Detroit A Warning For Our Nation

August 4, 2012 24 Comments

Detroit is a classic left-wing city. A once great American city, it has become an absolute nightmare thanks to liberal policies. It’s lost more than half of its population in the last 60 years. Large portions of the city are abandoned. So much is abandoned that neighborhoods have become a dumping ground for the dead. Half of the streetlights in the city don’t work. A large portion of the lights date to the 1920′s. Beautiful buildings in downtown Detroit are completely abandoned and have been for decades. The people of the city just don’t seem to care anymore.

What happened to Detroit? It would be very easy to blame the racist administration of former Mayor Coleman Young. But white flight from the city began before he became mayor. His administration though can be thanked for whites not coming back to the city like they did in places like Cleveland in the 90′s. In fact, Coleman Young can be blamed for implementing any number of failed liberal policies. Make no mistake Coleman Young laid the groundwork for the racist extremists who occupy Detroit’s city council today. But Young wasn’t alone in his racism and liberal extremism.

Under Coleman Young Detroit decided it was going to be a liberal black city, to the exclusion of all other races. By kicking out everyone with money, they kicked out all of their tax revenue. By making excuses for crime, they turned Detroit into a crime ridden dump. When they wanted whites to return under Dennis Archer in the 90′s, few were willing to come back because of the previous couple decades and a city council that remained racist. The problem though wasn’t Young or the city council. They’re the focal point, the headline makers. The real problem though is the people who keep electing these racist liberals.

The issue in Detroit isn’t that it’s overwhelmingly majority black. The problem is that the church in Detroit has failed. Most of the men have nothing to do with church in Detroit, which is its own problem. The church itself is dominated by racist churches such as Obama’s church in Chicago pastored by Jeremiah Wright. Beyond that, Detroit has a church that will not discuss sin in any meaningful way. The combination is toxic. The result is that Detroit is crime ridden, people don’t care about each other and the government quite openly hates white people.

As such we can see what socialism does to a city just by looking at Detroit. People have lost the will to do things on their own. They expect government to do everything for them. They don’t care about their fellow man, they expect government to do that for them. When government doesn’t do a good job, its white people’s fault or the state government’s fault. It’s always someone else, it’s never the leftist policies or race politics that have dominated Detroit for half a century. Look at the pictures on Forgotten Detroit, read about the city government failures and read about the frozen man whose legs stuck out of the ice for weeks and no one cared.

There is hope for Detroit but it does not lie in the racist socialism that has dominated the city for years. It starts with the church returning to Biblical Christianity. It begins with a repudiation of the racism that has dominated Detroit both under black and white governments. It requires self reliance rather than reliance on government. If the people of Detroit stop relying on government, it won’t matter as much that the city fails at providing even basic government services. Detroit is a stark warning about the future if we adopt socialism, drive business out and embrace liberal racism. We must pray that the nation looks at Detroit and chooses a different path.

Filed under culture Tagged with , , , , , , ,

NEA Supports Social Justice; Opposes Conservatives & Republicans

July 5, 2012 4 Comments

The National Education Association and its various state surrogates largely control education in this country. The NEA is a progressive organization, founded over a century ago to push government funded education on Americans. Knowing that the progressive vision they wanted could not be achieved at the moment, the NEA focused its attention on the next generation. Thus each generation is taught by increasingly progressive teachers and comes out more progressive than their parents. Conservatives love to claim the government schools aren’t successful at educating children. It is true the government schools have a terrible time teaching reading and writing. But that isn’t their goal, their goal is to produce a more progressive generation. In that, the government schools, controlled by the NEA, have been wildly successful.

The NEA recently held their annual Representative Assembly wherein over 9,000 members attended. Executive Director John Stocks admonished NEA members to be “social justice patriots.” Stocks told NEA members to support Occupy Wall Street, the Dream Act and to fight “voter suppression” via photo ID requirements. He attacked Republicans, corporations and “1 percenters.” He praised NEA members who fought Republicans and encouraged even more confrontation.

Keep in mind, Stocks is speaking to the people educating children at your local public school. Some people will listen to his speech and look at the other stuff at the convention and wonder what any of it has to do with educating children. We cannot forget that the NEA doesn’t care about teaching reading, writing and arithmetic. They’ll pay lip service to it of course but it isn’t their purpose. Their purpose is to feed progressive propaganda to children, turn them against their parents if their parents are conservative and thus influence the next generation. Social justice is their goal, not actual education.

If you are a Christian, conservative or Republican why do you have your children in these evil government schools? Those who pretend like their school is the “good” one are usually the ones most fooled by the NEA’s smoke and mirrors. When you have progressives teaching a progressive agenda, it matters not how many kids go to college or how well the football team is playing. Pretending that a school is amazing because it has a French program doesn’t negate the fact that they are teaching students that a conservative outlook is antiquated, that the Christian faith is dead and that evil is good. If you think that NEA teachers check their politics at the door you’re crazy. Why ever would you think that a group of people who go to conventions to attack Republicans wouldn’t launch such attacks in the classroom?

For the Christians sending their kids to these schools, you’re basically sending them into a den of Satan. Prayer is banned, Christians are persecuted and if you think your 10 year old is going to save his fellow students you’re out of your mind. Our children belong to the Lord, not to the government schools. We must raise them and educate them in a Christian manner. The government schools, run by the NEA, do the opposite. They are attacking your child, all in the name of social justice and the progressive way. Why do so many Christians risk their kids at these schools? It is something that forever baffles me.

The NEA is an evil organization. I strongly encourage everyone to buy a copy (or borrow) of Samuel Blumenfeld’s book NEA Trojan Horse. Blumenfeld details the history of government education in America and the evolution of the National Education Association. The origins and goals of the NEA at its founding ought to shock everyone. Their goal has always been a godless, progressive society focused on socialism and social justice. We conservatives and Christians have to make a stand against government education. We must remove our children from these cesspools of progressivism. If we don’t, we’ll sacrifice our children and the next generation. It isn’t enough to support Scott Walker or various state level legislative reforms. It isn’t enough to run for  a spot on the school board. We need to take control ourselves and that means removing our children from these schools. The battle begins at home.

Filed under Education Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Evil Muslim Brotherhood Controls Egypt, Soros & Obama Rejoice

June 25, 2012 3 Comments

The Muslim Brotherhood has elected Mohammed Morsi as President of Egypt. You’ll recall that the Muslim Brotherhood would like to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and was nevertheless supported by the Obama administration during the Arab Spring revolution last year. Just last month Morsi was introduced at a rally by cleric Safwat Higazi who declared that Jerusalem will be Egypt’s new capitol. There’s little doubt that Morsi agrees, the entire Muslim Brotherhood is hellbent on war with Israel. A war in the middle east would be a disaster for the United States, it would create chaos which would ultimately harm us.

Various George Soros funded organizations (Code Pink for example) have supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s revolution. It’s always interesting to see American leftist groups, particularly feminist groups, support the Caliphate efforts in the middle east. One Egyptian beat his pregnant wife to death for not voting the right way, Code Pink doesn’t seem to have anything to say about that. In any event, the goals of Soros and the Muslim Brotherhood are similar. They hate capitalism, they hate Israel and they seek to create chaos and overthrow the existing power structure. As such they’re temporary allies despite the fact that they have fundamental disagreements.

What we are seeing in Egypt is democracy in action. It should remind us why democracy is evil, it’s little more than mob rule. Our founders created a republic. The power is with the people but our ability to create mob rule is significantly diminished. A republic protects individual rights, democracy on the other hand tramples all over them. The left loves to talk about democracy, in their minds if they can get one vote over 50% they can run roughshod over individual rights and implement socialism or in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood their goal is to create an Islamic Egypt and a caliphate. Individual rights mean nothing to these people.

The leftists in Wisconsin spent a year talking about democracy, they spent a year linking their effort to oust Scott Walker to the Arab Spring. These two very different groups have one thing in common which is a desire to control people via democracy. They hate individualism and individual rights. In the upcoming months we’ll see countless examples of Morsi and the Brotherhood denying individual rights all for the “good” of Islam. Of course American leftists like George Soros won’t have anything to say about it. But the Brotherhood murders people, remember that is what democracy looks like.

What’s incredible is that our President supports all of this nonsense. Obama isn’t a Muslim, he’s a leftist. Unfortunately American leftists are very much supportive of the fascist Muslim Brotherhood and the chaos they’re bringing to the middle east. Like with Hitler and Mussolini in the 20′s and 30′s, radical American leftists view what’s happening in the middle east as a dry run for what they want to bring here to the United States. Like with the fascist movement in Europe (which was socialist and generally lauded by American leftists until Hitler attacked the Soviet Union) the middle east won’t provide a dry run. But what it will do is bring major chaos to the world, perhaps war in Israel.

We should oppose the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt. Not because we imagine that modern Israel is more than just another country and not because Israel is an ally. We should oppose the takeover because it brings instability to the middle east, which becomes a threat to us militarily and economically. It brings us closer to a middle east, Muslim caliphate. Don’t forget, the Brotherhood isn’t just in Egypt they’re to be found throughout the Islamic world. Islam is a religion of blood and conquest, a caliphate would be incredibly dangerous for the United States and western life. But don’t expect the current occupant of the White House to care about that. He’s an American self loather who would rather our nation become weak. With the Brotherhood in control in Egypt, America is weaker because we now have less influence in the middle east.

Filed under foreign policy Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Documents Prove Obama Joined The Radical Socialist New Party

June 9, 2012 Leave a comment

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has obtained evidence that President Obama signed the socialist New Party candidate contract in 1996 prior to his first run for State Senate in Illinois. ACORN apparently has minutes of a New Party meeting which were given to the Wisconsin Historical Society which show Obama signed the New Party contract and joined. The New Party was a radical socialist group that wanted to push the Democrat Party into a democratic socialist party similar to that in Europe. This isn’t new news, it came out in 2008. However, Obama vehemently denied being part of the New Party at the time and denied having connections to ACORN.

Does this prove that Obama is a socialist? Earlier this week the AP pushed the idea that Obama is not a socialist, based on no evidence whatsoever. That Obama was part of the New Party when he ran for State Senate in Illinois is significant because it suggests that at one time Obama was a socialist. More importantly it shows that Obama was a radical socialist as an adult. It’s easy to discount ties to socialist groups if Obama was in college or even in law school. But to be apart of it as an adult running for an important office is significant.

Does it prove though that Obama is a socialist today? His policies are more likely to prove his socialist tendencies than his one time New Party affiliation. Because Obama lied to the public when he denied ties in 2008 we have not had the opportunity to examine whether he’s shifted his position. It would be one thing if Obama had said that at one time he supported the ideals of the New Party but changed his mind on this that or the other issue for this that or the other reason. We could have seen an evolution of Obama’s viewpoint and judged for ourselves whether or not Obama was a socialist in 2008. Instead he lied and we got no such opportunity.

This is in stark contrast to Mitt Romney who we can look at and see an evolution in conservative thought over the last 10+ years. Romney has at times called himself a progressive Republican, he was at one time pro-abortion. He seems to have shifted from that position toward a more conservative outlook. It isn’t likely as far to the right as most of us would like, but there is little doubt there is a shift of some sort. With Obama because he lied to us in 2008 we were not afforded the opportunity as a nation to discuss whether we wanted someone who had been part of a radical socialist party sitting in the White House. We didn’t have a chance to discover whether Obama had shifted positions before he was elected, we were forced to trust his word that he wasn’t a New Party member.

But he was a New Party member, he signed a candidate statement and joined the party. He at least assented to the idea that the Democrat Party must be transformed into a radical socialist party. Rather than be honest about his past, he lied. Whether he’s shifted from the views of the New Party are up for debate. But there’s no denying that Obama was part of this radical socialist group. Not only was he a member, he assented to their radical viewpoints when running for State Senate.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , ,

Is Obama A Socialist? AP Has No Idea

June 5, 2012 3 Comments

The Associated Press is running a supposed fact check article asking whether Obama is a socialist. The premise of the article is that conservatives are calling Obama a socialist but according to the “facts” Obama simply isn’t a socialist. As we will see, the article itself lacks in facts but it doesn’t lack in opinion and accusation.

According to the article no real socialist believes Obama is one of them.

Terence Ball, a political scientist at Arizona State University, said “socialist’ has gained currency as an anti-Obama slur because “the ‘L’ word (liberal) has lost it shock value.”

“I grow weary of Obama and the Democrats being called socialist,” said Ball, who has written about ideologies. “If you talk to any real socialist, they disown them very, very quickly.”

Professor Bell starts off alleging that liberal has lost its shock value so those rotten conservatives have turned to calling Democrats socialists. He’s personally tired of hearing Obama and Democrats being called as such. Then the good professor provides us with hearsay evidence that socialists have disowned Obama. Where are the facts? We have Professor Bell’s personal opinion and his hearsay accusation that socialists disown Obama. If the AP were doing a real factual article, they would have found an actual socialist who disowns Obama or provided us with evidence that large socialist organizations have disowned the President. As it stands the Communist Party USA endorsed Obama in 2008 as did several other socialist organizations.

The AP did actually find a socialist to talk to, though no word as to whether he disowns Obama. We’ll leave that issue for hearsay to determine. This socialist said the following on Obamacare:

“It makes absolutely no sense,” said Greg Pason, national secretary of the Socialist Party USA. Obama’s health care overhaul “is anything but socialist. It’s bailing out for-profit companies.”

Yet Pason has been pleased by the “socialist” rhetoric.

“We’ve had an opportunity to talk to people, and that’s been a blessing,” he said. “People have actually researched socialist organizations.”

What the AP doesn’t tell you is that there’s more than one kind of socialist out there. There were any number of socialists who opposed Obamacare because it wasn’t a single payer system. Others viewed Obamacare as a stepping stone to single payer, much like Marx viewed socialism as a stepping stone to communism. Just because Obamacare isn’t single payer doesn’t mean it isn’t a socialist program or have socialist elements to it. After all, we have the government now dictating what is included in health insurance policies and determining how much will be spent on individual healthcare decisions.

The piece then went on to discuss Sen. Bernie Sanders, a socialist.

One of the few contemporary U.S. politicians to embrace the socialist label is Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He formally lists himself as an independent, but throughout his career — including stints as a mayor and House member — he’s described himself as a democratic socialist.

“Branding someone as a socialist has become the slur du jour by leading lights of the American right from Newt Gingrich to Rush Limbaugh,” Sanders said in 2009. “If we could get beyond such nonsense, I think this country could use a good debate about what goes on here compared to places with a long social-democratic tradition like Sweden, Norway and Finland, where, by and large, the middle class has a far higher standard of living than we do.”

 While the Senator does a good job slurring conservatives he doesn’t make the case whether Obama is a socialist one way or the other. This is meaningless filler which perhaps is there to distract our attention away from the lack of evidence that Obama isn’t a socialist.

The AP then quotes another professor, Norman Markowitz of Rutgers University.

“There’s this hysterical outbreak of abuse to prove that the president is not American, that he’s a secret Muslim, that policies that past Republican administrations would have adopted are part of a socialist, communist conspiracy,” Markowitz said.

Once again, no evidence that Obama isn’t a socialist. All we  have here is one professor’s opinion and slander of conservatives followed by baseless declarations about what past Republican administrations would have done. There’s no evidence that Obama isn’t a socialist from Markowitz, he doesn’t really have anything of value to say at all.

Keep in mind the entire purpose of this article is to prove that Obama isn’t a socialist. The AP has set this piece up by suggesting conservative are crazy for calling Obama a socialist and here’s the evidence that he isn’t actually one. The problem is that there’s no evidence opposing the position of some, but not all, conservatives. The opinions of a couple of college professors, a hearsay statement and one socialist criticizing Obamacare isn’t proof that Obama isn’t a socialist.

There is ample evidence that he is one, perhaps along the lines of the democratic socialists of Europe. He does believe in single payer healthcare and advocated it during the 2008 campaign for the Democrat nomination. He believes in a massive welfare state and redistribution of wealth. He so much as said so to Joe the Plumber and he’s said it at various times as President. He believes in a massive regulatory environment and limitations on business, including business speech.

He’s a socialist, perhaps not as far left as the some of the communists or a number of other socialist groups but he is a version of a socialist. In many ways he’s a typical progressive, willing to inch his way towards socialism. The AP countered none of the conservative arguments against him though. At best the Socialist Party USA secretary’s attack on Obamacare ”proves” the AP’s case. But even in that, Pason’s argument is so ridiculous that it calls into question his ability to speak for his group. After all, health insurance companies are hardly in need of a bailout in light of the high amount of profits they earn.

The AP set out to prove conservatives are crazy slanderers. The AP no doubt believes it proved their case, otherwise they wouldn’t have published this article. But the fact is, the AP didn’t prove anything. It takes more than the opinion of a couple of random college professors and their hearsay arguments and one irrational critique by a socialist to prove the AP’s case. Whether or not Obama is a socialist can be determined objectively by looking at his policies and beliefs. Surely the AP is capable of putting together a substantive piece. But of course, that would require work. It’s much easier to quote opinions and hearsay than actually write something of substance.

 

Filed under socialism Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Electricity Prices On The Rise Thanks To Obama

May 23, 2012 4 Comments

In 2008 candidate Obama brazenly told the San Francisco Chronicle that he wanted energy prices to skyrocket. He specifically said that he wanted to bankrupt anyone who attempted to build a new coal power plant. Obama wasn’t able to pass Cap & Trade legislation which would have aided in his effort to bankrupt the coal industry. But we should never forget that Obama much prefers to do things unilaterally and in this case he’s done just that. Obama has created new regulations which have caused a number of coal plants which produce electricity for many Americans to go offline. He’s achieved his purposes without Congressional action.

The result for Americans? Coal powered electricity is down from 44.6% last year to just 36% this year, all thanks to Obama’s new regulations. There has been no increase in output from other electric sources, be they nuclear, wind or water to offset the loss of coal. As such, prices are set to rise, especially in areas where there were more forced coal plant closings. Northern Ohio in particular has been extremely hard hit by coal plant closings thanks to Obama. Unfortunately most in Ohio won’t notice it until their electric prices increase substantially after the election.

None of this should be a surprise to anyone who actually paid attention to what Obama said he was going to do in 2008. But for the many Americans who went along with hope and change and the novelty of electing a black president you have to wonder if they knew massive electricity price increases were part of the ‘fundamental transformation’ of the nation Obama talked about. Likely not. These electric price increases are 100% thanks to Obama and his policies. Electricity prices were on the downward swing when he entered office because of new technology (not green).

With the substantial increase in electricity prices, you have to wonder what energy industry that Americans rely on Obama will attack next. Gas prices have doubled since he took office, so that’s off the list unless he wants them to double again. How about natural gas? Natural gas prices have plummeted over the last decade thanks to shale drilling. The left originally loved shale drilling because it’s clean and non-intrusive. Of course when natural gas prices dropped the left turned on natural gas and now they complain about shale drilling. Perhaps this is next on Obama’s anti-energy crusade.

President Obama is the most anti-energy President we have ever had. He bragged before he got elected about how he was going to destroy the coal industry and make prices increase. So far he’s done just that. Obama alone is responsible for the increase in your electricity bill. It is Obama and his regulators who have closed coal plants throughout the east and midwest. It is Obama who wants to bankrupt coal companies. It is Obama who bragged that energy prices were going to increase. It is Obama who you can blame when the electric bill increases, just like you can blame him for the price of gas for your car. It is Obama who refuses to drill, it is Obama who refuses to sign off on Keystone etc.

Obama hates energy. He hates the wealth that energy has created for this country. If he isn’t an Earth worshipper, he’s at least someone who has been bought by the Earth worshippers. But these people really aren’t about Earth first. They’re about socialism and control. Obama’s energy policy is about making us dependant on the government. Make no mistake, when electricity prices get high enough the left will clamor for the government to either take over the electricity industry or they’ll demand massive government subsidies. Either way, we’ll be dependant on the state. That’s what they’re after at the end of the day. Obama wants higher energy costs, he so much as said so in 2008. His reason is to make the average American dependant on the state.

Filed under energy Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Did Romney Really Cost People Jobs At Bain Capital?

May 22, 2012 2 Comments

There’s nothing worse than being forced to defend a candidate you don’t particularly like. But we’ll do that today in defense of Mitt Romney who has been unfairly attacked by President Obama concerning Bain Capital. Obama has so much as said the campaign is going to be about Bail Capital, presumably Mitt Romney’s time there. Obama is going to point to a number of layoffs, Romney will point to a number of successes. The question though is what is Bain Capital? If you don’t understand what Bain is then you don’t understand the layoffs or successes.

Bain is the business version of a house flipper. People who flip  houses buy dilapidated homes cheaply, renovate them and sell  them for a large profit. Bain does the same thing with businesses. They buy dying companies on the verge of bankruptcy cheaply, they restructure the company, get it profitable again and sell it for a large profit. Sometimes Bain is successful, they were with Staples and Burger King, Other times they aren’t successful and they suffer a loss.

It’s important to keep in mind though that the jobs lost under Bain’s watch likely would have been lost anyway. They weren’t buying successful businesses, they were buying unsuccessful businesses on the verge of closing their doors. It’s absurd to blame Bain Capital or Mitt Romney because some of their investments didn’t work out. If anything, Bain’s involvement pushed off layoffs at some of these companies for a  year or two because again Bain only bought dying companies.

Obama is attacking Romney, just like Newt did during the primaries. It’s an unfounded attack. Romney is responsible for saving or creating thousands of jobs at successful Bain projects. The job losses from unsuccessful Bain projects can hardly be attributed to Romney. Had Bain not purchased those businesses, the jobs would have been lost anyway when the company went bankrupt which they were all on the verge of. It’s unfortunate that people lost their jobs but they were going to lose their jobs anyway. Bain Capital and Mitt Romney tried to save those jobs and turn a profit for themselves and their investors at the same time.

Even some Democrats are annoyed at Obama’s attack on private equity firms. Newark Mayor and Obama supporter Cory Booker called Obama’s attack on Bain “nauseating.” He’s since backed off his comments, in what looks like a forced Gulag confession. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell called Obama’s attacks “disappointing.” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) defended Romney. It’s also important to note that Obama campaign bundler($200,000+)  Jonathan Lavine is a Bain executive.

Obama’s attacks on Romney and Bain Capital show a hatred of private enterprise. Obama’s perfectly ok with government spending tax money on green investments. He shrugs his shoulders when over 1,000 jobs are lost along with $500+ million in tax money at Solyndra. It’s only when private money is spent trying to turn a profit on dying companies that Obama begins to have problems. He ignores the successes of Bain Capital, the thousands of jobs that were created and the major companies that remain in business today because of Bain. He’s only interested in Bain’s inability to save a handful of jobs at a handful of bankrupt companies.

Bain is another in a long line of smoke and mirrors arguments coming from Obama. He doesn’t want to talk about his performance as President, he doesn’t want to talk about the economy. So he’s creating issues and fudging the truth to boot. A couple weeks ago it was homosexual marriage, now it’s Bain Capital. You would think there’s plenty to attack Romney over policy wise. But to debate policy with Romney is to open Obama up to attack on his failures as President. So to avoid that Obama is attacking Romney’s business. It’s pathetic, it’s shameful and it isn’t even accurate.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Julia A Campaign Scare Tactic

May 7, 2012 Leave a comment

The Obama campaign has put out a slightly bizzare web site titled the “Life of Julia.” It details the fictional Julia’s cradle to grave dependence on government and purports to show how Mitt Romney and the dastardly Republicans would “change her story.” We could spend time discussing how in three years Obama has already changed Julia’s life story by making the economy worse, thus costing dear Julia $4,000 in annual real income loss. We could discuss how the elderly Julia has been hurt by Obamacare, which cut $500 billion from Medicare.

Going back and forth over Julia herself takes away from the real issue with this Obama campaign website. There are two things at play here, first is Obama’s clear belief in cradle to grave government involvement in our lives. Second, it’s clear that Obama isn’t trying to appeal to moderates and independents anymore. He’s betting that he can get his base out in the sort of numbers he had in 2008.

Julia’s life begins with headstart, a program that doesn’t really work all that well and costs a fortune. But it sounds like a good idea and that’s all that really matters. She then is dependant on Federal education funding, never mind that most Americans want local government control rather than Federal control. She’s dependant on government loans and tax credits for college, never mind the tax credits are for her folks and not for her. She’s dependent on government to force her employer to pay for $5 a month birth control pills. Apparently without Obamacare Julia would be incapable of obtaining healthcare, nevermind that she’s a college graduate. She’s even dependant on government to help her start a business.

In short, Julia is incapable of doing anything on her own without government providing her with either a program or some other form of assistance. We could take it a step further, Julia could even ask the government what she should eat for dinner. Isn’t this what Mrs. Obama is after? What we see here in Julia is the Obama dream woman, completely dependant on government. That’s what he wants for all of us, that’s what he meant when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform America.” We don’t have an across the board cradle to grave welfare state, Obama wants to give us one.

What we also see in Julia though is that Obama has given up on independent voters. He’s trying to play the war on women card but what he’s really trying to do is shore up the 55% of women who voted for him in 2008. Keep in mind, Romney is doing no worse than McCain with women. Obama desperately needs to shore up his 2008 voters and ensure they come out to vote in November. Julia isn’t aimed at the 45% who voted for McCain and are nearly certain to vote for Romney. She’s aimed at his own voters, he’s trying to scare them into voting for him again despite the fact that his policies have been a disaster for women and in fact all Americans.

We’re going to see a lot more of this over the next six months. Obama is going to increase the divisive rhetoric as he tries to scare each group into voting for him. There will be no campaigning to white working class men who are swing voters. Instead, Obama will focus on getting out the black vote by playing the race card and touting various welfare programs, he’ll focus on Hispanic voters and try to scare them into supporting him again and he’ll focus on women. He isn’t after getting more votes, he’s interested in getting his 2008 voters to come back in 2012 out of fear of the alternative.

This is what Mr. Hope and Change has been reduced to, a campaign of fear and division. Whether it works remains to be seen. In 2010 the GOP picked up a good percentage of Obama’s Hispanic voters, they also picked up a portion of black voters more in line with their historical 10-15%. Young voters aren’t as enthralled with Obama today as they were in 2008. Not surprising considering the fact that 50% of college graduates can’t find jobs and young unemployment is over 20%. Obama is going to have a hard time scaring some of these groups into stuffing the ballot boxes in November. Obama clearly thinks gimmicks like Julia will convince current female fence sitters who voted for him in 2008 to vote for him again this year.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Forward! To What We Do Not Know

May 1, 2012 7 Comments

The Obama campaign announced it’s 2012 campaign slogan: Forward. Forward to what exactly isn’t clear from either the campaign or the President’s recent rhetoric. One could ask the same of progressives, what exactly are we progressing towards. Surely there is something we’re progressing or moving forward towards. What Obama’s end game is hasn’t been clear, what his second term goals are at this point is even less clear. We’ve wondered before what Obama’s second term goals are and it remains a mystery. If the GOP controls Congress the best bet is that a second Obama term would look a lot like the last year.

Forward is a curious slogan choice for a President who has long been accused of being a socialist or perhaps even a Marxist. It took conservative bloggers and news outlets all of thirty seconds to figure out that among Marxists the term Forward has great meaning. Several communist publications bare the name Forward. The Marxist view of history is that we are progressing towards a Communist utopia and we have to march forward through capitalism and socialism to get there. Surely if conservatives can figure out that Forward has that meaning in the Marxist, progressive world the Obama campaign knew as well. In fact, a slogan like this surely went by Obama himself. Are we to believe he had no idea what the left has used Forward for in the past?

The campaign must have calculated that the general public will be more starry eyed at the slogan than others they considered. They likely also calculated that the general public wouldn’t be interested in conservatives attack on the slogan, they must have a strategy of either playing dumb or distancing themselves from Forward’s communist ties already in place. Nevertheless, for a President who has been dogged by accusations of socialism, whose ties to Communists are numerous it’s a curious choice of slogan. They know what Forward means, they simply don’t care.

What exactly are we moving forward towards? The last three years we’ve seen unemployment above 8%. We’ve seen $5 trillion in new government debt created under Obama. Food stamps are up 75% since 2007. Gas prices have doubled. Real inflation is around 8%. The middle class is in a worse position today than it was when Obama took office. What exactly are we moving forward to? More food stamps, more welfare programs, more debt, more inflation, $5/gallon gas? Are we moving forward to the Obama administration filing more frivolous lawsuits against states like the Arizona immigration case currently at the Supreme Court? Are we moving forward towards more voter ID laws being illegally challenged by the administration? Are we moving forward to more racial and class divisions created by the President’s rhetoric?

The last few months we haven’t seen Obama move forward on anything. He’s proposed no new legislation, he’s offered up no new ideas and he’s certainly not offered to compromise on anything with the Republicans. He’s spent most of his time fundraising and attacking anyone who disagrees with him. The positive outlook of hope and change has become very negative and cynical. Is this what Obama wants to take us forward towards: Negativity and cynicism? With no plans on the table for a second term one has to wonder what he wants to move the nation forward towards. That he’s chosen a slogan that draws us all back to his radical left-wing roots doesn’t help him one bit. Forward won’t draw any new supporters.

Filed under 2012 election Tagged with , , , , , , , ,

Battle For OWS Control Heats Up

April 17, 2012 Leave a comment

There is a battle underway within the Occupy Wall Street crowd. A so-called battle for the soul of OWS is being waged between the “old” left, which is apparently represented by Obama supporting leftists and the “new” left which is apparently supported by people more radical and left-wing than moveon.org. Adbusters appears to be at the forefront of this OWS rebellion, though there are others. The question arises who is now in control of OWS. You get the feeling like the more peaceful Obama supporters are losing out to the more violent radicals.

What is this rebellion exactly? One thing to keep in mind is that all the OWS leaders are inter-connected. Van Jones, Stephen Lerner, the moveon.org gang, Adbusters, they’re all connected. The man giving money to everyone is George Soros. At first glance this battle appears to be one between the leaders of OWS and the rank and file of OWS. But that isn’t the case, this is a battle being waged in the upper leadership of OWS. The rank and file, as with all leftist movements, are just pawns being played by their leadership. The question coming out of this OWS rebellion is which group within the leadership will come out victorious and in fuller control of the OWS movement and in their minds the battle is over which group of leaders will take over once the US government is toppled. (that is their stated goal, as absurd as it is)

As it gets warmer we’re going to see more OWS protests. We’ve already seen many of them get violent this year, which suggests that in the very least the more radical of the OWS crowd has support. The radicals want violence and have advocated for so-called black bloc violence. A black bloc is a large group of people dressed head to toe in black who engage in violence. The purpose is to prevent the police from identifying any individual. In New York OWS radicals engaged in black bloc tactics, targeting at least two businesses.

If we look at OWS from a purely political standpoint, if the violent radicals take over the movement it can’t be anything but bad for Obama. Riots caused by leftists he’s associated with would destroy his re-election chances. Flashback to 1968, riots and violence caused by leftists ensured that Richard Nixon won. The far left already has their guy in the White House, it’s understandable why certain factions in OWS don’t want violence. They want to rally support for Obama’s re-election. These people truly believe that OWS is the leftist version of the Tea Party. They believe their goals are only four more years of Obama away from being realized. Their sincerity shouldn’t be doubted.

The problem though is that the left has always harbored bigger radicals than moveon.org. It has always contained a violent, chaotic element, whether it’s the Black Panthers, Adbusters or Anonymous. The goals are all the same, they all want a fundamental transformation of America away from capitalism towards socialism. Once we get to socialism, the left will fight with itself for ultimate control with the winner deciding socialism, fascism or communism. OWS has jumped the gun, fighting with themselves before they actually have full control. Which means one of two things, either the leadership is full of power hungry fools or they truly believe revolution is right around the corner and/or here. If the latter is true, it ought to terrify you. What do they know, what are they planning?

Ultimately OWS’s leadership believes their movement has more nationwide support than it really does. The radicals want to create mass chaos right now so as to push the nation towards the national salvation of socialism. In chaos the better organized wins and they know they’re better organized thus it’s in their interest to create the chaos necessary to force change. What the Obama types are legitimately concerned about is a backlash from the public against Obama if chaos happens. They rightfully see that the public will blame an already fairly unpopular President and it will set their movement back. How OWS plays out this spring and summer is anyone’s guess. There will be violence though, the violent faction will see to it.

Filed under ows Tagged with , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers