I ran across some interesting information the other day while looking up the accepted definitions of socialism and communism. Let me first say that, in my opinion, believing in socialist ideology does not make one evil or a politically radical villain. It does make me question one's sanity since socialism as it is defined in theory cannot ever work in the real world. Regardless, I have called Barack Obama a socialist and a communist a number of times over the past few years. I believe both of those terms still apply, but only in a general sense. Both socialism and communism have many derivative spinoffs, meaning they both contain a number of different ideologies embodied within each philosophy. Communism itself is a spinoff of socialist theory, but actually is more of a successor to socialism in that Karl Marx viewed socialism as the temporary stage between the destruction of capitalism and the triumph of communism.
Webster's American College Dictionary defines socialism as a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively by the people. As mentioned, there are a number of different branches of socialism, including state socialism, market socialism, libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, religious socialism and even anarchism. Each professes to be based on the idea of the people communally owning, managing and operating all sectors of economic activity.
One definition of communism is identical to that of socialism. But communism has more definitions. It is also a political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and developed by Lenin and others, seeking a violent overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a classless society. Another definition is a system or social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. In both socialism and communism all property is held in common, but the key difference is that in socialism property is owned collectively by the workers and in communism it is owned by the state.
Communism encompasses a wide range of more specific ideologies, such as Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Titoism, etc., etc. Each authoritarian dictator and wannabe dictator practiced their own brand of communism with varying degrees of oppression. But other less personality directed forms of communism also developed in various parts of the world. The one I found interesting is called Eurocommunism, also known as Neocommunism or Western Marxism. The foundation for Eurocommunism was the work of an Italian political theorist named Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937). Basically, Eurocommunism rejected the form of communism practiced by the Soviet Union and China and focused on adapting Marxist-Leninist theories to democratic societies.
Eurocommunism began to gather adherents and become popular during the 1970's and 1980's in Western Europe. Socialists in Western European countries realized that violent revolution to impose communism, as occurred in the Soviet Union and China, would not work in democratic countries. So they plotted to take over from within. The goal was to gain influence by embracing and infiltrating powerful activist special interest groups, such as public sector workers unions, environmentalists, feminists, gay liberationists and minorities. Society was to be led by a 'vanguard', or oligarchy of enlightened leaders. It was thought that the movement faded in the late 1980's, but it sure sounds disturbingly familiar. Perhaps it just went underground and crossed the Atlantic Ocean. Maybe we are experiencing a stealth revolution and don't know it.
There are certainly a number of troubling things that have occurred under our current political regime. One of the first things Barack Obama did when he became president was to get HR3590.AS, Section 5210 passed by Congress, when the Democratic Party controlled both houses during his first two years. This legislation updated and increased the president's control over the Ready Reserve Corps, a constabulary force that can be called up at any time for any emergency the president deems necessary. Not only that, we are all aware of the number of Executive Orders and recess appointments Obama has issued to bypass Congress and the multiple instances of Executive Branch departments ignoring the Constitution to mandate rules and regulations. These actions are not unknown but none of our elected representatives seem to be doing anything about it.
The separation of powers that form the foundation of the American Constitution is being dismantled by our current president with the acquiescence of Congress. What is the intent? I can't imagine it would be happening in order to preserve a capitalist democracy. Nor could the intent be to establish a socialist society. I think Karl Marx is right, socialism is not sustainable. The problem with socialism is that, despite its claim to be a society where all of the people are equal and wealth is shared, that never happens. In fact, it cannot happen because there is always a need for someone to coordinate economic activity and maintain civil order. There is always a small privileged elite at the top who control and maintain limits on these activities, typically by instituting arbitrary, restrictive laws and a powerful police force. It is inevitable. Instead of generating widespread affluence that benefits many, socialism always results in the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. That is communism.
In the end it doesn't really matter what Obama's precise ideology is. Whatever form of socialism Obama believes in, it is quite clear he and his closest colleagues despise traditional American principles and culture, because he is obviously doing everything he can to change it. Why these guys think they can create a better society than any of the other socialists have is the real question, since none have ever produced the standards of living capitalism has. The only rational conclusion is that they don't really want a society where everyone is equal because they must be smart enough to know that can't happen. They must want one where they are in charge and dictating all aspects of national policy.
Then again, I suppose it is possible Obama doesn't have a real ideology. He may just know what people want to hear and is happy to tell it to them to get their votes, and is an exceptionally good liar who doesn't have a clue or even care about providing responsible leadership to the American people. Maybe he just loves the attention, the adulation and the wealth that goes with it. Personally, I think that guy was Bill Clinton. I think Obama is smarter than that. But regardless of whether he is the product of a two decade conspiracy to bring Eurocommunism to America or just an unqualified amateur who doesn't know what the hell he is doing, his re-election for another four year term will not have favorable consequences. The coming election could be the last legitimate one we ever have.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Two Simple Questions
Perhaps most Democrats mean well. They just don't understand economics, math and history. If they did they could see for themselves that Barack Obama has us on a course of self-destruction. Democrats also must be exceptionally gullible. They believe everything the socialist propagandists tell them. Maybe that is because they want to. After all, blaming all of the country's problems on the other guy certainly has appeal, as does proclaiming the other guy was successful because he was taking advantage of you. Fact is, the only folks taking advantage of those who vote for Democrats are the people they are voting for.
Democrats win elections by promoting class warfare. I can understand that the have nots will always want what the haves have. That is human nature. What I don't understand is why people think Democrats can make everything better by taking from half the population to give to the other half. All that does is produce a society that degenerates into shared poverty, social division, ethnic hatred, and often chaotic violence. Everyone is a loser. Why would anyone want to doom their children to that kind of future just because today some others may be better off than they are?
Anyone paying attention should be able to tell by now that Obama's big government socialist policies of deficit spending and straight-jacketing private enterprise do not work and only sink the country deeper into economic decline and social polarization. His propaganda machine jumps on every minor positive blip in any economic indicator to trumpet that the turnaround is here, even though the blip represents nothing more than a brief hiccup or a short-lived anomaly in a flatlining economy. How much political propaganda can people listen to before they start believing what they see with their own eyes? How much damage can government do to America's commercial and industrial foundation before people realize we are witnessing the destruction of our nation's legacy and our own future?
I think the basic problem among conservatives is that none of them can really believe Obama is even in the ball game, let alone leading in the polls. Rational people just don't get it. His record in both domestic and foreign affairs indicates he should have a tough time being elected dog catcher, let alone president of the free world's leading power. The whole thing is surreal, leaving conservatives speechless and comatose in disbelief. They had better snap out of it and get their shit together now. If they don't, they will lose.
Conservatives had better believe that a large percentage of the elderly have been convinced by the Democrats propaganda that Republicans will take away their social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of those under 30 have been indoctrinated in environmentalism, feminism, income redistribution, America the global bully and the compassion of government versus the cold-heartedness of capitalism. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into believing conservatives are waging war on women.
Reality does not matter in this election. People only respond to what they hear and see in the media. Republicans better get creative real soon to dispel the lies the Democrats have been spreading. They had better find some competent people who are capable of getting the truth and the facts out to the voters. Communication is the key to winning elections. One has to wonder why Republicans suck so badly at it?
If Republicans cannot get their message together, then at the very least they should ask voters to ask themselves two simple questions. First, what economic system powered the United States of America to become the most productive and affluent country in human history - socialism and central government control of the economy, or capitalism with private enterprise and free markets? Second, what social system allows the greatest freedom, security and opportunity for all citizens - one that mandates conformity to government determined politically correct behavior, or one that guarantees liberty and justice for all as stated in the Constitution? If Americans don't know the difference between those choices then the battle is already lost.
Oh, and by the way. In case voters haven't noticed, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Castro's have all endorsed Barack Obama. Does that tell you anything? Hell, with no voter ID's required, maybe each of them will come on over and vote for Obama along with the illegal aliens and the dead people.
Democrats win elections by promoting class warfare. I can understand that the have nots will always want what the haves have. That is human nature. What I don't understand is why people think Democrats can make everything better by taking from half the population to give to the other half. All that does is produce a society that degenerates into shared poverty, social division, ethnic hatred, and often chaotic violence. Everyone is a loser. Why would anyone want to doom their children to that kind of future just because today some others may be better off than they are?
Anyone paying attention should be able to tell by now that Obama's big government socialist policies of deficit spending and straight-jacketing private enterprise do not work and only sink the country deeper into economic decline and social polarization. His propaganda machine jumps on every minor positive blip in any economic indicator to trumpet that the turnaround is here, even though the blip represents nothing more than a brief hiccup or a short-lived anomaly in a flatlining economy. How much political propaganda can people listen to before they start believing what they see with their own eyes? How much damage can government do to America's commercial and industrial foundation before people realize we are witnessing the destruction of our nation's legacy and our own future?
I think the basic problem among conservatives is that none of them can really believe Obama is even in the ball game, let alone leading in the polls. Rational people just don't get it. His record in both domestic and foreign affairs indicates he should have a tough time being elected dog catcher, let alone president of the free world's leading power. The whole thing is surreal, leaving conservatives speechless and comatose in disbelief. They had better snap out of it and get their shit together now. If they don't, they will lose.
Conservatives had better believe that a large percentage of the elderly have been convinced by the Democrats propaganda that Republicans will take away their social security, Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of those under 30 have been indoctrinated in environmentalism, feminism, income redistribution, America the global bully and the compassion of government versus the cold-heartedness of capitalism. Republicans had better begin to believe that a large percentage of women have been brainwashed into believing conservatives are waging war on women.
Reality does not matter in this election. People only respond to what they hear and see in the media. Republicans better get creative real soon to dispel the lies the Democrats have been spreading. They had better find some competent people who are capable of getting the truth and the facts out to the voters. Communication is the key to winning elections. One has to wonder why Republicans suck so badly at it?
If Republicans cannot get their message together, then at the very least they should ask voters to ask themselves two simple questions. First, what economic system powered the United States of America to become the most productive and affluent country in human history - socialism and central government control of the economy, or capitalism with private enterprise and free markets? Second, what social system allows the greatest freedom, security and opportunity for all citizens - one that mandates conformity to government determined politically correct behavior, or one that guarantees liberty and justice for all as stated in the Constitution? If Americans don't know the difference between those choices then the battle is already lost.
Oh, and by the way. In case voters haven't noticed, Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Castro's have all endorsed Barack Obama. Does that tell you anything? Hell, with no voter ID's required, maybe each of them will come on over and vote for Obama along with the illegal aliens and the dead people.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Elephant In The Room
Yup! Mitt Romney stepped in it. It could be called an SIIC, a self-inflicted implosive comment. Not that Barack Obama ("corpse-man", "57 states", "I bowled a 129 - it was like special olympics", "...they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them", plus countless others), Nancy Pelosi ("we have to pass it to see what's in it"), Harry Reid ("the new Capitol Visitors Center means I won't have to smell the tourists anymore"), and Joe Biden (where to begin, such a target rich environment) have never said something inappropriate. But of course the media doesn't go ballistic when they do.
Romney's faux pas could and should have been stated better. The comment was an unfortunate generalization of government programs and voter loyalties. But we all know what point he was making. Out of control government spending on entitlements is the elephant in the room, the central issue that is what this election is all about. The issue must be dealt with or the America we have known will cease to exist. Romney's comment that nearly half the people in America don't pay taxes and/or are receiving government benefits should not have shocked anyone, because it is true.
According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in households that receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, and housing assistance, up from 30% in the 1980's. Of course the recipients contributed to the first three programs, but on average not nearly as much as they are taking out over their lifetimes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, up from 27% just twenty years ago, though many of those folks do pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. Certainly much of government spending is appropriate, but the growth in such spending is beyond irresponsible. Everyone has to know by now that the country cannot sustain the rapidly rising costs of entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.
Our next president and Congress have two vitally important priorities that must both be addressed. The one to focus on immediately is the implementation of policies that stimulate economic growth to create private sector jobs and provide personal income for consumers to spend. Those new jobs would put more people on the tax rolls, producing an increase in government revenue that could go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating our staggering budget deficit. The current economic policy of maintaining low interest rates to get people to borrow money is not working. Too much debt is the problem, and creating more is certainly not the solution. People want to earn money, not borrow it, and the only way to do that is by unleashing private enterprise and free markets instead of restraining and punishing them with unnecessary rules, regulations, more paperwork and higher taxes.
Why do Democrats always get this backwards? Is it because they believe Americans will vote for them if they promise that government will continue to give them everything for free, or at least at what is effectively a big discount? Of course they would never admit it, so their favorite explanation is that capitalism creates income inequality. Yes it does. But it also makes life better for those at the bottom than any other economic system yet devised. That is the part Democrats either don't get or don't want the voting public to know.
The other equally vital priority is to reform all entitlement programs to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary expenditures and improving operational efficiencies while maintaining the support services that are required in a modern society. Democrats have no interest in addressing this issue. Apparently they don't even see it as a problem. Not only that, they respond to any efforts by Republicans to deal with it by accusing them of planning to starve the hungry, abandon the elderly, ignore the homeless and eat the children. That is just plain absurd. But Republicans do not do a very good job of communicating what support they will provide to those who need it.
Republicans need to convince Americans they will maintain the social safety nets that are necessary in a morally responsible society, that they can take care of the needs of the poor and those left behind and help them build a better life for themselves. They need to advocate and demonstrate compassion for the less fortunate and display a desire to help those who are struggling. They must acknowledge they will preserve programs that feed the poor, care for the elderly, shelter the homeless, provide basic health care for the indigent and create opportunities for all to work to improve their lives.
But Republicans must differentiate their solutions to the problems of poverty and destitution from the Democrats. They must explain that throwing money the country does not have at the problem does not solve it. They must argue that their goal is to give people the tools to become more self-reliant and the skills to take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves rather than encouraging them to become permanently dependent on government. They must pledge to create real jobs to help the underclass escape the poverty and hopelessness they suffer and participate in productive society. And Republicans need to point out that the only way for those on the bottom rung of the ladder to improve their quality of life and living standards is through an economic environment that encourages private enterprise and free markets to grow businesses and create more jobs for all. That is what capitalism does.
The real question that Americans must ask themselves is what kind of president do we need right now? Should we choose a president who may be in tune with what half the people want today, even though satisfying that half leads to bigger government, high unemployment, negligible economic growth, falling incomes, declining quality of life, social polarization, reduced personal freedom, partisan justice, public sector insolvency and increased national security risks? Can we survive a president who opens up the candy jar and says take all you want because someone else will pay for it?
Should we reject a presidential candidate because he may be out of touch with many of the people because he was successful in his many occupations and maybe does not understand or participate in the hip hop music, the video games, the fashions, the violent movies, i.e., the whole hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle Americans pursue today. Or do we need an adult who understands we cannot perpetually spend money we don't have, that private enterprise is the engine that generates economic growth and prosperity, that our tax system must be reformed, that government directed allocation of capital and redistribution of income results in economic stagnation and social chaos, that we must maintain a strong national security capability to defend against foreign aggression, and that we have an obligation to turn over a healthy country to future generations.
Americans have never had a more clear choice. Do we need a president who acts like he wants to be everybody's sugar daddy, or one who can make tough decisions and put limits on access to the cookie jar? Do we want a society of spoiled children who have no clue or care about where their selfish behavior leads, or do we want to preserve and expand the vision of America's founding fathers that led to the most productive and affluent country in the history of the planet, affluence created by a melting pot of immigrants and their descendants who believed in personal freedom, individual responsibility, rule of law, hard work and equal opportunity.
Who is really out of touch? Seems to me it is the folks who think bigger and bigger government can create meaningful jobs and that growing budget deficits can go on forever.
Romney's faux pas could and should have been stated better. The comment was an unfortunate generalization of government programs and voter loyalties. But we all know what point he was making. Out of control government spending on entitlements is the elephant in the room, the central issue that is what this election is all about. The issue must be dealt with or the America we have known will cease to exist. Romney's comment that nearly half the people in America don't pay taxes and/or are receiving government benefits should not have shocked anyone, because it is true.
According to the Census Bureau, 49% of Americans live in households that receive Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability payments, and housing assistance, up from 30% in the 1980's. Of course the recipients contributed to the first three programs, but on average not nearly as much as they are taking out over their lifetimes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 47% of Americans do not pay federal income taxes, up from 27% just twenty years ago, though many of those folks do pay payroll taxes and state and local taxes. Certainly much of government spending is appropriate, but the growth in such spending is beyond irresponsible. Everyone has to know by now that the country cannot sustain the rapidly rising costs of entitlement programs that are bankrupting us.
Our next president and Congress have two vitally important priorities that must both be addressed. The one to focus on immediately is the implementation of policies that stimulate economic growth to create private sector jobs and provide personal income for consumers to spend. Those new jobs would put more people on the tax rolls, producing an increase in government revenue that could go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating our staggering budget deficit. The current economic policy of maintaining low interest rates to get people to borrow money is not working. Too much debt is the problem, and creating more is certainly not the solution. People want to earn money, not borrow it, and the only way to do that is by unleashing private enterprise and free markets instead of restraining and punishing them with unnecessary rules, regulations, more paperwork and higher taxes.
Why do Democrats always get this backwards? Is it because they believe Americans will vote for them if they promise that government will continue to give them everything for free, or at least at what is effectively a big discount? Of course they would never admit it, so their favorite explanation is that capitalism creates income inequality. Yes it does. But it also makes life better for those at the bottom than any other economic system yet devised. That is the part Democrats either don't get or don't want the voting public to know.
The other equally vital priority is to reform all entitlement programs to reduce costs by eliminating unnecessary expenditures and improving operational efficiencies while maintaining the support services that are required in a modern society. Democrats have no interest in addressing this issue. Apparently they don't even see it as a problem. Not only that, they respond to any efforts by Republicans to deal with it by accusing them of planning to starve the hungry, abandon the elderly, ignore the homeless and eat the children. That is just plain absurd. But Republicans do not do a very good job of communicating what support they will provide to those who need it.
Republicans need to convince Americans they will maintain the social safety nets that are necessary in a morally responsible society, that they can take care of the needs of the poor and those left behind and help them build a better life for themselves. They need to advocate and demonstrate compassion for the less fortunate and display a desire to help those who are struggling. They must acknowledge they will preserve programs that feed the poor, care for the elderly, shelter the homeless, provide basic health care for the indigent and create opportunities for all to work to improve their lives.
But Republicans must differentiate their solutions to the problems of poverty and destitution from the Democrats. They must explain that throwing money the country does not have at the problem does not solve it. They must argue that their goal is to give people the tools to become more self-reliant and the skills to take advantage of opportunities to improve themselves rather than encouraging them to become permanently dependent on government. They must pledge to create real jobs to help the underclass escape the poverty and hopelessness they suffer and participate in productive society. And Republicans need to point out that the only way for those on the bottom rung of the ladder to improve their quality of life and living standards is through an economic environment that encourages private enterprise and free markets to grow businesses and create more jobs for all. That is what capitalism does.
The real question that Americans must ask themselves is what kind of president do we need right now? Should we choose a president who may be in tune with what half the people want today, even though satisfying that half leads to bigger government, high unemployment, negligible economic growth, falling incomes, declining quality of life, social polarization, reduced personal freedom, partisan justice, public sector insolvency and increased national security risks? Can we survive a president who opens up the candy jar and says take all you want because someone else will pay for it?
Should we reject a presidential candidate because he may be out of touch with many of the people because he was successful in his many occupations and maybe does not understand or participate in the hip hop music, the video games, the fashions, the violent movies, i.e., the whole hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle Americans pursue today. Or do we need an adult who understands we cannot perpetually spend money we don't have, that private enterprise is the engine that generates economic growth and prosperity, that our tax system must be reformed, that government directed allocation of capital and redistribution of income results in economic stagnation and social chaos, that we must maintain a strong national security capability to defend against foreign aggression, and that we have an obligation to turn over a healthy country to future generations.
Americans have never had a more clear choice. Do we need a president who acts like he wants to be everybody's sugar daddy, or one who can make tough decisions and put limits on access to the cookie jar? Do we want a society of spoiled children who have no clue or care about where their selfish behavior leads, or do we want to preserve and expand the vision of America's founding fathers that led to the most productive and affluent country in the history of the planet, affluence created by a melting pot of immigrants and their descendants who believed in personal freedom, individual responsibility, rule of law, hard work and equal opportunity.
Who is really out of touch? Seems to me it is the folks who think bigger and bigger government can create meaningful jobs and that growing budget deficits can go on forever.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Change Is Not Always For The Better
I wonder if there has ever been as much change in the world as in my lifetime. I was born in 1949. Sixty years ago there were no personal computers or cell phones, and only three television channels. So there has been what most would call some progress since that time. But a few other things have changed that are a little harder to explain or understand.
Throughout all of human history until less than sixty years ago -
- marriage was between a man and a woman.
- men worked to support and protect their families. Some women worked outside the home, but men were the head of the household and the primary bread winner.
- people were self-sufficient and responsible for themselves rather than being dependent on government for their support.
- most children had a mother and a father and were raised in a traditional family environment.
- younger generations respected their elders and profited from their accumulated wisdom.
- religion had a strong influence in most peoples lives, and religious organizations were the primary source of charity for the poor.
Furthermore, sixty years ago in America -
- all but a few radicals knew that socialism and communism were tyrannical and oppressive forms of government, and that capitalism was the only economic philosophy that created prosperity for the greatest number of people.
- more men than women graduated from college, went to work and made money to support the family because somebody had to stay home and raise the children to become responsible members of society rather than gangbangers, drug dealers, dope heads and school drop-outs.
- we didn't all agree politically but were tolerant of other opinions of how to reach common goals.
- the economy depended on private enterprise and free markets providing incentives for entrepreneurs to create new products at prices people could afford, fueling job growth and improving everyones standard of living, even those at the bottom of the income scale. Today big government arrogantly claims it knows what is best for the American consumer, taking over whole sectors of the economy and placing more rules and regulations on the rest, deciding what favored industries receive new capital, killing incentives by redistributing income to its labor union benefactors, and burdening the country with an economy that cannot grow or create jobs.
- investing in the common stocks of American companies was the way to build wealth and security for the future, not buying low yielding Treasuries and complicated high risk derivatives or giving money to financial advisers, hedge funds and private equity managers to make money for themselves.
- government spent money on necessary and noble things such as defending the country from foreign aggression and rocketing men into space, expenditures that resulted in high technology by-products that benefitted all mankind, rather than spending money it doesn't have giving away freebies to buy votes.
- we knew we were the greatest country on earth, the defenders of democracy for Western Civilization and the economic engine of global prosperity, rather than the center of greed and the destroyer of the environment as we are constantly being lectured by socialist greenie extremists. In fact, sixty years ago no one knew there were any socialist greenie extremists.
- the Federal Reserve was an independent agency charged with maintaining full employment, low inflation and a stable currency rather than the fourth branch of government charged with bailing out the big bankers from their disastrous mistakes.
- people did not go to the hospital emergency room for head colds and stomach aches since the cost of doing so came out of their own pocket, and abortions and contraceptives were not free at taxpayer expense.
- the average white male had a much better chance to succeed in life since he wasn't fighting against government programs and subsidies that benefit women and minorities. There wasn't the war on men that is being conducted today by left wing politicians who disguise it by proclaiming the cruel joke of a politically contrived war on women.
- we were not forced to conform to politically correct behavior and the collectivist doctrines of the party in power. We could think freely, speak our own minds and disagree with others without suffering retribution and vilification.
- public schools taught history, english, math and science rather than environmentalism, gender and ethnic studies, politically correct revised history and indoctrination in the cult of Obama.
- children played outside with their friends all day without parental supervision instead of having every minute of every day planned and orchestrated for them by their parents living vicariously through them. Most kids were normal, not special, and they turned out more psychologically prepared for adulthood.
- the major media networks were not the propaganda arm of the progressive / communist movement to take over the American government.
- a man with no experience in the private sector, little experience in government, and whose closest associates were known anti-American radical subversives and self-proclaimed Marxists could not be elected president.
The changes in the last sixty years have been historical and profound. They have turned traditional culture and relationships upside down. I, for one, do not think they bode well for the future of our country. But even though many things have changed, it seems one thing never will. No matter how integrated and tolerant America becomes, no matter how many black corporate CEO's, black doctors, black lawyers, black university professors, and black presidents become wealthy and influential in America, liberals will always accuse white people of being racists.
Throughout all of human history until less than sixty years ago -
- marriage was between a man and a woman.
- men worked to support and protect their families. Some women worked outside the home, but men were the head of the household and the primary bread winner.
- people were self-sufficient and responsible for themselves rather than being dependent on government for their support.
- most children had a mother and a father and were raised in a traditional family environment.
- younger generations respected their elders and profited from their accumulated wisdom.
- religion had a strong influence in most peoples lives, and religious organizations were the primary source of charity for the poor.
Furthermore, sixty years ago in America -
- all but a few radicals knew that socialism and communism were tyrannical and oppressive forms of government, and that capitalism was the only economic philosophy that created prosperity for the greatest number of people.
- more men than women graduated from college, went to work and made money to support the family because somebody had to stay home and raise the children to become responsible members of society rather than gangbangers, drug dealers, dope heads and school drop-outs.
- we didn't all agree politically but were tolerant of other opinions of how to reach common goals.
- the economy depended on private enterprise and free markets providing incentives for entrepreneurs to create new products at prices people could afford, fueling job growth and improving everyones standard of living, even those at the bottom of the income scale. Today big government arrogantly claims it knows what is best for the American consumer, taking over whole sectors of the economy and placing more rules and regulations on the rest, deciding what favored industries receive new capital, killing incentives by redistributing income to its labor union benefactors, and burdening the country with an economy that cannot grow or create jobs.
- investing in the common stocks of American companies was the way to build wealth and security for the future, not buying low yielding Treasuries and complicated high risk derivatives or giving money to financial advisers, hedge funds and private equity managers to make money for themselves.
- government spent money on necessary and noble things such as defending the country from foreign aggression and rocketing men into space, expenditures that resulted in high technology by-products that benefitted all mankind, rather than spending money it doesn't have giving away freebies to buy votes.
- we knew we were the greatest country on earth, the defenders of democracy for Western Civilization and the economic engine of global prosperity, rather than the center of greed and the destroyer of the environment as we are constantly being lectured by socialist greenie extremists. In fact, sixty years ago no one knew there were any socialist greenie extremists.
- the Federal Reserve was an independent agency charged with maintaining full employment, low inflation and a stable currency rather than the fourth branch of government charged with bailing out the big bankers from their disastrous mistakes.
- people did not go to the hospital emergency room for head colds and stomach aches since the cost of doing so came out of their own pocket, and abortions and contraceptives were not free at taxpayer expense.
- the average white male had a much better chance to succeed in life since he wasn't fighting against government programs and subsidies that benefit women and minorities. There wasn't the war on men that is being conducted today by left wing politicians who disguise it by proclaiming the cruel joke of a politically contrived war on women.
- we were not forced to conform to politically correct behavior and the collectivist doctrines of the party in power. We could think freely, speak our own minds and disagree with others without suffering retribution and vilification.
- public schools taught history, english, math and science rather than environmentalism, gender and ethnic studies, politically correct revised history and indoctrination in the cult of Obama.
- children played outside with their friends all day without parental supervision instead of having every minute of every day planned and orchestrated for them by their parents living vicariously through them. Most kids were normal, not special, and they turned out more psychologically prepared for adulthood.
- the major media networks were not the propaganda arm of the progressive / communist movement to take over the American government.
- a man with no experience in the private sector, little experience in government, and whose closest associates were known anti-American radical subversives and self-proclaimed Marxists could not be elected president.
The changes in the last sixty years have been historical and profound. They have turned traditional culture and relationships upside down. I, for one, do not think they bode well for the future of our country. But even though many things have changed, it seems one thing never will. No matter how integrated and tolerant America becomes, no matter how many black corporate CEO's, black doctors, black lawyers, black university professors, and black presidents become wealthy and influential in America, liberals will always accuse white people of being racists.
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Just The Facts, Ma'am
This is the time in the four year election cycle when politicians and the information providers get really carried away. We all expect politicians to extol their nonexistent virtues. But what about the media coverage? Who or what to believe? That is an important question since the sources of information in America today are saturated with bullshit. No one knows what the truth or the facts are anymore because they are indistinguishable from the misinformation, misrepresentation and outright lies that dominate the television airwaves and published pages of newspapers and magazines. Even more unfortunate, the majority of people now get most of their information from emails and blogs that travel through cyberspace, much of it mindless trash from lunatics and delusional wackos of every political persuasion. No matter how it is delivered, it seems all the information we receive is endless garbage from those with ideological agendas or questionable knowledge of the issues.
The major misinformation networks give us talking airheads on television who do not report full or accurate descriptions of anything that we need or want to know. Following major events and planned political spectacles we are tortured with panels of arrogant, opinionated 'expert analysts' to explain to us what we just saw and heard. The next day we read reports from biased writers who publish crap full of contrived propaganda and intentional falsehoods fed to them by equally biased politicians and partisan pundits who claim to be qualified impartial authorities on the subject. We constantly hear and read precise projections of the wonderful effects of political proposals - 20 million jobs here, 5% economic growth there, lower cost accessible quality health care for all everywhere - when no one has a real clue about the magnitude or the nature of the future impact of government programs, particularly those based on studies from the Congressional Budget Office. In case anyone wonders, the CBO's record of accuracy would result in its going out of business if it was in the private sector.
One of the more disingenuous tools used by the media is when reporters claim to obtain information from reputable, impartial, non-partisan sources. The problem is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-PARTISAN SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Everyone who is involved with a think tank, university, government office or business enterprise has an ideological or selfish interest in the information that becomes public. The only folks who are non-partisan are the ones who really don't give a shit, are self-sufficient, don't read anything, watch nothing but popular trash on television, and don't vote. Hmmm! Maybe they are really the most enlightened.
Perhaps the biggest fraud that broadcast and print media perpetrates on the public these days is the pervasive use of "fact checkers" following major political speeches, supposedly by the aforementioned fictional impartial and non-partisan sources. One does not have to hear or read very many of these fact checks before it becomes evident that these 'reputable' sources do not know the difference between a fact and an opinion. The Fact Check on Mitt Romney's speech at the Republican Convention by the Associated Press was a clear example. Please feel free to check it out if you so desire on the internet at -
http://www.freep.com/article/20120901/NEWS07/309010143/Fact-checking-Romney-s-speech.
The analysis of his speech contained no facts whatsoever, only opinions regarding whether his proposals and policies would actually work. The Encarta online dictionary defines fact as "something that can be shown to be true, something based on evidence, as opposed to the supposition of or belief about something." That is certainly not the definition used by the disseminators of daily disinformation. But the actual FACT is, any statement, comment or proposal regarding future expectations that can be argued due to differences of opinion does not lend itself to being "fact checked."
Most Americans really do want to know what is going on in the world around them so they can be knowledgable and involved. They want information they can trust. Unfortunately, it isn't available. When it comes to politics, they should disregard and forget what they read in newspapers, magazines and emails and ignore what they see on television. You can't believe any of it. What they need to focus on is what is indisputably true. The FACT is that .....
- over the last three and a half years GDP growth has averaged an annual rate of 1.5% (US Bureau of Economic Analysis), the slowest recovery ever following a recession.
- unemployment remains above 8% and in the double digits when you count those who have stopped looking for work, and 3.2 million fewer Americans are employed today than when Obama became president (US Bureau of Labor Statistics).
- In June of 2009, after Obama had become president, real median family income was $53,508. Three years later, in June of 2012, real median family income has fallen nearly 5% to $50,964 (US Census).
- the annual US budget deficit as a percentage of GDP has averaged 9.0% and been the highest by far every year Obama has been president since World War II (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- government spending has risen to 25% of GDP during the last four years compared to less than 20% from 2000 to 2008 (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- outstanding government debt is up 60% in four years to the highest levels ever where every citizens share is now over $51,000 (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- Americans who have been responsible enough to plan and save for their own retirement have seen those savings decimated by government manipulation of interest rates at record low levels to support the continuing operations of the irresponsible bankers (obvious observation).
This reality is not a result of the legacy of George Bush. It is the result of an ideology that government is the answer to economic and social issues, not free markets, private enterprise and individual responsibility. It is the consequence of the actions of a president who has a different idea of how a country should be governed, an idea that is the polar opposite of any American president who has gone before him. It is the responsibility of a president who ignores the damage his ideology has caused throughout history and is blind to what those policies are doing to Europe and the American states that follow them. The real question is why anyone would believe that ideology would create a desirable quality of life for the people when it never has.
In addition to the facts above, the current administration proposes to raise taxes further on those who already pay most of the taxes even though it wouldn't come close to making a dent in the budget deficit. The president argues that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes despite the FACT the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of federal taxes, a ratio that has never been higher, while 47% of the population pays nothing at all. One wonders what his definition of fair is.
The American revolution resulted from the fact that Americans were paying taxes without any representation in government. Today we have majority representation in government by those who pay no or very little in taxes - in effect, representation without taxation. Meanwhile those who pay the taxes see government confiscating ever more of their earnings while incessantly demonizing them and making it harder for them to manage the businesses that provide the income that pays the taxes.
This administration has policies that are toxic to economic prosperity and the record to prove it. This president is intentionally provoking polarization and instability among the American people, and that cannot result in a healthy society. Yet political polls indicate that this president still has a lead among voters and has a good chance of winning re-election. Apparently more than half the voters in America believe the bullshit rather than the FACTs that are indisputable.
The major misinformation networks give us talking airheads on television who do not report full or accurate descriptions of anything that we need or want to know. Following major events and planned political spectacles we are tortured with panels of arrogant, opinionated 'expert analysts' to explain to us what we just saw and heard. The next day we read reports from biased writers who publish crap full of contrived propaganda and intentional falsehoods fed to them by equally biased politicians and partisan pundits who claim to be qualified impartial authorities on the subject. We constantly hear and read precise projections of the wonderful effects of political proposals - 20 million jobs here, 5% economic growth there, lower cost accessible quality health care for all everywhere - when no one has a real clue about the magnitude or the nature of the future impact of government programs, particularly those based on studies from the Congressional Budget Office. In case anyone wonders, the CBO's record of accuracy would result in its going out of business if it was in the private sector.
One of the more disingenuous tools used by the media is when reporters claim to obtain information from reputable, impartial, non-partisan sources. The problem is, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-PARTISAN SOURCE OF INFORMATION. Everyone who is involved with a think tank, university, government office or business enterprise has an ideological or selfish interest in the information that becomes public. The only folks who are non-partisan are the ones who really don't give a shit, are self-sufficient, don't read anything, watch nothing but popular trash on television, and don't vote. Hmmm! Maybe they are really the most enlightened.
Perhaps the biggest fraud that broadcast and print media perpetrates on the public these days is the pervasive use of "fact checkers" following major political speeches, supposedly by the aforementioned fictional impartial and non-partisan sources. One does not have to hear or read very many of these fact checks before it becomes evident that these 'reputable' sources do not know the difference between a fact and an opinion. The Fact Check on Mitt Romney's speech at the Republican Convention by the Associated Press was a clear example. Please feel free to check it out if you so desire on the internet at -
http://www.freep.com/article/20120901/NEWS07/309010143/Fact-checking-Romney-s-speech.
The analysis of his speech contained no facts whatsoever, only opinions regarding whether his proposals and policies would actually work. The Encarta online dictionary defines fact as "something that can be shown to be true, something based on evidence, as opposed to the supposition of or belief about something." That is certainly not the definition used by the disseminators of daily disinformation. But the actual FACT is, any statement, comment or proposal regarding future expectations that can be argued due to differences of opinion does not lend itself to being "fact checked."
Most Americans really do want to know what is going on in the world around them so they can be knowledgable and involved. They want information they can trust. Unfortunately, it isn't available. When it comes to politics, they should disregard and forget what they read in newspapers, magazines and emails and ignore what they see on television. You can't believe any of it. What they need to focus on is what is indisputably true. The FACT is that .....
- over the last three and a half years GDP growth has averaged an annual rate of 1.5% (US Bureau of Economic Analysis), the slowest recovery ever following a recession.
- unemployment remains above 8% and in the double digits when you count those who have stopped looking for work, and 3.2 million fewer Americans are employed today than when Obama became president (US Bureau of Labor Statistics).
- In June of 2009, after Obama had become president, real median family income was $53,508. Three years later, in June of 2012, real median family income has fallen nearly 5% to $50,964 (US Census).
- the annual US budget deficit as a percentage of GDP has averaged 9.0% and been the highest by far every year Obama has been president since World War II (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- government spending has risen to 25% of GDP during the last four years compared to less than 20% from 2000 to 2008 (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- outstanding government debt is up 60% in four years to the highest levels ever where every citizens share is now over $51,000 (White House Office of Management and Budget).
- Americans who have been responsible enough to plan and save for their own retirement have seen those savings decimated by government manipulation of interest rates at record low levels to support the continuing operations of the irresponsible bankers (obvious observation).
This reality is not a result of the legacy of George Bush. It is the result of an ideology that government is the answer to economic and social issues, not free markets, private enterprise and individual responsibility. It is the consequence of the actions of a president who has a different idea of how a country should be governed, an idea that is the polar opposite of any American president who has gone before him. It is the responsibility of a president who ignores the damage his ideology has caused throughout history and is blind to what those policies are doing to Europe and the American states that follow them. The real question is why anyone would believe that ideology would create a desirable quality of life for the people when it never has.
In addition to the facts above, the current administration proposes to raise taxes further on those who already pay most of the taxes even though it wouldn't come close to making a dent in the budget deficit. The president argues that the rich do not pay their fair share of taxes despite the FACT the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of federal taxes, a ratio that has never been higher, while 47% of the population pays nothing at all. One wonders what his definition of fair is.
The American revolution resulted from the fact that Americans were paying taxes without any representation in government. Today we have majority representation in government by those who pay no or very little in taxes - in effect, representation without taxation. Meanwhile those who pay the taxes see government confiscating ever more of their earnings while incessantly demonizing them and making it harder for them to manage the businesses that provide the income that pays the taxes.
This administration has policies that are toxic to economic prosperity and the record to prove it. This president is intentionally provoking polarization and instability among the American people, and that cannot result in a healthy society. Yet political polls indicate that this president still has a lead among voters and has a good chance of winning re-election. Apparently more than half the voters in America believe the bullshit rather than the FACTs that are indisputable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)