Move Along, Nothing to See Here...(a repost appropriate to the season)

Not really. There are things to see here that may please or engrage you. It's "holiday" time so postings here will be very sparse and sporadic (I like alliteration).

I have no idea when I'll get back to this nonsense.

If you're new to this site please see my "Big Rants" for entertainment, thought provocation, or masochistic immersion.

Have a jolly week, month, year,

A dude who blogs.

An Excellent Video Critique of Che:

Here

"Jesus Died On The Cross For My Sins"...and all I got was this lousy bureau-state?

It's been said by some that Jesus was the "first socialist" (this is pretty insulting to Jesus), but wishing to "help the unfortunate" is not the same as wanting to punish the successful or erecting a powerful state to control the lives of others. Robin Hood is not the founder of a great religion.

The real "first socialist" had no qualm with the "sin" of envy. The first socialist was the guy who looked at his neighbor's good fortune and wanted to steal part or all of it for himself. The mythology of socialist goodness, then and today, conflicts with the reality of people merely wanting the authority to plan and punish.

Not Paying Attention During Important Times

Supporting peaceful resolutions to conflict and being opposed to war are noble ideals, but The West now finds itself in a circumstance where its leaders will have to decide if they are on anyone's side, because there are strong undemocratic forces emerging and coordinating that are clearly not on the side of open, free, and pluralistic society. The relativistic and weak-willed are on the verge of losing everything that decent thinkers have fought for over centuries (as well as potentially losing civilian populations in the millions). The so-called "peace-makers" of our time are not blessed, and if they have their way, they shall inherit no more than scorn from future historians of character and honesty.

When the choice is "support the troops" vs. "consider the [enemy's] perspective," I'm going to go with the troops. The enemy (yes, there is an enemy) wants you, your friends, and family either dead or enslaved to ideologies and dogma. If you're "considering his or her perspective" (the enemy) you're not an "intellectual" or "peace-maker," your a total fool. It may also be added that, if you don't know who the enemies are or if they even exist...you haven't been paying attention.

Move Along, Nothing to See Here...

Not really. There are things to see here that may please or engrage you. It's "holiday" time so postings here will be very sparse and sporadic (I like alliteration).

I have no idea when I'll get back to this nonsense.

If you're new to this site please see my "Big Rants" for entertainment, thought provocation, or masochistic immersion.

Have a jolly week, month, year,

A dude who blogs.

This is Great...

I realize that many people have already seen this video but if you haven't...I think it speaks for itself.

In a time of crisis, who are you going to vote for? Pleeease...

What They Say…What They Mean

What They Say:

“Peace”
“Love of Humanity”
“Cooperation”
“Sharing”
“Progress”
“Enlightenment”
“Change”
“Sacrifice”
“Consensus”

What They Mean:

Self-weakening, self-effacement, self-loathing…war (In the end – even if it was not the intention).

Compulsory allegiance and obedience to collectivist authority and feigned concern for people you’ve never met.

Decreed collaboration with people you may not even like let alone wish to support who will support the enhancement of political power of left-wing institutions.

Confiscation of resources and distribution to people within politically favored groups.

Hindering technical, scientific, industrial, and commercial advances for the sake of a host of conjured fears. The maintenance of stasis and even decline in growth and advancement.

Public indoctrination to ensure obedience to tenets of collectivism.

Enhancing power to the state and returning – for all practical purposes – to the status of Monarchy in the atmosphere of government operation.

Compulsion and seizure.

Enforced Obedience.

The Good and the Powerful

How often does history provide a society that is extremely powerful and is essentially a force for good? (This will be a worthless question if you're incapable of acknowledging that there is such a thing as good or that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is a "self-evident" good thing).

The answer is; not very often. And, although it's an unnoticed fact of our time, such a country exists.

Now imagine a world where there is an extremely powerful country or alliance of countries that are essentially a force for evil...or at least dedicated to the destruction of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The ungrateful and the stupid of our time may soon regret their inability to apply common sense to the issues around them. And for those skewed observations we may all soon suffer beyond what is imaginable.

The Caring and Compassionate Stone of Government Ministries

 

After the Fire / Before the Storm

Okay, in less dramatic terms; After the election / before the end of the first term.

All is not lost perhaps. There have been a few commentaries since the election pointing out some relatively good news since America’s selection of a pop-celebrity with a very far left agenda. Prior to some sobering analysis, my greatest apprehensions related to the fact that Obama will have a congress that will facilitate the imposition of some radical legislation.

Dick Morris and others have pointed out some things I hadn’t considered in the big picture.

Socialist or not (he is), Obama and his party are constrained by the one constraint socialists hate most, reality. He won largely because he convinced (conned) a large part of the electorate into thinking he was relatively moderate. That hardly gives him a lot of room to now move left, to his more natural inclinations (thoroughly exposed in any honest appraisal of his personal history, associations, and voting record). Already his possible appointments look like a who’s who from the Clinton years (in spirit if not the actual people being considered). Clinton was also a president who found himself forced toward moderation. Clinton was a typical baby boomer radical who brought his youthful idealism and socialist sympathies to a public position that won’t tolerate nonsense.

A president’s first term is ideally spent establishing a reputation that will aid them in being reelected. President Bush didn’t have that opportunity since 9/11 intruded abruptly. He can be chastised for his decisions regarding Iraq (along with Tony Blair and John Howard et al.) but history’s verdict isn’t in on that yet. Hurricane Katrina and not following the global warming Pied Piper are non-issues (unless you’re a journalist or Democrat partisan seeking to concoct issues).

Bill Clinton’s clown show moderated over time but was certainly no grand accomplishment for the cause of individual rights. Obama won’t likely become dear to the hearts of conservatives either but at least Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright won’t be attending cabinet meetings.

Actually becoming president must have a dramatic psychological effect on those few people who have won the position. The Obama who held the market and “privilege” in disdain must now reconcile himself with the fact that capitalist sons-a-bitches are our (and his) sons-a-bitches.

I’d speculate that a newly elected president experiences a rude awakening when he gets his or her first serious intelligence briefing. In Obama’s first post-election news conference a journalist actually asked him if he had changed any of his views after receiving his first batch of presidential information. His response was concise (basically saying he wouldn’t respond). That said it all. How could anyone get top level intelligence information and not realize that our country is always under serious constant threat from rogue states and terrorist organizations. I’m guessing that “peace brother” doesn’t work in intelligence briefings.

Although Obama was clearly never patriotic prior to running for the presidency, becoming the country’s leader is probably a fast way to induce patriotism in the most die-hard internationalist. I couldn’t help but note his “God bless America” comment in his victory speech to have actually sounded sincere (I sensed he was even surprising himself in saying it). Among Obama cultists it will be interesting to observe so many vocal unpatriotic types sounding cries for patriotic allegiance and respect now that “American” means a state run by and for the Democrat’s game plan.

I certainly don’t blame Americans of African decent for taking pride in Obama’s accomplishment. They certainly deserve to have a dramatic and tangible symbol of overcoming a history full of injustices (though I would have hoped this would have occurred under the leadership of a non-socialist African-American, of which there are many – Larry Elder would be my first choice).

It’s quite possible that the Obama so loved by the left will be acting moderate and even conservative on some issues in coming months. It’s stunning to actually hear him talking rather hawkish on issues like Afghanistan, a stance he began to take during the election. It’s almost funny to hear hard leftists agree with him on this point. Bush sending troops anywhere of course prompts media scorn and mass riots.

I’m still not happy this guy won but, again, reality will be directing his policy decisions as much as the dusty ideals he had a few weeks ago (which have probably already undergone significant adjustment).

The Democrats will still be attempting to force feed the citizens of America their bitter stew of bureau-statism. I can’t wait to see the look of shock on the faces of may young people who had no idea that the Democrats and Obama stand for mandatory “community service” as well as a return to the military draft. What could be better than seeing a spoiled “pacifist” youth hearing “yes we can” from the government when he or she says the state can’t make them join the military (‘should have thought of that before the election stupid). Also, I can’t wait till the next two elections when the same young people who voted for Obama decide that “community service” and military duty is something they’d prefer to do voluntarily.

In spite of the recent handing of America over to socialists, there is some hope for America and – unfortunately – the Demo-socialists themselves. Already there is some indication from characters like madame Pelosi, that their party actually got the message the last time they tried to shove leftland's itinerary down America's throat (Bill Clinton's first term). This more stealth awareness would allow the Demo-gogues to sneak in their agenda more incrementally under the radar (the mainstream media is no radar at all so such con-artistry is no dramatic feat really).

An insightful exercise in poetic sarcasm has been made by some conservative pundits; in so many words, “Conservatives should show the respect and support to the new president that the left showed to President Bush.” Of course, I really wouldn’t wish that on anybody, even Obama. The dishonesty and viciousness directed to Bush by the left has been despicable and they should “see what it’s like” but we needn’t stoop that low. By the way, Bush was not “Hitler.”

The truly frightening part of the recent political drama has little to do with Obama or even the Democrat's party. In spite of blogs and conservative radio commentary, the dominant voices in media, entertainment, and "education" (compulsory "community service" to the state will now be called "learning") have succeeded in convincing a large part of the electorate that half of the political spectrum is invalid. Belief in lower taxes, the success of business large and small, and a strong defense are now not just opposing viewpoints to be debated but have been branded as philosophically and morally wrong (politically incorrect). This means that a portion of the beliefs that made America strong, prosperous, and dynamic are being rejected wholesale. Soon, with legislation like "the fairness doctrine" the conservative half of the country's political beliefs will be close to being outlawed at least in spirit.

For all presidents, let the person who gains this serious position of responsibility do their job. If they’re idiots or schemers, make due note of their flaws and hope the voters are wiser the next time around. Grand speeches and catch phrases worked well for Obama’s quick ascent to the presidency. Actions will speak louder than words in the next election.

Checks and balances are embedded in America's fabric beyond the mere apparatus of state. Self-government is the most radical and subversive ideology to have come to fruition. It's not going to be defeated that easily.

The founders’ intentions are continuing to serve us well.

Beer Googles And Waking To An Illusion The Next Morning...

...or several months down the road.

The cultists got to have their big night, 'Lots of tears, hugs, and swaying in unison with loud chants of "yes we can!" (I won't make the obvious analogy because it's so self-evident).

The more times I see Obama speak the more obvious his self-consciousness in speaking becomes apparent. I dare say that the cadence becomes more like Martin Luther King each time as well (not because of "race" but because he clearly knows how to copy the style of a great orator). A person certainly can't be faulted for merely mastering the art of public speaking but in Obama's case it's clearly overkill. If it wasn't for the current economic crisis that struck only recently, his soaring words and style would be downright odd (like Handel's "Messiah" as background music in a hardware store). Even with the current challenges facing Americans, Obama's dramatic "change the world" drama is a bit much. He's never really come across as "arrogant" to me. His style is skillfully more subtle than blatent arrogance but he does seem to convey the idea that he is a great man in great times about to do great things when, in fact, he's just a politician with a thin resume and some dubious friendships who is going to ram through some left-wing legislation – nothing really all that dramatic about that. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Of course, this time he has a congressional majority to help him do some things that saner times would be checked and balanced. On more than a few occasions he has expressed his disappointment with America's constitution and his desire to amend or alter its basic spirit. After all, America's constitution was only the well thought out work of some geniuses inspired by Montesquieu and John Locke. This is Obama we're talking about – The One. He surely has some better ideas for us to follow – "peace be upon his name."

The hard core Obamatons will stand (march?) by him no matter what happens in coming months, but the hard core are not the reason why Obama won the election. A lot of relatively moderate and even borderline conservatives tipped the scales to this unknown and inexperieiced charleton. The virtual media blackout on his flaws and constraints on hardball (and reasonable) questions left the O-Man looking farily moderate. Add to this the deliberate construction of a bear-hunting religious nut caricature of Sarah Palin, and some average folks took their chances with the smooth orator.

One of the few things Joe Biden said during the campaign that will no doubt come to pass is that Obama will be "tested" by our adversaries –duh.

He'll be tested even though he already passed the test. All past statements and sympatheis from the messiah are a virtual go-ahead to Russsia, China, Iran, and North Korea – "be nice or I'll call the U.N."

Domestic issues and the economy are a whole other can of worms. To "progressives," go ahead and try building yourselves another socialist mega-state. To the moderates who voted for "the one..." get read for some major disappointment (you will be taxed more, directly or indirectly through passed on higher prices). To Euro-socialists; Bush is gone, you may have to start actually facing your own serious problems. The country that is supposedly disproportionally "racist, Islamo-phobic and right-wing" has just elected a black guy with a Muslim name and early upbringing, a communist father, and a personal philosophy of government that is at least on par with some of Europe's most leftist political scoundrels.

Obama will get a year or so to blame every flawed decision and action on the legacy of George Bush. After that, that excuse will become a bit old with all those moderates that basically flipped a coin "for change." Then they'll be asking themselves what they should have been asking during the election, "Who is this guy?"

The Bitter Aftertaste

The One, The Messiah has won. Now he can "change America and change the world" in the image that "progressives" have ordained for the rest of us.

Oh well.

On the good side, we won't have to listen to rioting vien-popping leftists whine that they didn't get their way -- consevatives will certainly be more than disappointed if not scared, but it's not their nature to throw the tantrums so common to the left when they're deprived of their "right" to impose their will upon others.

I and others of like mind will have our complaints in coming months though, initially, Obama will continue his posturing as a relatively moderate "liberal" -- economic realities being what they are, he pretty much has to.

What's done is done. The next strategy for conservatives is to sneak about under the radar of the emerging mega-state and it's new laws and compulsions "for change." I'm most concerned about the plan Obama announced near the very end of the election for a "civilian national security" force with more resources than our current national security forces (what the hell does that mean?).

Jefferson and Adams got at least 200 years out of their radical and brilliant ideas and the world was certainly better for it. It's certainly not the end of the U.S. or its ideals yet, but it could be said that the first nail on the coffin has just been pounded in and more will be pounded in over the next four years.

Remember, this isn't just about Obama, this is about a very left-wing congress acting as a kind of democrat rubber stamp to socialist policies and soon a supreme court majority who will look to the UN and not America's constitution for guidence and policy enforcment.

How did it happen?..for the most part, thank the media and public education -- and they're not done yet.

fun, fun, fun...

Big Surprise...

The "caring and loving" folks of leftland...aren't so much.

The Captains of Illusion and Self-absorbsion; Leftist Elitism In High Gear -- 2008

Barely a day goes by now where I don't read an e-mail, facebook comment, or direct statement praising the left's new secular messiah -- Obama -- and savagely insulting the values and lifestyle symbolism of Sarah Palin. Palin affords a caricature of everything the left hates. She's liked by the right for her commonness – "Joe Six pack" – and despised by the left for precisely the same reasons.

It would certainly be an accurate appraisal of current political debate to accuse the Democrats and "progressives" of arrogance and elitism. All that defines common citizens is held in contempt by the snooty control freaks of leftland. I don't read many (actually zero) facebook comments prodding people to vote for McCain Palin, not because there are no people of such political persuasion but because conservatives still have some basic manners left when interacting with a mixed-view crowd. The same decorum is why, if Obama wins, conservatives won't be protesting and rioting about a "stole election" (when, indeed there is plenty of evidence of massive voter fraud from the Obama side). If McCain wins, we can of course expect all hell to break lose because leftland didn't get their way.

In addition to the phony superior morality argument uttered so often by the left, we'll continue to hear just how "curious," intellectual, and refined these pompous snobs are.

To them, it's all about "reading the right books," and "speaking French." (I've actually seen those attributes listed as requirements for a "qualified presidential candidate" ).

This clique' of elitists hates Sarah Palin because she's "common folk." The left has always hated common folk – except in their dreams, where they are the champions and chosen leaders of everything common (and everything they perceive as beneath them).

On a personal note, I've actually read plenty of books on a wide range of subjects ('personal preference – so what) and the more I learn from them and common sense observation, the more I trust common people (whether they read plenty of books or not) over the elitist snobs that have captured American society through a thousand channels of communication (public education being the most abused channel).

Given the leftist snobs' excitement for intellectuals its no wonder that they are so equally enamored with Lawyers, journalists, and other assorted con-artists that pretend to be intellectuals.

Do we really need another intellectual who's read lots of books making decisions for individuals in some collectivist scheme they fancy – another Pol Pot, Mao, or Lenin? Even the upper tier of the Nazi party was full of intellectuals. Hitler was the classic "artiste" intellectual with a "new vision." There is nothing and nowhere in history that indicates that intellectuals make better or more democratic leaders and those of simpler lifestyles make worse. To the contrary, the historical record is one of intellectuals who have caused incredible damage to their own societies, and to others when they sought to expand their domination (as they always do). Even those intellectuals of blander passion and less utopian vision have hardly been the epitome of wisdom. The intellectuals that advised President Johnson made Vietnam a quagmire. How many brilliant intellectual economic advisor's has history seen that sparked or lorded over recession, inflation, and unemployment?

Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe has an impressive list of schooling but he's created a famine-ridden waste case out of Africa's former bread-basket. Bill Clinton was a "Rhodes Scholar" and the only positive legislative action his presidency can truly be noted for are programs a Republican congress initiated.

I've met auto mechanics that would be better leaders and decision makers than some of the "intellectual" rabble that 's been pawned off on the public in the name of "superior intellectual leadership." In the end, this whole issue relates to events no more than the age-old jealousy that intellectuals have shown as they have sought power over others, and the ignorance of those who follow and adore superficial traits over substance of character

The issue of intellectuals' role in politics and history is well addressed in Eric Hoffer's "The Ordeal of Change" and Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals," two books I'd highly recommend to fully understand what intellectuals have done or helped to create (in a dystopian sense). Both books offer wise speculation as to what motivates people to not simply learn for their own sake but to impose their will over others on the pretense that their bookish knowledge justifies their authority.

It's odd that just a couple of years ago we constantly heard of a simple mill-workers son qualifications to be president (John Edwards), now a strong intelligent woman with executive experience is considered unqualified because she's basically, "too common" to suit the arrogant snobs of leftland.

Let them eat Brie...and leave others to their "sixpacks, guns, religion"...and common sense.

The "Revolutionary" Status Quo. A Rebellion that Isn't

Since the 1970's many, if not most, school teachers, journalists, and entertainment glitter-oracles have become "rebels" -- or, so they'd have themselves (and sometimes others) believe.

They call for "change" in our lifestyles to "save the Earth", "celebrate diversity" and provide "equality" of outcome in all facets of life – a sterile humanity where everyone is constrained to the level of bland sleep.

Is this call to "change" really change when it is now so blatantly common? Can it be taken seriously when most of its mouthpieces live their own lives in such complete bourgeoisie comfort?

American philosopher/historian Hannah Arendt has often been justly quoted for noting that, "Even the most radical revolutionary becomes conservative the day after the revolution." It may be added that today's "revolutionary" is conservative even before the revolution (in the sense that they are very much in favor or maintaining their current lifestyles but rigidly adhering to the dogma of a faux rebellion). Their revolutionary call to change is no revolution at all and certainly not intended to alter their own lifestyles. Calling for radical change (usually demanding, complete with threats) is now as widespread and mundane as a can of Coke, and ultimately has about as much philosophical value in the grand scheme of things.

The real irony in all of this posturing is that those of us who call for a drastic reduction of state authority over personal lives and for excellence, innovation, and achievement to be honored in a free system of economic exchange (not punished in bureaucratic labyrinths), are derided as conservative. By honest and positive definition this would be true but our posing rebels see the above traits as bad and use the "conservative" label as a statement of derision.

Real rebels are suspicious of authority and recoil from imposed schemes. They have no need to force their freedom on others as they see freedom to be an option chosen by one's own volition. In a free society everyone is free to join a commune or "share [their own] wealth" as they choose. If they're sincere in voicing their values, they don't wish to see dogmatic ideals imposed on others anymore than themselves. These attributes hardly define the self-described rebels of today. A t-shirt with a communist autocrat's face across its front doesn’t count when the person wearing it lives high off the fruits of open society and a free economy.

Today's "revolution," when implied to be so by the esoteric cliques' of Hollywood, news wire services, and public school classrooms, is no revolution at all. It's not even a weak attempt to play a role as an agent of change. Taking Lenin's, Mao Zedong's, or Castro's ideas (or FDR's and LBJ's for that matter) and fostering them once more on easily duped victims is not an exercise in promoting "change," it's just another scheme in seeking to rein in the lives of free individuals.

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way [?]"....

...no, just get out of the way.

Self-interest...and Projection

1. All countries, first and foremost, pursue their own interests.
2. Thinking they don't or shouldn't is stupid.
3. (This applies when discussing the United States as much as any other country).

The Stats You'll Seldom Hear Or Read Of

This article at Front Page Magazine offers some excellent insight into the phony, doctored, and contrived "arguments" used to feed the left's perennial "two Americas" class warfare nonsense.

Loving and Hating Obama…for the Same Reasons

Some people will soon be voting for B. Hussein Obama for president of the United States because they only know the media sanitized version of Obama. That Obama is a moderate Democrat who will “cut taxes for 95% of Americans in the middle class” and “help provide affordable health care.” Accounting for debatable policy specifics, that sounds reasonable.

Many among this easily convinced and less passionate group of Obama voters will be young people, some voting for the first time. Some will be people who wouldn’t even take the time to vote if it wasn’t for an advocacy organization (like the infamous ACORN) transporting them to voting booths to vote for the guy who will give them the most of other people’s money.

There are other voters who will vote for B. Hussein Obama and against him who will do so because they see behind the well-constructed media facade. These voters know that he is ultimately a socialist and will promote a socialist program to “transform” his country – a sort of Chavez-lite (initially). These voters (both for and against) know that his “tax cut for 95% of Americans” is not a tax cut at all but a stipend check issued largely to people who don’t even pay income taxes. Forking over this much money will require taking the money from others of course (the much maligned “evil rich”).

Simply taxing people, not to pay current government expense or to reduce the deficit, to issue checks in a new government program is a wealth theft and distribution scheme, plain and simple. To add a foul icing to Obama’s socialist cake, the millions of people receiving these checks will of course want to continue receiving them indefinitely, thus most will become a permanent enhanced voting base for the new entrenched left-wing power structure. They will be locked into a permanent program of “re”distribution. Of course, such a scheme can’t really be permanent. It will simply, over time, suck the nations productive forces dry like a binge on bread and circuses. The source of the scheme's resources will flounder and the creative dynamism, wealth, and employment capacity of the U.S. will collapse. Add to this the fact that Obama also hopes to give billions more to the UN bureaucracy to “end poverty” and the U.S. will have a perfect political/economic storm – that “change” Obama has promised.

He knows exactly what he is doing, socialists know exactly what he is doing, and those who fear an Obama presidency understand all too well what he is doing (and what some of his end goals are).

For Americans, this will all pretty much layout the end chapter in what was a grand experiment in truly revolutionary politics; self-government. A world without a vibrant and dynamic leader for the values of individual freedom may not be as pretty as so many Euro-socialists and like-minded types envision.

Some will expect a sort of second Sweden to emerge from all of this and will perhaps be shocked to get something more akin to current day Venezuela (though many socialist would be happy to see the latter result).

Many smart and not-so-smart people are soon going to facilitate a world less free, less fun, and less peaceful than they had hoped for.

I don’t for a minute think Obama is a sadistic conspirator who wills tragedy to his country. I do think he’s a typical socialist who wants to “bring change” and “a better world” by destroying a free market and feeding greatly enhanced power to the state. Throw in the weak-willed and naïve cluelessness of most pacifists – and the inevitable acts of terror and war that will follow – and another well-meaning socialist will have set the path to enslaving a people to a powerful state. The demise of prosperity, innovation, and greatness is just a little extra thrown in for the cause.

Some love him and some hate him. There are smart and informed people on both sides of that divide and they know what most media outlets won’t show (but clearly know). Obama is no moderate D/democrat…and America is on the verge of becoming no moderate republic.

Removing Socialism from the Bad Word List

Socialism is no longer a bad word in American politics. It once was – as it should be. Socialism is a top-heavy statist system that clogs the arteries of human creative dynamism, crushes the impulse to innovate and elevates the sloth of mediocrity. At its least harmful, it's merely a welfare state of stifled human accomplishment and byzantine rules. At is most "successful" end-point, it's a beast where the state (usually referred to as, "The People") reins supreme in all aspects of life while it crushes any expression of individuality or opposing viewpoint. Socialism isn't always communism but communism is socialism. As hard as it may be for some to fathom, communism is bad, really bad (I'll just hope the reader has an honest enough understanding of history to confirm that point).

The kindred spirits of socialism and communist style socialism are alive and well today (scroll to bottom of article) and in the next few weeks their candidate will potentially begin making the "changes" they seek.

Probably half of America's population is sympathetic to some form of socialism (though some many not know their view has a name). Much of the country's education system, media, and even entertainment are active supporters of socialism. One of its major political parties – the moveon.Democrats – is socialist in varying degrees. The country's entrenched and unelected bureaucracies and departments of state are filled with wine-sipping Ivy league socialists snobs striving to fully exercise their concocted authority. Soon, through the grace of the aforementioned institutions, the executive branch and its appointed bureau-leaders will also be socialist.

"The world" (dictators, Islamo-fascists, and Euro-socialists etc.) wants Obama to be president because they want to see America weaker, poorer, less successful, and out of dictators' way (giving dictatorships free rein is called, "peace" by socialists). Unfortunately, the domestic socialists that dominate so much of America today share "the world's" hopes in this regard.

So, where does a self-respecting Jeffersonian individualist hide now? Where can a free spirit go to start a business, become wealthy, or merely be left alone?

For now, they can still go to the United States. In the future, probably not...

Too bad...

"Changing the World"

People who "change the world" usually don't announce it beforehand. If they do, you may justly have cause for concern.

Change We Can Believe In

 

Polls and Potential Surprises

A couple of weeks ago I tried finding stats like the ones dug up by Ann Coulter in her recent column but couldn't. Needless to say, what she found confirmed my suspicions about the opinion polls that so often show Obama surging so far ahead. It just didn't make sense to me. That many people can't be that indoctrinated into leftland.

Now, if we could only put ACORN and assorted other fraud-mongers out of business we may get a fair and reasonable voter response -- and Obama will lose by several points.

I've got to admit after listening to podcast of all thee debates (and watching segments), Obama is one smooth con man. He sounds like he's even convinced himself that he's a mainstream moderate who "loves" his country and believes in a strong anti-terror policy and a free-market. But...

Again, do as both candidates said and "look at the record."

Random Observations

To ask the perpetually moot question; if humans are “basically” good or evil, is like asking if rainbows are basically red or blue.

********************************

They've been "helping the poor" for the last 40 years or more ("they" being the Federal government -- tax money).  By now they should be able to claim one of two scenarios;  Their "war on poverty" worked and the nearly 7 trillion dollars spent have paid off in virtually eliminating poverty (in which case the programs can be scaled down considerably if not outright eliminated)...or...their project failed and should therefore be discontinued.  Instead we get, "we're not doing enough."

********************************

"Greed" is always a trait that someone else has.

********************************

Hitler killed six million Jews and loved his dog. It does not then follow that loving dogs is a bad thing.
In a another analogy, the fact that America's founding father were holders of slaves – the common practice of the time (as it was in many societies throughout history) – does not somehow reflect poorly upon the concepts of freedom of the press and religion or the separation of powers within government.

********************************

"Predatory lending" is like "predatory" sales of swampland. If someone buys cheap swampland, they're stupid. If someone sells it to them, they're guilty of seeking out and finding stupid people.

********************************

Racism, like socialism is impractical (some would find the dispassionate nature of this observation offensive. We're supposed to get excited about some injustices). The way to relieve the world of any stupid or evil philosophy one only needs to demonstrate, in practical terms, how useless and counter-productive it is to peoples' self interest.

********************************

Overall, its probably preferable to be among "uncaring" or disinterested people who leave you alone than those who use their self-perception as warm and "caring" people to meddle in your every affair and coerce your every action.

********************************

The degree to which one is an "anti-war / pacifist" regarding wars involving the United States is typically proportional to the degree of apathy toward other wars where the U.S. is not involved. In the case of "wars of national liberation" (communist coup d' etats) a "pacifist" often becomes remarkably pro-war.

********************************

"Multipolar/Multilateral world" actually means an alliance of emerging dictatorships that determine the destiny of humanity – nice going.

********************************

"Helping the poor" always sounds nice 'on paper'," In practice it seldom amounts to little more than punishing the rich or, eventually, punishing anyone who opposes "helping the poor."

********************************

The Democrats’ economic policies can best be summed up as “trickle-down” taxation. Their rant always begins with a proclamation that “the rich” will be forced to “pay their fair share” (an amount determined by the demagogue and various bureaucratic parasites). It’s never acknowledged that the “rich” already pay the bulk of America’s tax revenue (40% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all). In the end, the call to steal through such punitive tax measures “trickles down” to the middle class and everyone else through eventual higher taxes, higher prices for products and services, reduced employment options, and an overall drag on the economy. For what? So that socialist politics can enact its standard war upon success and achievement. …Pathetic.

********************************

Although most socialists would fancy themselves skilled in their insights into the economics of war, their view is ultimately incredibly simplistic...basically, "War requires weapons therefore weapons makers benefit from war, therefore weapons makers cause wars. It's like saying farmers cause hunger.

********************************

"Greed" is supposedly what guys in smoke filled rooms process (never people like you or I). Risking one's fortune to produce a product to sell is seen as "greedy," Buying a lottery ticket and risking ten dollars in the hopes of becoming rich is what exactly? Productive enterprise?

Obama Wins!…no matter what happens

Had recent economic events not emerged I still feel that John McCain would win the upcoming presidential election.

The sudden shocks to the world economy changes everything of course. It shouldn’t, but it does. Obama and his cheering squads in most media outlets have successfully and inaccurately tied McCain to the dreaded George Bush (himself a non-stop target of dishonest journalism and popular myth intoxication).

I think some legitimate suspicions remain regarding how accurate the polls are that indicate dramatic increases for Obama. I’ve yet to find really good accounting as to how these polls are conducted to insure genuine accuracy. I know that many of them have deliberately oversampled Democrats, justifying their actions on the assumption that the Democrats are so thoroughly energized that they are more likely to actually show up at the polls on election day (this is total BS of course). So, if the polling is bogus, why would a polling organization choose to steer a poll's outcome? If those that administer the polls are sympathetic to the left (as is the case now in so many institutions) then deliberately making it appear that their guy is Mr. popularity may keep those pesky Republicans from bothering to vote. The added bonus of phony polling results is that if McCain still wins (because real voters aren’t brain-dead pawns of Newsweek and CBS etc.) then the left can be “shocked” that their man lost “when all the polls proved he was going to win.” Then they can pull out their racism card again (as they have done several times in this election). That’s a pathetic “argument” of course. First off I’m not so sure Obama can even be considered a black guy since he pulls off the caricature of an elitist Ivy League white lawyer so well. Remember, the left doesn’t really consider Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, or Walter Williams to be legitimate African Americans (one can’t possibly be black and conservative of course).

If opinion polls are being deliberately skewed hoping to add to Obama’s vote, such a con could backfire dramatically. As with an overly transparent news bias for Obama, many conservatives and moderates are likely to respond by voting for McCain out of disgust for having their intelligence insulted one too many times.

I’m not being a sore pre-loser here. Maybe the opinion polls are completely untainted and reflect a genuine upcoming win for Obama but…I’m still not going to be completely shocked if McCain makes a surprising win (in spite of the voter registration fraud and massive questionable funding that the Obama campaign already has at its disposal).

Perhaps I’m in denial. I just can’t believe that a majority of America’s voters share the values of New York and California’s radical chic cocktail set.

If opinion polls are not an issue and a majority of voters really believe that Obama’s background gives him extra insight into handling economic turmoil (it doesn’t) than it appears that McCain and Palin will lose. If they win as I had predicted in an earlier post, the left will go ballistic and everything a McCain administration does will be probed, poked at, and twisted to even more pronounced degrees of dishonesty than occur now with the current president. If he loses, Obama’s loss will of course be attributed to “racism” or the knuckle-dragging stupidity of the American electorate (Euro-snobs favorite argument) – there is simply no way that anyone could simply disagree with his view of things or dislike him personally for the character and judgment flaws he possesses.

An Obama win will be even more bizarre if the tipping point is the recent economic meltdown. There’s simply nothing in his background or worldview that indicates he understands economics any better than John McCain. Although McCain is no economic expert it’s clear that he and/or his advisors see the value of returning business activity to some degree of stability. Now is no time for attacks on the “means of production.” As a socialist, the main plank in Obama’s domestic agenda is basically punishing “the rich” (class war is the least effective solution to recession).

I’m sickened not so much by the thought of a socialist president and congress, but more so by the certain continued media adulation that will hide this clown’s every flaw and error. Also, and this prediction is certain, anything that goes wrong in an Obama Presidency will be blamed on “the mess” George Bush “left him.”

Win or lose, Obama and the continued expansion of the socialist state wins / freedom and limited constitutional government loses.

"Do As I Say..."

...Not as I do...

Today's "Conservative" is Yesterday's "Liberal" Democrat

I will, of course, be voting for McCain/Palin in this election (though now, circumstances may render such a vote irrelevant).

The libertarian "protest" vote I used to cast in elections just doesn't seem practical when a full-blown socialist is so close to becoming president. I do follow both candidate's advice and "look at the record." The very brief record Obama has is one of a socialist ideologue with unsavory alliances and poor judgment on national security issues and world affairs. There is nothing to indicate he has anything sound to offer in economic matters (and clear potential to do greater harm).

Regarding the other side of the election -- McCain/Palin -- I have to note how utterly bizarre it is that we've actually come to a point in American history when the "conservative" side of the contest proudly speaks of their belief in "man-made" global climate change (remember, climate has changed drastically throughout history and currently there is "global warming" on Mars).

The "conservative" side of the debate also has been lambasting the "greed" of capitalists (though they don't use that word) as if greed was not a quality we all possess. The current economic dilemma is the fault of a variety of actions and inactions within society. The government mandate to promote "fair housing" (loan money to people with horrible credit histories) was as much to blame as the actions of investors and speculators. In fact the "fair housing" con was the initial spark that began the current "meltdown."

Although socialist Europeans are using the current economic dilemma to blame the U.S. and "The Anglo-American Economic Model" (free enterprise), their own "structural" flaws are cracking under the weight of their own incompetent statist schemes. The fall of America is an exaggerated wish among some of Europe's more pampered authoritarian temperaments.

But...back to America's bizarre election scenario; Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the candidates' messages here (although it's hard to "simplify" sound-bites), but when a "conservative" is talking like a typical 60's Democrat (or 90's Democrat for that matter) on many issues, something odd seems to have occurred in the political process.

I think this bizarre phenomena is the result of a normalization of the socialist worldview, having effectively taken over major outlets of communication in society. Marxism in some form is now mainstream. The socialist outlook is now regularly inculcated amongst the population in public schools, colleges, and the media. One can barely listen to a pop song or watch an adventure movie where the socialist mindset does not "state it's case." Nearly every contemporary movie villain is a businessperson of some kind and the CIA is depicted as one of the greatest forces of capitalist conservatism in the world (when in fact the agency -- like the State Department -- is now full of Ivy League internationalist snobs that are barely loyal to their own country).

The weird thing is that McCain and Palin are already being compared to Nazis by some. For what? Believing in man made global warming and greed on Wall Street?

'Makes one wonder what the Jacobin response would be if a real conservative were running for office.

Yes We Can...Now, Bend Over...

In politics, "Yes we can" is probably more often stated as a threat against citizens than a statement of affirmation with citizens.

In Obama's PR scheme, I'm thinking the former.

The New Socialist Interest In "The Middle Class"

We know times are changing when leftists now speak of their empathy for the middle class and espouse how their actions will "help the middle class."

Socialism's history is riddled with complete lack of interest in the values or circumstance of the middle class -- if not downright disdain for it.

The middle class has always been seen by the left as materialistic, non-intellectual, selfish, and uncommited to the values of a "revolutionary vanguard." Sound-bites from leftland in the past regularly praised the nobility (anti-pun not intended) of the "poor" and the "oppressed." The mouthpieces for the downtrodden (such demogogues have usually been, ironically, middle class themselves) would seldom fail to reveal their absolute disdain for the "bourgeoisie."

Even relative moderates within the Democrat party had, until recently, sought to convert the middle class to their cause, rallying them in a contirved community effort to "help the poor and oppressed."

Thanks to the success of a free economy the truly poor aren't even a significant voting block anymore. In a country where many poor people are suffering from obesity and too much leisure time in front of color televisions, a populist crusade to help the poor isn't likely to get a politician elected.

So, now we have the relatively sudden interest among Democrats and "progressives" for "the middle class," and that middle class must be painted as a class in dire straits and need for government "assistance" (i.e. John Edward's "Two America's" rant).

The only thing that has actually changed in socialism's message has been the wording of the message itself. Most "progressives" (which now include many within America's Democrat party) still come from a pampered tier of the middle class, and most still hold their counter-intuitive disdain for their own class backgrounds -- they still see the mid-class as selfish, materialistic, and lacking intellectual sophistication. This is a message that they can't verbalize of course in a country where the middle class has flourished and ultimatey decides the outcome of elections. So it is that we now hear non-stop concern amongst socialists for the trials of life in the middle class.

'Just another phony spin from leftland; a place where intellectual snobs seek power and authority over personal lives and do so on bogus claims of concern for groups they either care little for or bitterly hold in contmept.

When many Journalists, academics, and entertainment elites think of the middle class, the caricature in their mind is one of country music, cheap beer, religion, and patriotism, things they themselves are not overly fond of.

Hearing Barack Obama and other Demo-socialists espouse their concern for the middle class is like hearing them espouse the virtue of patriotism. It doesn't even come close to what any discerning eye can see in the heart of a political con.

1972..."help the poor"
2008..."help the middle class."

Always..."help me get elected so I can construct a new world where everyone does what I tell them to."

Hope, Change, A New World!...again

This version (scroll down a little and click on the video) of the tacky and somewhat creepy Obama children's chorus is even more revealing than the origional one that hit the blogosphere last week.

I really don't like the Nazi comparisons so often thrown about in political "debate." It definitely started with the left in their worn out passion-bites of vitriol but now it seems that almost everyone accuses everyone else of being Hitler in any disagreement.

However;... I think the above video link does capture the reality of idealism when it's applied to any political movement. A politician claiming they will enact sound policies that will be helpful is one thing, the pseudo-religious tone of "changing the world" should always be looked upon with at least a laugh if not a bit of apprehension and fear.

Like I had written once before, if Obama wins, I and other conservatives can certainly live with it. America will be on an accelerated path to socialism and talk radio will have non-stop complaints (until they're stopped by the "fairness doctrine"). The left, on the other hand cannot tolerate dissent, opposition, or diversity of viewpoint. If McCain wins, mass hysteria will engulf leftland with cries of fascism and demands that the results of a free election be overturned to "save the world."

I've studied the history of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany (actually taking a couple of classes in college devoted to the era) and there is no question that its motivating force was idealism. Nazis were no strangers to the mantra of radical "change."

Obama and his cult are no Nazis (either is George Bush by the way)...but, their idealism (and overall cheesiness) is certainly worthy of ridicule and the above link does so skillfully.

Changing the World through Socialist Revolution...again

Hugo Chavez has got to be envious of this.

(downright sickening if ya ask me).

Chavez is Going to Develop a Nuclear Program...

He's already purchased and continues to purchase massive amounts of weapons (particularly odd for a country that is threatened by no more than it's autocrat's paranoia and delusions). It can be fairly assumed he will also be looking at long range missiles on upcoming shopping lists.

Perhaps the great Obama will win America's presidential election and sit down and talk with him "with no preconditions" (after all, Chavez holds views virtually identical to those of Obama's mentors).

Time to live out all those movie fantasies where the big bad U.S. works behind the scenes to "eliminate" troublesome communist idiots.

We've been letting this clown off the hook way too much and for way too long. Waiting for him to toss a nuclear weapon at the U.S. a few years down the road is not an option.

If we offend some socialist brats in Europa and "the world" -- too bad.

Chavez has been ranting since day one that the U.S. is seeking to eliminate him...so, what the hell are we waiting for?

"We Need [a Lawyer] who Cares About People"

I've only now finished listening to the recent debate between Obama and McCain. Thank god, or at least innovative technology, for podcasts. No doubt many people were very impressed by the lawyer among the two candidates. Indeed he speaks well and speaks,...like a lawyer. McCain lacked charisma but everything he said came across as genuine (I think). No dramatic flourishes but no B.S. either. He didn't come across as sounding like, "hey! Vote for me!" Obama has sounded like this since the period following his speech at the Democrats' national convention four years ago. McCain mostly just stated his case and was actually a bit weak in stating it fully. Obama's class rants were wide open for attack, as were his phony attempts to sound like a hawk in the war on "terrorism" (Islamo-fascism...and friends) and confrontation with America's enemies. In the end, I think McCain's dry but trustworthy approach will resonate with voters better (at least in "middle America" – outside cosmopolitan enclaves).

When Obama says things like "this is the greatest country in the world" it hardly comes across as even vaguely sincere. He should just not bring the topic up rather than offending his base and the common sense of average voters. There are just too many times and too many close associations (i.e. William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright) that make it clear he doesn't believe America is even somewhat "great."

Obama is a socialist and an internationalist. Of course he now has to pretend to be a moderate – or even conservative – on a variety of issues. In spite of the need to play to the voting public, he would be more convincing and honest if he just said he didn't like the U.S. and won't like it until it is drastically reduced in power and it's government is radically increased in power. That wouldn't win him the election of course, but it would be consistent with the "message" he has articulated in the past and with the people who mentored him.

In the Vice Presidential race, I still don't get why the talking heads can say Sarah Palin is not qualified when four years ago they thought John Edwards was -- or, Governors Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter were for that matter. We also hear much about Palin's unavailability to "the press" forgetting that this was a big issue earlier in the year with Obama who was actually angering one of his biggest blocks of support – elitist news manufacturing clowns – who couldn't seem to get access to him.

Notice too that, of the several opinion polls conducted, the major media outlets seem to have a preference for noting the ones that show Obama far ahead (most polls still have the candidates within a mere few points of each other). This is a media classic similar to the polls that tell us that the president's approval rating is in the low 30's (not unlike Clinton's in his last year of office) while keeping it a virtual secret that the same polling organizations find the (Democrat dominated) congress's approval ratings at less than 10% (!).

If Obama loses, there'll no doubt be all sorts of screaming about "racism" and other concocted reasons other than...."he [simply] lost." Why can't Democrats just lose and politely acknowledge that they lost. There's always got to be some phony excuse about being denied their just rein. The historical record is clear on this one; Republican's don't do this, and it's certainly not because they haven't had cause to (the Nixon / Kennedy election being the best example of shady play on the part of Democrats).

At this point, undecided voters should consider that if they vote for Obama they are also voting to give Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid's philosophy of government absolute authority over the way the U.S. functions in the next four years (not to mention court appointments) -- that would not be a good thing for anyone. "Gridlock" is always preferable to one party railroading it's every desire through the legislative process.

Remember too that when Obama promises a "tax cut" for 95% of the country's citizens, that 40% of them don't pay any federal taxes to begin with (McCain should have definitely railed Obama on this bogus con). That's more than faulty math. What Obama promises is what all socialists promise; income "re" distribution. I put the "re" in quotes because income is not "re-distributed." It's never "distributed in the first place. People work for their incomes. Whether through, labor, mental effort, or risk and innovation, the source of one's wealth is not the result of some kind of "distribution" system. Obama would raise taxes considerably on those he believes are wealthy (he supposedly knows what is fair in this regard) and simply issue vote-buying government checks to others. Bread and circuses. Good to appease "the masses" temporarily but a downright stupid thing to do to a productive economy – even one in need of repair (especially one in need of repair).

I expect the next two presidential debates to be similar to this recent one but with both candidates being a little tougher on their opponent (on the advice of their staffs). The Vice Presidential debate will be fun and I fully expect Palin to clobber a gaffe drowning Joe Biden.

The "gotcha" style of entrapment journalism used on Palin in her recent interviews were just too obvious. These media clowns (i.e. Gibson and Couric) haven't' asked the same kinds of on-the-spot questions to Obama or Biden and the viewing public knows it.

Unlike the typical leftist Democrat, I'm not going to get all psycho if "my guy doesn't win." Tantrums are for control freaks and there are plenty of them on the left. In fact, I'll be mildly amused (damage aside) if Obama and his Democrat congress win because it will be a virtual guarantee that they'll go down in flames during the next election. Either way, conservatives win.

Instructions and Commands

If there could be one all-inclusive comment regarding “human nature” it would be that we simply don’t come with a set of instructions. While some thoughts and behaviors are rare or eccentric (even dangerous) to a particular context or humanity as a whole, all are “natural” by virtue of the fact that they occur at all. This doesn’t of course mean that all human behaviors are equally preferable or even acceptable in a Just or civilized society.

“Instructions” as how to live or act are often seen in various religious texts or the dogma of pseudo-religious political ideologies. Sometimes the “wisdom” of their proclamations is apparent, if for no other reason than mere practical consideration – eating pork 3000 years ago would have been a risky indulgence. Regardless of the occasional wise phrase, “instructions” born of religious thought or political creed must ultimately be accepted on faith and faith is not necessarily logical or even verifiable. In objective appraisal, we always find ourselves back in the same situation -- humans come with no instructions. We can only hope that the ones drawn up by fellow humans are practical and keep most of us relatively free, safe, and in a state of potential progress.

All too often, the instructions of “men” are no more than commands to obey the whims of control freaks with too much time on their hands and to little genuine productive capacity. Although a tyrant may see their imposed standards as being good for all, “all” may not agree (it’s virtually impossible that they all would).

Instructions are good for airplane models, small appliances, and Christmas toys. To outline standards for living amongst diverse human character, ...maybe not so much.

Bush Was Hitler: Palin Derangement Syndrome and the Gross Intolerance and Rage of the Demented Left

“Bush is Hitler” but instead of taking over the world with “his friends from Haliburton,” it looks like he may just be going back to Texas to spend some quality time with his wife on a ranch. Who’s going to fill in the bleeding brain-cracks of leftists when he’s gone? Voilla – how opportune for those seeking shadows to box! Margaret Thatcher is back! She’s intelligent and experienced, has simple common-folks roots (sure to enrage any elitist socialist snob), and she’s hot…Palin is Hitler – obviously.

Palin was – as is noted more by foes than friends – a “beauty queen” (she wanted the scholarship prize money and described the experience in negative terms later). Let’s be honest, by far most professional “feminists” (angry female leftists) are decidedly not beauty Queens. Although many view themselves as queens of sorts, they seem to more often have appearances that go with their personalities – that is, not a pretty sight.

The Palin phenomenon has certainly rattled more than a few feminists, garden-variety socialists, and unemployed multible-pierced vegans – ‘must be those trendy glasses Palin wears.

A million and one myths regarding McCain’s running mate choice continue to spring up daily. Fortunately, as soon as a socialist con-image sprouts up from the lefts rabid underbelly, it’s shot down quickly. In the end factual appraisals indicate that Palin is nothing more than a conservative (gasp!) and represents nothing profoundly terrible beyond conservatives’ usual desire to limit government’s growth and centralization, reduce taxes, and cut spending. Surly a sane opposition could endure such opposing views. Unfortunately, a sane opposition to conservatism dissipated decades ago when the neo-Jacobins got their first feel for power within the system. Now they will accept nothing less than paced or full-throttle socialism in America. If an old-fashioned conservative stands in the way of their “hopes for ‘change’ ” the specter of Hitler no doubt does embellish their imagination (one must remember that these are people who think Castro was a benevolent “leader”). Tupperware is probably “Hitler” to these clowns.

Palin and McCain favor offshore oil drilling and playwrite Ece Ensler thinks of “rape.” (The Chinese drilling 90 miles off of Florida’s coast with Communist Cuba must just be a consensual kiss on the cheek – though she doesn’t mention it either way).

No doubt the main thing that “troubles” so many leftists (I’m inclined to think there are few or no “liberals” remaining in contemporary discourse) is Palin’s patriotism. She actually wants America to win against the forces of Islamo-fascism in Iraq and elsewhere – the nerve!

Although leftists tell us to not dare question their patriotism they make no secret that they despise the very concept (if it's Americans' patriotism toward the U.S.). Remember, these are people who want to see a candidate win who makes his most dramatic speech to people in Berlin (and, a woman from Alaska “is Hitler?”).

Back to the main point; are these people nuts!? One seldom reads or hears of conservatives reacting with such vein-popping paranoia when the left wins (as when the Democrats won the majority position in congress that they had previously held for four decades). Of course conservatives don’t want to see the left gain more power but I don’t remember screeching cries of the country’s approaching collapse into Hades when Clinton or Carter won their elections.

The far left and some of their left-lite mouthpieces in the Democrat party have had decades to dramatically alter the United States with significant success in doing so but god forbid someone put the brakes on or even role back an array of socialist nonsense. They think, “capitalism doesn’t work” and we think socialism doesn’t work…and we’ve got history on our side.

More than a few websites, celebrities, and journalists have reacted to Palin’s existence (let alone her attempts to actually run for office beyond Alaska) with a level of outright hatred and rage that seems to defy their usual poorly worn masks of being “tolerant” believers in “peace” and “dialog” (they only seem to reserve such good manners for one-party dictatorships and theocratic authoritarians). I think their Palin rage response may just be a remnant of the typical threats they had made in childhood, “if you don’t give me what I want I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue.” Once a control freak, always a control freak.

When spoiled brats come of age, they want us others in a cage. And, god forbid we – or those we vote for -- hold a different view that may free us from the oppressive whims of the blatantly unreasonable and the passionately bizarre.

Bush Was Supposed To "Steal" Iraq's Oil...And We Didn't Even Get A Lousy T-Shirt...

...But China gets the first major oil deal with Iraq! All Courtesy of socialist Democrats.

God, they're sickening.

Justice, Injustice, and Plain B.S.

It would no doubt seem impossible to a socialist, but among the right’s motives for holding their convictions lies a sense of violated justice. Of course we always hear the left in general using the world “injustice” for everything that occurs in the natural scheme of things. Occasionally, they’ve been right. (Real) racism is an injustice, paying people unequally for the same days work is clearly an injustice. But the left’s overused mantra is misdirected when free people seek to merely advance their personal circumstance and everyone doesn’t reach the same pinnacle of bliss.

The left does not hold intellectual property rights to the words justice or injustice. I would add that they should perhaps be given such rights to the concepts of guile and general B.S.

The worldview held by the political right (classical liberals) is often motivated by a sense of injustice at the hands of the left in its various guises (government, media, and the self-righteous demagogues that regularly insult our intelligence – when they’re not personally insulting us).

It was certainly an injustice when a quarter of Cambodia’s population was slaughtered for the hopes of intellectuals to mold perfect “equality” in the human condition, as it was in every socialist so-called “experiment” where the state was given absolute authority over the lives of families and individuals. Of course, these are injustices in the extreme (but it is still worth noting that they stemmed from those on the left who thought they had formulated the perfect response to “injustice”).

When the socialist is in less passionate or coercive states of mind he or she can still be rather skilled at supporting and implementing injustices of various kinds. It is then no wonder that some of us on the right hold our views partially out of a sense of the gross injustice inflicted on us, our families, and friends.

My own passions against the left’s attempts to impose their worldview are heated by a strong disdain for what I believe to be grave injustices by the left in issues of morality, principals, and honesty.

A wealthy politician or celebrity decrying the meager life styles and strivings of an average citizen while they live in excess and abundance strikes me as unjust (and obviously phony). A rich movie actor or director calling the wealth of businesspersons, unjust is evidence of…injustice. The same mold of leftist/ elitist thought that regularly ridicules simple working people for choosing religious belief is equally unjust (particularly when they manage to rally defenses for more radical sects that use violence and coercion in their expressions of religious intolerance. (Not all Muslims are terrorists...gut most terrorists today are Muslim).

An entire sect within leftism is an abode of snobs who look down their noses at anyone who fails to prostrate themselves before pseudo-philosopher’s haughty visions and self-appraisals

I think it’s unjust when a guy can literally be no one with no experience at all, and come within a hair’s breath of the presidency just because he’s been aggressively prompted by a biased media that want desperately to see America become a socialist country. It is unjust when this fool’s flaws and gaffes are actively hidden and his mere speaking skills flashed before the public as valid reasons to put him into America’s highest office. Celebrities should earn their fame, not have it bestowed by the agendas of others.

It’s clearly unjust when a rabble of bitter intellectuals can call themselves “feminists” and do all in their power to defame and ridicule a strong, intelligent, and experienced woman to prevent her from earning her place as America’s first female Vice President (and possibly President).

When a philosophy supporting bureaucratic intrusion into individual lives has the ear – and megaphone – of most television news, print media, education, and entertainment, I feel appalled by the blatant injustice of it all.

When people who merely wish to live with a high degree of personal autonomy are caricatured as cruel, “mean-spirited,” or “fascist,” I think it’s an injustice (particularly when those who concoct such labels are so often themselves, cruel, mean-spirited, and supportive of socialist/fascist ideals).

In a world of unelected autocrats, dystopian authorities, and theocratic jihadists, I feel the weight of injustice when my own very adaptable and diverse open society is regularly insulted and chastised as the prime villain of world events.

When schemers and con-artists (i.e. Michael Moore, John Edwards et al.) tell citizens that the trillions spent to expand the authority of the state “isn’t enough” and that wealth and success must be punished for the sake of “equality, fairness, and -- they dare say it -- justice, I marvel at the cunning permutation of injustice in the left’s own playbook.

When classrooms, films, and newscasts regularly tell us that the Earth may soon be doomed because some of us drive cars, while forgetting to tell us that global warming is occurring on Mars, I sense a bit of injustice at work.

The left will continue to rally the hypocrites, parasites, con-artists, and the sheep that support the expansion of socialist authority. They will no doubt continue to scream bogus concerns for “justice” while holding an actual desire to enhance their own egos at the expense of the appropriated wealth of others.

Some of us are disgusted by the injustice we see around us daily and it is that very injustice that often motivates us to hold so strongly to our own convictions and belief in the sober values of a conservative or libertarian worldview.

The next time a leftist dares use the word “justice” in their stale arsenal of semantic B.S. remind them that other people with other views can hold claim to the same word usually with greater sincerity and purpose.

Out there right now there’s a middle class college educated spoiled brat being denied the reins of power over others – oh, the injustice of it all.

More Nonsense from Leftland News

(After posting yesterday's Newsweek cover as example of the pathetic bias in today's media election coverage I found this article. Excuse the poor scanning quality -- cut off at the edges. It's obviously a less obvious example of what I'm addressing but still -- come on! -- why the massive photo of a distinguished and professional Obama juxtaposed with a not so flattering tiny photo of a McCain laughing. OK, the style of photo can be debated as a worthy issue of critique but the size...matters. Establishment media, once again; Absolutely pathetic.)

 

The Big Man Takes on The Little People -- Apparently

(The small yellow caption beside McCain and Palin's photo roughly translates as: "Mysterious/Unknown Republican Party Woman -- Palin"

 

By The Way, Republicans Are Running Too...

Three years ago Riding Sun revealed to the blogospere that Newsweek magazine was deliberately trashing their own country (literally) in an overseas cover image. Before and since then, I'm sure there have probably been many such objectivity disconnects that could be found between American and overseas editions of some establishment media sources. I'm not trying to capitalize on Riding Sun's insightful revelation (a very big hat tip to him), but I did want to note Newseek's cover this week in Japan. They're not insulting the entire U.S. this time, just the intelligence of foreign readers who overwhelmingly want Obama to be elected to the presidency, in part because they're barely aware that another party is even running.

This weeks cover is laughable. An exaggeratedly tiny image in the top corner actually hints that Obama may have opponents in the election. (In the American Edition the cover is about Sarah Palin with the witty – but sarcastic – "word;" Palin-tol-ogy)

Like many others, I've long ago stopped buying Newsweek or any other "news" source that dares insult my intelligence and values with deliberately slanted script-bites for left-wing politics (I still scan over them when I can, but certainly won't give them any of my money).

Many of my adult students here in Japan assume Obama will win the election and most openly say they want him to win (Opinion polls indicate this to be the case around the world). Of course, who doesn't want a weaker, perhaps defeated U.S. in a time when dictatorships and authoritarian ideologies are –- again -- seeking to impose their dystopian vision upon humanity. Remember, under Bush, America has been "unilateral" (so says conventional pseudo-wisdom). And, China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran have been..."multi-lateral" well qualified alternatives to the spread of democracy?

When I ask my students why they want to see Obama win or what his qualifications are, they typically don't really know what to say and usually express some vague belief that Obama means peace and a less imposing (e.g. weaker) U.S. Usually, I think, its merely because they've been brainwashed (dirtied) by media, education, and entertainment that is incapable of presenting the serious issues of our time with even the remotest sense of professionalism or objective integrity.

Remember; individuality, freedom, and limited government are cruel, evil, and "fascist" while the state will show it's loving embrace to us all by imposing more rules and restricting more aspects of our lives – if we all just learn to "cooperate" more and obey the commands of leftland (and its current mouthpiece, Obama). This must be true. After all, "I read it in the newspaper"...and a magazine.

Help the Side that Hates Us

Every country, dictator, and institution that hates America want to see Obama elected president. That surely is a state of affairs that should be well noted by any American who votes.

Concocted Lions and Lambs

Obama Camp Responds to Republican Attack Machine

Obama States His Case in Historical Rousing Speech

Many women are Wondering how Palin Plans to Perform Her Duties and Raise a Family

…Yeah, right. And I guess many women (TM) don’t care that socialist demagogue John Edwards was having an affair while his wife is dying of cancer (and lied about it publicly)…Leftist Democrat -- one free pass.

Many are Concerned Regarding Palin’s Brief Term as Governor of Alaska…

…but, Obama’s zero experience in running anything is not an issue and his allegiance to friends including a radical terrorist and bitter haters of the United States is yesterday’s – brief – news…

Palin is one of those nuts who goes to a church where the pastor talks about Jesus (imagine that in an age when we’re supposed to only don our tolerance caps for topics related to Islam).

Obama only attended a “church” for twenty years where the pastor regularly expressed bitter hatred for the country Obama wants to be president of.

Etc. etc.

********************

I don’t know about all media outlets, maybe I missed it, but here in Japan when John McCain’s family was briefly shown, there was no comment about a black girl standing with them. That’s John McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh. Attempts were once made to suggest she was an illegitimate “love child.” Cindy McCain brought her back with another girl requiring urgent medical care and adopted her. The McCain’s also paid for all the expensive life-saving medical care of another girl from Bangladesh (and facilitated her adoption by a friend).

My question is that, if Michelle Obama had done the same thing, does anyone really believe it would not be a non-stop news item in the mythology of the exalted Barack Obama?

The establishment media bias of our time (along with the mythology producing channels of “entertainment”) has reached absurd proportions. Many arrogant and pampered journalism majors leave college each year just like public school teachers; on a mission to “change society” (the school teacher’s levels of weak perception and dishonesty are on par as well). “Changing society” for them means of course the stale old standard of imposing a more powerful government authority upon the lives of others, all for something called, “social justice,” or “equality.” Of course it’s really just old socialism, one of the most unchanging schemes to be fostered upon the ignorant and the innocent.

When McCain / Palin wins this election, I guarantee that two to three percentage points of their win will be solely due to those non-aligned voters who are sick of being insulted by media power brokers and their circus of insincerity and bogus pseudo-professionalism -- “Talking Heads” with no brains.

What utter fools.

Messianic Over-reach and Zombies for Change

Last week the chosen one -- B. Hussein Obama -- made his grand acceptance speech in Denver. It was basically the same one he gave in Berlin – in spirit if not content. All that was missing was a suggestion that his followers move to a large commune in Guyana and do periodic suicide drills with koolaid.

The Obama spectacle showed us what Huey Long could have done with better lighting and a Teleprompter.

B. Hussein Obama once more treated the choir to soaring oratory that essentially said nothing. He’s clearly studied his Kennedy and Martin Luther King speeches and has pretty much got the drama thing down perfect. He’s just failed to notice that the issues facing us aren’t quite as dramatic as those that faced great orators before him.

A “health care crisis” is actually a health insurance problem. A housing mortgage “crisis” is another dishonest media label for the mere 3% of homeowners who can’t afford to pay back the loans they should have never been given (after government mandated bank loans were given to people with sketchy credit histories). Now many “can’t afford to pay” – big surprise. Tragic for them no doubt but….duh! “Job outsourcing” still leaves us with an unemployment rate less than most countries of Europe and an average per-family income over $50,000 a year – hardly the Great Depression.

Back to that stupid speech…

The “change” thing was there (of course) along with the basic template Obama has espoused from day one; he’s going to fix everything – even if its not broken. And he’s going to do it in the dramatic innovative way of…making the government bigger and having it tax more (that’s “change” you can believe in).

The telling sentence came in an onslaught of prosaic overkill “we are going to change America.” (e.g. We’re certainly not going to let some Jeffersonian documents on old parchment get in the way). An almost bizarre line in Obama’s speech came when he said, “change doesn’t come from Washington. Change goes to Washington.” …huh? The audience of worshipers went wild but, what the hell does that mean? Really?

I was struck by the grave miscalculation of Obama’s campaign staff. This had become like any Democrat presidential election scam. Bring tears to the eyes of adoring sheep…and assume the rest of America’s population shares the same passion for socialist rhetoric.

I dare suggest that more than a few Americans saw this as mere confirmation of McCain’s commercials mocking Obama's flair for self –absorption. It was all a bit much really.

What we saw in Obama's acceptance speech was not an agreeing crowd expressing sober approval of the socialist vision. No, this was (has become) a full blown cult in which more than a few followers were worked into a frenzy. It was as if Mother Theresa was still alive and could play the guitar really well.

More talk suggesting that America was in full collapse (requiring more government agencies and spending to depreciate things further) all crouched in the cliché jargon of “we must all work together” (always a tip-off in the statist oratory play book). ‘Hardly cause for a tarantella.

America is actually doing relatively well (people seem to forget the circumstances of times like the Civil War, The Great Depression, or the turmoil of the late 60’s). Aside from the usual minor “crises” and fine-tuning that are part of the perennial challenges of a powerful and successful nation state, America is hardly in a state as abysmal as that painted by socialist demagogues like Obama (or John Edwards).

No doubt the quality and passion of the socialist messiah’s acceptance speech will be reenacted many times in the next couple of months, along with the zombie followers of this new cult based on nothing. In the end, they’ll all wonder why their man lost.

Now what's so hard about matching one’s rhetoric to the reality of the tasks one hopes to address? No, instead we get grandeur, drama, and absurd nonsense.

Obama’s coming loss will be well deserved.

******************

In other news...

I'd say many a "progressive" feminist are infuriated to see John McCain's pick for his running mate. It's so weird how many times I've heard this rabid bunch talk of how much they admire a "strong woman who is active in politics" and within the same breath squeal how much they hate Margret Thatcher. Sarah Palin should be just the right dose needed to piss off the hypocrites who don't know what a strong woman is or who simply can't fathom the idea of a woman or minority who is -- dare I say – conservative.

Fun, fun, fun....

Yes They [Think They] Can

Yes; I Know, You Think You Can....

"Yes we can..."

Yes "we" can...what?

Tax productive enterprise and regulate people's lives more? Further centralize the state so that families and their offspring becomes slaves of an imposed bureau-commune?

"Yes we can" is something Mao and Stalin could have said.

As a catch phrase it's right up there with, "Change we can believe in." ...a meaningless crock of demagogue nonsense.

The Middle Class; Comfortable but Striving (conservatives)…or, Spoiled, Arrogant, and Selfish (leftists)

The polarity of right and left political views (in the traditional spectrum scheme) can be seen in some ways as having evolved (or devolved) into a battle in values between two poles within the same class, the middle class -- upper and lower.

The lower ends of the middle class are genuinely bourgeois by most definitions. They have a satisfactory abode – but would like a nicer one. They have satisfactory transport but would like something better. They indulge themselves in hobbies and leisure pursuits but would certainly like to see them enhanced or embellished. They are materialistic and capitalist in sentiment (whether some of them realize it or not). Their life is good but they strive -- or at least wish -- for more and better.

The upper ends of the middle class have typically attained a nice dwelling, pristine transportation, refined leisure, and playful indulgences. They have far passed the realm of mere comfortable subsistence. For many of them “something more” moves into the world of ideals or some other compensation for a self-perceived loss of meaning. So it is that so many professionals; particularly lawyers, journalists, intellectuals, and entertainment personalities shrug off their own good fortune as something un-fulfilling and un-needed (though they’d be hard-pressed to actually relinquish their circumstance).

The lower middle-class in a successful free society has attained considerable power over their own lives and destiny as well as historically unheard of comforts. The upper middle class has reached the pinnacle of this achievement and is often left seeking power over others either directly or through their affiliation with a state enhancing political class. To this end they hope to fulfill their existential cravings. Of course, there are people in the lower middle class on the left, and upper middle class on the right. However, I think it can generally be said that those who have achieved the power over their own lives and leisure excess of the upper middle class begin to look toward other to extend their mastery in life.

The right and left can throw insults from a perceived allegiance to the values of “rich” or “poor” but their real battle in values is with others among their not so distant brethren; within the middle-class as a whole.

Today’s Democrat / Republican divide is example to the unfolding polarity of values between two styles of middle class existence.

Where many lower-middle class Americans had long been a sort of base to the Democrat party and many upper-middle class Americans supported the “pro-business” Republican party, this alignment has been almost entirely reversed in the last few decades.

The lower middle class today may not be specifically pro-business but they don’t share the Democratic Party’s evolving socialist perspective and bitter resentment of capitalist enterprise. The lower middle class today has very little in common with the professional / college “educated” elites that live well yet despise the system that has made it so. It is this clique' of elites that now dominate Democrat party politics. To be a moveon. Democrat today virtually guarantees that one does not drive a second-hand car.

For the Republican Party, a transformation of values has occurred as well. There is still a clearly pro-business perspective within the Republican Party. There is also a (much-exaggerated) presence of fringe evangelicals but most Republicans could be best defined as people who merely seek to restrain the cultural, political, and economic momentum toward the left that has been fostered by Democrats and their support system in pop culture. The new “South Park Republican” is more libertarian in its values and expresses a view of American political life that is much more in line with the values of “simple people” (the lower middle class) than the intellectual elites that now dominate the Democrat party.

Names like Noam Chomsky are well known in Democrat “progressive” circles but one would be hard-pressed to find an average lower middle class person who ever heard of the guy ('not really missing anything there).

It may be idealistic of me to think so, but the lower-middle class has a sort of “yeoman farmer” quality to it that I find appealing – they are Post-modern Jeffersonians. Raising a family and enjoying life by seeking to improve one’s status is not a flaw. Decency is a real attribute and I think it is to be found in greater numbers among the “simple folk.” By the same token, pampered spoiled brats who seek to vent their personal loss of meaning by imposing the values of statist socialism appear to me to be running a decency deficit. Simply saying one is “for the underdog” is meaningless when one is the overdog and merely wants a punitive government to attack people richer than ones’ self.

The standard rallying cries between “the rich” and “the poor” are of little value in discerning the real drivers of values and policy in America today. The front lines are occupied not by extremes of wealth difference but by the mere step between lower and upper with in a society that is basically middle class.

Film Makers Will Finally Be Sane

Everyone will Finally be Equal.

-- Hat tip to brain terminal

Random Observations

To ask the perpetually moot question; if humans are “basically” good or evil, is like asking if rainbows are basically red or blue.

*****************

A Marxist intellectual will seldom acknowledge that fascism is merely a variant of their own statist/collectivist philosophy (Mussolini was a devout Marxist throughout his career as the first fascist dictator and, like Hitler, despised free-market capitalism).

*****************

A free person saying, "maybe they don't want to be free" is like a rich person saying, "maybe they don't want to be rich" – it's a stupid statement in both cases. Likewise it demonstrates a complete lack of awareness regarding the circumstance of post-war Germany and Japan where both countries' citizens eventually seemed okay with the freedom idea (well, okay, at least this has been the case in Japan).

*****************

"You can't force someone to be free" is like saying you can't "force" a victim of abuse to be freed of abuse – yes you can(!), in both cases (and it's the right thing to do).

*****************

When a person is discussing their circumstances or values and uses the word, "We," he or she is most likely talking about themself while assuming they are qualified to speak for everyone else.

*****************

Intellectual scholarship virtually never trumps common sense.

*****************

One could never accuse Neville Chamberlain or Jimmy Carter of being a "war monger," but one could accuse them both of being just plain stupid.

*****************

Simply saying one is “for the underdog” is meaningless when one is the overdog and merely wants a punitive government to attack people richer than ones’ self.

*****************

The pen is mightier than the sword,...but the sword really hurts.

*****************

Some of the most ruthless and cruel extremists of history had gained their power partially through articulated bogus platitudes to moral virtue.

There is no law or indication that a person merely expressing a belief in "sharing," altruism, or moral goodness actually embodies any such principals. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the degree of passion in which one speaks for such values is inversely proportional to the actual degree of goodness the speaker embodies.

*****************

If I lived in a country where the state commanded all aspects of my life and where people were regularly arrested and punished for merely holding viewpoints that differed with those of the government, I would really be pissed off to hear of some free and well-off people saying "some people don't want to be free" or "we can't make them free."