Is there too much government in your life?
View Results
Is there anything our President likes about America other than leisurely destroying it? I’m searching for an answer, trying to find something that our President not only says he likes, but something he acts like he likes. Let’s run a list. Here goes.
Free Enterprise: No way does our President likes free enterprise. He says he does but his actions betray his words. He bailed out the banks, the auto industry, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He wants hyper control over our financial system. He is drooling over the possibility of shutting down the oil industry. He is in favor of the redistribution of wealth. He actually believes the Constitution is flawed because it does not address “redistributive justice,” his words. He is in favor of Cap and Trade which will be a monumental shroud on free enterprise, and freedom itself in that Cap and Trades’ tendrils will reach right down to a persons domicile. Nope, our President is not an advocate of free enterprise.
Border Control and Security: Our President does not want our borders controlled. He says he does but refuses to act until we get “comprehensive” immigration policy. Unfortunately, “comprehensive,” to him, means amnesty for thirteen million illegal aliens and probably a lot more. He still hasn’t made good on his promise to Arizona to send 1200 National Guardsmen to the border, actually breaking his promise of doing so within two weeks after the meeting with the Arizona Governor. Let’s face it folks, our President does not even view the very land we occupy as worthy of protection. As to National Security, he nixed the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. He has done nothing to keep Iran non-nuclear. He’s cutting defense spending. He wants to treat foreign terrorists as common criminals, trying them in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. He won’t even use the phrase “Islamic Extremist.” You know those guys who are willing to die to destroy us.
Self Reliance: Our President does not respect self-reliance. Redistributive Justice does not co-exist with self-reliance. His health care bill does not co-exist with self-reliance. He believes it is the government’s job and duty to provide and not the individual’s responsibility. He believes it’s government’s fault if you don’t own a house, have a job, have health care, can’t afford education, don’t have insurance, not the individual’s fault.
American Exceptionalism: Our President does not believe we are exceptional. Actually, we’re just human, but we’ve been blessed with a nation that was founded on freedom and liberty which allowed us to actualize and be exceptional. But does our President praise this truth? No. He apologizes to the world for our behavior. He ignores our principles and wants us to be more like other nations, that Mr. President, in case you haven’t watched the news of late, are failing. He does not like the idea of a nation with our principles dominating the world, or even leading it for that matter. And that says a lot about the man because if you don’t like us leading with our principles, then you don’t understand the magnificence of our principles.
Environment: The Gulf Oil Spill reveals that our President doesn’t care too much about the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as an opportunity to impose his priorities of more regulation, less freedom (pass Cap and Trade) and less free enterprise rather than a dire call to action to save the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as a “fat pitch” to further attack free enterprise, all the while, actually thwarting the efforts to thwart the environmental impact of the spill. He took two weeks to respond to Louisiana’s request to build barrier islands. He turned down offers of help to deal with the oil spill from thirteen nations. Under his rule, the coast guard moth balled skimmers in order to make sure they met government regulations, further delaying remedial measures to save the environment. His only non-urban activity is golf and that’s not saying much. Cap and Trade won’t fix the environment. China and India aren’t signing on and even if they did, Cap and Trade only imposes more government. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it will do anything for the environment.
State’s Rights: He is suing Arizona for exercising their state’s rights. He does not like State’s rights, the very right that is set forth to create a sort of governmental competition. The very right that allows state’s to innovate in their policies in an attempt to improve life. He doesn’t agree with a state’s right to ban abortion.
Free Speech: He doesn’t like it. He attacks free expression regularly, even going so far as to say that free expression gets in the way of progress. He appointed Justice Kagen who is no fan of the First Amendment, who believes that there should be a redistribution of free expression which means government control. He is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine which in classic Ayn Randian style, has nothing to do with fairness but rather equality of points of view which means, government control of speech. He is in favor of net neutrality, meaning more government control, less free speech.
The Right to Bear Arms: He does not believe in the Second Amendment. His votes in the Illinois Legislature prove this.
What’s left? Does it even matter? By having contempt for the principles stated above, does one even need to go further? It’s akin to saying, “I like Nuclear Reactors, I’m just not fond of the nuclear reaction that goes on inside.” You cannot love America and what it stands for if you don’t stand for the American Principles. And our President does not stand for the American Principles. It’s as plain as day. He says it. He acts upon his words. He has contempt for those who disagree. We have enough information to finalize the diagnosis.
Folks, his rhetoric sounded good during the campaign. But now, at this critical time, it is imperative to realize and act upon the truth that it was just rhetoric, nothing more. He doesn’t like our country and if you don’t join him in his effort to destroy that which made us great, he doesn’t like you. And folks, here’s the kicker: He not only doesn’t like America, what he really doesn’t like is our freedom to save it. Freedom is his nemesis. Freedom is the stalking horse that threatens his skewed un-American vision. Freedom is what he really despises.
On a psychological note, a note based upon my observations and education, if a child is raised by an abusive parent, it is likely that the child will be grow up to be an abusive parent as well. This is particularly true with sexual abuse. It is called the Cycle of Sexual Abuse. Here’s the reach. Our President views his history, whether it is the cultural African American history or his history personally, as abusive and unfair. Is there a possibility that he is metaphorically the abused child playing his role in the cycle of abuse? To him, America wasn’t that good to him. (Rather amazing, he became President) He had a broken home. He was raised by a cacophony of anti-American mentors. He was bounced around from place to place, home to home. And now he’s an adult, repeating the anti-American mantra through his words, but more so through his actions. Is this the case? It sure seems like it, but I’m just asking.
So, going back to the premise of this piece, what is it that our President likes about this country? I come up with not a single fundamental American thing. I am not saying that he isn’t enjoying the fruits of our Nation’s labor. He is, but the fruits, the opulence he enjoys is not an American Principle. All dictators live opulent lives by the way. Opulence has nothing to do with American Principles. Opulence is a by-product but not a fundamental of Americanism. So please don’t argue that he loves America because he appreciates the opulence it has bestowed upon him. To love America is to love its principles. And he does not. And that is the dire dilemma that faces us today.
That’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Thanks for the read.
Brett Reetz
CO-EXIST! That is the bumper sticker of the inveterate liberal I see them all the time, usually on a Volvo, or some sort of quote “green” car. Co-exist. What does that mean? I’m not sure, but actually I’ve figured it out. It is an expression of demonic ludicrous that reveals the liberals penultimate desires. Wow, that’s a big sentence with a bunch of poly-syllabic words. On its face, the bumper sticker means “get along,” don’t be pious, other cultures are just as good as our American culture, but different, and how arrogant and condescending of us to demean these other cultures. That’s the intent of the bumper sticker and of course, the folks that sport those bumper stickers are so intellectual, so smart, so much more intellectual than us blue bloods.
Thus, I did what is necessary. I put myself in their shoes, the liberal apparent shoes, just to see if I was or wasn’t co-existing appropriately. Wow, am I naïve. Here’s what I discovered:
First, I have no friends that employ clitorectomies. None. Not one of my friends feel it is appropriate to excise a young girls clitoris in order to cause her to remain celibate and to not enjoy sex. Not a one. I am definitely not in a position to say that I am socializing with folks who endorsing clitorectomies. Shame on me, I am not co-existing.
Second, none of my friends have endorsed stoning a women to death for being raped. God, I am awful, I’m not co-existing. We need to embrace other cultures, we need to understand that they are not wrong, they are just different, and when a women gets raped in Saudi and then stoned for being a victim, we need to understand, we need to embrace, we need not to be so arrogantly righteous. Again, I am so bad, so arrogant, so not co-existing.
Third, It get’s worse! None of my friends discriminate against women. In fact a lot of my friends are women. I treat them no differently than I do my male friends. Yet, other cultures, the one we have to co-exist with, find women to be second class citizens, wear a mask, bow, don’t socialize with another male or we’ll stone you, just be deferential, after all, we have a penis and certainly that makes us better than you. I am so ashamed that I am not co-existing with folks who condemn women to second, even third, the children rank higher, class citizens.
Fourth, Oh shit, none of my friends are killing their new borns if they are female. Uh Oh. I can’t believe how arrogant I am not to be hanging with folks that employ infanticide when the wrong sex is born. Shame on me. I am not co-existing.
Fifth, I do not have a single friend who wants to pass his debt onto his children like they do in India. Again, shame on me. I am such a bad co-existor. How narrow of me? I need some friends who run up debt, live the good life, and pass it on to their children like in India. Well, if it’s any salvation, Obama’s imposing this reality upon us, so I guess I can say that I am involved. Still, I have no close friends who endorse this policy.
I could go on, but I’ve made my point. Co-exist? Get real Libs. The oxymoronic truth of the flagrantly ridiculous “co-exist” mantra reveals your abject stupidity. Don’t believe me, try to reconcile women’s rights with the cultures you inspire us to co-exist with, you’ll get stoned, to death my friends.
Here’s my ultimate point. The Co-Exist bumper sticker is an in your face, challenge me, revelation of the abject ignorance of the left. It’s impossible. It’s insane, It’s all illogical. All the tenants of evil if we have to cut the chase. \ So libs, keep putting those bumper stickers on your cars, keep revealing your inherent stupidity and evil for us to see. Here’s the kicker libs: We’ve seen through it. We know who you are and more importantly, we know what you are.
Come on knuckleheads. You want to co-exist with folks that will stone you for being who your are? The reality is that you don’t. The reality is that the bumper sticker simply reveals another trite illogical effort to destroy and demean what is good. Go for it libs. You are up against God. By the way, did you ever watch the exorcist? God won, he, she, it, always does. And here’s a final thought libs, even if you think you won, you always lose. Losing is consistent with your druthters.
What is the common denominator of Obama policies? The Destruction of America is the sole theme I can find in Obama’s policies and in his statements for that matter. Let’s check it out.
TAXATION. Obama is for higher taxation. Already some folks pay more than fifty percent of their income, of their productivity, in taxes. The Bush tax cuts will expire next year and Obama will do nothing to extend the cuts. Take a look at developed countries with high tax rates and then take a look at the entrepreneurial opportunities in those countries. It’s bleak and that’s where we’re headed. The CBO predicts only a two percent growth of gross product at best for the foreseeable future which is not quarters, not years, but decades. His drunken spending will provide a platform for him to raise taxes astronomically, further breaking another campaign promise. This is bad for America.
HEALTH CARE. Notwithstanding the socialistic anti-American theme in Obama-care, the cost alone, which is increasing by the week as we, and Washington, gets to understanding the implications, are going to be a wet blanket on our economy. Obama-care also takes away freedom, which last time I checked, is a bad thing. Companies are planning on eliminating their health care programs and turning employees over to the feds which inevitably fails at almost everything. Obama-care will hurt America. It already is.
CAP AND TRADE. This policy will explode bureaucracy and make business drastically more complex. It will increase costs and regulation and will decrease opportunity and productivity. It will grow the government and shrink the private sector. It will lead us closer to global government. Check out how it’s working in Europe. Not well. Bad for America.
IMMIGRATION. Obama is doing nothing about immigration except condemning Arizona, the one state with the fortitude to be responsible for their problems. Obama has lied about the law Arizona passed. Obama’s view on immigration is simply to, when the time is right, provide amnesty for illegals in order to create more left leaning voters who will vote for more redistribution of wealth, more government and therefore, less freedom. He has lied about the Arizona law. Bad for America.
FINANCIAL REFORM. Obama’s plan will burden the free market and again explode the federal bureaucracy. His plan ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, entirely leaves them out of the “reform” and they are the two biggest culprits in our recent financial woes. Why isn’t Obama addressing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue? Because they are agents for the government, that’s why. They are his folks. How can you claim to be fixing something when you’re ignoring the biggest cause, the root cause, of the problem? You can’t. And he doesn’t want to fix it. He wants to grow government and the people be damned. Bad for America.
BAIL OUTS. Obama loves a good bail out because it grows government power and influence and it takes care of the Unions in the case of the Auto industry.
GREECE. Obama pushed Europe to bail out Greece. Why? Why when we have trillions of dollars of debt is he borrowing money from China to give to Greece? There are a number of reasons. First, he adores the massive government in Greece. Second, if Greece fails more than it already has, it might reveal the flaws with Obama’s policies. (if they can be any more revealed as being awful). Third, it leads us closer to global government.
UNIONS. Obama is in favor of card check, his biggest ally is the SEIU union chief, he tired to exclude unions from the mandates of Obama-care. Are unions a good thing? Nope, just run down the list of union controlled industries. Auto industry, failed. Post Office, failed. Steel industry, gone. Government, the zenith of inefficiency and waste. Public education, struggling. Government pensions gifted to Unions and driving localities, municipalities, states and the Federal government closer and closer to bankruptcy and yet, Obama loves a union. Unions have proven to be a deadly albatross to so many American principles. Obama’s union policies are bad for America.
THE WARS. Now this is a strange one. Why is Obama breaking his promises regarding the wars on a regular basis, most recently retracting his position on exiting Afghanistan? Why does he continue with apparently no exit strategy in both wars? Here’s why. Wars run up the deficit. They further in debt our nation leading us towards collapse. That’s why. Maybe on the surface he doesn’t like war, but what he likes more is the destruction of America. And wars, especially wars of the ilk we’re in, are good ingredients for an American demise. Bad for America.
ENERGY. He lied about off shore drilling is now, given the gulf crisis, back tracking from his lie during the State of the Union Address. He keeps arguing for “going green” despite the established proof that it costs jobs, hurts the economy, and is a camouflage for more government control, regulation and burden on the economy. If you think “green” is good, check out Spain with its twenty percent unemployment rate. Bad for America.
DEFICITS. Deficits are a looming if not already arrived disaster for America and yet Obama keeps spending, keeps growing government, keeps borrowing. Bad for America.
I could go on with more examples of his policies, i.e. “don’t ask don’t tell, offshore drilling, contempt for profits, contempt for information (he recently said there was too much information and argument on the internet and talk radio which injures emancipation and democracy), his anti-Second Amendment, his belief that the Constitution is incomplete because it doesn’t address redistributive justice, and more. But I’ve said enough. You get my point. Obama doesn’t like America, at least not the America we love and cherish and the one that the world needs so desperately.
So face it folks, the facts of the matter reveal it. He says it. His minions say it. Obama and his minions want to destroy the America that saved Europe from Hitler, the America that is prosperous and generous, the America that has freedom and liberty as its driving force. He said as much when he repeatedly said that he wants to fundamentally change America. I’ve said it before, but fundamental is defined as the origin of existence and that’s what Obama wants to change, our origin of existence which are our god given, not Washington allowed, rights as set forth in our Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh was right when he said he wants Obama to fail. I do too. Any true American should, because his failure means we’ve saved America, the greatest nation in the history of man built on a simple yet exquisite document which our President has contempt, which our President doesn’t even understand. And I have hope and confidence that he will fail, because no man is capable of fighting our fundamentals, they are God given, and regardless of what our main stream media thinks of Obama, he’s nothing compared to God. And there’s nothing wrong with desiring a foe to fail. Just like a sporting event, you want your team to win and the other team to lose and that’s metaphorically what we have here, two competing teams with diametrically opposed philosophies. O.K., I’ll say it another way. I want our side to win. I want it to be a blow out. I want good to prevail over evil but notwithstanding that I believe that our fundamentals are God given and the obvious implication that if you are against our fundamentals you are fighting with God, a bad fight to pick, I’ll save the good versus evil for another blog.
That’s my Reetzality for the day.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL HAS HIM FIGURED OUT!
The Obama Presidency – by Eddie Sessions:
I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?
He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.
Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.
We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?”
That’s my Reetzality for the day. Thank you Mr. Sessions.
A great article by Charles Krauthammer revealing the utter ignorance (correct word, Obama is doing some “ignoring”) by Obama of the real nuclear weapon threat to America. Read on:
April 16, 2010
Obama’s Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON — There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.
But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.
The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.
Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.
Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.
So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.
What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.
Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table, and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the U.S.
Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the U.S. and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?
The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.
Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week, a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.
This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.
All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.
At which point the world changes irrevocably: the regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.
A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.
But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “Work Plan” has been agreed to.
Oh yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on.
Thank You Mr. Krauthammer, and thank you readers.
That’s my Reezality for the Day.
WHO ARE THE REAL MEN, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES?
Foremost, I am not a chauvinist. I do not see much difference in male and female abilities other than physical ability and even when considering physical abilities, there are thousands of women who ski better than me, can kill me in tennis, swimming, certainly karate, running, ice skating, surfing, the list is endless. So when I use the term “men” I am not being “politically correct” because I find political correctness oft times to be offensive and dishonest. If a person is short, they are short. If discussing height and you use another term, i.e. “stature challenged,” aren’t you really skirting the truth? Sure you are. But, if I was to be politically correct, I would have written the title this way: WHO ARE THE REAL PEOPLE, LIBERALS OR CONSERVATIVES? Let’s check it out.
Before we do, let us hit Webster’s for a definition of “real.” Here it is: “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.” Let’s go the whole nine yards. The definition of “merely” is “being nothing more nor better than what is specified.” The definition of “ostensible” is “outwardly appearing as such.” The definition of “nominal” is “being such in name only.” The definition of “apparent” is “readily seen; open to view.” Houston, we have a measuring stick. Let’s take a look at the basic tenants inherent in the beliefs of Liberals and Conservatives. Here they are:
CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.
Let’s break it down:
Personal Responsibility: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Limited Government: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Free Markets: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Individual liberty: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Sometimes.
Traditional American Values: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Strong National Defense: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Government to Provide Freedom: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Individual Solve Their Problems: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, No.
Government is The Solution: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Government Solves Social Ills: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Government Protects Civil Liberties: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.
Government Protects Human Rights: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Depends.
Government Guarantees No-one in Need: Conservatives, No. Liberals, Yes.
Believes People Are Basically Good: Conservatives, Yes. Liberals, Questionable.
Now, back to the analysis. Who is the real man? Who is “true, not merely ostensible, nominal or transparent?”
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Liberals don’t regardless of what they say. They are constantly not holding persons responsible for their status, whether it is financial, health care, housing, eating, education, drug addiction, and on and on and on. So, the liberals are not being real, no matter what they say.
Conservatives believe in limited government. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals endlessly talk about cutting deficits, ending waste and increasing efficiency. If you don’t believe me, Google a few of the speeches in support of health care. Yet, their programs do not cut the deficits, do not end waste and are inefficient. Again, the liberal is not being real.
Conservatives believe in free markets. Liberals don’t, again, regardless of what they say. Obama has said he believes in the free market while he, at the same time, has an endless love affair with unions, regulation and government control. Not to real Mr. President.
Conservatives believe in individual liberty. Liberals only do so if the individual liberty is exercised consistent with the liberal philosophy. Want an example. How about two. We’ve just lost our individual liberty to “not” buy health insurance or buy health insurance of our choice. Number two. The current administration is desirous of implementation of the Fairness Doctrine which will limit the individual freedom to speak by taxing the popular view to subsidize the liberal view. Here’s a third example of the non-belief of individual freedom; card check. The liberals want the secret ballots in union votes to no longer be secret. Yet, they profess that they are huge supporters of individual freedom. They are not being real. In fact, as a collateral point, liberals will scream individual freedom when it comes to an abortion or when it comes to pooping on an American Flag. I guess they’re for specified individual liberty as long as they are the ones specifying.
Conservatives believe in traditional American Values. Liberals don’t. Just check out same sex marriages, diversity, and our President fawning over never ending anti-American cultures. Yet, and again, liberals say they are all in favor of traditional American values. This is not true, and therefore not real.
Conservatives believe in a strong national defense. Liberals don’t. Yet, liberals claim to have national security in their hearts. They don’t. They favor appeasement, see Iran, Russia, Venezuela. They cut military spending. They attack the military with words and budgets. Once again, they are not being real.
Conservatives believe it is the government’s role to provide freedom. Liberals don’t. What is the best way to take away freedom, well next best to imprisonment? Taxation. And liberals love taxation. Taxation literally enslaves a portion of an individual’s productivity. Freedom to a liberal is to classify a person by race, creed, color, sexual orientation, or age, and then to take away freedom in the free market, i.e. affirmative action and quotas. They also take away the freedom to fail, freedom to compete, freedom to make a student loans, freedom to profit, see Obama on the insurance industry, etc. Not a very real endorsement of freedom.
Conservatives believe that an individual is best suited to solve his or her problems. Liberals think the government is while at the same time arguing that they have nothing against the individual. Get real Liberals. Your endless mantra is that government is the solution notwithstanding the fact, yes the fact, government has a monopoly on failure. Our federal government is breaking the world record every day on being “up-side down” on it’s debt to equity ration. Liberals are not in the universe of reality on this one.
Conservatives believe that the Government is not the solution. Liberals do. See above paragraph. No reality here with the liberals.
Conservatives do not believe that government solves social ills. Sure, conservatives believe in civil rights, like don’t discriminate based upon race, creed, religion, or color, But liberals, those naïve folks, think government does solve social ills. Have they checked out the condition of the under-class since Johnson’s Great Society went into play. Have they looked at drop out rates, out of wedlock birth rates, crime statistics? I’ll give them a pass and determine they haven’t because Government doesn’t solve social ills, it creates them. Is there anything real about liberals?
Conservatives do believe that government should protect our civil liberties. Liberals say the same thing, but then expand the definition of a civil liberty to include the mandate that a private employer must hire a transvestite dressed in drag so as not to violate the transvestite’s civil liberties. Liberals also use “civil liberties” to support religious segregation, i.e. no manger at the town hall at Christmas. So, in effect, liberals use the guise of civil liberties to accomplish the limitation of civil liberties. Not real at all.
Conservatives believe government should protect human rights. Of course they do. However, once again the liberals have used the “expanded definition tactic” to define such things as free health care as a human right. It’s not. It’s not in the constitution. Even more ironic, hypocritical if you will, is that within the Liberal agenda to take care of the human right to free health care, are massive seizures of a person’s right to choose his or her own health care. Go ahead, attack me on this one lefties, but bring some ammunition with you, for example a day of reading the Obama-care bill. Liberals are not really for human rights. How could they be with their endless embracing of regimes and cultures that absolutely violate the very basics of our culture. Last time I checked, we don’t stone rape victims. Is it a human right not to be stoned to death after you are raped? (See fundamental Muslim culture, Saudi Arabia) By the looks of the Presidential’ genuflecting of late, apparently it is not. And hey Mr. President, how are you handling Darfur? You know that Genocide in the Sudan. See? No reality in the liberal human rights agenda.
Conservatives believe that we the people, through private, and public charity should take care of the truly needy. The liberals, once again, use the “expand the definition tactic” to take care of millions of folks who aren’t truly needy. On the top side, there are the banks, GM, Chrysler, the Unions. On the bottom side, there are the disgustingly large number of folks who get subsidized for housing, food, medical, etc. that simply don’t apply themselves to personal problem solving. They are perfectly healthy individuals who would find a way without the government if they had to do so. But why worry when you got your rich Uncle Sam? I’ll tell you why, Uncle Sam is broke folks. The party is over, at least it is soon to be. So they say they want to take care of the needy, but then they use government to addict folks, to make them needy, folks who aren’t. So they aren’t being real.
Conservatives believe most people are basically good. Liberals say they do, they say, “look, I care about the down-trodden, you know those folks that we’ve addicted to welfare and subsidies. These are good people. You conservatives shun the poor. They vote for me because I give them money. Wait, I wasn’t supposed to say that last part.” The reality is that I don’t think liberals think most people are good people if the definition of a “good person” includes a person who is personally responsible. Can we truly say this, “Yeah, Joe’s a good guy, on welfare, hasn’t worked in three years, spends his money on booze and cigarette’s, can’t even keep a roof over his three kids and the three baby’s mama’s heads without government assistance, but still, he’s a good guy?” Not if we’re being real. Liberals do though, because they’re not real. Conservatives do not think old Joe is a good guy. We think he’s a capable guy though. Liberal analysis, by design, doesn’t even get close to the issue of capability or culpability, they’d lose the vote.
Well, there’s the analysis folks. Now here will be the response. It will be the “two wrongs make a right” response. What did Bush do about Darfur. Bush passed Tarp. What about corporate welfare? Let me stop you right there. This is about conservative versus liberal philosophies, not politics, not Republican versus Democrat. The Republican Party reeks of liberalism. It’s what destroyed it. So don’t go there, because I’ll agree with you.
So who’s the real man, the liberal or the conservative? Who is “True, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent?” Sorry folks, it’s the conservative. My analysis accurately demonstrates that liberals are merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent. Thus, they are not real. The conservative believes in the right things, the things that actually work. Liberals don’t, unless their agenda is to addict the nation’s citizens to government and to insure that, as the nation cascades downward into the abyss, their chosen people are on top of the ever depreciating pile of ruination. If that’s the liberals’ agenda, then my hat is off to them. They are doing a great job. Just think, in a couple of generations we could conceivably have a president bowing to the president of Zimbabwe.
Note: In a future posting I am going to consider why it is that folks become liberal. I haven’t figured it out yet, certainly not to enhance their masculinity, to be a real man. Uh oh, there goes my political incorrectness again.
A FOLLOW UP ON THE CLANDESTINE SURRENDER POST!
So Obama is not going to use nukes if we are attacked with biological or chemical weapons or a crippling cyber attack is launched? What? Here’s the question in this relatively short posting; WHY? Why in the world would a person entering a fight or who might be attacked, announce and make public what he won’t do? I have no idea why.
Let me see if I can apply this to an alley fight between me and, let’s say an ex-client who despises me. Now let’s say the ex-client has threatened me, like, let’s see, like the radical extreme Muslims in Yemen threaten the United States. Let’s also say that I’ve got a big gun, an automatic pistol, much like, let’s see again, a nuke like we as a nation do have. Now this angry threatening ex-client has been and is constantly thinking about how to get me and if he should come and get me. When he considers whether to assault me, or in the case of the Muslim extremist, attack, he thinks, “Damn, I might go in there and put up my dukes, but that Reetz, he’s got a gun and I don’t. He might shoot me, or in the case of the Muslim extremist, “I really want to use a weapon of mass destruction to attack, but that pesky United States has a nuke and they might nuke us.” Personally, call me crazy but I like the idea that my enemy is concerned about my armament, my gun. I like the idea that our nation’s enemies consider the fact that we have nuclear arms and might use them.
But my enemies, worry no more. “We aint going to use the nukes.” Our president said so. So now back to why? Why in the world would you tell your enemy what you aren’t going to do to them if they attack? Would you get in a poker game and get dealt two Aces, and then announce to the table, “By the way folks. I aint going to play these Aces? Place your bets.” If somebody was out to kill you and they were going to use Karate to do so and they knew you had a gun and might just shoot them, would you call them up and say, “in case you were wondering, I’m not going to use my gun?” Even if you had no intention of using your gun, or in our nation’s case, our nukes, why telegraph your intentions. Why tell the enemy what we won’t do to them if they attack? I do not know. Do I hear incompetent anyone, anyone, anyone, going once, twice, three times, . . . sold?
Now let’s switch shoes. If I’m the bad guy, or the radical Muslims in Yemen, and I hear in the bad guy case that my enemy with a gun isn’t going to use it or in the radical Muslim case the United States isn’t going to use their nukes, don’t I, they, say, “Excellent! The potential consequences if I do attack just got a lot better?” Of course I do. Of course they do.
Obama has just lowered the bar, the risk reward ratio, for the bad guys. Incompetently with no apparent purpose, Obama has increased the chances of an attack on America. So I ask again. Why? Of course, the left will say that it sends a good signal to the world, a signal of non-nuclear proliferation. Great! Right? Wrong! Here’s a news flash folks: The folks who want to kill us are not sitting back and saying, “Great! The United States isn’t going to use nukes if we attack them. We can call off the attack. We love the United States now. Great guys those Americans.” Sorry folks they are saying just the opposite. They are saying “the consequences of an attack have just tilted immensely in our favor.” Guaranteed. Does Obama want an attack? Who knows? I do know this: He’s made it more likely.
Bad job Mr. President, bad job. You’re going to have to edit your rhetoric. You know Mr. President, the “If they bring a knife, I’ll bring a gun,” rhetoric. You’ll need to change it to “If they bring a knife, I will not bring my gun. I’ll bring a pillow.” As was said at the ending of each Family Ties sitcom, Mr. President, “SIT UBU, SIT!” And please, think before you speak. Fire your teleprompter too.
That’s my second Reetzality for the day.
Note 1: Obama is back pedaling. They are saying they’ll only go nuke if the strike on us is devastating. My thought? Let’s go to Bill Clinton. “It depends on the definition of “is.”” Now I feel better. I’m joking here. The Reetzality here is that it depends on the definition of “devastating” which the president will define and since we don’t know the president’s definition of “devastating, we don’t know his policy or in the more probable alternative, he has no actual policy. Heck, who needs a policy when it comes to the use of nukes?
Note 2. What if a near devastating attack occurs on our soil? What if Obama determines that we need to impose martial law, maybe even suspend Habeas Corpus? Oh, that would never be done. Oh no? Lincoln did it.
Note 3. If habeas corpus is suspended the first thing that will occur is the silencing of Obama’s critics. Maybe this is his plan.
Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.
Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.
The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.
The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Senators Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.
“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”
The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens. “It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”
The above is from the Wall Street Journal online. Here’s the Reetzality. No way Washington. A national ID would be a huge invasion our privacy. The use of the national ID card would rapidly expand beyond its alleged “intended” purposes. I can think of hundreds of vile alternative abuses for the card. A person would have to be a fool to think the card will only be used to keep illegal aliens from working in the United States. The first thing government will do is make everybody have one whether your working or not. If they don’t is it the government’s position that they only want to regulate illegal alien workers? So let me get this straight. If I am an illegal alien drug dealer, I don’t need a national ID card? See my point?
Here are ten other applications the government will certainly employ:
1. Government will use it to track gun ownership, just to make sure, they will say, an illegal doesn’t buy a gun.
2. Government will will use it to track travel by requiring its presentation before you get on an airplane, probably buses and trains too.
3. Government will use it for taxation, by monitoring bank deposits and withdrawals.
4. Government will use it to monitor purchases so that it can influence the markets rather than the markets themselves influencing markets. A monitored market is not a free market.
5. Government will use it for statistical analysis to set policies rather than liberty and principles setting the policies.
6. Government will allow the data that is collected to be subject to subpoena so that law enforcement can track a person’s purchases. They’ll want to know what a suspect is spending his or her money on.
7. Government will use it to track an individual’s location. If you are a a suspect, they’ll want to see where you’ve used your card to see where you’ve been, where you are.
8. Government will use the data to identify folks they don’t like. Remember Homeland security put out a warning for those folks with anti-Obama bumper stickers, gun rights bumper stickers, etc. Government will use its computers to develop profiles of folks the government doesn’t particularly like.
9. Government will use it enforce consumption taxes by requiring the use of the card to identify purchases and to tax those folks who buy too much of, let’s see, maybe gasoline, guns, liquor, pick.
10. Government will use the card to track health care, monitoring a person’s consumption of health care and also monitoring a persons life style choices based upon the person’s purchases. The life style choices, computer inferred by a person’s purchases, will affect the person’s health care choices.
I’ve thought of more uses as I wrote the above ten, but ten is enough for now.
In total, the card represents an evil threat of abject control and diminished freedom. And what do you know, there’s a Democrat, Chuck Shumer, and a Republican, Lindsey Graham, pushing it. Come on folks, have you ever known government advances in it’s progressive assault on our liberties to retreat? The only thing I can come up with is a few court cases involving gun rights and tax cuts. The are the only notable shrinkage in government I have ever witnessed.
Once again, Washington is using a problem, illegal immigration and open borders, to execute its agenda of suppression of freedom and liberty. And, once again, they won’t solve the problem. If I’ve got a factory, and I break the law and don’t require a government ID, if I pay my employees in cash, how will they know I’m not following the rules? They won’t. Well unless the following scenario occurs. Check out this radical reetzality:
What if Washington passes the National ID card legislation as proposed with biometric idendification? (“Biometry” is defined by Webster’s as “the calculation of the probably duration of human life.” “Biometric” isn’t in my dictionary.) Now, what if the card has a magnetic strip like a credit card? It will. Of course it will. Now, what if currencies fail? They are predicted to do so, based upon that irritating (to politicians) science called math. Would it be such a stretch to think that governments, not just ours, would end the use of currencies and use the National I.D. as a universal debit card for everything? Oh, but the government wouldn’t take over the banks who provide credit cards would they? Too late, they already are dabbling in this. Think about this. If this scenario occurs, the government will be able to track your movement, your purchases, your life styles, and the payment of taxes would become a direct extraction from your national I.D-debit card. (Maybe there will be a new word Extaxion, meaning “the process by which governments extract your productivity from your nationally controlled and monitored value?”) It could get worse. How long would it be before nations enter treaties and start sharing the national ID information, maybe even globalizing the national ID concept? I would say a few years. Then, governments could, with the stroke a computer key, shift any amount of value from any person-people to any other person-people. Hard to argue or have a tax revolt when your only “money” is in your government National ID-debit card.
Bingo. We’ve got a one world government with a one world pseudo currency. I’m not sold on Bible prophecy, the mark of the devil and all that stuff, but it’s getting less unbelievable lately.
I pray not. Email Lindsey Graham by going to http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/. Email Charles Shumer at http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm. I tried to find their exact email addresses but failed. It seems you have to go through their propaganda to contact them. Do so.
Finally, don’t miss the Washington slight of hand going on here. Washington has us focused on health care with one hand while the other hand nationalizes are individual identity. We must stop them both.
Don't Go Left!
But for the sake of argument, let’s throw the Lefties a bone and, again for the sake of argument, say it’s in there, that it is a constitutional right to have health care, no matter what. That’s the lefties’ position. Duh, just listen to the morons on the senate floor of late.
O.K. Let’s proceed. If it is a right like gun and speech rights, let us use, I pick guns, to conduct an analogous examination. Shouldn’t congress be pushing for a national gun reform? Shouldn’t congress be pushing for every American to have a gun? Shouldn’t we be hearing Scary Reid lamenting over stories of poor Americans that struggle without guns because they can’t afford them while rich Americans have tons of guns. Shouldn’t we be hearing horrific stories of folks who couldn’t defend themselves because they couldn’t afford a gun? My God, how many Americans go without guns? Shouldn’t we hear Aunt Nancy proposing taxation of those who can afford guns to pay for those who can’t afford guns. I mean guns do save lives and we do have the right to have them? This right, unlike health care, is actually in the Constitution. But for arguments sake, we are making the assumption that health care is a Constitutional Right. So shouldn’t everybody be entitled to a gun and shouldn’t we be legislating affordability out of the equation? Certainly, if health care is a right, a Constitutional right according to the lefties, and therefore everybody is entitled, then it would be inconsistent to argue for a federal mandate that everybody gets health care, no matter who pays, while not at the same time arguing that everybody gets guns, no matter who pays. And shouldn’t congress and the President be screaming for a national over haul of gun rights? I mean a lot of folks don’t have guns, can’t even afford them, and if it is a right, like they say health care is, then shame on us, owning outstanding weapons while some folks go without. Shame on us. Let’s go further in our analogous argument. In fact, gun manufacturers are making money right now due to fear of the government. Folks are buying guns in record numbers and the gun manufacturers are making those evil things at the expense of those without, making lots of those evil villainous things. The villainous thing they are making is profits. Well, according to the liberal profits are villainous. Thus, we should tax the gun manufacturers and regulate them and tell them how to make, sell, and deliver guns. Heck, we should have a public gun manufacturer so that there is competition so that we can bring the cost of guns down and provide affordability to the masses. Right?
See my point? Guns are a right, not an entitlement. Free Speech is a right, not an entitlement. The right to remain silent is a right, not an entitlement; you have to exercise your right to remain silent and you have every right to do so, but you are not mandated by the government do so. People waive the right all the time.
Wait! I just stumbled on another somewhat stunning point. Under the Constitution it is perfectly appropriate to waive your right to remain silent but under the congressional health care reform you don’t have the right to waive your right to health care? Well actually you do. You don’t have to go to the doctor so you are in effect waiving your right to health care. What you don’t have the right to do under the pending congressional monolith is to not pay for it; actually under the current plans you don’t have the right to not pay for other peoples’ health care.
So, since according to the liberals who are so virtuous, caring, logical, and intellectual, health care is a right, a constitutional one at that (probably under the “pursuit of happiness” language.”). And since guns are a right, then how can they argue consistently against my implied proposal herein? They can’t. Well unless they throw logic, reason and consistency under the bus which they will do, then they can.
But again see my point. Now, having made my point which was to show the fundamental ridiculousness of the liberal agenda when it comes to health care, everything really, lets get to the truth of the matter. Here it is:
Health care is a right, just like guns, free speech, private property, and many others. Health care is not an entitlement. You have to pay for it. You have to earn it. You have to exercise the right. What you don’t have the right to do is to have somebody else pay for it, just like you don’t have the right to have somebody else pay for your guns. Here’s some more straight talk. The liberal agenda on health care is not about health care, it’s about the redistribution of wealth. It is taking from Peter to pay for Paul. It is also about government control of one sixth of the economy.
So fine, it’s a constitutional right to have health care? I’ll buy in. Mr. Government, will you buy me a new house, my neighbor has a better one? Mr. Government, will you buy me a new gun, my neighbor has a better one? It’s not fair, and guns and private property are rights, just like you say health care is, so what’s your problem with my request?
Wait, wait, my satire got ahead of me. It’s not about rights, that’s just a campaign slogan, it’s about redistribution and government control. Now I remember. Wait, wait, my recollection just caught up with me. Here’s an idea. Why don’t we buy everybody guns, houses, health care, anything that everybody wants, everybody shall have, and we’ll all be equal. Heck, if we do this right, we could be just like the U.S.S.R. But didn’t they go bankrupt?
