They "tend not to take seriously". Why? Because (haughty brit accent) these are peasants from the flyover states! Why should we take seriously the drivel that these know-nothing serfs prattle on about. They should be groveling at our magnificence at our wondrous ability to lead them into a glorious future, rather than resenting the grandeur that we have bequeathed to them. These chattering bucolic simpletons had best mind their manners when addressing their betters.
Whatever haughty Brit or snooty ex-pat wrote this, they don't have a clue. They revel in their ignorance. Quite literally - they ignore ideas that disagree with them in their ivory towers, and are annoyed when someone disagrees with them.
The reason their ivory towers run the way they do is because the conservative, provincial flyover states feed them, the blue-collar conservative worker builds their houses, and the baby-killer soldier they readily mock defends them. The elitist left exists in an artificial environment - which is why none of the left's ideas ever stand up to reality. They're like the stereotype of spoiled teenagers who think their parents fools, but who don't understand that their parents are the ones insulating them from the world.
The fact that the rally was held on the site where Martin Luther King made his "I have a dream" speech 47 years ago has caused offence among the heirs of King's civil rights movement, who resent Mr Beck's assertion that the two causes have much in common. But ructions from that quarter will do Mr Beck and fellow star turn Sarah Palin no harm among their supporters. It is more likely to do the opposite. Overwhelmingly white, conservative, rural and religious, their constant complaint that they "want their country back" is in part a thinly-veiled snipe at Mr Obama's race.
And Krauthammer is right again. "Overwhelmingly white" and sniping at race. So they're racists. Well, at least the left is consistently unoriginal.
From the stack labeled "Community Organizer Chest".
The problem with this is that American conservatives judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
This Republican guy made some good points. Maybe the left should listen to them.
American conservative values, as we've expounded upon here before, are based in conserving American virtues. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Kinda important things that ultimately defuse racism rather than support it.
Now, did it cause offence to the heirs of the civil rights movement? Maybe if you consider people who engineer strife and hatred to keep their race-baiting going. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out of business if they didn't keep racial resentments simmering.
Those who weren't heirs, but were actual movers in the civil rights movement seemed okay with it. MLK's niece, Alveda King, spoke at the rally.
Here on the other side of the Atlantic, we await two things: for so-called ordinary Americans to recoil from and disavow the right's toxic, divisive rhetoric; and for moderate Republicans to start re-asserting the very different traditions of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and George Bush senior, for that matter.
Toxic? Divisive? Lower my taxes is toxic? Divisive is "quit taking money from one group to give to another"? Really? Note the Independent has no actual "toxic, divisive" quotes to give. Since there aren't any.
Moderate republicans? Lincoln? Sure, he preserved the union. He also suspended habeus corpus. I guess that's sorta like the left. Strong central govt, individual rights don't matter in the face of "the greater good" and the modern left can use moral equivalents to Lincoln's actual war against slavery to justify their own abuse of individuals.
Eisenhower wasn't a moderate. He warned against the military industrial-complex expansion of government, as well as gigantic federal expansion in other sectors of public life. He espoused small-govt principles in his farewell speech. Watch:
And Bush Sr. was not a conservative. New world order, all that jazz.
Neither of those outcomes seems to be materialising. Centrist Republicans have become a marginalised minority in their own party – eclipsed and somehow out of place among people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear in almost every sentence. Meanwhile, Obama's fellow Democrats are heading towards mid-term elections in November in a mood of despondency, and expect a drubbing at the hands of their adrenaline-filled opponents.
The gulf from leftist statism to liberty is vast. Centrists are those willing to appease, who have no principles. The left - the international left - wants more centrists to cut down the power and autonomy of the American individual. The expansion of state control by Obama and his Mao-loving, genocidal, communist cohorts is something that the American people reject.
The left rejects religion, because it's an affront to worshipping the state. The Brit saying "people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear almost every sentence" is of the class that also says that God is not appropriate for a sacred spot.
The UK Independent sums up with this, praising Obama: The man they chose as his successor remains what he was on day one; a decent, thoughtful patriot and a builder of bridges who still aspires to lead a country in which race is no longer the defining issue. He has given the country a measure of health reform and begun the process of disengagement from costly and unpopular military entanglements.
Modern liberalism, both domestic and international, is threatened by the Tea Party, is threatened by folks like Glenn Beck and his Restoring Honor rally, and is threatened by people who believe in their own independence.
There's a socialist/communist anti-capitalist poster that says "the boss needs you, you don't need the boss". This isn't quite representative of reality, as "the boss" is just an individual (or representative of a group of individuals) who's amassed enough capital to be able to employ you, the worker, to help him with production. Provided you're in control of your own sale of labor, you can change jobs if you like, build capital if you like, and potentially become the self-employed worker who exercises his own use of capital and doesn't need the boss, or be a boss. None of which is bad.
The free market individual who understands this has no reason to fear this propaganda piece, that, while strictly true, isn't representative of reality.
When applied like this: "the big government bureaucrat ruler needs you, you don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler" - it becomes a threat to bureaucrats both domestic and international. America was founded on less government - and every time big government is shown to be the failure it is - big government rulers get scared.
Rush is right on this. The left will tell you who they fear. They fear individuals who don't need them. They are at their wits end, as Krauthammer notes, and have reduced themselves to crying racism. The race card is maxed out. And we don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler. The left fears that.
This is what our country is coming to.... Congressmen acting like "badasses," and of course a President that says the following:
How presidential is that? Couple these two videos with this congressman from Illinois:
Who the heck do we have running the country? Are they elected officials that serve the public, or Al Capone, Dirty Harry, and Clyde Barrow? I truly hate to pick on just the leftists who are destroying our country, but I haven't found any video footage like this where conservatives or even republicans are concerned.
November is fast approaching America. Encourage your neighbors and friends to get out, talk about the issues and go vote when your time comes.
Beautiful scenery (of the flesh and ecological varieties), freedom from authority, all night parties, spring breaks in Panama, free flowing booze, all the tail one could chase, large sums of money freely given with just a simple promise to pay ten years down the road...college sounds pretty awesome in theory. For most, college truly is that much fun; it is completely understandable given the not so harsh reality and the further glamorization of college by popular media (Old School, Animal House, Van Wilder, every Kenny Chesney song ever written) that everyone wants to go to college.
As an educational system, our curriculum standards are written from grade 3 up for college readiness. If a child fails the college readiness exam, we consider he or she a failure overall. Upon researching school districts, Frisco ISD in Frisco, Texas, a very WASP-y district, boasts that 99% of their students aim for a university education post graduation. Schools everywhere are cutting trade education in favor of hosting more AP classes and intervention periods in which teachers pull specific students for one on one tutorials. Why the urgency? Why the insistence? President Obama recently signed the health care bill into law and with it a huge overhaul of student loans. He commented on the overhaul, which discards the banks role in student loan lending, by saying "Those were billions of dollars [in interest] that could have been spent helping more of our students attend and complete college". My question is this: Why do MORE of our young adults need to attend college? We have a tremendous educated work force, yet tremendous unemployment; more education does not equal more jobs. More and more companies are outsourcing because Americans are refusing to work cheaply enough to meet said companies budgets. The notion is that if you have an education, you shouldn't have to work at McDonalds, or a road crew, or answering phones for AT&T. You are entitled to a better job, an easier place in life because you slaved and sweated and toiled for your degree. Reed College in Washington state recently refused admittance to a select group of students because they couldn't pay for their education. Of course, the NYT had a field day victimizing these poor, unfortunate souls who were being "discriminated against" because of their inability to pay. By that logic, does Wal-Mart discriminate against me when I can't afford an LCD TV? Higher education is neither required to make a living, and in this day and age, half the time it's not beneficial either.
The highest paying job I've ever had required a GED; the highest earner at that position in that location made over 100k a year. I'll never make that with my B.A. Some of the most respected positions in the community don't require higher education-police officers, fire fighters, paramedics. Why does our government keep insisting that higher education is a right? Is it possible that by enabling us to go to college, the government is really crippling us? In today's college focused educational system (that is derived directly from the government program "No Child Left Behind"), kids are not taught anything about common sense. They learn nothing about child rearing, farming, budgeting, how to maintain a house, or how to fix a car. All they learn is what the textbooks (also censored by government agencies) tell them to know. All I'm allowed to teach as an educator is how to pass a multiple choice test. I should be teaching them how to work hard and earn their keep, how to fill out checks and job applications. Instead, we talk about how to eliminate answers and highlight titles. Eliminating answers and highlighting titles are not real world, real life skills. I'm always one to give the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to fear that maybe this is all calculated, all planned. Yes, the government wants to you attend college and become liberal (a documented phenomena). Yes, the government pushes everyone like a herd of cattle that direction. Yes, the government makes it as easy as signing your name to attend university. It is possible that, yes, the government is carefully coercing us to do what it pleases? That's a tad paranoid, but I just can't see the value in emphasizing higher education so vehemently. Society needs educated people, but we need skilled people just as much. We need landscapers, and food servers, and janitors. Those positions are hard work and when done correctly, can foster confidence and instill the values that our grandparents held so dear-dignity, self-respect, and humility. I'll take a person with those qualities any day over someone who has a 3 dollar piece of paper to prove that they learned the difference between transcendentalism and romanticism.
If the actual education is what is of value, then why isn’t the government creating 60 billion dollar budgets for local libraries! The local library can teach you mountains more than any four year education. The problem is, the issue at stake here is not the actual acquisition of knowledge; the issue is that for whatever reason, the federal government wants young people to physically attend college. College attending voters came out in record numbers to vote for Barak Obama; could the democratic party be leaning on that trend to continue and hence the addendum to the health care bill? Perhaps this is all ideological, and the higher ups in D.C. believe that people have a right to higher education. I'm fairly sure there is no moral code, religious or otherwise, that states that education leads to happiness or emotional health. Our constitution does not promise "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of the MBA." Higher education is simply an option, right for some, and not for others. Holding a degree makes me no better, no higher, no more morally or ethically sound than anyone with one. To suggest so would be elitist, arrogant, and myopic. Yet, that's what our government-run school systems do every day. We come down on children and make them feel like failures to society if they are not the picture perfect Berkley kid or MIT prodigy. Higher education needs to be a privatized sector with capitalism at it's core; those who wish to go can get their paper route at 14 and start saving up. Those that don't wish to go should be encouraged to trade schools, family businesses, or just a good job. That would put money back into our economy, create jobs for AMERICANS, and maybe even pull out of this slump we've delved into so willingly.
So, while college may be lots of great things, it's also four years you could be earning a salary, having babies, traveling the country, reading books of your own choosing, or otherwise enriching your life without keg stands or community showers or the freshman 15, and I could've told you all that without my degree.
Tonight, self-appointed wise men in Washington are steamrolling the objections of sixty to seventy percent of the population, and forcing a massive health-care bill down our throats “for our own good.” Presumably the backroom deals, corrupt payoffs, Congressional Budget Office accounting tricks, threats of unconstitutional parliamentary maneuvers, and betrayals of principle are also for our own good. What do you know? Banana republics turn out to be the highest evolution of government – the only form of the State equipped to take proper care of its citizens, by lying to them and trapping them in legislative cages over their howling protests.
--- “This is what change looks like.” - President Barack Hussein Obama 3/23/10
“To state the obvious this is a historic day... history is made when a leader's passion is married to principal.... Mr. President you are that leader." - Vice President Joe Biden 3/23/10
--- President Obama said last night this proves this is a government of the people, and by the people, except for the 55 percent of the people who opposed him. - Jay Leno, 3/22/10
There seems to be a lot of "Mao" in the air recently in Washington D.C. Between Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director and the "Manufacturing Czar," Ron Bloom, one would almost think the Obama administration would celebrate the 60th Anniversary of Communist China(oh wait, they did).
Anita Dunn's proclamation came in a speech to a group of high school seniors, "...two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa. See for yourself below:
She goes on to say that he is one of the two people she turns to most. She uses both Mao and Mother Teresea both being advocates of being able to make choices for one's self. Mao Zedong was a demagogue who enforced his views at the barrel of a gun (more on that later) and didn't give a whole lot of choice to his opponents politically. So, to use him as a proponent of having individual choice doesn't make a lot of sense.
It gets better....
Ron Bloom, the "Manufacturing Czar" is on the record for saying things like:
"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense."
and things like:
"We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."
So, for our beloved manufacturing czar (where's the jobs by the way) political power is enforced by the barrel of a gun, just like Chairman Mao used to do. If you think you can't believe what your seeing watch here:
It would see to me and to most others that there is a "Mao" infatuation at the White House. Well what have they shown us so far? They have shown us it is alright to get involved in the private sector by nationalizing banks, General Motors, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae, by attacking dissent by attempting to alienate Fox news. Here is what makes it OK to do all of these things, its their choice, just like it was Mao's choice. Its their choice to politically strong arm corporations, news services and the citizens of the United States, and if necessary, according to the manufacturing czar they will use the barrel of a gun to do it just like their hero, Mao Zedong did. They don't believe in the individualism and personal freedom that was set into the Constitution written by Founding Fathers, they believe it is the supremacy and power of the federal government to regulate and provide for the citizenry that matters. To them government "choice" is the imperative, not your individual freedoms.
If the thought, "What would Mao do?" is the mindset at the White House it is going to be a rough 3 more years. Mao style politics have the FCC working on regulating the Internet and reimposing a newer, stricter version of the fairness doctrine or even raising the possibility of bringing the news media under federal control (see Czar Wars Episode 2, they sure wish that would happen).
Mao style politics have Fox News under the gun politically because they air news stories that are not commensurate with the agenda of the Maoist-in-Chief. Mao style politics have tremendous amounts of political pressure falling on other news services to not disseminate news stories that originate with Fox News. Mao style politics are responsible for grass roots, pro-constitution organizations being labeled as racist, astorturf, birthers, and tenthers.
As a nation and free people we need to ask, "What would the Founding Fathers do?" We need to do those things, we need to get back to the basics of the constitution, return the federal government back to its constitutional limits, elect people of integrity and honor to office, and rediscover our moral compass. Only then can we can America back on its feet and reestablish ourselves and the leader of the world.
We will be looking at some Obama "Czars" in the next few weeks. This week we will be focusing on Kevin Jennings, the "Safe School" Chief formally employed by the Department of Education.His official title is the assistant deputy secretary in the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education. His appointment had no congressional oversight and apparently the White House vetting process has failed again.
Mr. Jennings is known for creating the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education network, which, "makes schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity." He has also been documented as encouraging and not reporting that a 15 year old student was having homosexual relations with an older man as was required by state law, where Mr. Jennings was a teacher.
This man is now in a position where he can effect policies that can have a significant impact on our children. If you have trouble swallowing that this is all fact I encourage you to read the following articles:
These articles have numerous links to other sites and other sources of information to help you make a decision on this "czar." If what this guy preaches is what you want to have your children learn in school, then let him keep his job. However, if you believe that this guy is just another example of what is wrong with this country then stand up and write the president, write the secretary of education, write your representatives in Congress and the Senate. Make your voices heard. Our children are precious and as parents we have to do everything in our power to protect them, even if that enemy is our own government.
"...for the first time and only time in history, a country of money-and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of being-the self made man-the American Industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose-because it contains all the others-the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity-to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. American were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words,'to make money,' hold the essence of human morality."
The above is an excerpt of a speech in the book, "Atlas Shrugged." A very true set of ideas. The American nation has had more success scientifically and technologically then any other nation in the history of the world. All this is due to the fact that our constitution, the best form of government men have produced, gives us that ability. The American man and woman have opportunities to do any type of work or profession they choose and to excel and become the leaders of their respective fields.
For the past 100 years there have been a group of people that have preached and continue to preach under the guise of, "Equality for all," that a man's mind and the profits it reaps are the property of others. How can this be? How can the ideas of a man be the property of society? How can the monetary profits of a man belong to a society? Writers like Marx and Engels over the years have demonized the American system. They preach that your mind doesn't belong to you nor the fruits of your labor, they belong to those less fortunate.
Who today is in control of America? Is it American Industrialist, who has done more for America and in most aspects, the world as a whole? Or is it the Social Justice experts, who preach that your ideas and the profits of your ideas belong to society as a whole? Think hard America. We have a president that preaches redistribution of wealth. We have a congress that wants to tax us to death to pay for government programs such as universal health care, when it is clear that health care is a service to be purchased. We have laws against monopolies "to even the playing field," and "to give others a chance," or "to spread the wealth." These ideas are un-American.
Has anyone ever seen a poor man offer anyone a job? No! We need to put aside the ideas of social justice and fairness. They do not exist. They cannot exist. We need to release the bonds which hold back our innovators, and our industrialist. Then we can see a restoration of the American dream, of men and women with ideas, of men and women with the means to make that idea into profits, those profits, in turn will become jobs, those jobs will then become someone else's money. This is the way we will revitalize America, it will work, but only if we as a people change our mindset. We need to elect people to government who will reduce the size of government, relax regulations and taxes, and return us to the true moral course, that of the constitutional framework of the founding fathers.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f02dc13c-b720-4f5e-9300-8de174f79ae2)
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e37c80df-420f-4867-b1b1-576bc11b39d7)
