Indoctrination? Creating Rights? Wealth Redistribution? The Same Ole' Progressive Agenda

From the Blaze:



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.

Two Ducks in a Pond - Dolores Huerta and Hilda Solis

Delores Huerta and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis are literally two ducks in a pond.

The speakers of the "We Can Help" campaign that allows workers "documented or not" to petition the federal government for help. Here is a video taken from the new news site: The Blaze



So how do you feel about that America? Is it alright for these women in a government advertisement to give support to workers, "documented or not?" Undocumented workers is now the liberal code word for illegal aliens who do not rate support from our government.. Is it really the law to for the government to ensure "safe housing and transportation? I know I'd like to know which law that happens to be.

To go a step further, the excerpts of Huerta's speech to a Tuscon highschool assembly openly flag her as a radical socialist. These two women are clearly another example of which our president has told us before, to judge him by who he surrounds himself with. For almost 2 years now we citizens of the United States have been judging you and your form of government and soon you will see our respons.

The Ruling Class vs. The Country Class

Angelo M. Codevilla has written an excellent piece over at American Spectator entitled
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It's an excellent read, though a bit long.

He divides the nation into two classes - a ruling class and a country class. The ruling class, is by and large, blue state-oriented, govt.-oriented, non-producers who believe they know what's best for everyone, and they should rule. The country class, is by and large, red-state oriented, private enterprise-oriented, producers who believe that individuals know what's best for themselves, and that individuals should rule themselves. The ruling class desires authority, the country class desires autonomy.

From Codevilla's piece:
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.
--
The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today's bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are "epiphenomenal" products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second -- or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.
---

2004 - both major candidates for president were members. Was there a conspiracy? No. They're just members of the same ruling class. The secret society is a coincidental symptom, the ruling class is the disease. Unless you're Alex Jones. Then they're all reptilians.

---

Caroll Quigley, historian and professor, who had an influence on Bill Clinton and his Rhodes Scholarship:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

Quigley may have brought this up as part of his belief in conspiracy theories... or may have brought it up as a model of what an individual political party should do (as in the rapidly evolving idea that Obama's weaknesses are going to be exploited by Hillary Clinton in 2012, to the effect of unelecting Obama's overt radical leftism and electing Hillary's not-as-overt radical leftism). It ties in with the idea that there is a ruling class - a class that rules by patronage and pull.

It also backs up the idea that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties in the US, much less branches of those parties. With RINOs on one side and democrats on the other, it's a convincing case. With the illegal immigration debate in 2007 - where the ruling class of republicans and democrats were united against the country class - the people - it was made pretty apparent.

It's also why the media selected a RINO candidate for pres in 2008 - by choosing the one the ruling class approved of. McCain was and is a member of the ruling class. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, and especially Ron Paul, were not.

It's important to note that the media itself is part of the ruling class. Consider NPR's griping about the "Tyranny Of Constituency".

The NPR poll shows why individual House members wind up being more loyal to their own jigsaw piece of the national puzzle than to the national puzzle itself. Only their own micro-constituency can vote for them (or against them).

NPR considers it terrible when representatives actually represent the people who elected them, rather than go along with the national ruling (leftist) class.

National Public Radio promotional still from a telathon. Seen with sunglasses.

Unless you're Alex Jones, then this is pretty much all you see everywhere. Without the sunglasses.

--
But individuals with principles who adhere to them aren't rulers. Originialist judges don't rule on a whim. Constitutionalist legislators don't write things because they feel like it.

And there is a simple way to tell apart the ruling class from the country class.

I use what former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Hupp said:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

It's a litmus test for whether a politician is part of the ruling class. If they don't trust you with your own security, and if they don't trust you with physical power, they're ruling class. If they trust you, they're country class who work for you, the citizen. Even if they harbor some ambitions of the ruling class, they're still someone you can reason with, because at the basic physical level they believe in self-determination and individual autonomy.

Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws

Because govt. wishing things to be so by making regulations and restrictions on free people have the typical outcome - harm to the people. Meanwhile, the govt. and their wishful thinking propagandists go out and try to convince people that govt. influence is what's helping them. Much like the parent with Munchausen by proxy who makes their child sick so they can "save" them.

Immigration Gumballs

Note this guy is only talking about the effects of having a loose legal immigration policy. Since illegal immigration represents a huge number of people arriving in the country and impacting the population, adjust the size of the chart accordingly to represent the 12 million illegals here today in 2010. Also notice that there really wouldn't be any effect on the big jar if your heart still bleeds.

Harry Reid, "Lost in the Sauce?"

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The following information is taken from the following articles:

WND: Tea Partiers vs. Reid Supporters: 10,000 to 100
Las Vegas Review - Journal: Reid Kicks Off Re-Election Campaign in Searchlight

Here are some of Harry Reid's comments from the last several day's in reference to his re-election bid for his Senate seat:

"The people who are upset really don't know why they are upset.... What do they mean?"

The people don't know why? Really Harry? I can help you with that one. They are upset that you people in congress have passed into law, a healthcare overhaul that threatens to literally transform the United States into a socialist state, where a person's health is affected by a government bureaucrat, and roughly speaking our incomes will be getting taxed by double if not triple the current rate to pay for it. It will increase premiums because insurance companies will be forced to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions which has been likened to purchasing insurance for a car you just wrecked on the interstate. Those increased premiums will lead to more people being forced to choose the "public option" or if you prefer, "the government option" because they will not be able to afford private health insurance which is what you and your fellow statist are all about: MORE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT!

"I'm not a big poll guy.... Everyone who knows me knows I have never paid attention to polls. The only poll that matters is the on election day."

Harry, honestly I think you are going to be very surprised, just when you and your fellow statist "just knew" in your heart of hearts that "Kennedy's seat" could never go to a republican. You just disregarded the voice of the people then in the polls just as you did in Virginia and in New Jersey in those governors' elections. I think you are going to be surprised once again Harry when you lose your seat in November.

In reference to the 10,000 Tea Partiers that showed up in his hometown of Searchlight, Nevada:

"The vast majority of people don't feel that way.... The vast majority of people want problems solved and that's my business, solving problems."

He doesn't understand the Tea Party movement nor does he understand, due to his inability to process poll information, what citizens of the United States really want. They don't want this horrible monstrosity of a healthcare law that destroys the freedom to choose your healthcare, mainly when, where, how, and from whom you get it. They do not want the federal government spending like there's no tomorrow and borrowing vast amounts of money from the Chinese. They want more offshore drilling to reduce or dependency on foreign oil especially since the majority of that foreign oil comes from those who would rather see us dead. All Harry understands is power for powers sake, especially in the hands of the federal government. They want less government, less tax burden, less regulation on themselves and small business, more jobs, more freedom, and more liberty. That's a citizens' idea of solving problems: reduce and/or remove government from the free market.

And finally the most telling quote:

"They (The Tea Party) want things to be the way they used to be.... Things will never be the way the used to be."

Reminds me of something someone else said not too long ago before they took office. Its about "transforming" the country. The statist/liberal/progressive/marxist/communist/socialist/fascist (choose your favorite term) in Washington are literally remaking the country in the image of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Maoist China. Is that what the citizens of the United States want? Is it what the country needs? How will Reid and the others find out? When the only poll that matters to Reid (and his statist brethren) is taken, and it'll be here in November 2010.

What Freedom Demands

What Freedom Demands
posted at 10:12 am on March 22, 2010 by Doctor Zero

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.

Read it all here.

Some folks are already just saying no.
http://repealit.org/

---
“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

In Obama's America, Government Leads You!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, Part II

Take the ten minutes to listen to words that sound like they were spoken yesterday, not in 1961:


Change the names of the Congressmen to Pelosi, Reid, Slaughter, Waxman, Obama, and it's the same push for socialism then as is today.

Except today, the Congressmen don't bother writing back. They'll just do what they want, because they've decided they're the ruling class.

And the media lapdogs play along.

Health Care - The Big Picture Is Bureaucracy For Life

Mark Steyn lays out the case here.

So there was President Obama giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that "now is the hour when we must seize the moment," the same moment he's been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.

Why is he doing this? Why let "health" "care" "reform" stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?

Because it's worth it. Big time. I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture.

It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.

...

Compassionate statism: "We shut down the business that employed you, but now we'll give you bread. We feel your pain. Don't you love what we for you do on your behalf? We put your doctor out of business, but we'll take care of you. Now get to the back of the line."

Steyn continues:

Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists.

The short history of the postwar welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect "conservatives," as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who for tuppence-ha'penny or some such would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.

Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A big-time GOP consultant was on TV crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass ObamaCare because it's so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November.

Okay, then what? You'll roll it back — like you've rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago?

Like you've undone the Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel 'n' dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter?

Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:

"Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?"

Read it all here:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=525661

Yuri Bezmenov points out that it only takes 15 years to fundamentally change a society by subverting education, which results in a generation of children who think according to how they're taught. If you make a generation beholden to government, they won't think any different.

Thomas Sowell talks about how he and his wife paid for their first child's birth in installments, how they lived without health care, and how before employers were nigh mandated to provide health insurance, people paid for doctors' visits with their own money. Thomas Sowell is of a considerably older generation.

Like social security, like unemployment, like any of these other progressive social programs that redistribute wealth and are viewed as "good" by the newer generations, all it takes is one generation raised on the handout to accept it and make it that much more difficult to discard.

The imposition of the chains will be such that people will forget what it's like to live without them. They'll wonder how they'll take care of themselves without government to tell them how to live. Progressives/leftists/statists seek it because it makes themselves valuable, and gives them power over the people.

Works on the personal scale, the local scale, and the national scale.

"Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . " - Grover Cleveland

Information Overload: How Obama is using Saul Alinsky's Playbook

Lots of things going on in Washington D.C. these days, from confirmation hearings for the supreme court to words on a second stimulus bill, to hardly publicized meetings between the president and various union leaders concerning universal health care. Glen beck from Fox news gives his take on the "Information Overload" our "Watchdog" media seems to be experiencing.