Is there too much government in your life?
View Results
Is there anything our President likes about America other than leisurely destroying it? I’m searching for an answer, trying to find something that our President not only says he likes, but something he acts like he likes. Let’s run a list. Here goes.
Free Enterprise: No way does our President likes free enterprise. He says he does but his actions betray his words. He bailed out the banks, the auto industry, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He wants hyper control over our financial system. He is drooling over the possibility of shutting down the oil industry. He is in favor of the redistribution of wealth. He actually believes the Constitution is flawed because it does not address “redistributive justice,” his words. He is in favor of Cap and Trade which will be a monumental shroud on free enterprise, and freedom itself in that Cap and Trades’ tendrils will reach right down to a persons domicile. Nope, our President is not an advocate of free enterprise.
Border Control and Security: Our President does not want our borders controlled. He says he does but refuses to act until we get “comprehensive” immigration policy. Unfortunately, “comprehensive,” to him, means amnesty for thirteen million illegal aliens and probably a lot more. He still hasn’t made good on his promise to Arizona to send 1200 National Guardsmen to the border, actually breaking his promise of doing so within two weeks after the meeting with the Arizona Governor. Let’s face it folks, our President does not even view the very land we occupy as worthy of protection. As to National Security, he nixed the missile defense system in Eastern Europe. He has done nothing to keep Iran non-nuclear. He’s cutting defense spending. He wants to treat foreign terrorists as common criminals, trying them in criminal courts rather than military tribunals. He won’t even use the phrase “Islamic Extremist.” You know those guys who are willing to die to destroy us.
Self Reliance: Our President does not respect self-reliance. Redistributive Justice does not co-exist with self-reliance. His health care bill does not co-exist with self-reliance. He believes it is the government’s job and duty to provide and not the individual’s responsibility. He believes it’s government’s fault if you don’t own a house, have a job, have health care, can’t afford education, don’t have insurance, not the individual’s fault.
American Exceptionalism: Our President does not believe we are exceptional. Actually, we’re just human, but we’ve been blessed with a nation that was founded on freedom and liberty which allowed us to actualize and be exceptional. But does our President praise this truth? No. He apologizes to the world for our behavior. He ignores our principles and wants us to be more like other nations, that Mr. President, in case you haven’t watched the news of late, are failing. He does not like the idea of a nation with our principles dominating the world, or even leading it for that matter. And that says a lot about the man because if you don’t like us leading with our principles, then you don’t understand the magnificence of our principles.
Environment: The Gulf Oil Spill reveals that our President doesn’t care too much about the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as an opportunity to impose his priorities of more regulation, less freedom (pass Cap and Trade) and less free enterprise rather than a dire call to action to save the environment. He views the Gulf Oil Spill as a “fat pitch” to further attack free enterprise, all the while, actually thwarting the efforts to thwart the environmental impact of the spill. He took two weeks to respond to Louisiana’s request to build barrier islands. He turned down offers of help to deal with the oil spill from thirteen nations. Under his rule, the coast guard moth balled skimmers in order to make sure they met government regulations, further delaying remedial measures to save the environment. His only non-urban activity is golf and that’s not saying much. Cap and Trade won’t fix the environment. China and India aren’t signing on and even if they did, Cap and Trade only imposes more government. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it will do anything for the environment.
State’s Rights: He is suing Arizona for exercising their state’s rights. He does not like State’s rights, the very right that is set forth to create a sort of governmental competition. The very right that allows state’s to innovate in their policies in an attempt to improve life. He doesn’t agree with a state’s right to ban abortion.
Free Speech: He doesn’t like it. He attacks free expression regularly, even going so far as to say that free expression gets in the way of progress. He appointed Justice Kagen who is no fan of the First Amendment, who believes that there should be a redistribution of free expression which means government control. He is in favor of the Fairness Doctrine which in classic Ayn Randian style, has nothing to do with fairness but rather equality of points of view which means, government control of speech. He is in favor of net neutrality, meaning more government control, less free speech.
The Right to Bear Arms: He does not believe in the Second Amendment. His votes in the Illinois Legislature prove this.
What’s left? Does it even matter? By having contempt for the principles stated above, does one even need to go further? It’s akin to saying, “I like Nuclear Reactors, I’m just not fond of the nuclear reaction that goes on inside.” You cannot love America and what it stands for if you don’t stand for the American Principles. And our President does not stand for the American Principles. It’s as plain as day. He says it. He acts upon his words. He has contempt for those who disagree. We have enough information to finalize the diagnosis.
Folks, his rhetoric sounded good during the campaign. But now, at this critical time, it is imperative to realize and act upon the truth that it was just rhetoric, nothing more. He doesn’t like our country and if you don’t join him in his effort to destroy that which made us great, he doesn’t like you. And folks, here’s the kicker: He not only doesn’t like America, what he really doesn’t like is our freedom to save it. Freedom is his nemesis. Freedom is the stalking horse that threatens his skewed un-American vision. Freedom is what he really despises.
On a psychological note, a note based upon my observations and education, if a child is raised by an abusive parent, it is likely that the child will be grow up to be an abusive parent as well. This is particularly true with sexual abuse. It is called the Cycle of Sexual Abuse. Here’s the reach. Our President views his history, whether it is the cultural African American history or his history personally, as abusive and unfair. Is there a possibility that he is metaphorically the abused child playing his role in the cycle of abuse? To him, America wasn’t that good to him. (Rather amazing, he became President) He had a broken home. He was raised by a cacophony of anti-American mentors. He was bounced around from place to place, home to home. And now he’s an adult, repeating the anti-American mantra through his words, but more so through his actions. Is this the case? It sure seems like it, but I’m just asking.
So, going back to the premise of this piece, what is it that our President likes about this country? I come up with not a single fundamental American thing. I am not saying that he isn’t enjoying the fruits of our Nation’s labor. He is, but the fruits, the opulence he enjoys is not an American Principle. All dictators live opulent lives by the way. Opulence has nothing to do with American Principles. Opulence is a by-product but not a fundamental of Americanism. So please don’t argue that he loves America because he appreciates the opulence it has bestowed upon him. To love America is to love its principles. And he does not. And that is the dire dilemma that faces us today.
That’s my Reetzality for the Day.
Thanks for the read.
Brett Reetz
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, said Moscow was bidding to help lead efforts to build a new world economic order after the old system collapsed in the global financial crisis. Mr Medvedev said the renewed interest in Russia this year was a sign of a changing world in which the institutions of the western-dominated world order had had their day amid thousands of corporate defaults and the threat of sovereign defaults. Medvedev said, “What had seemed untouchable has collapsed. The bubbles that created the illusion of flourishing economies have burst. And we should use it to build a modern, flourishing and strong Russia … which will be a co-founder of the new world economic order and a full participant in the collective political leadership of the post-crisis world.” That’s just great. Russia is now vying to lead the world economy. Now, I’m not faulting Dmitry. I don’t fault ambition, ever. But I am going to do some “faulting” here. Here’s what I’m going to fault. Western Government, that’s what.
Two points to consider Dmitry. One, the free market didn’t fail. Two, Western Government failed. Yes, we are in a global recession. Yes, times have been tough.
But mind you Dmitry, the vast, vast, vast majority of failures have been directly tied to government. Let’s check it out. AIG? Credit default swaps unregulated by government, thank you Lindsey Grahm and President Clinton. Financial Crisis on Wall Street? Community Redevelopment Act, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, are the root causes. The auto industry? Government imposed café standards and unions. Steel Industry? Unions and regulation caused its demise. Real estate market crash? Again, Community Redevelopment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Outlandish corporate risks gone bad? Enabled by government bail outs.
But the biggest failure? Government? Which one? Pick. U.S., Greece, Spain, Portugal, U.K., Ireland, Japan. Every one of them simply spent more than they took in and bankrupted themselves, except they don’t have to go bankrupt, they can tax. The problem is that when they tax they kill the host that their parasitic nature depends on. They kill the private sector which when you look at the portion of the private sector that is not tethered, buoyed or inflated by government, that portion is doing all right, even in these disastrous times. But even the portion of the private sector that isn’t attached to the wet teet of government will be crushed if government takes much more of the productivity.
And that’s the plan, to take more, to redistribute more, to further slash liberty to the bare. Every nation, every leader needs a kick in the head. They need to be forced to objectively review history and admit that they are wrong in their pursuits. They need to accept the fact that government, more often than not, is not the solution, it’s the problem. Government is unaccountable and suffers little consequence, thus they routinely fail as they are now. This isn’t new. This is the same old story.
Come on readers. How’s our government doing on the Gulf Oil Spill? How is our government doing on the illegal alien problem? Our government couldn’t even run Arlington National Cemetery correctly. If you didn’t see the news today, they found a pile of head stones in a creek bed and were recently found to be burying veterans on top of other veterans. It is rather ironic that our government can’t even manage to run a burial appropriately while at the same time, pushing us in a direction where it’s going to need it’s own burial. There’s more. Social Security? Bankrupt. Medicare? Bankrupt. Medicaid? Bankrupt. Our future, bankrupt. (If we don’t act fast). We have 113 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities crashing down on us. If we don’t change, we are dooming ourselves and our children and our children’s children. Shame on us.
Yet, I’ll give Dmitry this: He’s on the right track. He said this too: “Russia needs a real investment boom”, in order to achieve its modernization goals, he said. To stimulate that, Mr Medvedev announced Moscow would introduce zero taxation on capital gains for companies working on long-term investments starting from January next year and said Russia was improving the legal system to provide better protection for businesses against the long arm of bureaucracy.
Wow, we won the cold war only to be out libertied by the Ruskies! Now that’s down right embarrassing.
Wake up folks. Government is the problem. It’s a cancer, and it’s killing us. We need to get it under control. We need to shrink the tumor or learn to speak Russian or maybe Chinese.
That’s my Reetzality for the day.
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.
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.
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.
What is the common denominator of Obama policies? The Destruction of America is the sole theme I can find in Obama’s policies and in his statements for that matter. Let’s check it out.
TAXATION. Obama is for higher taxation. Already some folks pay more than fifty percent of their income, of their productivity, in taxes. The Bush tax cuts will expire next year and Obama will do nothing to extend the cuts. Take a look at developed countries with high tax rates and then take a look at the entrepreneurial opportunities in those countries. It’s bleak and that’s where we’re headed. The CBO predicts only a two percent growth of gross product at best for the foreseeable future which is not quarters, not years, but decades. His drunken spending will provide a platform for him to raise taxes astronomically, further breaking another campaign promise. This is bad for America.
HEALTH CARE. Notwithstanding the socialistic anti-American theme in Obama-care, the cost alone, which is increasing by the week as we, and Washington, gets to understanding the implications, are going to be a wet blanket on our economy. Obama-care also takes away freedom, which last time I checked, is a bad thing. Companies are planning on eliminating their health care programs and turning employees over to the feds which inevitably fails at almost everything. Obama-care will hurt America. It already is.
CAP AND TRADE. This policy will explode bureaucracy and make business drastically more complex. It will increase costs and regulation and will decrease opportunity and productivity. It will grow the government and shrink the private sector. It will lead us closer to global government. Check out how it’s working in Europe. Not well. Bad for America.
IMMIGRATION. Obama is doing nothing about immigration except condemning Arizona, the one state with the fortitude to be responsible for their problems. Obama has lied about the law Arizona passed. Obama’s view on immigration is simply to, when the time is right, provide amnesty for illegals in order to create more left leaning voters who will vote for more redistribution of wealth, more government and therefore, less freedom. He has lied about the Arizona law. Bad for America.
FINANCIAL REFORM. Obama’s plan will burden the free market and again explode the federal bureaucracy. His plan ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, entirely leaves them out of the “reform” and they are the two biggest culprits in our recent financial woes. Why isn’t Obama addressing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issue? Because they are agents for the government, that’s why. They are his folks. How can you claim to be fixing something when you’re ignoring the biggest cause, the root cause, of the problem? You can’t. And he doesn’t want to fix it. He wants to grow government and the people be damned. Bad for America.
BAIL OUTS. Obama loves a good bail out because it grows government power and influence and it takes care of the Unions in the case of the Auto industry.
GREECE. Obama pushed Europe to bail out Greece. Why? Why when we have trillions of dollars of debt is he borrowing money from China to give to Greece? There are a number of reasons. First, he adores the massive government in Greece. Second, if Greece fails more than it already has, it might reveal the flaws with Obama’s policies. (if they can be any more revealed as being awful). Third, it leads us closer to global government.
UNIONS. Obama is in favor of card check, his biggest ally is the SEIU union chief, he tired to exclude unions from the mandates of Obama-care. Are unions a good thing? Nope, just run down the list of union controlled industries. Auto industry, failed. Post Office, failed. Steel industry, gone. Government, the zenith of inefficiency and waste. Public education, struggling. Government pensions gifted to Unions and driving localities, municipalities, states and the Federal government closer and closer to bankruptcy and yet, Obama loves a union. Unions have proven to be a deadly albatross to so many American principles. Obama’s union policies are bad for America.
THE WARS. Now this is a strange one. Why is Obama breaking his promises regarding the wars on a regular basis, most recently retracting his position on exiting Afghanistan? Why does he continue with apparently no exit strategy in both wars? Here’s why. Wars run up the deficit. They further in debt our nation leading us towards collapse. That’s why. Maybe on the surface he doesn’t like war, but what he likes more is the destruction of America. And wars, especially wars of the ilk we’re in, are good ingredients for an American demise. Bad for America.
ENERGY. He lied about off shore drilling is now, given the gulf crisis, back tracking from his lie during the State of the Union Address. He keeps arguing for “going green” despite the established proof that it costs jobs, hurts the economy, and is a camouflage for more government control, regulation and burden on the economy. If you think “green” is good, check out Spain with its twenty percent unemployment rate. Bad for America.
DEFICITS. Deficits are a looming if not already arrived disaster for America and yet Obama keeps spending, keeps growing government, keeps borrowing. Bad for America.
I could go on with more examples of his policies, i.e. “don’t ask don’t tell, offshore drilling, contempt for profits, contempt for information (he recently said there was too much information and argument on the internet and talk radio which injures emancipation and democracy), his anti-Second Amendment, his belief that the Constitution is incomplete because it doesn’t address redistributive justice, and more. But I’ve said enough. You get my point. Obama doesn’t like America, at least not the America we love and cherish and the one that the world needs so desperately.
So face it folks, the facts of the matter reveal it. He says it. His minions say it. Obama and his minions want to destroy the America that saved Europe from Hitler, the America that is prosperous and generous, the America that has freedom and liberty as its driving force. He said as much when he repeatedly said that he wants to fundamentally change America. I’ve said it before, but fundamental is defined as the origin of existence and that’s what Obama wants to change, our origin of existence which are our god given, not Washington allowed, rights as set forth in our Constitution.
Rush Limbaugh was right when he said he wants Obama to fail. I do too. Any true American should, because his failure means we’ve saved America, the greatest nation in the history of man built on a simple yet exquisite document which our President has contempt, which our President doesn’t even understand. And I have hope and confidence that he will fail, because no man is capable of fighting our fundamentals, they are God given, and regardless of what our main stream media thinks of Obama, he’s nothing compared to God. And there’s nothing wrong with desiring a foe to fail. Just like a sporting event, you want your team to win and the other team to lose and that’s metaphorically what we have here, two competing teams with diametrically opposed philosophies. O.K., I’ll say it another way. I want our side to win. I want it to be a blow out. I want good to prevail over evil but notwithstanding that I believe that our fundamentals are God given and the obvious implication that if you are against our fundamentals you are fighting with God, a bad fight to pick, I’ll save the good versus evil for another blog.
I haven’t written for two weeks, a little more actually. Why? I’m stymied. I have been overwhelmed with the flood of illogical, immoral, jibberish, that I’ve been hearing and I don’t know where to start. Now I do. When solving a problem, you cut to the chase. Some problems can be cured superficially, for example, you get sun burned, you put a lotion on; a superficial cure, no pun intended. Other problems are more evasive. You see the problem, you know there is a problem, but the solution evades you. Here’s an example. The out of wedlock birth rate has exploded in the African American Community (I hate that term, African American. Americans are Americans regardless of color, race, creed, religion, etc. period. Why differentiate?) We could talk to folks and say “hey don’t have babies,” we have, but that doesn’t work. So we need to go deeper in the analysis. Therefore, the solution doesn’t lie on the surface. It is deeper. In the case of African American out of wedlock birth rates, it’s the welfare system but nobody is willing to discuss it on that level. It’s an evasive problem.
In our country we have a tremendous evasive problem. We are trending, if we are not already there, to a nanny state. You got a failed corporation, the people, not the government will bail you out. You can’t afford a house, we’ll give you housing. You need, we’ll provide, just vote for me. It is our death sentence as a nation. We will become Greece which is an amazing spectacle of the future actualization of American liberal policy.
In our country we have a problem with liberals. They are wrong on their policies, wrong on their values, and wrong on their approach. Now we can argue with them about the policies and the approach, but that isn’t digging deep enough. We know they disagree with what is right. We need to go deeper. And here I go.
Liberals, the vast majority, are tied to government. Most of the liberals I know work for the government. Liberals are contemptuous of folks they view as simply more fortunate. When you explain to a liberal that this man or women had a good idea or worked harder, they roll their eyes. Liberals have skin in the game, that’s for sure, but their skin is bet on government getting bigger and also on government taking better care of them. As I write this, I’m trying really hard to think of a liberal who doesn’t have his or her “skin in the game’ betting on government expansion and I’m coming up blank. They either work for the government, benefit from the government or they’re contemptuous of folks who have more; they employ the blame game. I have yet to meet a liberal who paid his or her dues. Yes, they went to college, yes they work hard, but ultimately in my analysis, they are personally benefited by a bigger government. That’s a liberal. There are two common denominators of liberals; direct benefit from bigger government or contempt for those who have more. So Liberals are go big government go.
But here’s the problem. When you take out personal responsibility and accountability that is so rampant and obsequious in the private sector, and so absent in the government sector, when you go government with no bottom line, things fail. But wait liberals, your dream agenda depends on that which you have contempt for, the private sector. And yet, the parasites have contempt for the hosts. Government cannot survive without the private sector. Don’t believe me, check out any country that put the government ahead of the private sector, any government, they all fail.
And we are on that path. Obama thinks government is the solution. Within that belief is a dis-respect for the very thing that support government, the private sector, the component of our society based upon American principles that pays the bills. It is the ultimate oxymoronic view. Our founding fathers understood that government was a necessary evil. They were and are right. We need government to defend our country, to build roads, even to provide a safety net for the truly needy. We don’t need government to destroy freedom, liberty and that which should remain private. We can’t survive with government running too much of our lives. If the government proceeds down this path we will fail as a nation. We won’t take care of our truly needy. We won’t take care of our national defense. We will fail. We are on that path.
How do we stop this trend? We get in the liberals face. We tell them what they are. We point out their hypocrisy. We argue about the failures of their policies. We tell them to grow up and be Americans and to stop looking for the wet teet called government. We have contempt for them for being pathetic. We impose upon them the reality that they are the parasites and they are getting close to killing the host. And when they object to this and personally attack, saying we don’t’ care, we need to rub history in their face and reveal that it is their policies that destroy, their policies that retard, their policies that always fail. That’s what we need to do. Because this isn’t a policy debate, this is a fundamental principle debate and until we address these fundamental disagreements, we will get nowhere in the process of saving our nation.
A great article by Charles Krauthammer revealing the utter ignorance (correct word, Obama is doing some “ignoring”) by Obama of the real nuclear weapon threat to America. Read on:
April 16, 2010
Obama’s Nuclear Posturing, Part Deux By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON — There was something oddly disproportionate about the just-concluded nuclear summit to which President Obama summoned 46 world leaders, the largest such gathering on American soil since 1945. That meeting was about the founding of the United Nations, which 65 years ago seemed an event of world-historical importance.
But this one? What was this great convocation about? To prevent the spread of nuclear material into the hands of terrorists. A worthy goal, no doubt. Unfortunately, the two greatest such threats were not even on the agenda.
The first is Iran, which is frantically enriching uranium to make a bomb, and which our own State Department identifies as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world.
Nor on the agenda was Pakistan’s plutonium production, which is adding to the world’s stockpile of fissile material every day.
Pakistan is a relatively friendly power, but it is the most unstable of all the nuclear states. It is fighting a Taliban insurgency and is home to al-Qaeda. Suicide bombs go off regularly in its major cities. Moreover, its own secret service, the ISI, is of dubious loyalty, some of its elements being sympathetic to the Taliban and thus, by extension, to al-Qaeda.
So what was the major breakthrough announced by Obama at the end of the two-day conference? That Ukraine, Chile, Mexico and Canada will be getting rid of various amounts of enriched uranium.
What a relief. I don’t know about you, but I lie awake nights worrying about Canadian uranium. I know these people. I grew up there. You have no idea what they’re capable of doing. If Sidney Crosby hadn’t scored that goal to win the Olympic gold medal, there’s no telling what might have ensued.
Let us stipulate that sequestering nuclear material is a good thing. But, it is a minor thing, particularly when Iran is off the table, and Pakistan is creating new plutonium for every ounce of Canadian uranium shipped to the U.S.
Perhaps calculating that removing relatively small amounts of fissile material from stable friendly countries didn’t quite do the trick, Obama proudly announced that the U.S. and Russia were disposing of 68 tons of plutonium. Unmentioned was the fact that this agreement was reached 10 years ago — and, under the new protocol, doesn’t begin to dispose of the plutonium until 2018. Feeling safer now?
The appropriate venue for such minor loose-nuke agreements is a meeting of experts in Geneva who, after working out the details, get their foreign ministers to sign off. Which made this parade of world leaders in Washington an exercise in misdirection — distracting attention from the looming threat from Iran, regarding which Obama’s 15 months of terminally naive “engagement” has achieved nothing but the loss of 15 months.
Indeed, the Washington summit was part of a larger misdirection play — Obama’s “nuclear spring.” Last week, a START treaty, redolent of precisely the kind of Cold War obsolescence Obama routinely decries. The number of warheads in Russia’s aging and decaying nuclear stockpile is an irrelevancy now that the existential U.S.-Soviet struggle is over. One major achievement of the treaty, from the point of view of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, is that it could freeze deployment of U.S. missile defenses — thus constraining the single greatest anti-nuclear breakthrough of our time.
This followed a softening of the U.S. nuclear deterrent posture (sparing non-proliferation compliant states from U.S. nuclear retaliation if they launch a biochemical attack against us) — a change so bizarre and literally unbelievable that even Hillary Clinton couldn’t get straight what retaliatory threat remains on the table.
All this during a week when top U.S. military officials told Congress that Iran is about a year away from acquiring the fissile material to make a nuclear bomb. Then, only a very few years until weaponization.
At which point the world changes irrevocably: the regional Arab states go nuclear, the Non-Proliferation Treaty dies, the threat of nuclear transfer to terror groups grows astronomically.
A timely reminder: Syria has just been discovered transferring lethal Scud missiles to Hezbollah, the Middle East’s most powerful non-state terrorist force. This is the same Syria that was secretly building a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor until the Israeli air force destroyed the facility three years ago.
But not to worry. Canadian uranium is secured. A nonbinding summit communique has been issued. And a “Work Plan” has been agreed to.
Oh yes. And there will be another summit in two years. The dream lives on.
Thank You Mr. Krauthammer, and thank you readers.
That’s my Reezality for the Day.
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.
