Is there too much government in your life?
View Results
Obama is failing to protect our Nation from an inherent attack on the very basis of our nation, the Constitution. This is not a big surprise, he said he wanted to change the fundamentals of America and fundamental means the “origin of existence.” See Webster’s. Thus, his appointment of an anti-constitutionalist is not a big surprise. Obama has, is, and does tell us what he is going to do to our nation. He bets and counts on our disbelief. He has nominated Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Most democratic senators like her. Some Republicans, idiots, do too. Here’s the problem: She doesn’t believe in free speech. Let me repeat that in case your barometer of reality is waning, SHE DOESN”T BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH! In Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, the solicitor general (She was, is the solicitor general) had this to say in a brief: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends on a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”
Our nation’s founders insisted on strict First Amendment protections simply because they understood government should not be permitted to engage in any “categorical balancing of the value of the speech …” They recognized that allowing government to decide whether any speech, including printed or broadcast material, has sufficient value to be protected is one path to tyranny. (The proceeding two sentences were taken from http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/537924.htm)
Wait! An attack on free speech? Free speech depends on a categorical balancing? Who makes the categories? Who orchestrates the balancing? Who determines the societal costs? Well, obviously, according to the current regime, they do! Let’s put this in perspective, shall we?
Obama passed health care when the majority of Americans were against Obama-care. Obama is attacking the Arizona Immigration law when the majority of Americans are in favor of it. Obama is attacking free speech though his own words, and through his appointment of Kagan. Here’s what Kagan said in her law review article while on the University of Chicago Law Review, entitled “Private speech, public purpose: the role of governmental motive in First Amendment doctrine.” “The negative impact of a law restricting freedom of speech is subservient to the government’s motive for enacting such restrictions. As long as the government can show ‘proper intent’ in such restrictions on free speech, then the restrictions stand.” Uh Oh! Free speech is subservient to the government’s motive? You’ve got to be kidding. Unfortunately, I nor she is not. Here’s what this harpy (Websters; Harpy is defined as a greedy predatory person. She is certainly predating on the First Amendment thus the word fits) is doing. She is taking the law which says that speech is able to be restricted in the event of somebody yelling “fire” in a theatre and causing a stampede and expanding it to allow government to define just what a stampede is. So for example, if a person says that the government is enacting laws that are unjust and evil and that causes turmoil, this harpy is saying that the government can restrict that speech. It is consistent with the government’s motives. What about the peoples motives? Evidently, and clearly, this regime doesn’t concern themselves with the people’s motives. They get to define motive, they get to define proper intent. She is saying that the government can eliminate free speech. She will deny this. Her own words and of course, the things the darks side hates, logic and reason, say differently.
Here’s some more of what she said and I hope she’s prepared to live up to her words. She said this in regards to the approval process of Supreme Court Judges: “The process has taken on “an air of vacuity and farce,” she wrote, in part because senators have gotten away from “the essential rightness — the legitimacy and the desirability — of exploring a Supreme Court nominee’s set of constitutional views and commitments.” Another phrase she used to describe modern-day confirmation hearings: “vapid and hollow charade.” (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458012662)
So Ms. Kagan, can you survive your own tenancy? By your own words shouldn’t you be subjected to strict analysis of what you believe the First Amendment stands for? Of course you should. But you won’t. You’ll dodge questions, be evasive, and lie about your real agenda which is the same as Obama’s. You want to fundamentally change our country which means you don’t honor and respect our constitution. Period. You are a vile un-American.
My question is this? When are the people of this nation going to stand up to a President who is so contemptuous of the very thing, our Constitution, that ironically gave him the the platform to be so contemptuous? Hopefully now. Time is of the essence. It is imperative my readers.
And that is my Reetzality for the day.
Thanks for read.
Brett Reetz
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).
And that’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Thanks for the read.
WASHINGTON — President Obama acknowledged the deep partisan divisions gripping Congress, but he urged Republican and Democratic leaders Tuesday to cooperate on legislation that creates jobs.
Amazing. Obama actually believes that Washington creates jobs. Techically it can create a job, meaning that Washington can spend money and create “a” job. However, also technically, it costs more jobs than the one created to create the government job. This truth is based upon the negative multiplier effect that government spending has, at best about a .8. I’ve gone through this before but I’ll go again, every dollar the government spends shrinks the economy by twenty cents. Thus, every job the government “creates” takes away more than one job in greater economy. It’s basic economics folks, proven over and over again in history.
And yet, Obama thinks the absence of bi-partisan cooperation is the cause for the shrinking job market. No Mr. Obama, you are once again wrong but you do have a great excuse given that you never worked in the private sector, never made a bottom line, let affirmative action rather than your ability lift you through life, and your “caused by others” narcisism. But, excuse or no excuse, you are still wrong. In fact, it is the opposite of what you are thinking. The absence of bipartisanship is saving jobs and serving, at least a little, as a sea anchor to the free fall of our economy. Those in the private sector (the ones that pay for your fantasies) are relieved that health care failed. They are relieved that cap and trade is a long shot. They are relieved that conservatives are likely to take back the house and senate in November. They are relieved but not thrilled. They are not thrilled because your plans and policies continue to loom on the horizon like a bad storm.
Mr. Obama I would strongly suggest that you open a lemonade stand and work it on weekends. I believe you will have time to do so since you don’t write or read the bills that you telemarket and infomercial. But in truth, it would serve you well to learn the basics of private enterprise and business and a lemonade stand is great start. You’ll have a bottom line, the cost of the stand, the lemonade, cups, and labor. You’ll have income from the sales. And if you do it right, you will learn that increasing costs decreases profitability. And that’s what your missing Mr. Obama. The agenda that you telemarket and infomercial sends the message that costs are going up, that government is going to be doing a lot more “taking.” In response to your messages, the private sector tightens its belt, stops spending, stops hiring, stops lending, stops risking. Picture you lemonade stand Mr. Obama. What if you we’re going to expand and build a second lemonade stand but lemons were going to be taxed? Further, what if the tax would increase the price and the increased price would decrease sales? Decreased sales would decrease income which would certainly decrease your appetite for expansion and risk. See my point Mr. Obama. You need to work in a lemonade stand. Working in a lemondae stand would educate you on why your agenda is so inconsistent with a growing economy. I swear, I’m serious. And don’t feel bad, all work is noble for the most part. I worked in one and taught me a ton about the realities of business and the economy. I think I was six years old when I learned it. It’s never too late to start Mr. Obama. Go for it. Get out there and sell some lemonade, learn the ropes of the private sector and then go back to your employer, us, and do the right thing based upon your new higher education. And indeed it is a higher education because it taught me way more than your “poison” Ivy league farce taught you.
You know what they say Mr. Obama, “If it rains lemons, make lemonade.” Go for it Obama. It will do us all a bunch of good.
That’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Arnold the Loser!
And now Arnie, a scham Hollywood idiot who knows nothing of economics, a complete rave buffoon, says he wants concessions from the feds so he can cut services. Hey Arnie, what’s the difference between a cut and a bail out. Why aren’t you speaking to the principles of the programs you want to cut. They are bad programs. They encourage sloth, indifference, non-motivation, why aren’t you just cutting them? Oh, they’re doing so much for you’re bankrupt state, right? You’re sitting on the some of the most lucrative real estate in the world and you’re broke, But Why? Here’s why:
Government. You arrogant impotent S.O.B.’s got drunk on your wealth and instead of dealing with principles, instead of making hard decisions, instead of doing what was morally right, you rolled over. Why screw up an elitist cocktail party to worrry about principles, right? So you welcomed illegal aliens and paid for them, you lavished benefits on those who worked for the king (governemt), you raised taxes to drive businesses out of your state, and in the end, you are bankrupt. And now you want us, from other states to bail you out? Is that fair? Is that just? You go on a an irrational spending spree, and we bail you out without any consequences? No. It is not fair. I object.
So Arnold, you terminator, you star, go to Washington and beg, ask for money or concessions, ask for whatever it is you need to indulge your impotence. But let’s be clear, we know you are impotent. A real man would simply cut that which he could not afford. But then again, a real man has his cojones and has not sacrifice them to short term adulation, prominence and falic facades.
You may have the muscles Arnold, but you fail in the reproductive capacity. In fact we can’t even see any.
That’s my Reetzality for the day.
Thanks for the Read.
Brett Reetz.
SAD TIMES IN AMERICA!
THE CHARACTER OF NATIONS Learning from other countries’ mistakes.
By Thomas Sowell
In an age that values cleverness over wisdom, it is not surprising that many superficial but clever books get more attention than a wise book like The Character of Nations by Angelo Codevilla, even though the latter has far more serious implications for the changing character of our own nation.
The recently published second edition of Professor Codevilla’s book is remarkable just for its subject, quite aside from the impressive breadth of its scope and the depth of its insights. But clever people among today’s intelligentsia disdain the very idea that there is such a thing as “national character.”
Everything from punctuality to alcohol consumption may vary greatly from one country to another, but the “one world” ideology and the “multicultural” dogma make it obligatory for many among the intelligentsia to act as if none of this has anything to do with the poverty, corruption, and violence of much of the Third World or with the low standard of living in the Soviet Union, one of the most richly endowed nations on earth when it came to natural resources.
The Character of Nations is about far more than the fact that there are different behavior patterns in different countries — that, for example, “it is unimaginable to do business in China without paying bribes” but “to offer one in Japan is the greatest of faux pas.”
The real point is to show what kinds of behaviors produce what kinds of consequences — in the economy, in the family, in the government, and in other aspects of human life. Nor do the repercussions stop there. Government policies are not only affected by the culture of the country, but can in turn have a major impact on that culture, for good or ill.
Written in plain and sometimes blunt words, The Character of Nations is nevertheless the product of a man whose knowledge and experience span the globe, extending into economics, philosophy, and other fields, as well as encompassing the wisdom of the ancients and the follies of the moderns.
The book is an education in itself, more of an education than many students are likely to get at an Ivy League college. However, its purpose is not academic but to clarify the issues facing us all today when “the character of the American way of life is up for grabs perhaps more than ever before,” as the author puts it.
While nations differ, particular kinds of behavior produce particular kinds of results in country after country. Moreover, American society in recent years has been imitating behavior patterns that have produced negative — and sometimes catastrophic — consequences in many other countries around the world.
Among these patterns have been a concentration of decision-making power in government officials, an undermining of the role of the family, a “non-judgmental” attitude toward behavior, and a dissolution of the common bonds that hold a society together, leading to atomistic self-indulgences and group-identity politics that increasingly pits different segments of society against each other.
Those among the intelligentsia who say that we should “learn from other countries” almost invariably mean that we should imitate what other countries have done. Angelo Codevilla argues that we should learn from other countries’ mistakes, especially when those same mistakes have repeatedly produced bad results in many countries and among many very different peoples, living under very different political systems.
Putting ever more economic decisions in the hands of those with political power is just one of those mistakes with a track record of producing painful repercussions in many countries around the world. These repercussions have included not only serious economic losses but, even more important, a loss of personal freedom and self-respect, as ever-wider segments of the population become supplicants and sycophants of those with the power to dispense largess or to make one’s life miserable with legalistic or bureaucratic harassment.
We in America have taken large steps in that direction in recent years, and are accelerating our moves in that direction this year. Getting some clearer sense of what this risks is just one of many reasons to read The Character of Nations.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Back to Reetzality. Character of Nations appears to be right on. The question it begs is why do our leaders pursue policy after policy that have failed over and over again in other nations? I can only come up with two possibilities. They are either ignorant or they want us to fail, so long as they are running the show. We need to wake up and put an end to the destruction of our nation.
I don’t want America’s ways to be destroyed. I love this country. I love our culture. I love a Friday night high school foot ball game. I’m not fond of soccer, well unless I’m in Chile and enjoying their national sport. It’s just not ours. I miss a Drive-In with the speakers where you can order a black cow (root beer float). I like the Out-Door for watching movies. I like oxford shirts, penny loafers, well taken care of older automobiles, guns, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan which remains divinely American, PTA meetings, work ethic, meritocracy, and all the other things I grew up with. So, is immigration going to destroy America? Maybe not the nation, but the nation as we knew it is a possibility. And by the way, the nation “as we knew it” is what made us great, what allowed us to prosper, to lead, and to help other nations’ folks who suffer under less divine principles than ours. As always, I go to the basics for my analysis, the family. I doubt any of you would allow a stranger to enter your house, impose his principles or lack of principles upon you, demand respect, and some money, and ultimately seek to share in the leadership of your family. So why should we let strangers enter our country if they don’t come here wanting to be part of us? I don’t know. I do know this; the following article supports the blatant truth that we shouldn’t. Written in 1994, it is still so on point. Lawrence Auster wrote it. Thanks Lawrence for some great insight and analysis. Here it is:
The current immigration debate, although a welcome change from the politically correct silence of earlier years, is still far too narrow in its focus, dwelling on largely technical matters such as methods of border control, the welfare and health costs of immigration, or the impact of immigration on the economy or on minority employment. As important as those issues are, they distract us from a much greater and more difficult question: What is the impact of immigration on the whole society — on America as a civilization?
To deal seriously with that question in today’s climate is to provoke charges of nativism, racism and demagoguery. As immigration advocates are fond of pointing out, fears that immigration would undermine America’s national culture were raised in the early 20th century — indeed they were raised against the grandparents of many of the people now opposing immigration. Since that threatened disaster did not occur, the advocates continue, similar warnings are utterly invalid now.
This ahistorical argument ignores the profound and decisive differences between immigration at the turn of the century and today. In the early 20th century, America had a vital and confident core culture and insisted that immigrants assimilate. The immigrants were predominantly European, sharing — despite ethnic differences — a common civilizational heritage with Americans. Most importantly, the great immigrant wave was drastically reduced after two or three decades, ushering in a long period of ethnic equilibrium and social peace. None of those factors obtains today.
The current legal and illegal immigration in excess of 1 million people per year, more than 90 percent of whom are non-European, combined with the higher birthrates of immigrant groups, is rapidly turning America into a multiracial country, with no racial majority, no common culture, and a population doubling to half a billion during the coming century. Despite the fact that many immigrants are good people who want to be part of this country, and despite the fact that immigration may provide some discrete and localized benefits, the overall result of this unprecedented demographic event is the erosion — and ultimately the submergence — of every defining aspect of American civilization.
Foremost of these is our tradition of individual rights. The growing numbers of minorities with distinct ethnic and cultural identities has led to a huge increase in race conflict and race consciousness in America. Each minority group is seeking official recognition and proportional representation as a group — in election districts, in employment, in education, in every area of life — and any failure to reach this utopian “cultural equality” is seen as further proof of America’s inherent racism and of the need for ever-expanding state power to uproot the racism. While the problems of American blacks provided the original pretext for group rights, other minorities have acquired their own piece of the multicultural pie. Thus our newly multiracial society is becoming a multinational society, with the perpetual instability, conflict, suspicion and loss of freedom that characterize so many balkanized and Third World countries. Although proimmigration conservatives passionately insist that this shouldn’t happen (since they believe that America is defined solely by universal ideas), the point is that it is happening. The assimilation into a common citizenship that was possible for people of European background is not happening for vast numbers of non-Europeans.
Next to pandemic violent crime, nothing so delegitimizes the social order as the presence of millions of persons residing illegally in this country and drawing on public assistance — combined with the government’s inability or refusal to do anything about it. The more illegal aliens there are in a given city, all of whom have a powerful interest in the law’s not being enforced, the more local officials accede to and even publicly welcome their presence, as Mayor Giuliani has recently done in New York City. When Orange, Calif., was overwhelmed in the early 1990s by a large illegal alien population standing on street corners seeking work, and living crammed into houses in numbers far above zoning limits, local authorities gave up enforcing the law and began instead to accommodate the illegals, building a hiring hall for them, refusing to cooperate with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, even firing a zoning officer who tried to do her job.
The rule of law is being further eroded by the fanaticism and violence characteristic of Latin American politics. When a federal investigator in San Diego County uncovered massive welfare fraud by illegal aliens and the welfare department, he was threatened by Hispanics and attacked as a “racist” by a Hispanic supervisor. Citizens in California, Texas and Florida who have spoken out against illegal immigration have received death threats and had their automobile tires slashed as a warning. As one border-control activist in California said, “It’s war out here.”
The loss of the rule of law goes hand in hand with the loss of national sovereignty. There are parts of the country, such as New York City’s Chinatown and Washington Heights, that are already controlled more by foreign-based criminal gangs than by U.S. authorities. Crime networks from many nations, including Nigeria, Russia, Japan and Jamaica, are operating almost at will in this country. Meanwhile, many immigrant and ethnic leaders — including elected officials — openly state that because of its historic “sins” the United States has no right to control its borders.
The close proximity of widely divergent cultures, many of them lacking Western concepts of rationality, makes it difficult for people in this country to reason together or cooperate as citizens. As reported in the Los Angeles Times, juries in major criminal trials in southern California have been deadlocked because multicultural jury members did not share basic assumptions about right and wrong. Meanwhile, under the concept of “cultural defense,” some immigrants charged with murder and rape have been let off with light sentences on the basis that people from non-Western cultures should not be held to Western standards.
On a deeper level, America’s mind-blowing heterogeneity has helped undermine any common conception of human nature. Replacing the classic and Judeo-Christian allegiance to a moral truth higher than the individual, the mindless celebration of diversity has become America’s new religion.
Thus Richard Barbieri, the head of the Independent Schools Association of Massachusetts, writes: “The essence of multicultural change is to listen to the uniqueness of others and to change our uniqueness to accommodate theirs…. True diversity will involve being humble, first of all, humble before the knowledge and experience of others.” In a multicultural manifesto for the virtually all-white city of Dubuque, Iowa (pathetically titled “We Want to Change”), Dubuque’s leaders declared: “Diversity calls us into a world that focuses on the many-splendored beauty of others.” In all these calls to multicultural transformation, white Americans are never told why they must embrace the “experience,” the “knowledge,” the “beauty” of others. The diversity of others is supposed to provide some new and wonderful value — but what is that value? Well, the fact that the “others” are not like “us.” They exist, therefore we must yield to them. Multiculturalism turns out to be a kind of mysticism.
Yet even as whites worship at the shrine of otherness, Third World advocates openly boast of their hatred for Anglo society and of their intent to destroy it. The publication Border Watch reports that a Hispanic activist told a California woman, who had publicized the problem of illegal aliens receiving in-state college tuition, that “You are the one that needs to go home. This is a Latino home. You people need to go back to wherever you came from…. Get with it. People of color are going to take over sooner or later.” Third World intellectuals provide a more sophisticated version of the same message. “The great power of Latin America is its culture,” says Gabriel Garcia Marquez in an interview. “We don’t spend a dime trying to penetrate culturally, yet we’re changing the United States…. We’re changing the language, the food, the music, the way of being. We’re changing you into a Latin country.” Novelist Bharati Mukherjee — a multicultural “moderate” — speaks of Third World immigrants as “we, the new pioneers, who are thinking of America as still a frontier country.” Enlarging on her imperialistic reverie, Mukherjee told Bill Moyers, “I want to conquer, I mean, I want to love and possess this country.”
What such “possession” means in actual terms can be seen all over America. Areas dominated by immigrants from Third World cultures with low levels of skills and civility have ceased to be part of what most Americans think of as civilization. Vast stretches of Los Angeles, New York and Miami, have become Latin American or Caribbean slums, with deteriorating infrastructure, cheap wares sold on the sidewalk, cars fixed on the street, men loitering about all day in public, and high levels of noise, dirt, disease, disorder and violence. In step with this process of Third Worldization, there is an exodus of whites (and middle-class nonwhites) from immigrant-intensive states and regions. Thus, even as we are admitting more than a million immigrants and refugees into the United States every year, we are turning hundreds of thousands — and soon to be millions — of embittered and traumatized whites into refugees in their own country.
In cities with large Third World populations, the traditions of Western high culture — classical music, ballet, theater and libraries — are dying out through lack of support or face political pressures to change their entire character. Theater critic Thomas Disch writing in the Atlantic Monthly has said that a leading factor in the decline of the Broadway theater is that, as a result of New York’s exploding ethnic and racial diversity, there is no longer a common culture to support the theater. Adapting to the demographic changes, America’s powerful arts-funding organizations have given top priority to Third World folk arts, while withdrawing support from high-arts institutions such as symphony orchestras.
The erosion of English as our common language (and our link with our historic and literary roots as a nation) is not merely due to ethnic elites forcing so-called bilingualism down immigrants’ throats, as proimmigration conservatives argue. It is a direct outcome of the growing size and power of the non-English-speaking population, as could be seen last year when Hispanic-dominated Dade County, Fla., repealed an existing statute — passed by the former Anglo majority — that had made English the sole language of government. The lesson is clear: “Official English laws” by themselves are useless without restriction of immigration.
As a result of immigration, American national culture is being supplanted by Third World cultures. We are now experiencing the following phenomena in this country: a 25-foot-high statue of the Aztec god of human sacrifice is being erected in a public square in the Hispanic-majority city of San Jose, Calif.; Santeria, a cult that practices animal sacrifice, is now constitutionally protected under the First Amendment; huge festivals awash in pagan symbols celebrating “West Indian Day” and “Hispanic Day” regularly disrupt life in major cities; the passionate assertion of Latin American national symbols and myths are exalted by students and teachers in American public schools. At the same, time traditional American symbols and images are being discarded because they don’t “represent” our new, non-Western population. Historical art works, such as a statue of a 19th-century pioneer family commissioned by the state of Oregon, and classic plays, such as Peter Pan, have been purged. The Alamo is reconceptualized as a Hispanic monument. The Pearl Harbor memorial is relativized so as not to offend Japanese-Americans.
The most significant change brought by multiculturalism is the total bowdlerization and rewriting of American history from an anti-Western, antiwhite perspective. Exposed to such “reeducation” through all their formative years, young white people coming out of the schools today have no sense of themselves as heirs of a historical nation and tradition — only ignorance and a pervading mood of estrangement. “We have come a long way from schooling that made Europeans into Americans,” writer Jared Taylor has remarked. “We now make Americans into nothing at all.” In the final stage of this process of dispossession, whites will follow the example of Kevin Costner in the film Dances With Wolves and spiritually abandon America for a non-Western culture.
There are many features in the unique complex of habits and institutions we think of as the American way of life: prosperity, well-functioning private and public institutions, a stable and democratic political system, liberty under law, respect for individual dignity, a high level of philanthropy and social cooperation, the sense of fair play, and the belief in reason and common sense. Multiculturalists may sneer at these values as mere masks of “white hegemony,” but one thing is certain. These values have only flourished in white-majority societies, particularly in societies with an Anglo-Saxon cultural basis. As whites lose their numerical, political and cultural dominance, American civilization with all its constituent virtues will also come to an end. That process, already well advanced in our major cities, will only accelerate if America continues to receive a mass migration several orders of magnitude greater in scale and diversity than that which submerged the Roman empire.
Back to Reetzality. Folks, how about this thought: If we destroy the America we love, how will the world survive in a civilized manner. I don’t see much struggle for freedom going on in the world anymore except for here and it’s on the wane here, sadly. So as I’ve said numerous times, WAKE UP AMERICA.
The Three Stooges
Let’s look at liberal policies and don’t think for a second that liberal policies are the exclusive province of Democrats. Republicans are guilty too. Here goes:
1. Government is a good thing. Now there’s a liberal attitude. Got a problem? What you need is a little more government. Except, government doesn’t function because due to unions and the lack of accountability and personal responsibility coupled with no cost restraints (no incentive to do better), government almost always fails. Just take the post office, bankrupt, Amtrak, bankrupt, social security and medicare, ultimate ponzi schemes, national debt, exploding, the war on poverty, failing, immigration control, failing, Department of Education, failing, Department of Energy (created to become energy independent), failing, etc. When you take out consequences and budgetary concerns, you get sloth and failure. And liberals love government. Strike one Liberals.
2. Tax rates. Liberals love higher taxes. Taxation is the taking of an individual’s productivity, his or her time and effort. It is a seizure of your efforts which means that you are partially enslaved. Taxation enslaves that percentage of your income that you pay in taxes. So, pay thirty percent in taxes, thirty percent of your productivity is owned by the government. That’s a taking of liberty. Doesn’t the word liberal derive from the word liberty? Strike two liberals.
3. The War on Poverty is a farce. In the fifties, the out of wedlock birth rate among African Americans was less than white Americans. Not anymore. Thanks to the war on poverty, money for kids, welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, the war on poverty has destroyed the moral fiber of an entire class and generations of Americans. Yet, liberals claim to care. But how can they when the facts are so strikingly strong that the war on poverty doesn’t work, actually hurts those it intends to benefit? It is actually an entrapment of sorts. I don’t know how. Again either their evil or ignorant. Strike three liberals.
4. Immigration. The liberals, and this definitely includes some Republicans like George Bush and John McCain, want to provide amnesty for illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are costing this country a fortune in education costs, welfare, criminal justice costs, and job loss. Yet, the liberals want them in, at the expense of our country. They are doing almost nothing to control our borders, well except for killing our economy which discourages illegal immigration. Strike four liberals.
5. Bail outs. Since when did rewarding failure or at least enabling it become good policy? Never. It doesn’t work in a family, a business, a foot ball team, anywhere. But somehow, liberals believe that it works in their world. It doesn’t. Just check out the bail outs of Wall Street. Credit is still tight. Foreclosure numbers are still far from acceptable. The economy is only struggling along. It didn’t work and these guys are considering more bail outs and stimulus plans? What are they thinking? Again, I don’t know other than they’re either evil or ignorant. Strike five liberals.
So liberal/progressive ideology doesn’t work. The facts prove it, over and over again. And yet those liberals, they are persistent buggers. They claim to want to help, and when their policies don’t help, they solve the problem by pushing for more of their policies. Isn’t that akin to trying to use cough medicine to cure cancer and when it doesn’t work, prescribing more cough medicine? It is.
I’ll stop there with the strikes. I could go on forever, analyzing almost every single government policy but I wont. I want to make my primary point. This point tends to prove that the liberals are motivated by power and not by caring and it’s an amazing irony. Here’s the irony of all ironies. Here’s the 900 pound gorilla in the room:
Ronald Reagan pushed trickle down economics. What did he do? He cut taxes and the economy prospered. Interestingly, the tax cuts directly benefited us all, so in some respects, it didn’t really trickle down, the tax cuts landed in our laps. Now here comes the irony. Obama claimed that he would pursue a trickle up economic policy. His words. O.K. Fair enough. Give those on the bottom a break, they’ll spend, and the economy will prosper. That’s the theory anyway. So what does he do? He gives Chrysler, GM, AIG, Bank of America, and other oligopolies bail out money. He uses the stimulus plan to grow government, to save government jobs. He actually gives the money to the top and wants it to trickle up? And he does this with a straight face. Where is that money going to trickle up to? Bill Gates and Warren Buffet maybe? But maybe I’m mistaken, maybe the money given to the oligopolies will trickle up to the poor? Yeah right. See the oxymoron here? Amazing really. The Audacity of Dope.
But maybe not. Maybe liberals are the most selfish of all people. Maybe they know exactly what they are doing? Maybe they really only care about themselves, their power, their union protected job, their government job? For one, their policies don’t work and yet they continue them. For two, their policies actually hurt people. For three, their policies make people more needy and dependent which provides liberals more power to persuade with their false promises of change and assistance. With the irony I’ve set forth above, I do conclude that they really don’t care about anything but power. They want to be on top with all the power no matter how much they have to push the masses down to maintain their relative superior position of power. It’s like, I want to be the richest guy in the neighborhood so what I’ll do is take everybody else’s money and freedom, all under the guise that I care. When I’ve taken enough, I’ll be the richest guy on the block.
I also believe that there are liberals who are not rich, who have bought into the liberal lies, truly believe in them. I believe these folks to be an amalgam of jealousy, ignorance, need and intellectual arrogance. There, I said it.
We need to speak out and confront liberals. They are not all bad people, just wrong people. Here’s a further irony. The liberals I know tend to be the most selfish people in their personal lives, which goes further to argue that they are self interested in a bad way. Anyway, we’ve got to confront them on their illogical thinking, their wrongful beliefs, and their anti-American agenda. Our future depends upon it. It is ridiculous to believe that our preferred future is one that embodies more government control, higher taxes, more regulation, open borders, socialized medicine, and all the other tripe the liberals are selling. It is un-American to desire these things because each and every one of them are direct attacks on the most basic of American principles, liberty.
No cigar on the constitution.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government. Thomas Jefferson
I think when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody. Barack Obama
Thomas Jefferson was against wealth redistribution, Obama is for it. That’s a big fundamental difference between the two guys.
I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Thomas Jefferson
If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. Barack Obama
Thomas Jefferson understood the danger of the nanny state. Obama embraces it. Another big difference.
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. Thomas Jefferson
Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. Thomas Jefferson
Peace and abstinence from European interferences are our objects, and so will continue while the present order of things in America remain uninterrupted. Thomas Jefferson
People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time. Barack Obama
Instead of having a set of policies that are equipping people for the globalization of the economy, we have policies that are accelerating the most destructive trends of the global economy. Barack Obama.
Thomas Jefferson was for American independence, Obama favors, how did he put it, “a set of policies that are equipping people for the globalization of the economy.” He seeks a world unity rather than national independence. Just check out “Cap and Trade” and his speeches on financial reform if you don’t believe me. Another big difference between these two guys.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world. Thomas Jefferson
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. Thomas Jefferson
Never spend your money before you have earned it. Thomas Jefferson
It’s not the debt that’s most troubling. The bulk of the debt is a direct result of the President’s tax cuts, 47.4% of which went to the top 5% income bracket. Barack Obama.
Thomas Jefferson feared big government and debt, Obama likes it. He’s spending us into bankruptcy and he may already have done so. Another big difference.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. Thomas Jefferson
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves. Thomas Jefferson
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
O.K. This one doesn’t need an Obama quote. He doesn’t govern the least, he governs the most, inserting government into the auto industry, financial industry, energy industry, health care industry, and more, beyond any level ever experienced. Apparently he doesn’t agree with Thomas Jefferson on the role of government. That’s worrisome.
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.’’ Barack Obama.
“…the passage of legal protection for the gun industry would mark an enormous setback for gun control advocates and for leaders of cities such as Chicago, who have filed suit against gun dealers and manufacturers.” Barack Obama.
Evidently, Obama doesn’t agree with Thomas Jefferson on this one either.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. Thomas Jefferson
This sort of sums up our Obama Future. Power has been consolidated, corruption in Washington is rampant despite the promise of “change.”
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson O.K. Obama has the National Endowment of the Arts using federal tax dollars to fund art supporting his agenda. ACORN uses federal funds to promote his policies. He’s violating Thomas Jefferson’s warnings. Of course he is.
It is clear that Thomas Jefferson, one of our “so-called” (Obama’s words) founding fathers, had a drastically different view on our nation than Barack Obama. The difference is so drastic that there is little if any middle ground. So pick sides folks. I pick Thomas Jefferson. Of course I do.
It is about liberty and freedom. It is about the end of America as we know it. As I listen to President Obama rant the same old rant about health care, it becomes crystal clear that his concern is not about health care, but about socialization or in his words, “fundamental change.” He preached this mantra throughout his campaign. Americans thought he was speaking of a fundamental change in the way Washington, D.C. operates which would be a good thing. But Americans were wrong. Want proof. Where’s the fundamental change in Washington? It isn’t there. We’ve still got deficit spending, earmarks, unaccountability, corruption, a lack of transparency, dishonesty, incompetence, arrogance, the usual cacophony of Washington ways; ways which we would never tolerate within our family, within our businesses, with our friends, within our individual moral fiber. Still, even under the great transformer, Obama, Washington is still Washington. Now why is that? Americans were looking forward to the “fundamental change” this man promised. Why isn’t it happening. Did American’s misunderstand Obama? I looked up the word “fundamental” in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Here’s the definition: “serving as an origin. Serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function.” God help us! He is being literal when he says “fundamental change.” Again, God help us!
And that’s what Obama-Care is about, “fundamental change.” It’s not about health care, we’ve got great health care and I’ve yet to see the person who suffers from a lack of health care. Trouble paying, yeah there are those folks, but not trouble getting. Even Obama’s poster women, the one who allegedly had to wait six months for breast cancer treatment so the insurance would kick in, even the poster women’s story is one of payment and not one of treatment. Is that the best you can do Obama? It is, because, and now I’m being redundant, our health care is phenomenal. Obama is using the health care issue to effectuate his desired “fundamental change,” to change the basis of our existence. The left is willing to use any vehicle to get where they want to go. In the sixties, communism and socialism were touted as an alternative, not all that bad of a system it was said. Then all the communist/socialist nations started failing. Uh Oh, said the left, we need a new vehicle. Hilary care goes to the leftist tool box and pulls out health care. It fails like it should. Uh Oh, said the left, we need another vehicle. Al Gore latches onto global warming. It’s still in play with the pending “cap and trade” legislation. What’s the Left’s solution to the false global warming crisis? Taxation and incredible government control, including Obama’s suggestion that folks should have a “smart box” in their home monitoring energy consumption, penalizing those who use too much, however much that is? That’s the Left’s solution, “fundamental change.” But why stop there said the Left. Let’s pull the health care tool out of the tool box again. How can folks be against less expensive (it won’t be), more available (it won’t be), health care?
Here’s how: We are fundamentally Americans. We have the most incredible principled freedom loving heritage in the history of the world. We stand for freedom, liberty, rugged individualism, courage, self reliance and God. We are proud to be true Americans; and being a true American is not a trait of origin of birth, it is a trait of principle. That, Mr. President is who we are. These qualities are the basis of our existence, inherent in our souls. It is OUR fundamental. So Mr. President, call your vehicle for “fundamental change” what you want, health care, global warming, even the one honest thing you said to Joe the Plumber, redistribution of wealth. Americans, true Americans, aren’t buying it. I’ve studied your friends, voting record and policies. I’ve read your words and listened to you speak. You Mr. President are not fundamentally American. The basis of your existence, your soul, is different than ours and we don’t like yours. Adopting your fundamentals would be an American suicide. What concerns me the most, is this; I think that is what you want Mr. President, an American suicide. Your words, “fundamental change” say so as do your actions. I pray every night that you don’t succeed in Jim Jones-ing our beloved sacred God inspired nation.
Thanks for the Read,
As I evaluate the destruction of our nation, it is clear that States’ Rights might be our salvation. State’s rights are vested in the Tenth Amendment; Here’s a brief history and analysis of the current tenor of States’ Rights. This history will give you readers the knowledge necessary to follow the significance and importance of States’ Rights:
According to Resistnet.com more and more states are finding that their Constitutional Rights are being challenged by the Obama administration and are taking steps to counteract it.
Already, 9 states: Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. 12 others: Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures. Of course, the citizens of each state would have to ratify the bill, just as they would have to vote to join the Union.
Several examples of the reasoning are that Christians might be considered guilty of “hate crimes” when talking about homosexuality, or the Muslim jihadist. For example, Geert Wilders, parliamentarian, is being prosecuted for “hate speech” in the Netherlands for his film “Fitna”, which exposes the Islamic mentality. Others fear that their 2nd Amendment rights will be taken away. Others may object to their tax money being used to fund abortions. Some may be medical personnel who would be forced to perform abortions under the new law, and, who may object to abortions.
In fact, the Founding Fathers included the 9th and 10th amendments to give relief to the people from an excessively over-bearing, or dictatorial government. I believe some some of the States are considering seceding because of the trillion dollar “Generational Theft Act” which is presently being debated in the Senate. As someone calculated, if one were to spend a million dollars a day from the time of Jesus’ Nativity, it would add up to a trillion dollars. So this porky package that includes, doggy playgrounds, a butterfly and turtle park and so much other pork spending is nothing more that #44’s payback to his campaign supporters.
From another perspective it is part of the Cloward-Piven Manufactured Crisis Strategy which was theorized by the Columbia University Professors Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, to transform Democratic Capitalism into Socialism via “community organizers”. Obama was trained at Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, so he may have learned of this Strategy during his years at Columbia. There are now around 40 lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be POTUSA, and, so far, no court has granted “standing”. So, if the people do not have “standing” to question who is their President, then who does?
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791, and restates the Constitution’s principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. It is based on an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.’ The 10th Amendment does not empower Congress to wage war upon those states that secede. Even though that is exactly what happened in 1860, as Jefferson Davis said “A question settled by force of arms remains forever unsettled.”
Get ready folks, States’ Rights are about to take center stage in the debate over our future.
Note: This blog was largely taken from the net. I did not write the details of this blog. Honesty baby!
