THE NATION OF THE BEAST!
BLESSEDLY, THERE AREN'T THAT MANY OBAMAS IN THIS WORLD. PEOPLE FILLED WITH HATE WHO MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO DESTROY YOU AND THE UNITED STATES ARE UNCOMMON.
NUMEROUS OBAMA VOTERS HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO. THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES REVOLUTIONARY STATIST TICK---THE DEFECTIVE CONSCIENCES, THE OBSESSION AT ALL COSTS, THE ANTI-AMERICAN, ANTI-BUSINESS, MARXIST WORLDVIEW.
THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN PATIENTLY LYING IN WAIT FOR DECADES FOR THE MOMENT WHEN THEY WOULD SEIZE POWER.
AND NOW I SEE THE FEARFUL AND PUZZLED FACES OF MANY LIBERALS. THEY KNOW SOMETHING IS WRONG. I WRIGHT TO INFORM PEOPLE AND TO WARN. BEHOLDING THE DARKNESS THAT SWIRLED AROUND HIM, HIS ANTI-CHRISTIAN REMARKS, PRO-MUSLIM THINKING, AND WORLD RULE VIEWS.
I AWAKENED THE MOMENT OBAMA CAME ON THE SCENE. AND EACH DAY WHEN PELOSI ACTS LIKE A WACKED OUT QUEEN AND OBAMA WHIPS UP THE MASSES, MY SOUL ROARS LIKE THUNDER. WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT COMPOSED OF OBAMAS. THEY DON'T BAT AN EYE ABOUT SPOILING AND PLUNDERING TO FULFILL THEIR SOCIALISTS ENDS.
WHY DO THEY DO THIS? HOW CAN PEOPLE BE SO COLD OF HEART?
IT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. IT'S WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY DO!
BECAUSE THE TRAGIC THING ABOUT THE OBAMAS OF THE WORLD IS THIS: PEEL THE LAYER OFF THEIR OUTER SHELL. STRIP THEM OF THEIR FALSE SELF. REMOVE THE FAKE BRAVADO AND COZY CHARM.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK DEEP INSIDE, DEEP INTO THEIR CORE, WHAT DO YOU SEE? YOU SEE NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL!
WHY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANNOT SURVIVE
The Democratic Party is unlikely to survive. This outcome is effected by Obama, but not directly caused by him. Likewise, the latest election results are confirming rather than causal. The party's amazing success since the 1930s contained the seed of its demise.
The Meaning of the Recent Elections
In the two most recent elections, each political party was soundly, sequentially rejected, but for different reasons. Simply and bluntly:
One party lost because it misbehaved; the other because it revealed itself.
Obama's election was erroneously interpreted as a mandate for radical change by left-wing loonies. In spite of his uniqueness, Obama's election was more a vote against Republican spending, hypocrisy, and general misbehavior than a vote for Democrats. Socialist Obama unwisely tried to impose his vision on the country.
His overreach scared many and unleashed the coerciveness that George Washington warned about: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Government arrogance and arbitrariness initiated a groundswell of concern that coalesced into the Tea Party movement. Ridiculed by the elites in both major parties, the Tea Party provided an outlet for voter rage, a point still not grasped by either party.
The last election was a referendum on Obama and his extremist policies. The Democrat raw grasp for power ensures that they will not do well in the next several elections. This is troubling, but not enough to destroy the Party.
Getting elected (and then reelected) is the primary political motivation. But getting elected and governing are two different activities. Party principles have to serve both functions. Often they serve one better than the other. Content from an e-mail cleverly illustrates the difference:
Two third-graders are running for class president. Johnny's platform includes a detailed program to improve various school matters and a commitment to work hard. His opponent, Mary, promises free ice cream for everyone. Mary is elected by an overwhelming margin.
Johnny's election campaign is similar to Republicans', while Mary's is similar to Democrats'. Republican principles are not as effective in an election campaign when competing against free ice cream. Sacrifice, abstinence, and/or self-reliance are a form of political "root canal" when compared to "freebies."
In the 66 years from 1945 forward, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress and the presidency for twenty years, and Republicans six years. Democrats controlled both Houses for 44 years, and Republicans fourteen years, with ten of those since 1995."
The ice cream strategy was implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. Arguably, this strategy created the modern Democratic Party. It rescued a floundering party and enabled it to become dominant. From a political standpoint, the strategy was pure genius. From an economic standpoint, it produced a slower growth path for the country.
This new reality is devastating for Democrats. They are dependent upon a diverse, disjointed collection of groups pieced together over the years by ad hoc, quid pro quo tactics. Holding a disparate coalition together was tenuous when benefits were available. Holding them together when benefits are being cut is unlikely.
The Democrats have no coherent message other than bigger government and more benefits. Both parts of that message are now obsolete. Is it possible for them to develop a meaningful strategy that can keep them alive? I think not. Their coalition is too fragmented to hold under a governing rather than electing strategy. Furthermore, the groups are so conditioned to "more" that it is unlikely that they can be maintained under the "less" strategy in store for the country.
It is not impossible for the Democratic Party to survive, but only unlikely. If there is a strategy that they might successfully adopt, it is apt to be that we will give you less than you got before but more than the other guys will. With so many voters sucking on the government teat, it is possible that such a strategy could be implemented with some success.
My guess is that the Republicans will become the party of the left, although not much left of where they are today. A new party will evolve to the right of the Republicans, probably based on an original interpretation of the Constitution. Many Democrats will migrate to the Republican Party, while many Republicans will migrate to the newly formed party.
This realignment, which will take place over a decade or two, will formalize a major shift rightward in the politics and policies of the country. Similar adjustments will occur in other social welfare states.
OBAMA! We the people have stated resolutely we reject your vision for our country! We are a capitalist nation of achievers not welfare receivers. We will not accept tyranny under any guise.
Your policy to redistribute the fruits of our labor is Marxist statism, and will not be tolerated. We will not stand idle at your attempt to destroy the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever seen by using illegal and unconstitutional gangster tactics to systematically dismantle the greatest nation on earth. Shame, shame on you!!
We are an exceptional people, we have built an exceptional nation with God’s help and no Chicago Marxist thug is going to change it! It's a matter of pride and self respect, enough said!
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and heart to get there. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”
~ Ronald Reagan
BOOKSHELF - Books link to Amazon.com for some interesting reading.
Only a Matter of Time
The time before that, the moochers and the looters tried to fake Bush documents -- except that the conservative blogosphere caught them red-handed, so they missed their mark.
But the party of haters, infiltrators, anti-capitalists, the party that is anti-freedom and anti-individual rights, is going to have to pull off something really catastrophic to stay in power this November. And they will,because it is abundantly clear now that they despise the premise of America and they mean to replace it with statism, the source of untold, incomprehensible human misery for centuries.
Ayn Rand wrote of statism that:
a statist system -- whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or 'welfare' type -- is based on the ... government's unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. ... Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.
With chilling prescience, Rand said, "The basic principle and the ultimate results of all statist doctrines are the same: dictatorship and destruction. The rest is only a matter of time."
Only a matter of time.
We have a long and terrible fight in front of us. The fight is as big as the idea, the foundation, the being of this great nation, the fight for America. Yes, it's as big as all that, and the enemy is ruthless, unscrupulous, and evil -- and willing to do whatever it takes to assume absolute control. They build nothing, produce nothing, create nothing, invent nothing. They steal. They demand. They demoralize. They are destroyers.
As the Economy Slows
The economic news — on growth, consumers, housing and manufacturing — was bad enough before the jobs report for July, released last Friday. The report leaves no doubt that a slowdown is well under way. The odds of renewed recession remain uncomfortably high.
And yet, the response from Washington has been inadequate, at best, with Democratic initiatives too timid and Republicans bent on obstruction. When legislation does emerge from the gridlock, it is invariably a disappointment in the face of a dissolving recovery.
Case in point: Another 131,000 jobs were lost in July, according to the latest employment report, and job loss in June was revised to 221,000, from 125,000. The unemployment rate held steady, at 9.5 percent, but that is only because 181,000 people quit looking for work last month.
Such “missing workers,” those who either have dropped out or have never entered the labor force since the recession began, now number 3.9 million. That’s on top of 14.6 million officially unemployed and 8.5 million who are working part time but need full-time jobs.
There is no positive spin for this. Many of the recent losses resulted from the end of temporary jobs with the Census, but private-sector employment has also slowed sharply. At the same time, huge budget shortfalls have led to escalating job loss among state and local government workers. Against that backdrop, the Senate passed a bill last week — just before its summer break — to provide an additional $26 billion in aid to the states, including paying for 140,000 teachers. Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the House back from vacation, and it is expected to approve the aid this week.
What gets lost in the frenzy is the fact that the measure started out as a $50 billion effort — divided between help for states to pay their share of Medicaid bills and aid for education. At that level, it was a reasonable response to anticipated budget shortfalls estimated at well over $100 billion this year. Now, deep spending cuts and tax increases will still be needed to balance budgets, undermining the recovery.
Worse, the bill was scaled down as it was becoming increasingly clear that the economy was deteriorating, a sign of the rift between policy making and reality.
The Senate left town last week without passing a modest bill to spur small-business lending. Republicans used delay tactics to block a vote. Now the bill will not move until fall, a setback that could ripple through the Senate calendar, putting other plans to create jobs in energy and infrastructure in legislative limbo.
With unemployment persistently high, the economy is losing whatever momentum it had after last year’s stimulus. Recovery, such as it is, appears to be a repeat of the lopsided growth of the Bush years, with corporate profits rebounding and jobs and incomes lagging. Back then, policy makers advised patience, saying that with time, economic gains would distribute themselves more evenly. We know how that ended.
There is no one way to foster job growth. There are many ways, and they should all be deployed. Maybe after Congress gets back from vacation.
Editorial - New York Times
President Obama’s loyalists have commented on his pragmatic approach to policy matters, ostensibly to distance him from the Reagan/George W. Bush leadership styles and to mask his ideological past and his current Presidential policies. Those touting Mr. Obama as someone who rises above the political fray and is a “thinking out of the box” pragmatist are disingenuous at best. Especially when one ponders his rigid worldviews grounded in ideological progressive/socialist approaches to resolving matters of domestic and foreign interest.
If President Obama is a pragmatist, rather than an ideologue, then his approach to policy matters seems eerily like some form of self-styled pragmatism that suits his progressive/socialist ideologies. One must also question whether any notion of basing U.S. policy decisions on pragmatism lends itself to matters of American government. For all those who praise Mr. Obama for his pragmatism, it begs the question, at what price pragmatic?
If we in fact conclude that Mr. Obama does employ (and by his and his loyalist’s accounts he does) pragmatism in policy-making decisions, is it employed at the expense of the fundamental laws embodied within the U.S. Constitution? Are Americans left with a President that either affronts the U.S. Constitution as a "tool" through which he applies self-indulgent pragmatic theory or an ideological progressive/socialist shrouding himself in some form of high-minded pragmatism?
Not an attractive set of questions for Americas to answer. However, it's Obama's worldviews that hold the answer key.
Obama’s Pragmatist Loyalists
Mr. Hayes musters off a list, all “FOBs” (Friends of Obama) mind you, ranging from inner-circle types such as Vice-President Biden, Valerie Jarrett and Cass Sunstein to liberal political commentators such as David Sanger, Glenn Greenwald and George Packer, who depict Mr. Obama as an admirable pragmatic populist progressive thinker. Ms. Jarrett can sum up their views in Mr. Hayes’s article, when she is quoted as saying,
"I'm not sure people understand how pragmatic he is. He's a pragmatist. He really wants to get things done".
Get things done, indeed. Get things done by any means necessary, pragmatic or otherwise and damn the U.S. Constitution, but as a tool for his means.
President Obama has also not been shy about cloaking his ideological worldview penchants in the name of pragmatism. In an interview with Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes then President-elect Obama states that when it comes to economic policy, he doesn't want to "get bottled up in a lot of ideology and 'Is this conservative or liberal?' My interest is finding something that works." Mr. Obama also alluded to his pragmatic approach with his humorous comment to GOP lawmakers at the House Republican retreat by saying, “I am not an ideologue”. A very “he doth protest too much” moment reminiscent of President Nixon’s famous plea, “I am not a crook”.
In his article entitled “Obama: A pragmatic moderate faces the 'socialist' smear”, Mr. Ornstein begs the question on those who characterize President Obama’s policies as progressive/socialist through an excruciating excuse-making tirade defending Obama’s policies through the lens of pragmatism. Ornstein states the following,
"This president is a mainstream, pragmatic moderate, operating in the center of American politics; center-left, perhaps, but not left of center.”
Pragmatism is commonly understood as a practical approach to problems and affairs; however its roots run much deeper. Pragmatism is a philosophical movement, developed in the United States, which holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome. Pragmatists claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Fundamental to pragmatism is a strong anti-absolutism and a philosophy of mutable truth and ideas that are true insofar as they are useful in a specific situation; what works today in one case may not work tomorrow in another case. Ethical ideas are accepted as long as they continue to work. The standard of moral truth is expediency.
C.S. Peirce, William James and John Dewey are leading early American pragmatist theorists. In Louis Menand’s “The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America" they all believed that,
"ideas are not 'out there' waiting to be discovered, but are tools—like forks and knives and microchips—that people devise to cope with the world in which they find themselves… And they believed that since ideas are provisional responses to particular and irreproducible circumstances, their survival depends not on their immutability but on their adaptability. Under the Darwinian imperative of pragmatism, we must be prepared to discard our old ideas as readily as we discard our old tools."
Therefore the true pragmatist casts all ideas to the wind, unless they serve an immediate purpose towards an expedient and practical solution. As we meander through this murky wetland to resolve President Obama's use of pragmatism, keep in mind that the American Constitution is rife with ideas.
Of the three leading founders of pragmatism in America, John Dewey (1859-1952) appears to be the most identifiable with President Obama's approach to pragmatic governing to further his worldviews. Author of “The School and Society”, Dewey was one of the founders and the leading philosopher of “progressive” education and developed his educational philosophy when he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago in 1894, coincidentally Obama's former employer. He founded the university's Laboratory School to test scientifically his ideas for improving education.
John Dewey was a democratic socialist who applied his "tool", the idea of socialism, to advance his pragmatic beliefs as to his worldview of a new social order by using children's education as a catalyst. Dewey's dangerous contributions to progressive educational techniques advanced the theory that schools should condition children for the desired "social order.
Dewey’s goal was to achieve a utopian “equality” implemented by government intervention in the private sector, so that men can obtain their “wants” as well as their needs. It was the children Dewey targeted as the means by which to obtain his desire. Dewey dismissed as irrelevant the teaching of fundamental knowledge such as reading, writing, math, and science. Both the educator and the students are to be flexible and tentative. His purpose of a school was to foster social consciousness. Dewey’s new school would become a vehicle for the de-alienation and socialization of the child. The school would be an embryonic socialist community in which the progress of the student could only be justified by his relation to the group.
John Dewey wanted government to take over all education via government schools. He praised socialist Edward Bellamy as his “Great American Prophet” after Bellamy wrote the book “Looking Backward” wherein Bellamy penned his totalitarian vision. Dewey was fascinated by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and between 1920 and 1928 wrote many articles praising the “new” educational system imposed by the totalitarian socialists. At the invitation of the Commissar of Education in 1928, Dewey traveled to the new USSR. (For greater insight into the damage John Dewey inflicted on America’s educational system please refer to articles by Chuck Roger in the "American Thinker", Bruce Deitrick Price in "American Chronicle" and Bob Cheeks’ review of the book “John Dewey and the Decline of American Education” by Henry T. Edmondson).
Dewey's social pragmatism envisioned a collective society that assures "the full growth of all its individuals," a society in which "individualism and socialism" become one. According to John Dewey’s social pragmatism, what is true is that which works for a society (not for an individual) through the promotion of the public good. Dewey advocated a relativistic (truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them), secularized form of altruism that calls for sacrificing oneself to attain the ends of the People. In this view society, rather than the individual, passes moral judgment. Social policies are measured by their consequences instead of by abstract principles of what is right or just. He considered himself a democratic socialist in the 1920s and '30s, and questioned corporate capitalism's capacity to promote democratic values.
John Dewey’s beliefs were codified in and he was a signer of the “Humanist Manifesto” in 1933. A debatable name given it's inherent affirmational affronts to humane opportunities for freedoms, innovation and independence. This Manifesto, authored primarily by educators at the University of Chicago and Columbia University, was a total and complete abdication of theism--God does not exist! In fact the first affirmation within this Manifesto is,
“ Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.”
“ existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.”
"One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organising and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
“Political discussions, the kind that at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences that I sometimes attended at Cooper Union or the African cultural fairs that took place in Harlem or Brooklyn during the summers-a few of the many diversions that New York had to offer, like going to a foreign film or ice-skating at the Rockefeller Center.”
President Obama brings home his Deweyian worldview beliefs when he made his Berlin Wall anniversary speech on July 24, 2008. In that speech then candidate Obama espoused his new social order calling for a “citizens of the world” view denouncing prosperity opportunities in any one nation, i.e., the U.S. In his speech he said the following,
"the walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand … the walls between … natives and immigrants ... cannot stand. These now are the walls that we must tear down. We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity."
In fact, the God-less, antitheist, pragmatists of the progressive/socialists International Humanist and Ethical Union endorsed and applauded President Obama's election victory by saying,
"It was not merely necessary that Barack Obama become the President of the United States, it was vital that he become so through popular mandate."
Obama’s Constitutional Tools To
Advance His Worldview
Mr. Hayes, Ornstein et alia pragmatism defense is all fatally flawed. If President Obama indeed has employed social pragmatism in his policies then how does it all appear to be conveniently and singularly seen through the worldview prism of a progressive/socialist agenda? The challenge for all Obama pragmatist defenders is to uncover an example of one domestic policy issue taken up by President Obama that utilized America’s free-market capitalist system. As the President has stated when railing against Wall Street profits and consistent with his worldview enunciated in his Berlin speech,
“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses, now’s not that time”.
Perhaps now, Mr. Hayes, Ornstein et alia, is not the pragmatic "time” to find such examples.
The President's worldviews were also evident in his teaching days at the University of Chicago's law school. As a law professor Obama was known as a pragmatic when it came to interpreting the Constitituion. He utilized the Constitution simply as a tool to find the sweet spot on how to level-set societal needs, avoiding any high theory when it came to Constitutioanl interpretation. As Jodi Kantor reports in the New York Times,
"Former students and colleagues describe Mr. Obama as a minimalist (skeptical of court-led efforts at social change) and a structuralist (interested in how the law metes out power in society). And more than anythingelse, he is a pragmatist who urged those around him to be more keenly attuned to the real-life impact of decisions. This may be his distinguishing quality as a legal thinker: an unwillingness to deal in abstraction, a constant desire to know how court decisions affect people’s lives.Though Mr. Obama rarely spoke of his own views, students say they sensed his disdain for formalism, the idea —often espoused by Justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but sometimes by liberals as well — that law can be decided independent of the political and social context in which it is applied."
Stimulus bill: she writes that on the spending limitations in the Constitution, Madison wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
ObamaCare: there is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to be taking over the health care system, forcing taxpayers to pay for the health care of others, and requiring individuals to have health care insurance – on pain of fines and incarceration. To date thirteen states have challenged ObamaCare as unconstitutional.
ObamaCzars: President Obama now has almost three dozen of these policy analysts working in the White House. In the past, Congress has created about a dozen offices for the president with the top position held by a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. Obama has tripled this number and none of his new czars have been confirmed by the Senate. This is beyond any constitutional executive powers; this is legislating by presidential fiat. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “He shall have power . . . and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” Article 2 does allow that the Congress may vest the appointment power in the president alone, by law – but Congress has not done this in regard to the cadre of new czars appointed by this president.
President Obama's loyalists either are blinded by political partisanship or can't see the proverbial forest for the trees when assessing the President's governing philosophy. The heart of his philosophy is not pragmatism. That is simply a means to an end to create a worldview of collectivism. The Constitution, defining America's ideals, is merely a tool for Mr. Obama to apply pragmatic thought to achieve his worldview.
Post from PoliticalPolicy.net
• Obama's None-Too-Divine Comedy
• Obama's Hope and Lies
• What We Didn't Hear from Obama Last Night »
• The President's Oil Reserves Lie »
• Obama Deceives the Public »
• Revere America »
• Obama's Treachery »
• The Man Who Would Be King »
• Obama Fails the Test of Office »
• 'Leader with a Plan' Invites a Health Care Nightmare »
• Barack Obama: Let Them Eat Tar Balls »
• Tax Hikes and the 2011 Economic Collapse »
• The Government Bailouts Must End »
• Self Inflicted Defeat »
• America's Predicament »
BOOKSHELF - Books link to Amazon.com for some interesting reading.
• KARL ROVE »
• STEYN ONLINE »
• ATLAS SHRUGS »
• DRUDGE REPORT »
• INVESTORS »
• TOWN HALL »
• OPINION JOURNAL »
• AMERICAN THINKER »
• ARMAVIRUMQUE »
• BIG GOVERNMENT »
• BIG JOURNALISM »
• WEEKLY STANDARD »
• BREIBART NEWS MEDIA »
• CLAREMONT INSTITUTE »
• SCRAPPLEFACE »
• MICHELLE MALKIN »
• ROGER L. SIMON »
• TIM BLAIR »
• URGENT AGENDA »
• RICOCHET »
• REAL CLEAR POLITICS »
• HOT AIR »
• LUCIANNE »
• INSTAPUNDIT »
• FOX NEWS »
• GATEWAY PUNDIT »
• DARTBLOG »
• BIG LIZARDS »
• NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE »
• PAJAMAS MEDIA BLOG »
• GALLUP »
• BIG CHARTS »
• 740AM KTRH »
• 950AM MOJO »
• WALL STREET JOURNAL »
• PEW REPORT »
• CATO INSTITUTE »
• HERITAGE FOUNDATION »
• 9.12 REPORT »
• AMERICAN SPECTATER »