Is there too much government in your life?
View Results
I’m no genius, but President Obama’s speech was shallow rhetoric, self aggrandizing bunk, and replete with the indicia of an incapable leader. It came across as a joke, but under the circumstances, it’s not funny. Let’s go through the rhetoric and analyze. Don’t get depressed. The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem. We have a problem, it’s Obama. He’s helping us admit it. Here’s my analysis:
First comment of concern by our President and analysis:
Obama: “That is why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge – a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy.”
Reetzality: No you did not assemble a team just after the rig sank. And I don’t care about Nobel prizes. I care about results. After all, our President got one of those Nobel Prizes.
Second comment of concern by our Presidetn and analysis:
Obama: “First, the cleanup. From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental cleanup effort in our nation’s history – an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost forty years of experience responding to disasters.”
Reetzality: Thad Allen was appointed on May 1, 2010, ten days after the oil spill. Today he stated that he reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, not to the president. The federal government has not been in charge of the largest environmental clean up since the very beginning, in fact, it is possible they are not in charge of it now.
Obama: “Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent, third party.”
Reetzality: Tomorrow? Eight weeks later he’s meeting with the chairman of BP? This is being Johnny on the spot to fix the problem? Not in my book. And where is authority to order a corporation to “set aside” funds? What about due process? What about liability? I know, it looks and most likely is BP’s fault, but we don’t know for sure yet. To announce that he’s ordering them to “set aside” without stating the mechanism which is going to do this reveals his ignorance of the constitution or his reliance on his perceived stupidity of Americans. But he gets right past those tedious constitutional issues and goes right into management, an independent third party, of the fund that we, nor he, has any clue how he’s going to order to be set aside.
Obama: “The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that has already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats. And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.”
Reetzality: There’s the blame Bush game. There’s the, “The Gulf is trashed but it’s not my fault entirely. Bush has to take some blame because he screwed up Katrina and Rita.”
Obama: “Already, I have issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling. I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety, and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deepwater drilling to continue.”
Reetzality: Why six months? Why not a decade? Why not two months? Creates difficulty? Six months was an arbitrary time limit plucked out of the air. It has no basis in any analysis as to how long it would actually take. If you were in a meeting and somebody said, “six months,” you’d ask, “why six months? What’s your basis for needing six months?” For God’s sake, he’s the federal government, does it really take six months to “know the facts?” Maybe it does for the federal government. Me personally, I’d get you the facts in a week for a million dollars with a $200,000.00 operating budget, and I’m nothing special. I do agree that the loss of a job is a difficulty, maybe even a financial crisis for a family person supporting his or her family.
Obama: “. . . the Minerals Management Service. Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility – a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves. At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors, and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.”
Reetzality: “Over the last decade . . . “ More of the blame game. As to industry insiders, our man, President Obama hired Elizabeth Birnbaum who formerly worked for BP. She resigned, effective May 31st, 2010. Yes, maybe insiders were put in charge, but our President hired the insiders.
Obama: “After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20% of the world’s oil, but have less than 2% of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean – because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”
Reetzality: That’s not true. Regardless of the percentages, we have oil. How about drilling in ANWAR where we would have plugged the hole already. How about the East and West coast? How about the Dakotas? We’re running out of places to drill because the government is preventing us from drilling.
Obama: “Countries like China are investing in clean energy jobs and industries that should be here in America.”
Reetzality: You’ve got to be kidding. Our President has just called us, implicit in the above comment, retarded. Does anybody recall the air pollution concerns of the last Olympics? Does anybody, I mean anybody, believe that China, China for Heaven’s sake, is going green? They’re not. Shame on you Mr. President.
Obama: “This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.”
Reetzality: This is classic liberal argument number one! Change the subject. The issue is the oil spill and plugging the hole and what does our President do? He changes the subject and speaks of Green. Not now Mr. President, you have a leak to plug. Go Green in your nearing retirement. See Al Gore.
Obama: “When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”
Reetzality: What are those “principles that would move our country towards energy independence?” This is classic, “let no crisis go to waste” speak. Bad President, bad.
Obama: “The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is too big and too difficult to meet. You see, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon.”
Reetzality: First, the challenge is too big for you Mr. President. After all, how did you fare in that lemonade stand? Oops, you never ran a lemonade stand, or anything bigger. And the nerve of you to invoke World War II and the man on the moon. Those were real American challenges and if the truth be told, which I always do, (I’m not smart enough to lie) your rhetoric tonight would have us speaking German or, in the case of a man on the moon, have us still attempting. To the extent you are correct in your reaching analogy, you don’t have the hutzpah to be the guy in charge.
O.K. Now for the Reetzality recap. The president has lied about his efforts, his priority, and his diligence in dealing with the Gulf Oil spill. He has used the Gulf Oil Spill to leverage his bigger agenda, government growth and control. He is not equipped to deal with this crisis. He has absolutely no experience or history that would avail him of the ammunition to deal with this problem. He is flailing. Certainly, his words sound good but the merits of them, the meaning of his words, are troubling for their vacancy of significance. Even more problematic, he has yet to formulate a plan. He has delivered nothing more than shallow rhetoric that works just fine in the south side of Chicago and evidently in a presidential campaign, but when push comes to shove, doesn’t plug the hole.
Folks, I do not fault our President for who he is. He is a product of an enabled rearing where he was indulged. He was indulged as a youth. He was indulged with his admittance into the Universities he attended. He was indulged with his position as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He was indulged with his state legislative seat. He was indulged with his senate position. He was ultimately indulged with the Presidency. We, as a people, indulged him. We were serenaded by the tempo of his words and now he is President, with no experience in dealing with crisis, accountability or consequence, and our Gulf Coast is suffering as we will all suffer.
This is the revelation. This is the time, the moment, when our leader has revealed himself as a non-leader. This is the moment when the truth is revealed that our President is nothing more than a simple tele-prompter reader with no ability to deal with crisis. This is the time when we realize that our President is incapable, lacking the most important quality we need in a President, the ability to problem solve. He is vacant of the skills and strengths are country needs and demands.
And that’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Thanks for the read.
Brett Reetz
Obama is still playing the metaphorical role of the parent who spoils, enables, and ultimately ruins his children. The metaphor is this; the parent is the President, the children are Americans. On Saturday, Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery. Rahm Emanuel said,”While some people say you have to spend and some people say you have to cut, the president wants to talk about both cuts and investing,” There’s some of the old audacity, characterizing “spending” as “investing.” (Government spending has a negative multiplier effect which means the economy shrinks by more than a dollar when the government spends a dollar.)
The federal government needs to stop borrowing money, mostly from China, and start existing within its means. The Federal Government has a monumental cash flow problem meaning the money coming in is less than the money going out. Yet, the current administration could care less. The stimulus did not stop a free fall. It protected government workers who make substantially more than the private sector.
As reported in the USA TODAY by Dennis Cauchon on March 8th, 2010, “Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector. Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available. These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”
Here’s some Reetzality: According to the USA TODAY analysis, the over-all cost, what “public servants” earn, of a public sector job including benefits is $38,548.00 more than an equivalent private sector job. Well not entirely equivalent. Public sector employees don’t work as hard, aren’t as accountable, and don’t get fired as easily as private sector workers. Glenn Beck is encouraging us to read the Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek which is an influential exposition of classical liberalism. I looked up the word Serf for the literal definition. It is, according to Webster’s, “1. A person in a condition of feudal servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord’s land and transferred with it from one owner to another. 2. A slave.” Sadly, I think we’re nearing the end of this particular road. We are required to render. Our burden to render is passed from one political class to another. Do we really own our land? Just stop paying the king, I mean the government and see how long you can call home, home. And the kings’ men, I mean the public sector employees, are getting compensated more than the private sector. They are receiving more wealth than the folks actually producing the wealth. And isn’t being forced to pay near fifty percent of a person’s productivity in taxes, whether state, federal, local, property, sales, fuel, personal property, license fees, etc., effectively a partial violation of the Thirteenth Amendment? Doesn’t that make a person half a slave? Well maybe not. We don’t have to work. We can go Surfing. Maybe it’s only share cropper status government is imposing.
Back to serious. The private sector is still collapsing under the present weight of government and the fear of the future increased weight of government and Obama wants to bail out government. Hey President, how about cutting government. How about doing what any private sector enterprise would do when faced with a budget crisis, across the board cuts in wages? Or if your minions in your teachers unions, police and fire fighter unions and the AEIU don’t like it, lay some of them off. Trust me Mr. President, we in the private sector will survive. Further more, these are state entities you are bailing out. Why not allow the States to resolve their own problems? Why continue to enable a failing and likely soon to actually fail top heavy government bloated system that continues to usurp the people’s liberties, principles, perseverance, ingenuity, and optimism? Here’s why. Obama is a bad President, behaving just like a bad parent. He is the parent who keeps saying, “This is the last warning! This is the last time. If you ______________ (fill in the blank with any adolescent transgression) one more time, I will ______________ (fill in the blank with any punishment).” Then, when the bad parent’s child once again commits a transgression, he again enables the child by not imposing consequences. Consider this: Wage cuts in government are almost historically non-existent. Thus, now when we need them, when our future depends on a smaller government (or learning Chinese), government workers will have no part of it. Government workers will behave just like a spoiled child who is facing the imposition of a rarely, if ever, imposed consequence. They will throw a tantrum. And the parent, our President, will come to their aid, blame others, probably George Bush, and do anything he can to commandeer the wet teet into their mouths, further damaging the future.
In fact, this is exactly what he is doing right now. He said so yesterday. I am not making a prognosis here. I am making a diagnosis. Sticking with the parenthood comparison, my experience is that when a parent spoils, enables, and comprehensively fails to raise a child of much merit, eventually, notwithstanding the contempt for the child’s behavior, the parent is held to be responsible. The parent is the bad guy. The children are the ones who suffer. Obama is the parent. Americans are the children. Maybe Obama needs to read some Dr. Spock. It seems like he’s reading Dr. Seuss.
That’s my Reetzality for the day.
President Obama, during Thursday’s (May 27, 2010) press conference, said that every morning when he’s shaving, his daughter comes in and asks, “Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?” It is reported that Glenn Beck hit a new low by mocking this asserted inquiry of Malia, President Obama’s daughter. I disagree. Here are my thoughts as to why I do not think Glenn Beck was mocking Malia Obama:
1. I do not believe the question was asked by Malia Obama. In order for her to ask the question, President Obama would have to be posing the problem of the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico as his responsibility. He would have to have been telling his daughter, literally and only, “I have to plug a hole.” It is inconsistent with President Obama to ever leave any doubt laying around that something might be his fault. He would have tagged his mission to “plug the hole” with some blame gaming.
2. It is inconsistent with President Obama to take responsibility for anything without first blaming somebody else. If you have to bet on the “somebody else,” put your money on George Bush. So, if acting in character, and if actually consulting with his daughter Malia, he would have said, something akin to “I have to plug the hole George Bush caused,” or “I have to plug the hole the Oil industry caused.” Thus, his daughter would have asked, “Did you plug the hole George Bush caused, Daddy?” Or maybe, “Did you plug the hole the oil industry caused, Daddy?” Or “Did you plug the hole Republicans caused, Daddy?” Or even, “Did you plug the hole that unregulated free enterprise caused, Daddy?” Now if these were the question his daughter asked, I’d believe the story.
3. Consistent with President Obama’s inability to accept responsibility on steps one and two of crisis management (Step one: What happened and who is at fault? Step two: What is the solution and who’s going to be responsible for the solution?) and President Obama’s narcissistic inability not to take credit for the third step, the actual solution, there is no way he would allow his daughter to surmise that if he didn’t “plug the hole,” it would be his fault. Nothing is his fault according to him. I’ve wracked my brain and I can’t come up with a single example of him taking the blame for anything. On the other hand, and in the opposite, he does have an inclination to take credit for most everything, regardless of two important points of consideration. POINT 1. Did he actually do anything allowing him to take credit? POINT 2. Is there anything for which he can take credit? As an example, see the economy. Notwithstanding the Stimulus Package’s failure to keep unemployment at 8%, President Obama is taking credit for an improved economy that is not improved.
4. Even if his daughter did ask such a question, and if President Obama told the entire story of the routine morning dialogue with Malia, he would have told us of his response, which if the story is to be believed, would have been, “What hole are you referring to Malia?”
Because, and this is a transitional paragraph, President Obama has a lot of holes to plug. He has the economy hole which is going down the drain due primarily to the tangible fear of business of Obama’s policies. He has the national debt hole. It is almost literally off the charts. He has the foreign policy hole. His apology tour didn’t work. North and South Korea are no longer hugging. Iran is going nuclear. Israel is miffed at us. He has the war hole. No end in sight. He has the immigration hole. Huge numbers of illegals are leaking in. And he has the Joe Sestak hole, the primary point of my commentary today. Here goes:
Here’s the news: Former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak — allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.). Rep. Joe Sestak says he declined the offer. This stinks of tripe in so many ways. No way. Here’s why it is nothing more than a cheap charade.
QUESTION NUMBER ONE: Who would go to a candidate in a senatorial race and offer him an unpaid job in exchange for pulling out of a race?
ANSWER NUMBER ONE: Nobody.
QUESTION NUMBER TWO: Why would Joe Sestak state that he was offered a “job” when, if you believe the White House, it was an unpaid position?
ANSWER NUMBER TWO: He wouldn’t.
QUESTION NUMBER THREE: If it was so legal, innocent (and worthless) a proposal, why wouldn’t Joe Sestak reveal its details?
ANSWER NUMBER THREE: Because it wasn’t so legal, innocent and worthless a proposal?
QUESTION NUMBER FOUR: If it was so legal, innocent (and worthless) a proposal, why wouldn’t the White House reveal the details?
ANSWER NUMBER FOUR: Because it wasn’t so legal, innocent and worthless a proposal?
QUESTION NUMBER FIVE: If it was so innocent (and worthless) a proposal, why did the White House employ Bill Clinton as a go between to make the offer?
ANSWER NUMBER FIVE: Because it wasn’t so legal, innocent and worthless a proposal?
QUESTION NUMBER SIX: Given the merits of the alleged proposal, give up your costly senate race and the White House will give you an unpaid position, would Bill Clinton actually go to Joe Sestak and make such a proposal?
ANSWER NUMBER SIX: No way. He would have laughed in their face and said, (think Bill Clinton’s voice after he laughs) “No way in hell he’s going to take that deal! What if we offered him women?” (The second sentence in Bill Clinton’s predicted response is a joke.)
QUESTION NUMBER SEVEN: If it was so legal, innocent (and worthless) a proposal, why did the White House and Joe Sestak employ so much delay in their response to repeated inquiries of the media?
ANSWER NUMBER SEVEN: Because it wasn’t so legal, innocent and worthless a proposal?
Come on folks. These guys are lying. If a five year old answered a poignant and imperative question with so much delay, distraction, ambiguity, and illogical response, you would never believe the child. You would know that something was amiss. And there is something amiss. The White House and President Obama are lying to us. This truth is right there in their false, taunting, demeaning, insulting, arrogant and audacious words and actions. They are betting on Americans being stupid. A bad bet Mr. President, a real bad bet.
Here’s a recap. President Obama is lying about his morning father-daughter dialogue, just like he is lying about “nothing improper occurring” with Joe Sestak and just like he is lying about not knowing the circumstances of the director of the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Elizabeth Birnhaum’s departure, (he had to know or he has to be inept, pick).
It was not Malia Obama that Glenn Beck mocked, it was President Obama. I believe he brought this on himself when he exploited his daughter for political gain and to massage his disturbing and troublesome ego. I also believe it was low brow to use his daughter in the way he did.
That’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Note One: It has been learned that the “Top Kill” attempt to “plug the hole” was stopped and was in a holding strategy well prior to the press conference. Thus, and equally nefarious, President Obama could have been aware of this and, metaphorically, bet on a horse that had already won the race when he held his press conference. Another way put, he could have been demonstrating faux bravado and faux responsibility for the task of “plugging the hole” that had already been plugged by somebody else.
Note Two: I once used reference to my daughter in a closing argument. I was remanded by the District Attorney and the Judge. They were right and my reference to my daughter to make a point was improper in all respects.
Note Three: I looked up the definition of the word “mock.” By definition, if Glenn Beck was imitating Malia, regardless of whether the morning father-daughter conversation occurred, then he was “literally” mocking her. However, his obvious intent was to mock her father. I’m sure Mr. Beck feels bad about this. President Obama should feel worse.
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.
I’m listening to Laura Ingram who is replacing Bill O’Reilly as I write this. There is some tree hugger defending Obama’s initiative to open up off-shore drilling. Now, before you rush to your email accounts to attack me for using the term “tree hugger” slow down. I’m a tree hugger. I love cleanliness and a pure environment. My biggest gripe is that approximately eighty percent of our rivers are contaminated. Clean rivers are awesome. We need to, bare with me on this one, redistribute some wealth to get our rivers clean. You can raft, fish, kayak, canoe, swim, frolic, on a clean river. The reality is that we don’t have, the big picture, a high percentage of clean rivers. It’s about eighty percent toxic rivers as of late. What concerns me is this passion about our atmosphere. Why? Our atmosphere is pretty clean. We aren’t dying of lung disease, like China. We aren’t scraping smog off our cars, but the reality is, our rivers are sordid. They stink. I want to clean them and I want them to be a priority. Why aren’t they? I mean, if the rivers were clean, folks in Chicago could frolic in the Des Plaines river. Instead, they hold their nose while Obama preaches about carbon dioxide, the stuff you, a human, exhales. Why not clean up the rivers? Here’s the sad answer. There’s no control and domination in that solution to the dirty river problem. Obama’s claim to care about a clean non ice-cap melting world has nothing to do with the environment. Why would it? He doesn’t fish, hunt, camp, kayak, hike, anything in the environment. He is a city boy. Yet, he claims to be an environmentalist. Why? Because of control. Have you read the cap and trade bill of late? It is all about control and not about the environment. This is scary stuff.
It is time for the people on the “right” to sell the truth that they care, sincerely, about the environment. And the people on the right need to sell the other truth, that the left, the Obama folks, only care about the environment as a tool to grow government and take control of our individual liberties. If you read the stuff, the cap and trade bill, it’s a no brainer. If you don’t, you might fall victim to the Obama fraud which is more government and a dirtier environment.
Please, please, please, read the bills. Get to know what they are imposing under the guise of their environmental statements, that on their face, are appealing, but underneath, are appalling.
Obama wants control. He could care no less about a clean environment. It is simply his tool to control. I want a clean environment. I don’t want a fascist one.
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.
Is our President a Communist? He’s certainly been accused of being one. I thought I should check it out. So I, Reetzality, went to work. So, let’s check it out, but first, let’s get a definition of communism. Here it is:
“Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society.” (See Wikepdia)
REETZALITY! O.K. Now we know what a communism is. Let’s see what President Obama has to say on the subject. Here are some excerpts from Obama’s speech to Berlin in front of the Brandenburg Gate. Thank you http://thebobofiles.com/?p=211. Check it out.
“Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.”
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand.” “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.”
REETZALITY! So let me get this straight. We’re in bed with other nations? We should share our wealth with other nations? We are no longer Americans, we are world citizens? Sounds pretty communal to me. Another question, what about our Constitution, you know the fundamental principles of our great nation? Does that cooperation he’s speaking of require us to blend our Constitution with other nations without a Bill of Rights? It appears President Obama is not really concerned with the principles of nations but only the wealth of nations. And he wants to share it. How do I know? He said so, that’s how. Don’t believe me? Go back to the beginning of this blog and re-read.
Here are some more Obama quotes:
“I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”
“It’s not that I want to punish your success; I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they’ve got a chance to success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” (Said to Joe the Plumber)
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK .
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.” (Emphasis added) (Said by President Obama, before he was President, on National Public Radio)
REETZALITY! O.K. He’s said some significantly communist-like things in his career. Who hasn’t? Well, me, and I suspect about 99.9999% of Americans, but who am I to judge? Let’s keep investigating. Let’s check out some of his friends.
HERE ARE SOME OF HIS FRIENDS, care of: http://theobamafile.com/_associates/ObamaAssociates.htm:
William Charles Ayers (born December 26, 1944) is an American elementary education theorist and former leader in the anti-war movement that opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. He is known for the radical nature of his activism, which began within the anti-war movement of the 1960s. In 1969 he co-founded the violent radical left organization the Weather Underground, which conducted a campaign of bombing public buildings during the 1960s and 1970s. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar.
Bernardine Rae Dohrn (née Ohrnstein, born January 12, 1942) is an American former leader of the Anti-Vietnam War radical organization Weather Underground. She is an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the Director of Northwestern’s Children and Family Justice Center.
David Axelrod also has connections that that stretch back to post-War Chicago communism. While a New Yorker by birth, David Axelrod studied political science at the University of Chicago in the early 1970s. Later, while a start-out journalist with the Hyde-Park Herald, Axelrod was mentored by two older journalists cum political activists, Don Rose and David S. Canter.
Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, “Dreams From My Father,” refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
Graham-Felsen ran the Obama campaign’s blog. He spent time in France taking part in labor riots, has written for a socialist magazine, hung a communist flag in his home, and was a fan of Marx while at Harvard.
Obama administration Communications Director Anita Dunn commended the wisdom of mass murdering Communist Chairman Mao in her address to high school students this past June. Dunn cited Mao as one of her two favorite political philosophers.
A former Jesuit priest and executive director of the Gamaliel Foundation, Galluzzo was interview by New Republic’s Ryan Lizza and showed him the training manual he uses with new organizers. Galluzzo told Lizza that many new trainees have an aversion to Saul Alinsky’s gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. Galluzzo, along with fellow trainer Mike Kruglik, schooled Obama in Alinsky tactics. The Developing Communities Project, Obama’s first employer in Chicago, was part of the Gamaliel network of organizations.
In June 2009 Patrick Gaspard, a Brooklyn-based, 41-year-old Democratic operative, became White House director of the Office of Political Affairs. Gaspard’s ties to the groups behind ACORN-the groups that helped President Obama during his Chicago days-Democratic Socialists of America and the Communist Party offshoot Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. Like Obama, Patrick Gaspard wrote poetry. Like Obama , Patrick Gaspard grew up admiring third world leftists and revolutionaries. He reportedly idolized Aime Cesaire, a radical poet/politician from the French colony of Martinique.
Jeff Jones is a co-author of Obama’s Stimulus Bill. He used to be a terrorist. Jones was a national officer in Students for a Democratic Society, a founding member of Weatherman, and a leader of the Weather Underground. Jones is part of the Apollo Group, which was founded by Van Jones — Obama’s former “Green Czar.” The Apollo Group, under Jeff and Van Jones’ direction, basically wrote Barack Obama’s stimulus bill. During World War II, Jones’ father was a pacifist and conscientious objector who was assigned for the duration of the war, to a civilian work camp in the Sierra Mountains of California. Ironic, a pacifist breading a terrorist.
Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.” “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’ I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary,” he said.
Marilyn Katz is a Chicago public relations consultant and political operative, who has known David Axelrod for 30 years. Katz claims it was she who introduced Obama to the “activist network” in Chicago.
Rashid Khalidi, an apologist and spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), is the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and Director of the Middle East Institute (MEI) at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. In his role as MEI Director, Khalidi presides over a $300,000 annual grant from the federal government. He ranks among the most prominent members of the Middle Eastern studies community in the United States. His books are among the most frequently assigned works on the Middle East in American college syllabi. Arab and American media outlets alike seek him out regularly as a leading authority on the Middle East. In the 1990s, Obama and his wife were regular dinner guests at Khalidi’s Chicago home. During the 2000 election cycle, Mr. and Mrs. Khalidi organized a fundraiser for Barack Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid.
Klonsky is an unabashed communist whose current mission is to spread Marxist ideology in the American classroom. Obama funded him to the tune of nearly $2 million. Obama, moreover, gave Klonsky a broad platform to broadcast his ideas: a “social justice” blog on the official Obama campaign website.
State Senator Barack Obama probably knew Saul Mendelson through their mutual activism in Independent Voters of Illinois, an organization investigated for communist infiltration as far back as the 1940s. On March 13th 1998, Saul Mendelson, a lifelong socialist activist died in Chicago. Mendelson had been a member of various Trotskyist factions in the 1930s and ’40s before joining the US Socialist Party and later DSA. In 1983 Saul Mendelson played a significant role in the election of Harold Washington. The Saul Mendelson Memorial Service was held on Sunday, March 29, 1998, at the First Unitarian Church, Chicago.
According to Chicago DSA leader, the late Carl Marx Shier (who addressed the gathering);
At the memorial service held at the 1st Unitarian Church on South Woodlawn, speaker after speaker recounted Saul’s contributions…speakers included Deborah Meier…Senator Carol Moseley Braun, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, State Senator Barak Obama, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie and a good friend from New York, Myra Russell.
The concluding remarks were made by an old friend, Harriet Lefley, who is now Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami Medical School. Alderman Toni Preckwinkle and Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, are both leftist Democrats with ties to Chicago’s socialist community. Both endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 2004 bid for the US Senate.
Eulogies also came from Quinn Brisben, (Socialist Party presidential candidate 1976, 1992) and David McReynolds (Socialist Party presidential candidate 1980, 2000).
Deborah Meier was a former Trotskyist and Socialist Party comrade of Saul Mendelson’s and a leader of Chicago and Boston DSA.
Taught Barack Obama in the Alinsky method.
Linda Rae Murray left the Communist Party in 1992 and has since worked closely with Committees of Correspondence and Democratic Socialists of America. She is a prominent Chicago health professional and the the immediate past president of Quentin Young’s Health and Medicine Policy Research Group. Murray is a leading and very active advocate for “single payer” and has just been elected president of the American Public Health Association — a post Quentin Young held in 1988. There is a picture of her with President Obama and his wife.
In 1995, Alice Palmer represented the state’s 13th District, and decided to run for the United States Congress. She hand-picked Barack Obama to run to replace her. She was an executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a communist front group, an affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front group. She participated in the World Peace Council’s 1983 Prague Assembly, part of the Soviet launch of the nuclear-freeze movement. In June 1986, while editor of the Black Press Review, she wrote an article for the Communist Party USA’s newspaper, the People’s Daily World, now the People’s Weekly World. It detailed her experience attending the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and how impressed she was by the Soviet system. Palmer gushed at the “Soviet plan to provide people with higher wages and better education” and spoke of the efficiency of the Soviets’ most recent five-year plan, attributing its success to “central planning.” She praised their “comprehensive affirmative action program, which they have stuck to religiously — if I can use the word — since 1917.”
New evidence has emerged that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was closely associated as early as age 25 to a key adviser to a Saudi billionaire who had mentored the founding members of the Black Panthers.
DSA member, former communist and long time Obama friend. The New Zeal blog is reporting that Dr. Quentin Young has been a close friend, personal physician and political mentor to Barack Obama for more than 20 years. He is the father of the US socialized healthcare movement and proudly admits to having tutored his friend Barack Obama in the subject. Young, a member of Democratic Socialists of America, was a member of the Young Communist League in his teens. He was also accused of membership of the Bethune Club of the Communist Party ( a party doctor’s group) by a government commission investigating the 1968 Democratic Party Convention riots in Chicago. Young has been the US’s most active proponent of “single payer” or socialzed healthcare for decades — firstly through his medical committee for Human Rights, then his Physicians for a National Health Program and his Health and Medicine Policy Research Group.
Leftist black nationalist preacher, who preached African-American unity through antipathy toward whites. The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, who acted as Obama’s personal spiritual adviser, is militantly Afrocentric. His website proudly claimed, “We are an African people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.” On March 21st, 2010, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, said that people voted for socialism when they voted for Obama. He said it to Geraldo Rivera.
Former Weatherman, Zach Pollet, became ACORN’s political director and the head of ACORN’s Project Vote, now embroiled in voter fraud investigations in several states.
REETZALITY! So he’s got some unsavory and close friends. By the way, these “friends” are each one degree of separation away from President Obama. That means he knows them personally. Heck, who doesn’t have some unsavory friends? I do, but then, I’m a criminal defense lawyer. I’m not judging Mr. President. To use a phrase I find humorous, “I’m just saying . . .” Actually, I’m just “posting.” . . . things I found on the Web.
O.K. Let’s do an interim run down. I gave you a definition of communism. I listed some communistic quotes of President Obama. I listed some communistic friends of President Obama. Let’s try to bring it together. Let’s use Obama-Care to assess whether his policies are communistic.
Here we go. Here are some of our loss of freedoms, thank you Obama-care and thank you, Dr. Jamie Mitchell and David Hogberg at: http://walkinginwisdom.com/archive/2010/03/24/loss-of-freedom-thru-health-care.aspx
1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501) 2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701). 3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711). 4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712). 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714). 6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302). 7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A)) 8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A). 9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513). 10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)). 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)) 12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)). 13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)). 14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).) 18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
REETZALITY! OUCH! Let’s revisit the definition of communism to begin to close this discussion. Here it is, again:
So, where are we? Let’s break it down and see if the pegs fit in the holes. Here we go:
1. Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished. . . Certainly, under Obama-care, everybody has health care, supposedly, and because the “secretary” controls it all, everybody has the same health care. Under Obama-care we are all in the same social class when it comes to health care. So do you mean that no matter how much and how hard I work, a person who smokes, drinks, and doesn’t work is “entitled” to the same health care? Yes, class has been abolished. Damn! The first prong of the communist analysis went, well, communism. Damn again! (However, this may not be entirely true. Due to the Physicians leaving the field, running from Obama-care, and the impending shortages of physicians, there may still be classes. Unfortunately, I think upper class will mean that you are first in line and lower class means that you are last in line.) 2. . . . and property is commonly controlled . . . O.K , I’m going to fall back on my B.S. degree in Economics to explain and question this one. “Commonly controlled” means that control is not vested in the individual, it is “commonly controlled” by a government for all. Under Obama-care, the property, being the money, services, and the actual physical structures, are not controlled by the individual. Under Obama-care they are “commonly controlled” by the government. The individual’s property is taken and redistributed so that all class status in the access to health care is abolished. Damn, for a third time. The second prong of the communist analysis went communist too. 3. . . . as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society. Uh Oh! President Obama’s philosophy, if consistent with his statements, propounds a social movement. That’s for sure. More Uh Oh! If his philosophies are consistent with his policies, see Obama-care, he “aims to create such a society.” Damn, for a fourth time. It appears President’s health care plan, now law, passes the communist test. IT’S IN! But I’m just saying. . .
But how can this be? This is America. It is of the greatest contradictions to impose communism on America. This cannot be true! It cannot be reconciled with the Constitution, you know, the one that President Obama said the Warren Court “didn’t break free from . . . ,” that one. He also said, he wants to fundamentally change America. I know I’m repeating myself from past blogs, but this is important: Fundamental is defined by Webster’s College Dictionary as “the origin of existence.” So again, given that the constitution is the origin of our Nation’s existence and President Obama wants to “fundamentally” change our Nation, is it a great a leap of faith to surmise that Obama isn’t a fan of the Constitution? I’m just asking . . .
But who am I to question the President? Of course he’s a fan of the Constitution, the origin of our existence. He’s just says things that inherently contradict its principles, has numerous acquaintances who are un-American, and passes law that fit eerily into the definition of communism and cannot co-exist (I love those bumper stickers-sarcasm) with constitutional principles. But I’m just saying. . .
But really? Is it possible that he does love the Constitution because it provides him the freedom and liberty to destroy it? Is it possible he has a love-hate relationship with it? No, no, no! It’s oxymoronic to love something (the Constitution) because the thing (the Constitution) gives you the freedom to destroy it. He wouldn’t think that way, would he? He’s a progressive after all. Again, I’m just asking. Just posing questions President Obama, that’s all. Utilizing the Socratic method of inquiry like you probably used when you taught Constitutional law, that’s all I’m doing. Like we all should be doing.
And that’s my longest Reetzality for the Day.
Thank you so much for the long, long, read.
Note 1: Mind you, I never called him a communist, not once. I posted information I found on the web with links so you can check it out. I then did some rudimentary analysis. So keep me off the no-fly list, if you don’t, it will screw up my skiing and my family’s skiing too. Because, Mr. President, I’m just saying . . . I’m just asking . . .
Note 2: Why is there a hint of fear in my heart as I write this? I mean, even if it is concluded that President Obama has communist’ tendencies, how bad can a communist be? See Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Chavez for the answer.
Note 3: We need to speak out, loud and clear, and consistent with American principles, that’s why I write this stuff. We need to do so to prevent our nation from being fundamentally changed and we no longer can.
Note 4: Enough already. Well, for now anyway.
With the impending passage of Obama-care, we as a nation, through our incompetent non-representative elected officials, have castrated ourselves. “Castrate,” as defined by Webster’s, means “to render impotent by psychological means, as disparagement. To deprive of strength, power or efficiency; weaken.” And that, my readers, is what we are about to do to ourselves. Make no mistake, today will just be the surgery. This operation has been planned for a century. Our government and its cancerous growth, fueled by control and power hungry politicians with little ability to function in any environment other than government, have progressively weakened Americans. How have they accomplished this? By perpetually creating new government programs that addict folks to them, folks who vote by the way. And when these folks get addicted, their wet nurse becomes the government. The government becomes their salvation, their wet nurse. Those of us, the remaining Americans, call our wet nurse Principle, not government.
Government has now become indigenous to every aspect of our lives. Think about this; Congress and the President are now considering changing the way the NCAA basketball tournament is operated! I have reviewed the Constitution and find nothing in it which empowers the government to do it. Unfortunately, I have reviewed Supreme Court Case law and have found absolute support for the government intervening in “March Madness.” Now why is that? Here’s why. Judges work for the government and notwithstanding their oath to the Constitution, they go native. Not all Judges. There are some great fundamental American Judges, and a few fundamentally American Politicians too, see Paul Ryan, but more often than not, Judges and politicians, see Bart Stupak, John McCain, George Bush, etc., etc., etc., go native. They work for the government. They fraternize with government employees. They go to a government building every work day. And in the end, most go native. They are co-conspirators in government’s desire to create need. Need equals votes. So, we have the Commerce Clause in the Constitution which allows Congress to regulate anything that affects inter-state commerce. The Courts have decided that just about everything is related to inter-state commerce, thus everything is within the government’s control. “March Madness” will be “reformed.”
And today, the government is taking over one-sixth of our economy. Mind you, this is a government that with the exception of World War II and NASA, always fails.
Back to the castration. Obama-care makes clear that Washington does not view Americans as self-reliant and independent. Washington views Americans as serfs who should go to work, pay most of their productivity to the tax man, defer to government for their health care choices, and basically, just too plain stupid to take care of themselves.
But Washington is missing something here. They are ignoring the invisible hand. The invisible hand was a term Adam Smith used. Adam Smith was a Scotsman and a famous intellectual who died in 1790. He wrote two books, The Theory of Moral Sentiments and On The Wealth of Nations. In his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith first referred to the “invisible hand” to describe the apparent benefits to society of people behaving in their own interests. Smith opposed any form of economic concentration because it distorts the market’s natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital. He advanced the idea that a market economy would produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers, and would optimally allocate society’s resources. The image of the invisible hand was previously employed by Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, but it has its original use in his essay, “The History of Astronomy”. Smith believed that when an individual pursues his self-interest, he indirectly promotes the good of society: “by pursuing his own interest, the individual frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he intends to promote it.” Self-interested competition in the free market, he argued, would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies.
Here’s the quote I adore: “by pursuing his own interest, the individual frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he intends to promote it.” Wow. Right on Smith.
Now back to the present, and back to the future too. Our government’s long term castration, defended by “intending to promote” a better society, has wreaked havoc on our society. And today they have begun the actual surgery. The prep work was completed over the last century, but today, this day, our government has hi-jacked our rights to pursue our own self interest and replaced it with its agenda shrouded in a claimed intent to promote good. Have they checked out all the other nations’ with their socialized medicine? Sure they have. It doesn’t phase them because they don’t believe in self interest, they believe they know better, and although all other socialized health care is terrible, they think they can do it better. They are ignoring the power of the invisible hand.
And they’re ignoring it in another way. The invisible hand can be corrupted. Humans are self interested, that is a fact of nature. Why? Here’s why. Self interest allows us to survive and prosper. But, and here’s a big “but,” self interest plays differently in a country of entitlements and absent foregone freedoms than it does in a country of principles, freedom and liberty. I said they’re ignoring “it.” I didn’t say that they weren’t aware of it. They are. They understand that if a person is undereducated, un-principled, and just plain disgusted with how their life has turned out, that person’s invisible hand will lead them to do what works for them. And how convenient that the government that caused them to be under-educated, unprincipled and just plain disgusted with the way their life, is there with the answer, the salvation. Is it a mystery that Obama had a phalanx of hysterionic supporters at his rallies? Of course not. These were self interested folks in great need because their lives hadn’t turned out the way they expected. So their invisible hand led them to Obama, to government. THAT WAS THE GOVERNMENT’S PLAN.
But here’s the problem with our current government. They truly do not care that when you castrate liberty and freedom, when you castrate us, when more and more folks’ invisible hand leads them to government rather than principles of self-reliance, independence and individual responsibility, you kill the host. And those remaining Americans, the one who are still principled, self-reliant, independent and responsible, pay the bills. Take them away, castrate them, and everything fails. Don’t believe me? Try this exercise: Let’s divide the country into three categories.
1. Americans who are independent, self-reliant and responsible for themselves.
2. Americans who are dependent on the government, include the pharmaceutical industry after tonight’s vote.
3. Government.
Now think of our country as a patient in a hospital and you want to kill the patient. Here’s the catch. You can only surgically remove one of the above three. See my point. If you remove number one, the patient dies. Want more proof. Take out number two or three, pick, and, unless we’re invaded, number one would figure it out. Our country would survive.
Here’s the scariest truth. Obama and his minions want us to fail. Now I’m not saying that he wants a world without the United States. But the United States is just a name. What it really is, or at least what it’s supposed to be, is a series of principles set forth by our Founding Fathers. That’s the patient that is in critical condition. That’s the patient that our government is trying to euthanize. That’s the patient that got castrated today.
There is a recording of the last castrato. Way back, there were not only sopranos and tenors in operas, there were castratos. These were men who were castrated as boys to preserve their young boyish voice but gaining the strength of an adult voice. One actually existed when a recording could be made and there is such a recording. I’ve heard it on NPR. See, I’m not all Fox News. Mostly, but not all. Here’s the poignant metaphor. Castratos never had kids, of course they didn’t. Castratos didn’t have what it took to continue their genetics. And that my Readers is what our government did today, at least in their minds. They castrated us with a huge shroud of government control laid over everything America, everything us.
Don’t get worried. It is only a metaphor. We have not actually been castrated. But, and another big, “BUT,” we’re close. Even with a sixth of our economy being taken over, even with the explosion of entitlements, we have to fight like hell to reinstall our principles. We have to take back America. We can do it. And since it is only a metaphor, even those who are dependent upon government can be given the medication of freedom, liberty and opportunity and once again pursue and obtain a life of triumph which I am fairly certain is impossible when suckling up to the harpy wet nurse named government.
I have faith that we will. But for tonight, we should all be sad, maybe even cry. If you do cry, cry like a baby with undeveloped genitalia. Washington loves that. And remember this, today there was a set back to what made this country great. The principles are still alive and well and we can and will use them to save the United States.
That’s my Reetzality for this sad un-American day.
Note: Thank you Wikipedia for your information on Adam Smith.
Does Obama despise America? Now there’s a question worth asking. I didn’t vote for the guy but I had hope that he would prove me wrong and be a moderate, like Bill Clinton ended up being. He didn’t. Let’s do a run down on Obama’s policies and see if he likes this country or not.
1. Health Care. He is vigorously pushing health care reform which will embody the government controlling one sixth of our economy, taking away freedom and liberty. It will also embody the taking of one person’s productivity and giving it to another, the redistribution of wealth. It will, by rudimentary economics, impose rationing. It cripples the free market. Thus, health care reform, according to Obama, takes away freedom, liberty, choice, redistributes wealth, limits the freedom to take care of oneself by rationing, and cripples, retards, pick, the free market. The ruling? Obama Health care is un-American.
2. Taxation. Obama wants to raise taxes to further his agenda of redistributing wealth. The ruling? Again, un-American.
3. Immigration. Obama wants to legalize illegal aliens with no agenda to secure our borders. The ruling? Again, un-American.
4. Financial Industry. Obama wants to impose drastic regulatory regulation that will limit credit, impose costs on the industry that will not just trickle down, they will fall down on the regular Joe like a tidal wave, hurting the average American. The ruling? Un-American.
5. Privacy. Obama has continued the Bush doctrine of warrantless searches and is encouraging the government monitoring of the internet. The ruling? Un-American.
6. Foreign Affairs. He has spent more time apologizing for America than praising its excellence. The ruling? Un-American.
7. Economic Policy. Obama has used the “stimulus plan” to reward political allies. He has used the money, debt rather, to give back to those who supported him, meaning government employees, unions, and state bureaucracies (Government Universities). He has burdened our off spring with massive debt that, if they chose to stay and participate, will thwart our offspring’s freedom and prosperity. The ruling? Un-American.
8. Freedom of Speech. Obama favors the Fairness Doctrine which would mandate equal time for all views regardless of market forces and popularity. It would mandate that for every Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, there was an Al Franken on the air with equal time. The fairness doctrine would do this by taxing media and redistributing the resources to subsidize the contrary and opposite opinions. The ruling? Un-American.
9. Voting privacy. He favors “card check” which means that union votes would no longer be private. If you voted non-union, the union would know. His Attorney General dropped the suit against the Black Panthers for intimidating voters. The ruling? Un-American.
10. Free Market Principles. Obama has bailed out, taken over, GM and Chrysler. He has bailed out and taken over AIG. He is, through bail outs and regulation, attempting to take over the financial industry. He wants to publicize student loans, taking them out of the public sector. He believes that government is the only solution to our economic woes which were caused by government. He has expressed vitriolic contempt for the insurance industry which make less of a profit percentage than the top twenty-five industries. He loves Unions which fix prices and wrench power from the owners of businesses. The ruling? Un-American.
11. The Constitution. He himself said it was flawed in that it didn’t contemplate redistributive justice which, by the way, Mr. Constitutional Law professor, rocket scientist; redistributive justice contradicts the very core, the very fundamentals, of our constitution. The ruling? Un-American.
12. Fiscal Responsibility. Obama is making a drunken sailor look frugal. The ruling? Un-American.
13. The Second Amendment. Obama’s voting record and writings show that he is against the Second Amendment. The Ruling. Obama’s view on the Second Amendment is blatantly un-American. He fails.
Enough already. It took me all of five minutes to list the aforementioned un-American policies of Obama. Well, maybe eight minutes, but I can type as fast as I think which may be an indictment of my thinking rather than an accolade for my typing.
But let’s look at the core of an American and run Obama through this gauntlet. Here’s what I know Americans are: They are for independence. They are brave. They stand on their own. They are creative and innovative. They reject charity as a way of life. They are responsible. They are hard working. They are loyal to the Constitution. They are traditional. They are proud. O.K. Now to the second analysis of Obama:
1. Americans are for independence. Obama is against independence. He supports deference to other nations’ laws. He wants to join the world on cap and trade. He is for world solutions that depreciate our independence. The ruling? He is not independent. He fails.
2. Americans are brave. Obama does not speak from the heart, he speaks from the teleprompter. He’s never been in the military. He endlessly sheds responsibility and blames others. He is afraid to take responsibility for anything that shines poorly on him and his past. The ruling? He is not brave. He fails.
3. Americans stand on their own. Not Obama. Present was his most popular vote in the Illinois legislature. If things are going bad, he blames his predecessor. He defers to others, i.e. congress, to draft bills, i.e. health care. (His bill was nothing more than a collection of ideals with no meaningful merit.) He supports unions which contradict independence in the work place. The ruling. Obama does not stand on his own. He fails.
4. Americans are creative and innovative. Obama’s philosophies have been spoon fed to him by his mentors. His book was ghost written. He has not created a thing. The ruling. Obama is not creative. He fails.
5. Americans reject charity as a way of life. Obama was a community organizer where his passion was to shake down the system for the transfer of wealth. He is for the abject transfer of wealth, taking from a producer and giving to a non-producer. The ruling? Obama is in favor of charity as a way of life. He fails.
6. Americans are responsible. Obama blames his predecessor whenever in a pinch. He dodges questions, i.e. telling John McCain that “election is over.” He abhors any responsibility for the condition of our nation as caused by too much government. He spends like, I’ll use the term again but hype it a bit, a drunken sailor on crack cocaine. He is burdening our off spring with monumental debt, destroying our very fundamentals, and taking no responsibility. The ruling? Obama is not responsible. He fails.
7. Americans are hard working. Obama didn’t break from a golf game when the crotch bomber attempted to take down a jet. Obama hasn’t read a bill, maybe not even his own pseudo bill. Apparently he drinks too much and smokes too much. He has never held a private sector, bill paying job. He doesn’t respect one’s accomplishments for working hard. See redistributive justice opinion. The ruling? Obama is not hard working. He fails.
8. Americans are loyal to the Constitution. Obama says the Constitution is lacking in that it fails to address redistributive justice. Enough said. The ruling. Obama thinks he knows better than our founding fathers. He fails.
9. Americans are traditional. Obama said over and over again that he is going to change the fundamentals of our nations. Fundamental is defined as the origin of existence. Well if you are going to change the origin of one’s existence, you certainly are not traditional. The ruling? Obama is not traditional. He fails.
10. Americans are proud. Obama rejects American exceptionalism and continues to degrade our nation with his apologies. The ruling. Obama is not proud of America. He fails.
So face it folks, regardless of who you voted for, we’ve got us an un-American running the country. He’s not like us, nor does he even like us, assuming his policies are consistent with his likes and dislikes. So get your head out of the sand and speak out. Reject his policies. Call your congressman and let them know that you are independent, brave, that you can stand on your own, that you are creative and innovative, that you reject charity as a way of life, that you’re responsible for your own life, that you are hardworking, loyal to the Constitution, traditional, and damn proud of who you are.
Well unless you are with him in his anti-American Agenda, then I suggest you see a shrink. You need it. For a variety of reasons, to start: Self deprecation (destroying your nation), self loathing (despising your nation), child abuse (burdening your children with your debts), dependency (relying on government), anger management (control your loathe for our nation), sociopathy (ignoring the impact of your views upon others), and ultimately for depression (You won’t like your stated destination. See all socialist nations).
