November 14th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
The establishment in Washington has, most recently, taken on a rather endearing "deer in the headlights" appearance, as the talking points have post-electively been crafted and sent spinning out into the ethnosphere in ever increasing spamitude. The results of the election coupled with Obama's Asia trip, more economic meddling by the Fed and mystery missile launches off the West Coast in addition to comical Democrat infighting has catapulted our ongoing Obama Drama into ratings levels only paralleled by erogenous cigar work and blemished blue dresses. The Un-President's Asian trek, seemed to have its desired effect in skewing attention away from the bloated carcass which used to be the Democratic Party and goldenly showering the spotlight, yet again, onto the often hysterical musings of our teleprompting Neo-Titan.
The first thing that surprised many was the fact that Obama, and resultantly, America were not exactly the centers of international attention for even India, the largest Democracy on the planet, as so often seems to be the argument by the Mainstream Media. Why you might ask do I state this? Simple. It appears that the Indians were totally taken aback by the fact that the great and brilliant Messiah, the Communicado-in-Chief, refused to utter nary a silvery-tongued syllable unless the blessed teleprompters were strategically installed around his temporary dais of mis-information. Say what? You mean his now infamous use of the teleprompter was a surprise to them? Indeed it was! Many have seen the hilarious web-skit of Obama's teleprompted Thanksgiving meal with the First Family, which is but one of thousands of jokes that have circulated concerning Obama's magical speed-reading skills (which might also point to his rather unremarkable memory skills.)
But, Obama did, in fact, become the first Official, whether visiting or otherwise, in India's entire longish history to speak before their Parliament by utilizing a teleprompter. The bemused Indians were quite taken aback as a result--"We thought Obama as a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact"-- wryly noted one official whose voice seemed eerily familiar. To which we would respond, No my dear foreign friend, you have understandably confused what seems as ordinary eye contact with what is actually Obama's hypnotic third eye contact--a totally different medium of expression. Oh, and thanks for helping me with that bitchy modem problem, by the way; we Americans often fail to say thank you properly.
Defining Jihad For (Certain Highly Placed) Dummies
However, the International incredulity did not end there, Obama's entire trip spawned all sorts of brazen and yet deserved critiques from both home and abroad. While in Mumbai and during the President's Town Hall with a large group of students, the President once again, became an apologist for jihad on the one hand, while maddeningly continuing his failure at identifying terrorism for what it is and who it predominantly belongs to, on the other hand. The President's first question appeared to be an atomic doozy as the student asked Obama what his take or opinion on jihad was. Before we let the fun begin, we first need to discern what Merriam-Webster has to say about jihad defined:
1 A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also a personal struggle in devotion to Islam, especially involving spiritual discipline
So, in each of the above two cases, its pretty much what we expected as to our ongoing experiences-- in having dealt with jihadism as a nation.
The second definition reads much as the first, if not even a bit worse as far as we infidels are concerned:
2 A crusade for principle or belief
Ouch, a bit of Christian-ish lingo sinking in with regard to crusade except--just add a smidgen or more of gunpowder and a dash of bolts and voila', violent jihad. So, after noting the official definition, we should now turn to "the muck stops here Messiah" and hearken to his personal definition:
Obama: "The phrase Jihad has a lot of meanings within Islam and is subject to a lot of interpretations"
Us: OK, first of all jihad is not a phrase, it's a word and words have meanings Mr. President. You know, like "Marxism", "Totalitarianism," or even "Anti-Capitalist-- these, in fact, are words. While phrases have mixed meanings, ex: "Socialism is a waypoint to Marxism" or "The Dark Lord" or even "we're turning a corner." These are phrases that we feel certain you are most familiar with Mr. President. So, the President even starts out with a bit of obfuscation. But after going on and on about how Islam is one of the world's great and peaceful religions and actually performing his best Billy "Abdul" Graham impersonation, Obama got down to the really interesting part of his non-teleprompted (we think) version of jihad:
Obama: "This great religion, in the hands of a few extremists has been distorted to justify violence towards innocent people that is never justified. And so, I think that one of the challenges that we face is How do we isolate those who have these distorted notions of religious war and reaffirm those who see faiths of all sorts-- (oral listing of various religions)--accepting that we can all treat each other with respect and mutual dignity"
Us: Now, a lot of people seem to have missed what the President actually stated above which is an exact quote, except I didn't stenote the oral list of various religions, because at this point in the article I have a surprise party to attend for one of my younglings shortly--which was a surprise even to me--to my dutiful wife's verbally pelted chagrin. At any rate, no one seems to have picked up on the President's odd verbiage. As a matter of fact, it sounds almost as if the President might be stating that the problem lies with both the Islamic extremists and their diametrically opposed critics. Indeed who can deny the mutual respect felt when a number of our ideological opposites painstakingly, if not mal-thoughtfully, prepare a personal IED just for us or a few of our citizenry or Soldiers by the way?
But, notice, for instance, that the president did not say that we need to isolate those terrorists who attack innocents in the name of Islam, that would have been crystal clear. Instead, the President actually stated how do we isolate those who have distorted notions of Religious war. Now, would the President be referring, perhaps, to the many of those individuals at home who took issue with the Ground zero mosque for instance? For example, who can forget Nancy Pelosi's ominous words indicating a need to track down the funding sources of those individuals opposed to the Ground Zero Mosque? Does anyone think that any idea from Pelosi at this point is one of native cerebral origin? Or Even better--Pelosi's continually blanching at her mis-thought of being responsible for *America's losing 500 million jobs a month?
* Footnote: America's population is about 320 million people including illegals Folks, sorry, but that is just plain freaky stupid for a sitting Speaker of the house.
Even better, does Obama feel that those particular individuals who have distorted notions should be isolated for actually daring to question the goal of another religion which he crows incessantly about?--even those who rail against overt islamists at home? Surely not, and yet the President seems to have left a good deal of wiggle room within what will ultimately be a translated text of what he said, which could end up with an even greater chasm of what was meant for one crowd versus what was or will be heard by another. Point being, translations always lose a bit of this or gain a bit of that Ladies and Gentile-men, and anyone who thinks the Townhall was unscripted might wish to perform a checkdown on the student's microphone and the strategery involved in its placement.
Bro And The Volcano
As the electoral fallout from the election continues to create havoc within both the Democratic Party and even the Republican Party to a lesser degree, we can begin to now see that the elections were nothing more nor less that an immense voter volcano of Righteous retribution. The people of America, in essence, blew their collective tops after immeasurable pressure had built up within the Civil Society over the course of several years as a result of Obama's increasingly outed agenda. Luckily, this pressure had a conventional means of quickly venting in the form of the People's eruptive vote.
This outburst of votes has performed the powerful and beneficent feat of sweeping a large number of the witless Democrats out of office. State Legislature after State Legislature fell to the magma that is the people's retributive anger in addition to the Federal Government's Democratically controlled grip being severely compromised. As is so often the case, the people on the higher ground i.e. those located within positions of extreme safety were able to retain their political lives. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were able to avoid the voter's pyroclastic flow of derision by a number of unconventional means, but those who dwelled within the lower realms were unable to escape. In all the Democratic Party lost 65 seats and 6 in the Senate at this writing, a tectonic shift in which one would have to reach back over 70 years to find as a similar occurrence in American history.
The cumulative ashes of the fallout from the election, even now, continue to coat the entire Nation as State Governments will see a renewed vigor from those who believe in a lesser stance on behalf of Governance rather than greater. Likewise the Mainstream Media can be seen as furthering their ongoing efforts at controlling the subduction zones. Those areas which act as a buttress between the People's cognizance and the Political realities that now exist. No one either knows or fully understands what, exactly, the political landscape will look like until the fallout has been cleansed away by both time and the elements. But one thing is certain, the dark force that exerted a powerful movement against the massive tectonic plate that comprises the will of the American people has been stopped--at least for a time. The President, in a near precognitive response (Omen Theme here), fittingly, swept both himself and his considerable montage out of the Country for a 10 day sojourn back to the lands of his youth if not his birth certification.
The Dark Side: Quicker, Easier, More Seductive
But we are also now beginning to see something which, ever more, appears to be a backlash against the traditional morays and traditions of the Country. If one but observes and monitors closely, one can begin to now see the glimmering of another phenomena coming to bear--as if we haven't already seen enough my friends. The shadow forces that rail on behalf of Statism, Socialism and Globalism that swept the President into his positions of power now seem to be making themselves known in a rare public showing of fealty to their embattled and scorched Leader. The dark forces of the left, emboldened by the impressive showing of their ideological opposites the powerful surge of relentless Conservatives of America awakened, are becoming bolder, even more active. In fact, what we are seeing in the seeming boldness of the various communists and socialists increasingly making their presence known, is not actually very hard at all to figure out. Just as many, including this formerly quiet Conservative, jumped into the arena of action when the unquestionable evidence continually pervaded that America was in trouble and under threat from the dark, negative voices and actions of Statism; So it is with the forces of the leftward, those clueless citizens who do not now, nor probably ever will understand the truest underpinnings of human existence. The somnambulant soldiers of the left see their leader and movement formerly going just swimmingly, now see their agenda under duress and may have decided to out themselves while at an obvious apex in the political power curve, in a total if not final scorched earth policy of defense for their leader.
When one sees all of the ideological pieces of the puzzle laid out, a substantial number of which now properly placed, the impression evidenced thus far is undeniable in its composition. The Nationalizations of various Companies and Institutions, Statist Healthcare, avowed globalistic goals in abeyance to Nationalism, redistribution of wealth already partially activated, States suing to retain self-determination, judicial incoherence in bench legislation, Federal Governmentally supported religious preferences (Mosque), Federally avowed Union supports, Congressional and Judicial power usurpations, no borders premising as in Mexico, the list is endless and the abuses of powers are approaching viral saturation. The 112th Congress could, in fact, be quite busy in ways yet unimagined.
When we see what was formerly the main American unit of Globalism's carbon trading exchange, CCX, shutting down as a result of the Republicans coming back into power, we can begin to incept judgment. CCX, whose two largest benefactors being Al Gore and Goldman Sachs Bank, has been closed as a result of the global warming meltdown and the Conservative Ascendancy. When we see commercials being aired which showcase a number of historically clueless individuals touting the wonders of a Communism-- of which none have actually experienced, we can begin to understand something different being afoot. When a well known journalist in Larry O'Donnell comes out of hiding as an avowed Communist, at severe risk to his career, while minimizing those who are garden variety liberals, you can rest assured of a change in timbre if not tone.
The Infection Of Quantitative Idiocy
When we see quantitative easing occurring, which is a sneaky recrafting of the term debt monitization, which was earlier sworn against by both the Fed Chief and the Fed Secretary, we must know that something is occurring which most certainly should not be as Country after Country has vilified America. The touted benefits being cheapening our exports while promoting inflation and demoting deflation, seem a bit monovisionist when we must also look at the balancing factors; the accidental triggering of rampant inflation, the automatic happenstance of increasing our import and energy costs. i.e. Question number one: Which Country is one of the largest importers on the planet? The United States. Question #2: Which Country has one of the largest export to import imbalances on the planet? The United States. Question#3: Which developed Country imports more energy per capita than any other Country? The United States.
Now, based upon those particular answers, why, for Heaven's sake, would we wish to increase our import costs and energy costs willfully, if not fatally? Bearing in mind the fact that debt monetizing is also a form of stealing from our foreign investors, we could all begin scratching our heads until we factor in the character of our collective leadership, then it becomes a bit easier to understand if not to stomach. Have we, or is just they, who have lost the will as a nation or just its leaders, to work our way out of this mess which we, most assuredly, worked our way into?
When we see the well coiffed pundits, in salacious lugubriosity, wondering where America's next meltdown will occur, while ignoring the significant financial pounding our medical system is now undergoing we then wonder who, in effect, is crafting their self-serving talking points in a soulless circle of mindless natter. Our medical system of finance is now, as a direct result of Obamacare, severely wounded. The bubble which was created by the Government's meddlesome Community Reinvestment Act caused a meltdown of America's financials System. Yet, I have yet to hear of one pundit or politico, Conservative or otherwise speak of what is waiting for America in the medical wings should events continue down the Government appointed path of damage. Bearing in mind that repeal is, indeed possible, and yet is it too late to avoid the varied breakdowns similar to our financial industry? Where will the funding come from to fix this possible government manufactured problem? Shall we soon be bailing out our medical industry, and if so, is that but not another way to yet nationalize healthcare?
Do all of these within our Governance and within the vaunted halls of Media actually think that our Medical system, one of the brightest and most complex in the world, is any less fragile than our formerly vaunted financial system? And yet how do we stock up in medical expertise? Can we fill our pantries with heart surgery? Should we buy and mothball ambulances in our backyards just in case? Are medical bearer bonds a thing which our industrious investors are even now inventioning? Is our Medical Industry immune to the pyrosis of Statist infection?
We may soon see.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."
Listen to Podcast of this article
November 7th, 2010
By Barry Secrest
While we amply enjoy seeing Liberalism slinking back into its dank hiding place for a time, one must be aware that not even overwhelming elections will ever keep the infection that is Progressivism at bay for long. Despite Obama's mass repudiation by the People, and a victory borne primarily of those who either consider themselves of the Tea Party or as identifying with the Tea Party, there yet remains those of both Parties who deny this fact. While Obama and the Democrats weep and gnash their teeth at the outcome, it is our true and deeply held belief that you would think that they'd be saying Thank You!
The Union may yet persevere as a direct result of the asylum that is Congress having been retaken from the inmates. And yet the insanity of the Liberalist Sects continues to sow its seeds of sane contemptuousness in the largest active asylum of them all--that being the Mainstream Media. On this occasion of the election, and with regard to a victory under the quantum shift, we cannot help but point out a prediction that was made by some smart-alecky Conservative nearly one year ago:
We are also seeing "A Continental Shift" back towards the Constitution and its champions of the past-- the Conservative Republicans. The next election cycles will most likely bring about a large shift in the initial upcoming election and then another major shift in the one after that which will make repeal of any current Liberty incursions, that may be passed, a very strong if not inexorable conclusion to all of these unholy legislative acts. In fact , we should, even now, be repealing the stimulus due to its impotence that has stimulated nothing but our future deficits.
The old saying that we have all heard..." There's not a dimes worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat" can now easily be found to be totally worthless and laughable as the most inane quote of the century. When a party's brisk leftward breeze becomes a gale (if not a hurricane) of extremism, we can then all see the stark differences between the two.~Barry Secrest "The Political Richter Scale" 11/24/09
So, after rubbing it into the Liberals just a bit, it seems time to now revisit one of our favorite Socialists, Frank Rich, the Communistically-inclined anti-Tea Party zealot who just begs to be rebutted on a vaguely consistent basis. Rich has let lose with yet another Leftist diatribe in his recent column concerning the Tea Party-- where he goes after...pretty much all but the truly culpable.
This Column titled "The Grand Old Plot Against The Tea Party" drips with what most likely soaks through Rich's disposable absorptive buttress from time to time when suffering though his worst nightmare. Throughout his column, Rich cravenly points to the entire Right Wing for what they may do or perhaps could do, in a universe of possible options, while totally ignoring what the Liberals in the Democrat party have actually done. First he slams Grandma Sharron Angle for what he calls racist ads and then warns all of us that Joe Miller plans to shut down the Federal Government. Our initial response? Typical Left-Wing tripe--but of a slightly lower quality than what we are used to--kind of like the Chinese food that someone left in the fridge four or five days ago--looks ok, seems OK, but once digested you're never quite sure which end it will come out first, nor the rate of flow when it decides to make its often explosive exit.
In fact, Angle's ads were far less racist than anything that the President has been trying to sell all over the Country for the past nearly two years, and Joe Miller has yet to be sworn in, so ya' might be just a little bit premature with those accusations, Frank, but we do understand.
Ye Olde Muddy Liberal Ruts
Rich has, apparently, fallen into the age-old muddy Liberal rut of trying to scare our Seniors--and pretty much anyone else that depends upon the Federal Government--by threatening that those big, mean Conservative bullies are going to halt their entitlement payments. But doesn't one find it amusing that Rich didn't come right out and accuse Miller of planning to cut Medicare? Oh! wait, the Democrats have already done that haven't they...hmm. So, since that particular argument has been abused by Democratic reality, and by Frank's ideological heroes, Rich decides to attack in shotgun style--hoping one of the beads might find its mark. To this we should point out that the weapon of choice for poor marksmen is the shotgun. Just saying. So Rich starts with racism then jumps to fiscal bullying--both of which are supposedly being perpetrated by Conservatives.
Ergo, if your desire is to rant about racism, Frank, why not scream about Obama's running a DOJ that only prosecutes voter intimidation cases if it's White-on-minority intimidation? But that isn't racist is it? Huh?
Oh, OK. Frank, I think, is trying to tell me that, in that particular case, it's redistribution of justice. Got it--if the Government does it--it's apparently ok.
Even if Angle were running racist ads, which she was not, an ad is just an ad, but Government-sponsored racial activism is, I would say, another thing altogether, wouldn't you say, Frank? Especially when those citizens who are actually paying for the DOJ are not exactly getting their money's worth. Talk about waste, the DOJ seems to be going after everything BUT justice. Suing states for trying to uphold the law, dumping cases of clear-cut infractions, trying to ensure that Islamic terrorist with lengthy murder records get their day in court--it never seems to end.
By the way Frank, we are growing a bit more amused than tired of the "extremist" label that you so ineffectively love to use, especially since the last election installed a Marxist in the White House who then surrounded himself with a bevy of Maoists, so don't talk to us about extremism, Frank.
Huh? You're asking me what's wrong with Maoists? Oh, for Heavens sake!-- which newspaper is it that you're writing for? Oh.
At any rate you, guys have got that radicalism maneuver pretty well-covered from everything that we have seen. As to the thinking that the Republicans want the Tea Party candidates to lose, well, some few RINOs actually might, but most are just happy to now have a voice and a functioning vote.
Do you actually think that the Republicans have enjoyed being either stepped on or ignored for two whole years while America slides down the tubes, Frank? Do you think that they are actually disappointed that their numbers have been exponentially increased? That simply is not clear thinking by you, Frank. But, both you and some "few of they" have that maneuver down pretty well, also.
Democratically Conspired, Laser-Like Constipation
Next, Rich seems to think that the Republicans will now shut out their more Conservative members? Once again Frank, that's a maneuver that the Democrats have cornered the market on. Remember how Pelosi held the Blue Dogs' feet to the fire for their railing againt at least a portion of the excess that has gone on for the last two years, Pelosi threatening to cut campaign funds and the like? And then re-writing the rules on the first day's session of Congress in order to lock the Republicans out of any input into legislation, with Obama's approval if not at his behest? You don't remember that do you, Frank?
Ok, try this. Remember when the Republicans executed The Contract with America back in 1994 and what Republican Speaker Gingrich actually did in order to allow more access to the minority Democratic party? No? Well, Newt actually rewrote the rules to give Democrats more input into the legislative process, quite the opposite of what Pelosi did in 2009. The point being, don't talk to us about blocking access; you Democrats have that maneuver down to a tee, as well.
My fear is that the Republicans, with everything being so terribly dour right now, will insist on reversing the rules that were recently written to oust them and allow the Liberals access to that which was denied the Republicans--yet again. Now, that "could" happen too--which would, most likely, incur extreme wrath from the American People in the following election. Keep it up Republicrats--we'll have the Conservatives dominating the process in no time. The Republicans, in fact, will need every advantage at their disposal to correct all of the recent damage done by DORP (Democrats, Obama, Reid, Pelosi). If the Democrats wish access to appropriate legislative powers, the Republicans should simply remind them (in turn-about) that there will be another election in two years--assuming we still have a Country at that point--break a leg!
Then Rich brings up a fallen Republican who is nothing more than one of thousands of lobbyists who, rather idiotically, considers himself among the Elites. Rich repeats Trent Lott's outrageous admonition to certain Elitist Republicans, that they would try to co-opt the Tea Party Candidates into the Washington establishment upon arrival. Here for the first time in history, and thanks to a greasy, Harry Reid-like [Harry Reid stated Obama was light-skinned and lacked a Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one] individual who calls himself a Republican, Rich does make a semi-valid point. Trent Lott did say that they will try to co-opt the Tea Party Candidates when they get to Washington. However, can you imagine the conversation that might ensue between Trent Lott and Rand--"deliberate upon this"-- Paul of the Tea Party in that event ? Not pretty, indeed! But Lott, did state that the Nation should have elected openly racist-secretly tabooed Strom Thurmond as President, which got Lott booted out of the party.
Point being, Lott is not exactly known for his laser-like intellect, but Holy Shnitzel! Can he talk a Blue-Dog streak or what? It should also be pointed out that Trent Lott is no more the Republican Party than Liberal nut-job Alan Grayson is the Democrat Party. Lott is a lobbyist with an Elitist agenda. The Dems don't have any of those, do they Frank? But they are in large part the same as all Politicians. The Democrats also have lobbyist relationships with both Goldman Sachs and companies like Northrop, so trying to gain points for vilifying anyone in this regard can easily be countered as drivel in most cases. Rich, however, now in full vilification mode, then sloshes his unwithering gaze upon who else but the architect himself, good ole Karl Rove, for his recent tirade against O'Donnell on Hannity, which delighted the Liberals and angered The Tea Party...hmm...now that's a bit different for a former "Rush" Host isn't it?Yes, indeed, Frank, it is, but what it means will most likely only intensify the speed with which we can see you frenetically chasing your tail.
The Unenlightened Alignment Looks at Tea Party Atrocities
A number of us, including El Rushbo and Sean Hannity, did take issue with Rove's piling on of Christine O'Donnell--along with Charles Krauthammer. But this simply illustrates how even these ostensibly brilliant Gentlemen, in Rove and Krauthammer, don't fully understand the dynamics of the Tea Party or the dynamics of the Third Party as it regards We the People. But then, Frank, you never have completely gotten it yourself, have you now? You have denigrated the Tea Party from day one--who could forget your ridiculous "Obsessed and Deranged" Article about the Tea Party--and for that matter, who could forget our rebuttal to you then? We do understood completely where Rove and Krauthammer were coming from, but the line, at some point, must be drawn, even at risk of loss--and Mike Castle was a Rino, of this there is no doubt. We have enough of those, period, Sir.
O'Donnell did go on to lose her Senate race, but consider this. What if Rove and Krauthammer, two very influential Republicans, had come out in praise and defense of O'Donnell rather than vilifying her? A question for the ages, no doubt, and it should be noted that after the outcry, both Gentlemen, in essence, apologized for their remarks --albeit-- not very effectively. But when one looks at the number of Republicans who opted not to cast their vote in O'Donnell's favor, it would seem that this point might have some meaningful traction. Besides, it has been later stipulated that Castle could not have beaten Coons, anyway. Had the Delaware Republican Party actually gotten behind O'Donnell, in addition to the subtraction of the Rove/Krauthammer comments, the results would, most likely, have been different.
But when next Rich states that Rove's remarks "outed the Republican Elites' contempt for the Tea Party." This in and of itself puts Rich in a difficult position at best. The actual truth on this point, as I defend Rove, is that Rove was taking issue with some of O'Donnell's past statements and a few other issues of hers. Rove's complaint was not with the Tea Party, per se, but rather with certain individuals in the Tea Party and a lack of vetting. I mean, come on, remember that Tea Partier who was keeping $ 50,000 in bribery-cash in his freezer? What Frank? Oh! He was a Democrat? Oh, ok ,well, what about that Gay Tea party Candidate who was running a prostitution ring from his garage and grew marijuana in his basement? Now that's some pretty bad stuff! What Frank? Oh, he was a sitting Elitist Liberal Democrat and head of the Banking Commission? Well dang....OK, well, what about all of those Tea Party Politicians who are totally against gay-everything and then get caught wearing Victoria's Secret while shagging male prostitutes in the course of practically wallowing in illegal substances? Oh, they were "elite" Republicans? Hmm...so it looks like both you and Rove have it totally wrong.
You see, Ladies and Gentlemen, Rich has had nothing but contempt for the Tea Party, and, therefore, the American People in general since day one--so Rich is, in essence, saying that since the various Elites view the Tea Party with contempt--then Rich must also consider himself among all of the other Elites, right? Hey! He said it.
Elitism: The Trans-gender Equivalent of Anti-Intellectualism
The simple fact is, there are dynamics at play that none but a true Conservative who plays outside of the Beltway--and in the Real World dealing with real people every day-- could actually understand what is happening. That's where I come in. The Republican elites are no different than Obama, Frank Rich, Liberal elites in the Media and Government and even academian elites. Those who label themselves as Elite or who consider themselves as a cut above other individuals can easily be described as simply those who, for some reason, need to think of themselves as special and/or better than others in order to cover up their individual short-comings. There are no actual Elites on this earth, and if they did or do exist, it would have to be in the same realm as say... the trans-gender types. You know, those individuals who like dressing up and pretending to be a woman or vice-versa, walking, talking, acting like the opposite sex--doing all of the often mystical things that, say, women do only to--at some point--shower-off, undress and go to bed--the same person they were before they began their escapist role-playing. Never quite understanding that simply being who you are is the most important thing, and no one in America or anywhere else, for that matter, is superior.
If the Elites are, indeed, so superior in all things, then give 'em a wrench and tell them to install a toilet, or give them a pair of pliers and a screwdriver and have them install a garage door, repair a computer, fly an aircraft, repair a complex engine...even give them a natty physics equation and see if they can solve it. No one can be the best at everything, and that's what an Elite supposedly is. I rest my case in unbridled, calm certainty in that regard--but wait...our liberal pygmalion has of yet, even more.
Rich continues to make points about Rove's seeming condescension concerning the books that the Tea Party has or hasn't read--as if that makes one smart--and even drags in Mike Huckabee as a lesser sophisticate along with Huckabee's comments concerning Rove's tangential fantasy romp into Elitistville. In fact, it would appear that Rich seems to place the entire Tea Party's raison d' etre' on the ramblings of one Conservative Republican who was experiencing a bout of pre-elective, post-publishing puff-upiness. Let me spell this out for you Frank, Rove does not represent all Conservatives nor all Republicans. In fact, no one does. But we do all appreciate your revealing [revolting] glimpse into the altered state of the Liberal mindset. By the way, Charles Mansion was a Democrat Frank. Own it--I refuse to explain that beyond hinting around the entire purview of this column--think about it, Frank.
Understanding the Tea Party for Elitist Dummies
Rich then further assumes that the GOP will reject most of the things that the Tea Party stands for, and yet, the real GOP seems to be adopting the Tea Party's platform measure by measure, comment by comment, and soon to be action by action. Whether you Liberals like it or not --the new storm--it's coming. The main goal of both the Tea Party and the GOP at this juncture is to defeat the Liberals by any means necessary in order to keep the Republic alive. It's simply that simple. The fact that the GOP's goal is to make Obama a one-term President is neither so- terribly shocking nor so terribly terrible. Obama, your man, has proven to be a cultural, fiscal, Democratic, divisive, anti-constitutional train wreck. You can own that, too.
When Rich states that the Tea Party was a group financed by this bevy of billionaires or that news organization, or this Right Wing group he, as most Americans know, has obviously been smoking some killer-atomic weed up there in the Times building along with his other dopey friends. He even states that, get this, the Tea Party only makes up 2% of all Americans! Well then Frank, you might want to get a re-count on a majority of the votes country-wide because we just took over state legislature after state legislature, Congress, almost even the Senate by wide margins. Apparently, Frank you need to come out and play from time to time, dude. Case in point, do you have any idea how many Facebook groups there are that are vehemently dedicated to the the Tea Party's ideology? Websites, organizations all across the web? In fact, Mr. Rich, there are actually large groups of people belonging to various Tea Party allied organizations, the actual number of organizations alone easily comprising more than 2% of the individual population of this country, Frank. Here is the interesting thing. The Tea Party is just the visible group. What about the not-so-visibles? I have heard or in some cases know of a large proportion of those, as well. The point here is simply this:
The Tea Party is not necessarily an organization so much as it is a mindset.
We were just a little disillusioned back during the first half of last year, just before we decided to hold a Tea Party, starting websites, beginning to gather others to our cause, writing books you know, that sort of thing. But I can recall another band of the disillusioned Frank, back in 1773, up in Boston. That was called the Boston Tea Party, and do you remember what grew out of that Sir?
Oh, it was just a teeny little thing affectionately known as the Glorious Cause--a group of about 25 men whose actions bore one of the greatest Nations ever in the history of man into an existence that would prove to be the most powerful force ever known for the rights of self-determination of individuals all over the world.
I think they called it the American Revolution, but what do I know? No Elitist am I.
October 31st, 2010
Guardians of Liberty: Part II
In our last offering, we took a look at the differences between a Democracy and a Republic along with the basic tenets of the Democratic versus the Republican Parties. The initial purpose being to understand what each of these connotes in the most modern and concise definitions available--being couched in the terms of where we find our country today. When we look at the extreme overreaching of our Government, over the last several years, many often wonder "how" exactly America got to this particular point?
Think about it. We have declared what amounted to anti-constitutional moratoriums against certain companies trying to perform the very thing that keeps them in business, we have had attack after attack by Democrat directed Government forces across a wide range of industries from Banking to Insurance to energy companies and numerous others scattered in between--even states, for Heaven's sake, to the point that we now have nearly half of all states suing the Federeal Government. We have even had a wide range of attacks against industry professionals themselves.
These attacks range from doctors and medical professionals to news and talk show anchormen, bankers and stockbrokers. We have even had attacks on the Media itself. While the "Wizards of Wall Street" may have deserved a generous portion of negative criticism, a large proportion of those financial professionals under attack did absolutely nothing wrong, but separation via the broad brush-stroke is a normally utilized tool to the professional "Community Organizer."
Transformers III: A Glimpse of the Future
The clincher, however, was the actual takeover and nationalization of a number of banks, Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac, the student loan program, and of course automobile manufacturers. When one stops and looks at how these takeovers occurred, the most common answer is "well the Government had to." Oh, really? Not necessarily. One of the major points, once again, of a Government's transformation from free-market Capitalism to Statism is, actually, the takeover by authorities of certain targeted key industries, often under the auspices of the "Greater Good."
Health Insurance Companies were initially targeted for a complete transformation to a single payer system; when that didn't work, Obama and the Democrats opted for the second best available alternative--that being--driving these companies out of business by setting up rules and regulations which would eventually snuff out the various companies' abilities to realize net operating increase over expenses. This is already happening to many carriers, as certain parts of the healthcare law are being set into motion, and they are even now dropping out of group health coverage.
When we look at where we are today as it regards healthcare, without a large number of changes being implemented, if not actually repealing healthcare altogether, these companies will, in effect, go out of business. This will leave the Government free to take over the entire system and then control medicine completely via the purse strings. Once this happens, you will see costs increase without any private forces available to reign them in via marketplace competitiveness itself. As these costs increase, the Government will then begin cutting reimbursements (which has already begun). As these reimbursements are slashed, a large number of providers will simply be unable to operate at required income levels, and you will then have many simply bailing out of the medical professions, be they doctors, special services or the myriad other such providers that exist today. In other words, that Urgent Care Center that you have down the street from your home will shut down--never mind your doctor's office.
Physician "Heel" Thyself
In fact, there are already a significant number of doctors who refuse to accept both Medicare and Medicaid simply because the costs of treating these patients is prohibitive and the Government pays when and what the Government decides to pay. While the Democrats and Obama might tell you that medical professionals are greedy and want too much, they invariably fail to tell you about the costs these doctors and others incur in malpractice insurance, education, and training, and the cost to acquire those personnel proficient enough to keep doctors from being sued down to their underpants. Which brings us to Tort Reform.
One thing that you will not find in the new Healthcare Law is any sort of "actual" Tort Reform. Tort Reform would, in large part, address the problems which physicians have in paying their often crippling insurance premiums. So what's the problem? Glad you asked. One of Obama's and the Democrats' greatest benefactors is the trial lawyers. It would go against the trial lawyers' impressive income streams to lessen jury awards; therefore, the lawyers' various pacs donate huge sums to the Democrats in order to maintain the status quo. So while you might hear both Obama and the Democrats giving impressive lip-service to how they care about the little man, their hands, and therefore their intent, remain in the pockets of the big men and so it has been for some time. Change we can believe in? Pish-posh.
Fear not, however, for the lawyer's time is at hand, as well. You see, once healthcare is completely nationalized in just a few years, the Statists will grow impatient at the havoc in Government costs that are caused by lawyers who will be, by that point, taking extreme advantage of a medical system which will be operating within a far lesser level of proficiency than previously because of the aforementioned ravages by Government--which will result in? You guessed it! Large jury awards due to sub-par diagnosis and treatment. The result will then be a rash of claims which will drive so many more providers out of business and increase Government costs to the point that severe action will be required in the form of mitigating torts.
Sorry! I Just Torted...
So how does one mitigate torts? Voila' --Tort Reform's time has now come. You see, once the takeover of the medical professions is completed, the Government will have hired a substantial number of medical personnel for themselves, and these personnel will be members of what Union? Bingo! The Service International Employees Union (SEIU). And who is the army which Obama and the Democrats have hired to perform their thuggery all over the star spangled plain? The SEIU.
The operative point here being SEIU members, at this point, will be required to donate lavishly to their Democratic Benefactors to a degree that the trial lawyers' money will eventually amount to less than a pittance in comparison.
At this particular juncture, many might begin to wonder how in the world did we get to this abominable point in America? Simple. The Daisy Chain of events outlined above contains all sorts of less distinctive but no less important variety of "Daisy Chains" fractily associated with it. But the signatory event which caused all of this mayhem was the election of our President, Barrack Hussein Obama, during a crisis that shook the foundation of this country down to its core. Out of America's rubble arose an individual who was not, as we can see now, what he appeared to be--at least as far as the Mainstream Media is concerned.
Out of the Sea Will Arise
The one thing that few still wish to talk about is simply the ideology of the man we now call our President. Politicians in power, the Mainstream Media, even certain Conservatives are often afraid to discuss in public discourse the beliefs and ideologies which have driven both Obama and the US economy into a morass of confused indications. This fear is most likely rooted within a hesitancy to stir up the ruling elites and the media. However, there are many others who have come out from day one and pointed to Obama's veiled history, noting that something was, indeed, amiss.
When we take a long hard look at the President and his blatantly ill-capitalistic agenda, it becomes necessary to listen carefully to the words that he utters and watch even more carefully his actions as the designated leader of the Free World. The puzzle that is Obama has more often than not been ensnared within a Mainstream Media's effort to mitigate his stumbling efforts at appearing to be something that he clearly is not, while emphasizing those odd moments in which the President seems to be espousing views that are more center-oriented. But the one thing that those concerned among us consistently seem to note is that "this guy does not like Americans very much when you get right down to it."
In a recent speech that the President gave, once again, catering to a specific racial group, while denigrating those who weren't immediately watching, the President called those individuals who think that amnesty is not such a grand idea as "our enemies." That would be, in large part, Mr. President, a majority of the population, Sir. So, Obama thinks that we normal Americans are enemies--at least the ones who are terribly concerned about our Country's plight and mostly disagree with his radical ideas. This doesn't really surprise most of us who have become hard-wired to the true media's reports of Obama's repeated attacks upon both us and America in general.
Righty Tighty Wing-Nuts Cry Thee
But the President did not end his diatribe there; Obama actually went on to state: "we will punish our enemies." At this point it becomes important to note that neither I, nor many of my Conservative Family, consider those of our Countrymen who are in opposition to our beliefs as enemies. Granted, we might view them sometimes as stupid, often imbecilic--but never enemies. Shall we now, Mr. President, follow your lead and begin characterizing all of those on the Left as our enemies? Most would never stoop to such a narrowly defined and nasty viewpoint, which is a recipe for mayhem. And yet Obama refuses to call the Iranian Regime, responsible for killing American soldiers and unsettling Iraq, our enemies.
In fact, we of the vocal throng are, indeed, disturbed that the President would actually broaden his attacks from just we Constitutionally oriented right wing-nuts to the normal Americans who simply wish to go about their lives without being worried by all of this mess. Those particular Americans and their freedom to espouse what is actually a non-political view, such as amnesty, are the ones we are trying to look after--it's as simple as that. So why does the President attack even those who might only occasionally detract from his opinions? The actual answer to this question is even more simple--while being more disturbing-than anything many could imagine.
The President's ideological leanings drift all the way back to his days of being a star pupil of left-wing radical Saul Alinsky's Community Organizing skill-set. Alinsky, who wrote the book Rules For Radicals, begins it with a near fawning appreciation of evil incarnate, literally in the form of a dedication to Lucifer himself. Alinsky actually wrote that Satan or Lucifer was the first of all radicals and won a Kingdom all his own by railing against the establishment. Not news Ladies and Gentleman.
Sourcing The Apprentice
But the question would be this, was this simply an allegory by Alinsky referring to the effectiveness of total mayhem to society, or was it something even worse? Was Alinsky referring to Satan as his own master and laying down the foundations noting where the Devil finds his most comfortable abode--that being hell on earth in this case. Why should the fact that Alinsky's Bible for mayhem's beginning as a herald to Satan himself be consistently overlooked, if not poo-poohed, by those of the intelligentsia?
Even better, whether the final goal is a supposedly redistributionist society of strict equality or total mayhem--in what place do we find the overall subtext of the Obama administration itself in our America of today? Please reread the first half of this article if still unsure. Many have disingenuously described Alinsky as a leader of the non-Socialist Left, and yet many others will describe Alinsky as a Communist Guru, and yet it has been our observation of history through the ages that the Leftward is never satisfied with a particular status quo, but rather requires ever more nourishment from its "supposed" master, the people, until such time as its unwitting realization of an all-powerful central Government becomes the Master and the people become the supplicant.
Even in the early days, Obama railed at the scenes he saw all around the inner-city of Chicago, where poverty, unemployment and inequality seemed rampant, never understanding that this was but one facet of poverty in American society. What Obama was actually seeing was a world where year upon year of slipshod Democratic management in Chicago had taken a severe toll. Resultantly, Chicago as with many other Metropolises, had spawned an underclass solely dependent upon a Government that had mangled the job of educating those in need of upwards and outward--actually downwards into a recombinant mess where even the hardiest of individuals would find escape velocity difficult at best. Ironically, the very thing that fed Obama's radical Leftward ideology was the very thing that actually caused the need for his social redistributive skills in the first place.
I'll Have One BLT On Wheat, Hold The Marxism
From his days as a Chicago Community Organizer, Obama,via the ultra-left Alinskey's techniques, learned a narrow vision of Blacks in America that persisted to the point of his joining the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's extraordinarily Liberal teachings of Black Liberation theology. A Religion which was originally inspired by Communists of the fifties seeking religiously contrived ways to both target and subvert third-world underclasses into a proletariat of Marxist origins. The penultimate goal of the time being to counter free-market capitalism Societies and turn them on themselves by way of "Humanistic Religions." The goals of Black Liberation Theology (BLT) in the modern world seem to be one of railing against whichever portion of the population seems to be in the majority at the time, and, of course, also to enrich and empower its ministers as with many self-serving Religions of today. One should never, ever forget that Obama frequently referred to Rev. Wright as his Mentor until he no longer could afford to.
It should also be noted that while the Rev. Wright rails at rich White people, damns America and praises Extremist Muslim Leaders, he invariably seems to leave out the product of his own brand of free-market Capitalism, that being living in a multi-million dollar gated abode, quite shamelessly, while preaching the ills of wealth and Capitalism. Sort of a Black Michael Moore, as it were. Obama, noting the problems associated by a vast majority of Americans with this mindset faithfully maintained that despite regular attendance to this Church of twenty years, he rarely heard any of the sermons which continually preached against the ideals that most Americans hold dear.
This not working very well, Obama then dutifully ejected Wright as his Mentor and rejected further visits to his church preferring Golf outings instead from what we can gather. But it was also during this 20 year period, that Obama culminated a number of radical friendships, the causitive one being ex-terrorist and now academain Bill Ayers. Ayers, was a member of the terrorist group weather underground which was a Communist group dedicated to, once again, all sorts of mayhem aimed at American values.
One Nation, Asunder God, With Poverty and Pestilence For All
But it was also during this time in Chicago that Obama honed his skills even further and connected with the Communist organizations who are one of Obama's most ardent supporters. The other part of this same equation must dutifully be the proclivity of Obama to seek out any number of Green solutions which, while originally rooted in true conservation of the planet, have over time become polluted by those of the Socialist-Marxist subset whose ultimate goal is to bring down free market Capitalism. Cap and Trade, Global warming and a large number of societal hot-buttons each are hinged on the door frame of Socialism or Globalism. One need only peruse through a number of the President's radical views as it regards coal, fossil fuels in general and the US Constitution itself to see that the world of Obama and the clueless Democrats is a world that will inevitably lead to equalized mass poverty and increasing Government Authoritarianism unless, once again, voter action is taken.
- When we look at Obama's Cabinet of advisers and czars of today, the silhouette of what many of us now think of as one of dark and foreboding points to, once again, his overall political acumen belonging starkly to a pattern cut out from an extreme left-leaning radicalism. Most of the lesser positions initially granted and even in place today, were manned by Marxists, Communists or Socialists who simply do not hold the same ideals as that of most liberty loving Americans.
- But when we look, for instance, at Obama's attacks on the Supreme Court, we can begin to see a lord-like mentality at play in one individual who has been given powers by the people that no single other individual within this Country can match. And yet, that apparently was not enough.
- When we look at a Department Of Justice who refuses now to enforce voter descrimination charges if leveled against minorities such as in the black panther case, Obama's attempts to foster a new dependent class--that being illegal aliens while using race as the fulcrum
- When we look at Congressman John Conyers who implored the group Democratic Socialists of America to stand behind, support and defend Obama, as the one man intent upon furthering their cause of one-world governance i.e. Globalism which is anathema to liberty
- When we see Obama addressing a group of black bloggers with a prescription of secrecy for attendees in an administration that was supposed to be based upon openness--never mind the ostracization of any other races.
It becomes plain to see a dark agenda at play that has thus far been rubber-stamped by a now considered witless Congress that the people will look to unseat. The one thing to bear in mind after seeing an America under reconstruction is simply this:
Within a Society both designed and based upon a Constitutional rule of law, the individual who could usurp such a Society and transform it into another type of Society would need to be steeped in counter-capitalism and trained in Societal transformation to a powerful degree.
That individual would also need be expert on both the US Constitution and the laws of the land and completely committed to the goal of redistributing away that which does not belong in their new world order.
October 24th, 2010
Senator Harry Reid has saved the world. The quirky Reid has now admitted, in a public forum, that if t'were not for him "the world would be in a depression." Reid, apparently faster than a speeding pullet, able to leap tall bills out of Constitutional bounds...Look ! Always on the sly...it's a Byrd, it's a Pain...It's Super Senator! With Reid's ridiculous assertion that he actually forestalled a world depression, we wonder if perhaps Reid might rather be alluding to some mysterious arrangement of world druggery with one or more of his many pharmaceutical donors.
In other words, he didn't mean economic depression but rather "mental depression." To this we might suggest--that didn't work either-- but extra points for trying--even while noting that Reid has forcefully maintained that he does indeed change into his Super Senator garb in a phone-booth-sized unit located at the Ritz-Carlton--which can be found within his fortress of solicitude deep inside the inner beltway.
But while we wait for the mild-mannered Reid to don his red cape and complete his efforts to save the People from him, we yet have the President out on the left coast suggesting, and I paraphrase, "come on, give Socialism a try." The President, actually stating that President Lincoln (a Republican) could not have been nominated with the current slate of modern Republicans, was trying to leverage most Americans away from a yearning for the posterity of our past. Obama actually then exclaimed in The City of Lost Angels that "this [the election] was a choice between the past and the future," and let us not leave out this gem: "They are clinging to the same worn-out, tired snake oil ideas they were peddling before," to which we would state that the Founders might be many things, but they certainly were not "Peddlers." Regarding Lincoln, Obama could, rather ironically, be right if he were referring to some of the current moderates in office such as Olympia Snow, Lisa Murkowski and Charlie Crist among others to numerous to mention.
And yet, while the President was lambasting better than half of the population and trying to score political points against the Republicans on his never-ending campaign trail in Los Angeles--and virtually everywhere he manages to string intelligible syllables together--we concurrently read of an article, ink still damp, within the National Journal of Obama stating, "we want people in Washington to act like grown-ups, cooperate and start trying to solve problems instead of scoring political points." But wait Mr. President! You just stated in the paragraph directly above...(sigh)...never mind, You just can't make this stuff up.
When Free Men Shall Stand
As an internecine war in America now rages, sparked by Obama and the Democrats pursuit of all things "redistributive," we can begin to now see a bit of sunlight dancing through the eye-wall of the liberal storm as the upcoming election looms in what promises to be a stark defiance of Obama's policies. Many see this particular storm as having been raging since President Obama was elected--but this storm that we have been enduring is but a spin-off of a larger storm which has waxed and waned throughout the 20th century. In fact, the path to a redistributive society from a free market capitalism powerhouse being based on the rule of law would, logically, have many points along the way to bleed off various individual liberties. Interestingly, these "bleed-off" points seem to always come at times of either economic or military duresss. It is the ideology in power at the times of these "bleed-off" points that often determine where the ultimate damage falls. We can, in essence, see these points as either lessening our liberties or lessening the relentless creep of Statism, with a preponderance of the damage more often strengthening the latter.
While we have been, time after time, faced with a contemporary media which scoffs at those who consistently warn that a possible incursion into individual liberties has either occurred or may be occurring--there are those--both now and in our history--who consider themselves as the guardians of our liberty. They are those who remain ever watchful throughout their and our entire lives at the various political events and otherwise which can damage and weaken a governance both of and by the People. Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams--and many other Constitutional heroes--both celebrated and unheralded were incessant in their warnings concerning healthcare, socialism, entitlements and other dangers to a free people.
The signatory element at play among a host of ill-Constitutional temptations to a nation, being "those who would sacrifice their liberties for the sake of security, are doomed to lose both and deserve neither." Those words from Benjamin Franklin, uttered over 230 years ago, still resound in both their brilliance and in there ultimate simplicity.
Their Foul Footsteps
In what has become a battle phalanx of modern liberty eviscerations, the Mainstream Media of today, in contrast to that of the somewhat distant past, is yet another example of what used to be a major buttress against any incursions against liberty which now more often than not rages against it. Now, in the wake of fiascoes such as a failure to publicly vet Obama's extreme ideology, in addition to the recent Federally funded NPR debacle targeting free speech concerning avowed liberal and yet honest Juan Williams, we can see a pattern coming sharply into focus.
Even more stark are the obvious and ongoing vilifications of the Tea Party and a host of Conservative organizations by the Leftists within both the Media and various organizations, in addition to elected Officials--the most prominent being the President himself. It is, indeed, a fact that the forces of anti-capitalism have seen huge recent gains as a result of Socially couched machinations, which started, unwittingly or not, back in the 1930's and have seen wave after wave of resurgence. As each wave has crashed against the shores of Freedom and Free-Market Capitalism, the wave appears repelled, and yet the thing that we often fail to notice is simply that each time a wave is repelled, a bit of erosion always takes place.
During calmer times, these forces of Statism seem to make fewer incursions into our liberties, having no societal force to impel them; however, during the hurricane force storms that free-market capitalism has suffered over the past three years, in large part due to the anti-prosperity forces of Progressivism or Liberalism, the shores of our individual liberties have seen unprecedented erosion. Entire sections of our battered rights have been swept away, which only leaves pathways to future destruction that the next waves will advantage unless fierce voter opposition is brought to bear. One need only peruse the tantalizing facts continually seeping out that have found a way into our current laws as a result of the financial overhaul bill and Obamacare to see what is in store for Americans in the future.
Proof through the Night
These waves are the relentless forces of a thing called by many names, the most common of those being Socialism, Totalitarianism, Statism and even Liberalism. Each of these may be characterized by different facets, but they each, in and of their very essence, point to the same damaging ideologies at play and ultimately arrive at a final desired paradigm--that being Marxism. Think that's a bit much? In the World Heritage Dictionary, under the definition of Socialism, the second definition states the following: "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not been successfully achieved." In other words Socialism is but a waypoint to the final ideological goal of Marxism. Surprised? I can admit that I was when, I some time ago, decided to look at Socialism defined in a "slightly" different light--one need not ask why my curiosity was so terribly piqued. Classroom textbooks, as far as we can tell, leave this little-known fact out of the schoolroom musings concerning Socialism, which is another vexatious part of a puzzle now coming into sharper focus.
The journey from Free-Market Capitalism to Socialism and later Marxism has always been one of control. Remember, Socialism is defined as partial control of marketplace forces by a Central or Statist government. The demarcation point from Free-Market Capitalism to Socialism must first include the ingredient of weakening the rule of law or Republicanism thereby transferring a greater measure of power and control away from the individual and States and to the Government in the form of increased authority.
The second main ingredient involves a degradation of the natural Free-Market forces in the form of increased regulation and oversight, which, as the controls are increasingly tightened, will eventually stifle and snuff out the natural opportunism which comes of entrepreneurship while strangling profits--which are more often than not used to employ additional personnel.
The third main ingredient must then exert control by establishing a pivot point--a major but seemingly innocuous rearrangement of a current Societal paradigm--such as Healthcare. The final ingredient requires that the appropriate individuals be in place in order to measure these requirements and apportion each so that the demarcation point can be properly executed.
The Battle's Confusion
When we look to what might possibly motivate certain individuals to embark upon a strategy to radically remake an America that has, in the past, proven to be one of the most successful nations ever to exist, we first must examine the subtext of their political origins. Many are confused as to the actual political system America enjoys. Some seem to think of America as a Democracy, which is not exactly true. In fact, America is first and foremost a Republic and is formally defined as a Constitution based Federal Republic as opposed to a Democracy. In order to understand the difference between these two forms, we must first look to the meaning of each:
A Democracy is defined as government by the people; especially a rule of the majority and a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.
The problem with a pure Democracy, as heatedly debated by the Founders, is that, when a majority rules, certain individuals can be left out or selected against, in essence, taking advantage of those whom are the lesser in number. Racism, religious persecution and myriad such excesses could easily prove to be rampant when a pure majority rules.
A Republic, on the other hand, is:
a political order whose head of state is usually a president and where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens but subject to the rule of law as opposed to majorities. Citizens of a Republic are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them in periodic elections.
A true Republic, such as the US, operates at a complete subservience to the law even at sufferance to the Goverment itself. This allows the Government to be limited in the actions that it can take against its citizenry--especially when the citizenry are protected by a Constitutional Bill of Rights. In fact, a Republic and its rule of law, is what limits the excess of a majority when in power.
The Mists of the Deep
Democracies, historically, have always been shown to eventually fail when the respective government intrinsically tries to take on too much by way of over-redistributing capital while stifling individuals and eventually bankrupting itself in a self-defeating loop of ill-designed Utopia to misery cycle.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
In the most recent political climate, with each branch being easily dominated by the Democrats, the nation has been, in effect, operating as a near Socialist Democracy. Thus the common refrain most often quoted over the past 16 months has been: "Governing against the will of the people"--even while the level of grassroots protests appear to be occurring at a rate which hasn't been seen since the days of the Civil Rights era.
Understanding the philosophy of the two primary American political parties can, in many ways, be divined from the meaning of a Republic as opposed to a Democracy as described above. As we have now actually, if not painfully seen, the Democrats--when in near total power--will rely heavily on social spending programs via higher taxation and social activism. Most prefer larger government and reactionary over-corrections, which, while "seemingly well-meaning," will actually stifle a Free-Market economy in the predictable process of ultimately--if not ironically--harming the various groups government is trying to aid. Conversely, Republicans tend to favor private enterprise, smaller Government and a powerful military, while espousing individual self-determination-- assuming they hold true to established ideals.
A natural offshoot to the ideology of the various parties would then be the age-old question of what defines Liberals as opposed to Conservatives. There is no strict "easy definition" to this question, as the events and issues of the day often determine how one gauges one's ideology, but suffice it to say--true American Conservatism will overwhelmingly be grounded in upholding the ideals and the Government limitations of the US Constitution along with individual liberties and Free Market principles, while Modern Liberalism or Progressivism appears to be primarily defined as that which is opposed to Conservative principles.
The Foes Haughty Hosts
In these current times of rampant "Obamaisms," or Socialist inspired Democratic play-lists, which include a lengthy iteration of various radical changes either being put into play or soon to be executed, we can begin to see a totally different range of concepts at work as compared to our historical past. These concepts are in large part why our economy can never seem to get completely going without being knocked off the tracks of success by yet another Obama-engineered and Democratically approved plan that ultimately inspires extreme instability in an economy which requires natural balances of regulation, optimism, stability and capital. Each of these ingredients being either tardy or missing from most current financial models. Take for instance the instability of not knowing what tax plan of revenue will be in place, only breeding further confusion in an economy already heaped in near hysteria.
Both the President and the Democrats in Congress have continually insisted that, without their efforts at a stimulus and engineered bail-outs, the United States would be in far worse shape than it is now. And yet, the questions that most Americans have seem to revolve around the lack of a true stimulus designed to stimulate the entire Nation --rather than a stimulus targeted upon education, State Governments and financial institutions, as our unemployment remains high and government regulation over the Banks--which access our business capital--has reached into astoundingly difficult ranges for businesses, both large and small, to access.
The Power that Preserves
But, as the onslaught has intensified, with even some Republicans seemingly relaxing their defense on the eve of probable victory, the Democrats seem to back away from their former stance in full retreat even while exclaiming legislative success but hiding a public shame of their final product in noting: A Third POTENTLY powerful Party's emergence.
Is it the Libertarians? No, but their rise in the events of the last three years has been starkly noted. Perhaps the Socialist Party? No again, they can yet only operate within the shadows and yet the Democratic Party has taken up their stealthy stilletto and have championed their admittedly obtuse goals with a fervor as anyone can now see.
Is it the Tea Party, then? Yes, but only in part. Then who exactly?
The Third Party is the mass of Americans who consider themselves Conservative in their natures but identify with a variety of social and fiscal ideologies--the Democratic party, The Tea Party, Reagan Democrats, certain Conservatives who rarely identify actively with the Republican party, and a host of Independents and previously moderate if not ill-political types.
The Third Party is, in essence, those Americans who normally go about their business without bothering to take full note of the goings-on of the "inner-beltway." In fact they are the Citizens who are the heart and soul of the United States. Filled with anger and retributive outrage at the failures of those whom they have elected to handle the business of America, these are the True Guardians of the Republic and they are relentless when provoked.
Note: In the next article we will attempt to answer remaining questions and also look deeply into the very troubling past of some major players. Instead of the continuously insipid "guessing game" that many writers, Citizens and commentators play at, or the credibility-damaging leaping to some of the ridiculous conclusions that others have splatted out, why not simply "See What We See" regarding change, and follow the available substantiated facts? This is what we--at Conservative Refocus--have done--and will do as we uncover and piece together some startling revelations on the eve of the 2010 elections.