February 7th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
Barack Hussein Obama...MMMMM....MMmmm....mmmm!
When you listen carefully to our "Stealth-Authoritarian-in-Chief," he never fails to amaze, even while his antics seem to continually evade his cheer-leading troupe in the mainstream media. But when it comes to The Blame Game, the President magnificently ekes out a position that's consistently "lame."
When the President actually undertakes to alienate an entire church, such as with the recent debacle with the Catholic Church, we can begin to see that Obama just can't seem to move away from his radical anti-Constitutional stance. Obama is actually requiring, in this latest case, via force of Government, the Church to completely ignore what is a basic foundation of the Church's policy with regard to birth control and pro-creation.
However, the Church's former stance, in complete support of Obamacare and Obama himself, lends this latest abuse a certain undeniable sweetness, to we Conservatives, who have been warning any and all who might listen about the excesses soon to be found in the colostomy bag of Obama's detritus.
In that vein, and in his most recent interview, Obama, rather than reaching back a diminutive four years to accuse former blaming-back, President Bush, this time decided to travel back in time over 230 years to essentially nail the Founding Fathers, themselves, for their short-sightedness.
In what should be the quote of the year, Obama begins by laying a flawed foundation of excuses by stating this:
"What's frustrated people, is that I haven't been able to force Congress, to implement every aspect of what I said of 2008"
Oh, really? Well, it would appear that the President's words speak to certain truths that he might rather be left unstated, when we peer very closely at those words. First of all, the people of the United States have no desire to have their grand potentate "forcing" Congress to do anything. It's always been, at least over these prior two centuries, the President's job to lead Congress, not force them. But force, as far as Obama's domestic policy goes, has always been the alternate of primary choice with regard to the Obama White House, when simple decrees just don't seem to get the job done.
As the quote concluded, I was hoping to see the part where Matt Lauer falls to his knees and begins spit-shining the President's shoes with his silvery tongue; for another time, perhaps.
But then, the second point here would be that the President had two very long years of a completely at-his-will Congress made up of socially Liberal Democrats. And these Democrats, by the way, were operative at placing virtually every big-brother, big-government policy known to man into action, at least in the amount of time allotted. Perhaps if Obama had played less golf and gone on less vacations, he could have accomplished every bit of his agenda, which is why you rarely saw this one complain.
But, lo and behold, our Constitutional Republic has an automatic answer, built in, for those Leaders who think they have express carte blanche. That answer, being the remedy of all ills, specifically allows for the people, in this case, to let their President know exactly how they feel about his leadership. Obama's Congress, as a result, was voted out of power in 2010, thus pre-empting the President's ability to boldy usurp our Liberties any further, at least via congressional means.
However, Obama narcissistically ignored the People's will, even here. You see, what's truly frustrated We the People is not Obama's inability to pass his entire Saul Alinksy agenda, but rather the struggle to figure out a way to actually stop him from doing it, and it has worked, at least in part.
But, then, Obama adds the cherry on top in his revealing interview, by stating this:
"Well, you know, it turns out that...Uh...our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change, that I would like sometimes"
Indeed, they did Mr. Obama, and being a Constitutional expert and attorney, you also know the reasons as to the "why" the Founders made it so difficult to arbitrarily change things, even as Chief Executive. We do, indeed, understand your not "liking" being limited in the amount of mass chaos you are capable of producing.
However, this "why," Mr. President, was the Founders' exact solution, just in case, in their undying, if not prophetic wisdom; someone came along, who is exactly like "You."
Neat how that works, huh?
January 30th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
"Oh, My God, " pretty much sums it all up.
Many do not seem to fully understand the battle that is raging, at present, within the entire ideological Right-Wing of the United States, but raging it is, and in a way that seems to defy our history as a nation. In fact, the latest onslaught as perpetrated by the political Moderates, along with the so-called "Conservative Media" and its laughably labeled oxymoron of the year, being Conservative Elites (not possible), has created an enormous amount of confusion between the standing of the two prime GOP candidates, those being Conservative Newt Gingrich and Moderate "Willard" Mitt Romney.
While watching this entire Dark Comedy hungrily unfold itself, like a slimy alien from a particularly dank hiding place, I could only shake my head ruefully and wonder mightily. The Moderates in the Republican media were unleashing an unparalleled internecine assault against Newt Gingrich after his South Carolina Primary win. In fact, the Gingrich double-digit win in South Carolina, a thing that none of the establishment Republicans had truly anticipated, transformed the simple and yet revealing GOP Primary tic-tac-toe match of the last 6 months, into a game of multi-dimensional, winner-take-all chess, such are the stakes in this Center-Right versus fully Right-Wing contest of the ages.
It was only a few days before the SC primary, when the great, and yet increasingly dubious, Charles Krauthammer, a man who I've typically found myself largely in total agreement with in the past, had joked that after New Hampshire, there was no way that Gingrich could win, while he was mightily proselytizing on Bill O'Reilly's show. Krauthammer went on to actually state that Gingrich was not at all going for a win in the SC primary, but rather Newt was only after "vengeance" after Romney's no-holds-barred assault on Newt in Iowa.
Now, at this point, my brows began indignantly furrowing, only two comparably small primary contests so far, and Krauthammer was projecting a Romney win already? Not only that, Krauthammer was setting up a scenario that implied a complete lack of political character in Gingrich's seeking vengeance and destruction of Romney, even while totally disallowing Gingrich as a viable candidate. Nevermind the fact that Santorum actually won the first contest in Iowa. Krauthammer went on to note that Gingrich was nothing more than "Captain Ahab on the lose." "Ouch."
At this point also in the interview, I knew that something was seriously amiss with Krauthammer's Conservatively-inspired, but highly moderated angst. While my suspicions had been piqued, it didn't take long for those suspicions to become well-founded. On Thursday, January 26th, the document dump began in earnest to clear the way for Romney in Florida by completely eviscerating Gingrich.
Ironically, it was only a week or so later in Florida that a Romney spokesman admitted that the goals of the Mitt Romney Campaign were to completely alter Romney's plan of attack, away from the Marxist Obama, and towards an all-out attack of Conservative Gingrich. Not only that, and I quote a Romney spokesman, "Our goal is to completely destroy Newt Gingrich." Um...So, like, is it time for the maniacal villain spooky laugh yet? Cue it Mitt, "Ah-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!"..... "Gulp."
So, is this what you were, perhaps, referring to with your Captain Ahab remark, Charles Krauthammer?
A Demonic Ricochet
To that end, what had begun as nothing much more than an inner-family squabble at the outset, between a coalition of the Tea Party, Conservatives and Libertarians, fought against the anemic Establishment Republican Moderates, has now quickly devolved into a Battle Royale waged on the illicit terms of internecine warfare, as predicated by these Establishment Elites. Or put in another more extreme way, wanton ideological genocide of the Republican base by the Establishment appears to be the rule of day, as perpetrated by those high-profile professionals who languidly reside rather loosely within the Right-Wing of American politics.
But do they, the establishment types, actually understand this schism as being the penultimate harbinger of whether or not a possible third party could come into fruition, especially from these poorly conceived, group-think shenanigans?
The usual suspects, those being the primary Politicos and political columnists within the mainstream media and beyond, in retrospect, have reacted rather predictably on one level, but also, quite hysterically on another. For Instance, in the screech heard round the world, the lovely and increasingly Moderate Ann Coulter, shrugged out of her part-time straight-jacket, and let loose a venomous hail of indiscriminate fire against the entire state of South Carolinian Conservatives, for Heaven's sake, after they chose Gingrich as their man, en mass. Coulter, in effect, accused these most Conservative of Americans of being Democrats, while implying an almost demonic influence at work. This tirade predictably raised hackles all over North and South Carolina; while we, the natives of North and South Carolina, may have our silly differences, you just don't mess with Family, Ann.
But it didn't stop there, oh no. It was, indeed, just beginning as the Romney machine robotically clanked into motion, and the spinning blades of bureaucratic bedlam surged into action. One of the first was none other than Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, a Tea Party favorite, who having been obviously co-opted by those in power, at least on Gingrich, stated this: "I am fascinated that he is running as the non-establishment candidate, when he is the epitome of the establishment." Now, one supposes that someone within the vaunted halls of power should remind Rep. Chaffetz that Gingrich has been out of the US Government for over two decades, while, Chaffetz is, in fact, part of the Government, now. So, who is of the Establishment?
Attack Of The Killer Moderates
Next was former Sen. Bob Dole, another Moderate who served as Senate Majority Leader for several years and had little good to say about Gingrich; in fact, pretty much everything was bad, which coming from a Moderate, is actually a good thing. Dole, let loose a withering cannonade of repetitive fire against Gingrich, which amounted to this whiny approximation: "I lost the Presidential race against Bill Clinton because of the antics of Newt Gingrich," (paraphrased). Ah, yes, Dole was not at all to blame, to be sure.
Another Moderate, and also another former Presidential campaigner, John McCain, who recently endorsed Romney, stated of Gingrich, "A desperate candidate is a candidate who attacks someone who succeeds in the Free Enterprise system." Indeed, jilted John, and yet, were you not leveling attack after attack on Mitt Romney in 2008, prior to your losing to Obama? So, by McCain's own reckoning, he himself was apparently a desperate candidate back in 2008 for his attacks on Romney, and we're not at all surprised by this; we were rather desperate, too, as I recall. By the way, McCain also attacked millions of successful Businessmen and Business women, along with hundreds of millions of successful citizens, who make up the Tea Party, as nothing more than a bunch of "Hobbits." Now, let's get this straight folks, anyone who attacks the Tea Party as conceived, to me, is not even worthy of consideration. But then, there is this rather brilliant campaign ad by McCain who completely backs Romney and calls him a flip-flop in 2008, that is before McCain himself became a flip-flop in 2012 in his backing of Romney the flip-flopper.
Also in the mix, Tom Delay, the feared and former Conservative House Republican Majority Whip, who was sentenced to three years in prison in January of 2011, stated, "Gingrich was ineffective as a Leader," among many other things. This, after Delay apparently incited a coup to try to take over Gingrich's leadership post in 1997, while also infuriating House Majority Leader and Tea Party favorite Dick Army. Delay stepped down from his finally realized post as Majority Leader after a 2005 indictment.
But it actually got even worse from there, as even The Drudge Report itself began piling into the pro-Romney bandwagon. So much so, in fact, that former Senator and staunch Conservative Presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, actually stated, "Mitt Romney has The Drudge Report in his back-pocket." This due to the fact that Drudge has apparently been pushing pro-Romney, anti-Gingrich propaganda from his site for months according to the Politico. Which would be fine, as long as Drudge might undertake to parlay the ideology of his powerhouse site clearly across each page, as does this site, with the words "Conservative" proudly emblazoned across each and every page. I don't know, though, somehow "Moderate" just doesn't have the same kick....
The storm of stories and articles seeking to nuke Newt would just keep coming from any and everywhere, including the Liberal media in Chicago, the NY Times, USA Today, virtually every Liberal and Moderate Republican media outlet known to modern civilization. I mean, you know things are bad when the supposedly Conservative National Review even gets in on the act of pummeling Gingrich in favor of Romney. The supposed "coin of the realm" being Republican Elliot Abrams, launched a withering attack on Gingrich, which appeared in the National Review, where Gingrich was said to have attacked President Reagan, only to be completely disproven as false in a later fact-finding article in American Thinker by Jeffrey Lloyd, titled, "Elliot Caught Misleading on Newt." In the article, Lloyd was able to prove that Abrams had cited a Newt Gingrich quote falsely as having disparaged Reagan, when in fact, Gingrich had been staunchly defending Reagan. Tsk,Tsk...and we "Bloggers" catch all the hell?
Reagan To The Rescue...Again
So who are we to believe in all of this, finally becomes the question?
Well, the final answer to this question must go to the heart of the question, and the man of American history, and quintessential Conservative, who appears to be at the center of this ideological battle: The late President Ronald Reagan. Now, who better to ask of this question than one of President Reagan's fiercest and most loyal of defenders, that being staunch Conservative and Reagan's own son, Michael Reagan. Granted, I have only exchanged very brief notes with Michael, in the past, but I have come to understand Michael Reagan as being a man who has honestly and deliberately carried the torch of truth about Conservatism and his Father's legacy proudly into this generation and, to be sure, well beyond.
Michael Reagan has, in fact, elected to go out onto the campaign trail with Gingrich in order to but right the record of Gingrich's support of Ronald Reagan in the past. On the subject of Newt, Reagan states , " Gingrich represents the Reagan Conservative wing of the Republican Party against the Rockefeller Moderates," and Michael further states that "The people who say he wasn't there weren't there."
So, that's pretty much enough for me, my friends, and it should also be noted that anyone who has read this site consistently, knows of my most profound feelings and adamant affections for President Ronald Reagan, his enduring philosophy, and all that he represents, even now, to America and even the world.
So, What's Up With All Of This?
This battle, that has always been fought between the Constitutional Conservatives on the Right and the political Moderates of the center-right, nominally within the Republican Party, has always been, for the most part, a thing little understood and nearly impossible to define to most, otherwise-engaged, Americans. The reasoning for this is no less simple to figure out than the origins. The core of the problem appears to revolve around the varying degrees of either strong belief or measured disbelief, on a set of particular core issues held by each. Some issues being closely held, while others being distantly managed, the overall sum, along with their various weightings, becomes the bellwether for the political party and sub-grouping that each individual ultimately identifies with.
At least this was the way that it once was, in simpler times.
Nowadays, one Republican's or Democrat's beliefs may often run the extreme gamut, from the Liberal to the Conservative, or somewhere in between, on a range of issues, and this "gamut" being averaged out is "sometimes" the determining factor by which a particular politico will choose his party or his ideology or even be chosen. In other instances, it becomes a thing by which other individuals, often being supreme opportunists, will simply seek to advantage. In fact, the chosen party may come down to something as simple as a conveniently vacated seat in the House or the Senate, or even some disaster of a personal nature that a vacuously unprincipled political opponent can advantage for a sometimes outrageous personal gain at election time.
Granted, everyone has a different life story, and many still operate under those same "old values," but the political leaning will often nowadays be determined by an open vault of some very serious and certain other very ridiculous "where are you at" questions. This point is also why you will often see many groups or political causes that inspire an immediate double-take, followed by a confused shaking of the head.
Interestingly, these issues will invariably change over time and often within a single generation. The thing that may have motivated someone in 1912 may often bear little resemblance to the thing that motivates another person in 2012. But the gentility that was once a foundation of Conservative values, in these waning days of Obama's self-defeating lunacy, has now become an anvil by which no idea or issue can easily be hammered into measurement.
For instance, a powerful belief in fiscal responsibility and Constitutional adherence lies at the very heart of the Conservative Tea Party movement, and yet it's somehow considered radical by some? And yet, a considerable number of the Establishment Republicans, along with virtually the entire Obama-led Democrat Party, in tandem with the Media, hold these Tea Party values to be a thing worthy of scorn, and even ridicule at best, in numerous instances. In fact, if one watches very closely, one will even often see a deprecatory smirk by certain Republicans and virtually every Democrat when speaking of the Tea Party, even while the ravages of the smarmy moderate class have nearly driven our Republic to the verge of bankruptcy.
Individuals, it should be noted, as far as political issues go, present much the same as fingerprints in that no two are exactly alike and each is ideologically defined by the sum collection of his or her political beliefs, rather than the one or the few. Indeed, within that sum of beliefs in each individual, the degree to which each issue is held will also present much like a pallet of colors, no one shade being identical to its neighbor. The final result of all of these intangibles will virtually always culminate in each political primary becoming a thing that's always contentious and rarely, if ever, boring, along with that atypical question, increasingly heard near any contest, being, "are you sure you belong in this wing of the Party?"
Make no mistake, even the Messianic Mandragora, Obama himself, has grown withdrawn and even confused, as to where exactly, the Left-Wing aiming reticule should draw a bead, as the tactical battle for control intensifies. Interestingly, a target-rich environment on the Presidential side was the last thing that the Democrats actually wanted, because you see, the Obama ravaged Liberals are quickly running out of their most potent ideological ammunition.
The True Lunatic Fringe
To wit, the Establishment types now know that the Conservative movement that is raging throughout America, and has raged, over the past three years, could sweep the status quo in Washington completely out of power, and very soon. Remember, our goal, as Conservatives and Tea Party Members who love America and its Free Market Capital system, is two-fold. The first goal is regain control of our bewilderingly mismanaged Constitutional Republic away from the imbecilic Progressives and Elites who seem to lurk in every dark corner of power, at present, inside the Beltway and beyond. The second goal of action is to sweep out those members who claim to be of the Right Wing, while actually acting as dizzy denizens of the Left in their trampling of our US Constitution.
But what is beyond hysterical in all of this is the fact that we now have a bunch of squishy Moderates, those of the true Lunatic Fringe, trying to convince us that their selection of the Establishment's Romney is the most Conservative of the candidates, while consistently attacking the Conservative's choice of Gingrich as being a Moderate of the Establishment. Which, come to think of it, dovetails quite nicely with everything we have seen from the Obama Administration itself. That being, what once was up has become down, what once was good has become bad, and what what once was Moderate has now become Conservative.
But we simply aren't buying it this time around. We still understand what a Conservative actually is, and while Romney talks the talk pretty well, he has rarely if ever walked the walk. In fact, everything about Romney screams Moderate, with even a certain, discernably latent, liberal echo effect. The mere fact that Romney fails to inspire anyone, beyond a bequieted and formal "clap-clap" of the hands, as opposed to Gingrich's thunderous standing ovations, rather conveniently displays where the Party's passion truly lies.
But, would we vote for him, being Romney, and defend him in writing, were he the final GOP nominee? Without hesitation, is the answer, barring certain extreme ideological difficulties, to be sure. But our defence of Romney might also encompass a far greater measure of hope than the actual Conservatives, currently in the race.
Point In fact, being, in every single presidential contest waged over the past 40 years, the Conservative candidate has won and the moderate candidate has lost.
Now, why do you suppose that is?
I know you're out there You're in hiding And you hold your meetings
I can hear you coming We know what you're after We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter
Lunatic fringe In the twilight's last gleaming This is open season
But you won't get too far
'Cause you gotta blame someone For your own confusion But I'm on guard this time
Against your final solution
We can hear you coming No you're not going to win this time We can hear the footsteps
Out along the walkway
Lunatic fringe We all know you're out there Can you feel the resistance?
Can you feel the thunder?
January 27th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
The Jacksonville GOP debate ended on the ominous note of essentially burning-up on re-entry, as Santorum had performed masterfully, on this night of Conservative angst, right up until he tried to explain why he should be President.
Santorum, who had earlier laid out a beautifully orchestrated, master comparison, on the demerits of Romneycare versus Obamacare, essentially simmered Romney in his own healthcare juices. The fact that we had actually conceived and written a cautionary tale on this very scenario during a Romney versus Obama debate, several months ago, only made it that much sweeter for this writer. You see, our chief problem with Romney, among others moving forward, is his mandated health plan for Massachusetts being Obamacare's model. The fact that Romney will have a most considerably difficult time explaining his rationale for Romneycare, with what both has been and will be, a chief issue in the 2012 election, can only accentuate his culminating appearance as being the Right-Wing's prime minister of hypocrisy.
But on the final question being delivered to a brilliant Santorum on this night, as to why he would be the most qualified to be President, Santorum's rambling answer amounted to this:
Um....Because of Obama's answer to Midwest manufacturing...
Say what? He pretty much lost me, and probably everyone else, on that sum-it-up disaster of an enigmo mystery theater closing remark.
But Romney, on the last question, paused from an entire night of stabbing Newt Gingrich in the back, with his 14-inch platinum butcher's knife, long enough to gave a stirring answer. An answer which was to prove astonishingly erudite for a guy who lived, on this evening of debate, in a gold-plated, diamond encrusted cardboard-Demon box located in the dank, cheap-shot alley zip code that he gleefully resides in much of the time, as it turns out.
I mean come on Mitt....
I've seen military base loan sharks who were far more gracious than Romney--and with far sweeter dispositions.
Romney's main opponent in Gingrich, who having noted the crowd's languishing attention, along with the mounting consternation of Paul and Santorum in the Blitzer-agitated snipe-fest, had actually suggested a temporary truce with an outstretched hand to Romney. In answer, Romney peered over at Wolf Blitzer, cut a lizard-like glance at Newt, and then promptly chomped Gingrich's outstretched hand off like a hungry, malevolent velociraptor with young to feed, no less.
Classy guy, this is.
But at least Romney did finally show us his big-money, tunnel vision, Wall Street-predator side. When the subject of a visionary scope came up regarding, the moon, space exploration, and even a future commercially financed Moon colony, as predicated by Gingrich, Romney, yet again, indicated he would just "fire the guy" for bringing the subject up.
Yikes....so that's how he did so well with the Olympics.....
At any rate....Good thing Kennedy saw space exploration in an entirely different light. We could have all grown up drinking "Tang-yevsky" orange juice, if Romney had been in charge, it should be noted.
But, sheez, Mitt apparently just loves seeing people lose their jobs, it would seem. Saying "You're Fired" is apparently one of Romney's chief goals in life. I mean, the man seemingly talks about it all the time. Watch out Donald Trump, I think I can see where Mitt is headed if the presidency doesn't exactly pan out for him. Although, it should be noted that Trump's billions would make even Romney seem a pauper (Na-na-na-na-na). However, Romney's penchant for seeing folks lose their jobs, after already being skewered for it by the press only a few weeks ago, is a thing that both Romney and Obama have in common, and in spades. Common ground, in fact, between Obama and Romney is actually not so hard to find, according to George Soros, of all people.
Moving onto our Conservative hero in Gingrich, Newt seemed to spend most of the night slumping over his lecturn and grimacing, as if the "Politico-Abysmal" that had been poured down his throat all day by the Establishment Media and the moderate Politicos, was finally taking its full and mostly fatal effect.
The fiery guy with loads of gravitas appeared almost burnt out, and he even allowed Romney to challenge him on money earned without the slightest, "are you kidding me," reprisal. So, look Newt, the next time Mitt brings up anything regarding money, just start laughing insanely; that's all you have to do, dude. I mean, come on.
In fact, Romney left some gaping-wide holes in his arguments that Newt could have navigated the Costa Concordia through, and even score massive applause points, to boot, without coming close to any shoals. But Newt just stood there looking smugly disarmed, like a big sleepy Q-tip that had lost its way in a forgivingly complex, and yet unforgivingly greasy, ear canal, for Heaven's sake. Probably still gun-shy over the still ridiculous "Left-Wing Language" Bulls**t" that the establishment has placed into effect to protect their Golden gullah in Romney.
Ron Paul? Well, he elucidated some really fantastic answers on the domestic side, and then, with a surgeon's deft precision, blew it all up again on the foreign side, grinning endearingly the entire time. He apparently enjoys building things up and then blowing them to smithereens, but at least he's mostly honest, and for Heaven's sake, you can't help but to love the man.
Ron Paul , aside from his other many talents, could have been a special effects guy extraordinaire in Hollywood and done just smashingly, as it turns out.
January 20th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
It was a damningly nefarious quote uttered by a very, very, high level Executive.
One that, in fact, should easily be instituted as the cornerstone of the 2012 GOP Presidential campaign. And yet few actually know of this particular quote.
The utterance, politically delivered in front of a hyper-ventilating mass, at the time, has only been repeated here and in several past columns, and perhaps in some few other unidentified sites, whenever the time was right. But it potently speaks transformational volumes, as to the prescribed "change that we can believe in," yet atheistically reject at every turn. However, to this day, we have yet to hear of any candidate, to include the originator, actually repeat the sad and ominously incipient grouping of words, if not at least for posterity's sake or its reverse.
So, here it is, dutifully laid out and hyper-linked, once again, and probably not for the last time:
The portent of this quote, quite obviously, speaks for itself, but it also additionally speaks to that which this nation has been forced to economically endure over the prior three years.
However, the outrageous hypocrisy of the Center-Left and beyond apparatchiks, along with some few others within the uninspired Right, still choose to blissfully ignore this once and future quote, which could easily drive a number of Independents, and even a few of those preciously modulating Moderates, straight into the arms of an affectionately waiting political Right.
If only they of the unaffiliated could but understand the underlying quotient.
So, why is it that a quote that has been repeatedly documented, time and time again, seems only to be remembered, if not repetitively proliferating, in one particular Conservative writer's columns? Surely I am not the only Capitalist writer or businessman who truly understands the Cloward-Piven import of these words, but maybe I am still only one of the few that actually knows for certain of this event.
The source is clearly documented within the, obviously un-retracted, Chicago Daily Observer underlying link. There is no doubt that the man uttered the words, and those words alone were once, after a particularly disdainful messianic speech, twittered out by this writer in an exasperated fit of extreme frustration. The results of that tweet, by the way, were a bit less than what I had unwittingly expected, when Twitter's Left-Winging officials canceled my former account that same day.
At any rate, Obama's multi-nefarious, anti-Free Market stances are a fact that both the Media-at-large, and even certain Moderate Presidential Candidates, tremble in dread at mentioning, despite the reams of evidence readily available. Obama is clearly not a fan of Capitalism and yet, in a bizarre twist of logic, many of his largest contributors and most vocal supporters, tend to be Capitalists Extraordinaire. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, just to name two, count themselves as ensnared Obama supporters. Another, even more extreme supporter, George Soros, who is the multi-billionaire who financed the genesis of Obama's Presidential run, is an ardent anti-American-American and one-world, Global Capitalist, of the first degree. It is also a documented fact, that George Soros will even tell you, that the World financial crisis of 2008:
So, all implications aside from that particular quote and its leering grin at economic upheaval, how can it be that a man who makes billions, while using every basic tenet at Capitalism's disposal, appears to vehemently despise America's "Leader of The Free World" brand of Free Market Capitalism as a thing that is dire need of replacement? It is, even further, a well known fact that Soros has used capitalism to break, by lever of hedge, a number of various countries' currencies, which ultimately led to massive losses of both property and wealth to many innocent civilians. Soros has broken the British pound, the Thai Baht and the Malaysian Ringgit, among others, to the extreme detriment of millions of citizens and businesses. In many cases, Soros will actually utilize Capitalism to negatively effect political and social changes, shifting the political paradigm to the far Left, whenever possible, unless its to his extreme advantage to manipulate the pieces in an opposite direction.
This mis-utilization of Capitalism is a thing which we more and more frequently refer to as Left-Wing Capitalism, which is nothing more than a distant, if not despised cousin, to actual Capitalism as practiced by most adherents. We would define Left-Wing Capitalism in this way: The reverse usage of historical Capitalism against itself to defund, severely weaken or even bring down the practice of Capitalism in a given system. A self-concealing, outward approach, to chaining markets, limiting free market capitalism, and promoting a centralized Keynesian bureaucracy.
Now, with regard to George Soros, and his many well-documented evils, the vocal, pro-Capitalism, Right-Wing of the United States, along with all of its stars and political celebrities, will, in virtually each case, abysmally denounce and attack Soros as a fierce, Left-Wing tycoon with great indignant Right-Wing fervor, and to their credit. In fact, none will ever say that Soros' brand of Capitalism is a thing to be defended at all. Ergo, none will ever call an attack on Soros as an attack on Capitalism, despite the fact that what Soros practices is an extreme form of illegitimate Capitalism, (also see Crony Capitalism), nor will our Republican establishment ever call a Conservative attack on Soros as unbefitting to the political Right.
However, very interestingly, and in this same Capitalistic vein quite recently, the already powerfully answered question of what has made America great, in the form of Capitalism, has surfaced once again in what many have deemed to be "an erroneous attack on Capitalism." This supposed attack on our way of life, by only the two most Conservative of Candidates in the GOP Primary, specifically targeted the question of Mitt Romney's business past.
You see, it was Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry who took the argument of business ethics to Romney in both campaign ads and verbal rejoinders, and have done some very integral "campaign payback damage" on the question of corporate raiding, as can be meaningfully seen in your morning paper everyday since. However, the lashback leveled at our two Don Quixote, as a result, has been an undulating howl of protests from every single corner of the Right-Wing establishment and beyond.
Indeed, from extraordinarily prominent Conservative Radio show hosts, Conservative TV hosts, moderate Senators, Left-Winging journalists, Republicans, Socialists, Democrats, Communists, Groundhogs, Rinos, Warthogs, gazillionaires, you name it, each has chimed into some kind of attack against Gingrich and Perry, along with anyone else who spoke up and delivered an opinion that perhaps these alleged instances of possible corporate raiding by Romney should be looked at. And this very fact alone should give each of those continually piling on a most great and extraordinarily significant pause, because when everyone's thinking the same way, then no one is actually thinking.
In fact, we have heard some vary caustic, if not extraordinarily bellicose remarks, from each of the aforesaid prominent individuals, as well, aimed at anyone who agreed in principle with Gingrich and Perry's attacks. My personal favorite, of many, was this one, para-phrased:
"Maybe these people, even Conservatives, just don't really understand what Capitalism actually is."
Another quote which became an establishment talking point, was this one:
"These Republicans are using the language of the Left."
The two quotes, used in tandem above, predictably erupted into a dashboard pounding, vehicular tantrum of epic proportions from me. Because, at this point, I knew that my angry, gut-level, initial reaction to all of this was dead-on, not to mention all of those business ethics classes, dutifully required of my vocation on a bi-annual basis. So, are we to understand that the Republican Establishment, along with some others who apparently leave business ethics completely outside of Capitalism, are embossing a sort of group-think mandated censorship onto the entire Right-Wing of the Republican Party?
In fact, my non-conventional side tells me that this entire sequence of events would seem to beg the question, "Is it actually Capitalism that is being attacked by our two Conservatives, or is it something else, altogether?"
Now, maybe some on the Right will still adamantly agree with those who criticize Gingrich and Perry on this same very basis, as their attacks on Romney's possible Raiding as being anathema. However, I would submit that they who have joined in have never had to listen to what their Conservative American Grandfathers would think of this sort of protracted nonsense, being laying companies to waste for profit's sake only, and then cheering about it as if it were a grand playoff game. But my point here would also be for each of our howling members on the Conservative side to note which wing of the Party has been the winner, so far, from the peals of outrage emanating from the Republican establishment at Gingrich and Perry. You see, there is only one man who has actually been the establishment's numero uno choice from day-one, that man being, ....politically Moderate Gov. Mitt Romney.
The possible ethical problems with Romney's highly successful career at Bain Capital are just that. They are not at all questions of attacking Capitalism, but rather, they are an assemblage of evidence that might paint Romney as an unethical Raider, in some cases, rather than an inspired job creator, as he has been sold to many of us on the Republican side of the argument.
The charges leveled state that Romney sacrificed workers, and even entire companies, for the reward of an extreme, if not outrageous profit gain, throughout certain periods of his career at Bain. One of the alleged corporate victims, of the cases most recently pushed into the public eye, occurred in South Carolina, according to The Sun News, and was a steel mill located in Georgetown called GS Industries Inc.
Bain Capital spent $24.5 million in initially acquiring the steel mill in 1993, and for a number of years oversaw the operating of the company until the steel mill eventually declared bankruptcy in 2001. Interestingly, and during that time period , an overall net gain or stock profit to Bain Capital was recorded of over $33.9 million dollars in less than ten years, well better than double the initial investment. However in 2001, the bankruptcy proceedings for GS Steel recorded a figure of $ 158.7 million in unsupported debt to assets. Even more interestingly, and during that time period, Bain reported management fees and dividends, outside of the purchase to sell figure, of nearly $ 1 billion dollars. Now, if we go back and revisit the actual debt recorded at the time of the bankruptcy declaration, and then look at the total amount of income derived outside of the stock purchase realized gain, even a non-business person can easily see that these numbers appear outrageous, on the face of it.
So, why was it necessary to essentially vacuum over $ 1 billion dollars out of the company? Had that amount not been so extreme, would not GS Steel have easily survived? The answer to that question is a resounding "yes" according to James Sanderson, who states that the steel mill was doing fine until Bain Capital bought it out. In fact, Sanderson states that the company was "run into bankruptcy" by its mismanaging owner, Bain Capital.
GS Industries,which was combined with several other companies in 1995 and head-quartered in Charlotte, NC,was, at the time, the largest carbon wire rod manufacturer in North America, with sales of over $ 1 billion dollars annually and 3,800 employees. Sanderson states that Romney's firm was obviously more interested in making outrageous profit than making steel, and that the managers knew essentially nothing about successfully operating a steel mill. Now, does this sound kind of familiar, as in putting a Marxist/Community Organizer in charge of the largest economy on the planet, and balefully assessing the ensuing results?
In fact, this was not the only instance of extreme profiteering at the actual company's demise for Bain Capital. Photo album maker Holson Burns, which is located in Gaffney, SC, was also bought for a cool $ 10 million in 1986, and then eventually bankrupted only four years later, entering a total profit to Bain of over double the initial investment at over $ 22 million dollars. Now, is this profiteering, ultimately at a company's demise, a thing that we would call Conservative, or does it better fit in the venue of Soros' specialty and that of the practice of Left-Wing Capitalism?
You see, when we hear the dreaded Socialists and Statists making regulation, after rule, after regulation in ultimately dragging our economy down, they are hampering those of us who actually believe in growing companies rather than wrecking them for pure profit's sake. In fact, it was billionaire, Carl Icahn, who is credited as being the man who inspired more Securities and Exchange regulations than any other single individual or entity. Is this something to be proud of? I don't personally think so, myself. In fact, if anything, if what one does requires a new regulation, then it was probably something that should not have been done in the first place.
But herein lies the rub, because these regulations and laws are actually enabled by those in the business world who do precisely the very things that are written about above by both Soros and, in these cases, Bain Capital. Should the act of running a company into the ground, seemingly for pure profit, be against the law? Heaven's no, because of the problems of proving intent, but these types of abuses do not help our cause, especially when we are trying to educate the younglings coming up of what capitalism is truly all about. Further, it should be noted that Bain Capital has been instrumental at growing some of the most successful companies on the planet, such as Staples and the Sports Authority, just to name a couple. So, our particular critique cannot at all be taken as examples of what Bain has done incessantly, but rather, we can look to these examples as instances of how not to conduct our own businesses.
It's also a granted that many of us small business Conservatives can only shake our heads ruefully whenever a gaggle of deskbound journalists or politco's, TV types, etc. can only sit around and raise cain at us about not being true Capitalists because of a dissenting opinion, even after persevering through the early days of Obama's attack on the Free Market. But, it was Thomas Jefferson who stated "of following the crowd blindly," this:
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, that that of blind-folded fear."
Benjamin Franklin, on the subject of Capitalism, wealth and ethics, said this:
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Here, Franklin was quite obviously stating that wealth at any cost was probably not the wisest of choices, but he made a vague connection to this idea in the form of liberty itself. Was Franklin indirectly warning his Countrymen of the connection between the unethical use of Capitalism and a loss of Liberty, if not exercised wisely? Indeed, we need only look at the suffocating regulation of the Dodd banking bill to establish a meaningful connection for the one, as it approaches the other.
On the proper execution of Capitalism, economics Professor Walter Williams says this:
"One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one’s fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him."
On the subject of blaming the system, i.e. Capitalism, rather than the offending party, President Ronald Reagan said this:
"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
Finally, in my earliest days of becoming an Account Executive, the company owner and my business mentor, taught me, one of the most basic, and yet important, of the precepts of service in industry, that which we call the Golden Rule of Business:
"He who has the gold rules."
Now, when you take that rule and apply it to the other Golden Rule, being:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
You can then understand the Conservative rules of business, that I have seen most of my small business associates utilize on a daily, if not hourly, basis.
Perhaps it's the reason that few of us in business will ever actually become billionaires, but let me assure you that, as it regards Conservatives, the "R" that stands for Republican does not at all also stand for ruthless. However, many of those precious Moderates and Independents might be wondering, after all of the bull we have heard spewed about by "some few" Republicans, most recently.