It’s no big deal: Even the communists are complaining

Little did Jimmy Carter know then, but just a few months later he would no longer be known as America's worst President ever. Image via Wikipedia

Repeat after me: It’s no big deal!

The world’s single-most important currency — the one the world trades in by default — continues to be devalued as the owner of that currency, the United States, has for the first time in history lost its sterling credit rating. And now the communist Chinese are complaining, and rightfully so: their return on investment is failing.

But hey, it’s no big deal!

The fact that the stock market fell 699 points last week, the largest weekly drop since the market lost more than 800 points in the first week of October 2008, can simply be chocked up to a bunch of nervous investors who will likely continue this knee-jerk reaction on Monday.

But it’s no big deal!

Why is October 2008 and the 15.24% drop in the US stock market that month an important benchmark?

Could it be that in the weeks leading up to the presidential election in November, 2008, when it became painfully clear that Barack the Magic Negro was poised to become the next President of the United States, financial markets were already starting to worry about what someone with such a distaste for America could do as its leader? After all, we already knew that the media weren’t going to do their job and actually try to discover what this blank-slate of a human being was all about, even though the smattering of comments we had from him over the previous years caused those of us willing to do our own research to increase our intake of antacids. Veteran newscasters Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw had already suggested that they weren’t willing to look into Obama’s record, even after admitting on television that they knew nothing of the man-child who rose to rock star status simply on the color of his skin and the crease in his pants.

Knee Jerk Reaction?

Knee-jerk #1: At the beginning of October 2008 the US stock market closed at 10,831. On the 6^th it closed at 9,955 and by Nov. 20^th was down to 7,552. It would finally bottom out in March of the following year at 6,626. How could all this be George W. Bush’s fault when everyone admits that markets are based on predictions of the future more than they are on current events.

And now, three years later we’re still in an economic depression; unemployment is even worse and all Barack the Magic Negro can do is continue to blame Bush and beg for an increase in the limit to the national credit card. In fact, he’s rung up so much debt that it’s now being reported that America’s borrowing has now matched its GDP.

It’s No Big Deal!

That’s the only logical impression sane Americans are left to assume of their government and their willing accomplices in the media after reading stories like this. How else can you explain the last three years? How else do you explain the fact that in all of what’s happened since it became apparent that Obama would win election that the media have utterly failed at connecting the dots between the economic abyss we’re in and Barack Hussein Obama?

While Obama has managed to amass more debt in three years than all the presidents combined going back to George Washington, America’s political leaders continue to argue like third graders in a game of kick ball where the rules are being made up on the fly.

Meanwhile, as Obama’s wife spends billions of taxpayer dollars globe trotting for another pair of shoes or a bad dress, real Americans are still out of work and are suffering through a malaise that makes Jimmy Carter’s term as America’s worst president — until now — pale in comparison.

But it’s no big deal.

A Bright Spot on the Horizon?

On a side note, there’s actually some good news out of California, where liberal social and fiscal policies have had a decades-long jump start on President Obama and his Marxist policies.

California’s exodus of taxpayers has now extended to illegal immigrants. That’s right, as the state’s unemployment continues in double-digit territory, illegal immigrants from south of the border are going… wait for it… Home to jobs and home to an unemployment rate that is less than 5%. According to another story in the Sacramento Bee this flight includes California’s next (legal) generation, probably the last people a state that actually seeks recovery would want. Then again nobody ever accused California leaders of sanity or common sense.

Not everyone is likely going to jump for joy over this news, though California Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown could technically claim that his policies, coupled with those of President Obama, are directly responsible for a considerable reduction in illegal immigration to the Tarnished State.

Think about it, with illegal aliens fleeing California who’s going to vote for the Democrats who caused California’s problems in the first place? Those are Democrat voters leaving California for jobs in a foreign country. Even so, if California’s woes are ever going to be corrected it’s going to take decades to tear down the wall that the Democrats built to keep in the bad fiscal and social policies and any semblance of fiscal and social sanity out.

I wonder what Mexico would do if we started flooding their sovereign border and protested in Mexico City for high-paying union jobs, free health care, drivers licenses so we can vote and free housing?

Related articles

• Surprise! Communist Party USA Officially Endorses Barack Obama (peregrine5700.wordpress.com)

The rise of Conservative media and the web it weaves

I had a question posed to me the other day that got me to thinking. I’ll expand the question somewhat to fill in some of the thoughts that ran through my mind as my friend and I talked about this.

Where are all the loud and avowed Conservative artists and how do we support them? The question really comes from a lament by a friend of mine that people might not be supporting Conservative artists as they do those who seem to loudly proclaim their Liberal ideals.

Take some of the more popular musical artists over the past 20-30 years. I’m sure some of us have been to concerts where at some point the great music stops and the tirades start regarding the latest political issue of the day. Sting did this in the late 80’s at a concert I was at. I wanted to yell, “shut up and sing!” I wasn’t there to hear his rant on why he thought Conservatives are simply the doormen at the Gates of Hell, I was there to hear him sing.

So maybe I shouldn’t have been there, but I liked his music, so I went.

I think this helps illuminate the main question: Where are the Conservative artists out there and what can we do to support them? After all, they seem to speak for many more Americans than do the Liberal artists who’s cause du jour has nothing to do with making America a better place to live and work. Just look at the rise of conservatism on social media, the Internet and through large events such as the Tea Party movement. There’s a groundswell of conservatism going on out there that can’t be ignored.

I came across one such artist recently who, in my own opinion, seems to have captured the sense of the rising anger in America: a righteous indignation over the principles and morals of a depraved Liberal society that believes people who work hard for what they have ought to be stripped of what they’ve earned so those who’ve sat on the proverbial couch and ate from the Liberal tray of chips can have more chips because somehow it’s not right to require them to work for a living so they can buy their own food, health care, houses and other things.

A visit to http://www.joedanmedia.com/ doesn’t take one long to discover that the Liberal mindset is one worthy of scorn, ridicule and contempt, if not simply an ideal who’s only worth is to spur laughter. It’s this mindset that has helped plunge the American economy into a massive recession. Certainly the similar Liberal policies that have plagued Europe for decades is the reason why the economy of Greece collapsed recently, and will likely be the cause of America’s ultimate collapse in the very near future if we can’t wrestle away the control of Congress from those who’s spending-spree attitude is nothing short of evil.

Many of these short video spots — the shortest is a 39-second spot that decries the desire of Liberals to confer US citizenship rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield, rather than dish out the appropriate punishment via our military — call attention to the utter degradation of America under Liberal rule. The site’s owner, Joe Dan Gorman, simply uses the statements of and facts surrounding those Liberal politicians who’s sole purpose is to remake America into their own fiefdom where the controlling authority is not democratic but authoritarian.

Such video messages can be very powerful if done right. Consider the “Daisy Girl” television ad, which ran one time on Sept. 7, 1964 during the NBC Movie. The advertisement was very likely the reason why Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater lost in a 44-state landslide to incumbent President Lyndon B. Johnson. It certainly helped cement the Liberal mindset that Goldwater was an extremist who would destroy America, when a careful study of his ideas suggests that had he succeeded, the Vietnam War might not have drug on for another decade like it did.

While it’s easy to agree with television producer and former Nixon campaign consultant Roger Ailes when he said: “Television is no gimmick, and nobody will ever be elected to major office again without presenting themselves well on it,” I find myself somewhat agreeing, if somewhat nostalgically, with Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, who in 1956, said: “The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal is the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.”

Nevertheless, mass media being what it is, especially today, means that candidates will continue to be defined by sound bytes and notable video spots, whether on television in the form of slick commercials, or on the Internet via YouTube or some other yet-to-be-invented medium. Personally, I think the Internet is the future of political advertising and marketing.

That’s why I like what I see coming out of the Conservative movement in America, and why I think that these talented media artists need to be supported, financially and otherwise, for their efforts. Folks with a flair for media or the ingenuity to capitalize on social media and other forms of Internet media are taking advantage of the Internet in ways that will forever change the political marketing landscape in America. I just wish I had a great idea for how to create the business model that turns this passion into profit. I’m hopeful that this change will be good as the stranglehold that the mainstream television networks have had on American politics for decades is forever broken, dismantled and defunded.

Censorship has roots in political correctness

The very idea that “Congress shall make no law” that abridges free speech apparently did not consider the notion of political correctness. This scourge of forced self-censorship is worse than any law of prohibition that congress could enact because it is nebulous and subject to the whims of the self-important, self-righteous or those who make a living out of being easily offended (see self-righteous).

What is speech if not simply the verbalization of ideas or thought? What is so dangerous about stifling speech isn’t in the silencing of a voice; ideas related to politics and civics are usually shared by groups big or small. Silence one voice and the ideas behind that voice will likely be given air by another.

More dangerous and effective by any tyrannical opposition is the ability through political correctness to get people to self regulate their speech, which has a very real and negative impact on their thoughts, and even their mental health. Create a real fear in the hearts and minds of your subjects and you don’t necessarily need a law; they’ll censor themselves out of fear — fear of bodily harm to themselves or others close to them, fear of financial ruin, or both.

This worked well in the former Soviet Bloc and in Nazi Germany, and later East Germany under the National Socialists. Citizens (subjects) were legitimately fearful of speaking out, or even aloud to one another, because those in power had informants or were actively listening to them and dealt swiftly with anyone who’s ideas ran counter to the political powers of the day. Dissent was strictly verboten! This idea has been put into practice here in America under the subtler, but equally effective ideal of political correctness. Don’t believe me? Try talking openly and in a voice loud enough for others to hear you at work about Conservative ideals, particularly if you work in a large company. You can easily share your thoughts around the water cooler about what an idiot George Bush was, but criticize Barrack Hussein Obama, or dare to use his middle name in conversation, and you somehow feel the need to whisper for fear that someone might be listening in and deem your conversation “unacceptable” and worthy of punishment.

Ironically this ideal was birthed on college campuses, where free thought and critical thinking is allegedly honored and revered. I recall thinking about how ironic this notion was to the concept of free speech when I first came across it myself when I was in college in the late 1980’s. I found it rather distasteful and demagogic that, in order to use the free speech area, one had to gain permission by first sharing what they were going to say and their ideas to someone in the student union. It became widely known that Conservative ideals were unacceptable forms of free speech and not allowed in the free speech area. Maybe once a year the powers in the student union would relent long enough to allow college Republicans to set up a table and play patriotic music in the free speech area, but that was more an exception than the rule.

The very notion that someone’s thoughts are somehow unacceptable simply because they don’t fit a prescribed template is dangerous and offensive; it certainly flies in opposition to everything our American society stands for under our First Amendment and in our republican form of government. Political discourse that honestly and critically disagrees is a healthy part of a free society. While I would argue that this discourse should have within its core the altruistic desire to seek the improvement of others and the society as a whole, rather than the protection of the few and the expense of the many, even I recognize that some of the more repulsive ideals that folks can conjure up should not be automatically censored but remembered in such a way that a civil society we never allow them to take root and gain practical acceptance.

Insignificant hypocrites

Somehow I wound up on the e-mail list of the National Democratic Party here in the United Socialist States of America. The e-mail pointed out the apparent hypocrisy that they saw emanating from a Republican governor. So? What’s the point?

The scarastic side of me decided that I needed to respond, kindly mind you, to illustrate just how pointless these complaints are. According to the e-mail, “at least 116 Republican governors, senators, and representatives have spent the past year railing against the Recovery Act, while simultaneously requesting funds to create jobs in their districts and taking credit for projects at ribbon-cutting ceremonies.”

It bore reminding that while the National Democratic Party continues to complain, they had, until very recently, a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate while holding a significant majority in the House and control of the White House. For all the alleged gridlock that they claim has prevented them from completely destroying America they frankly needed no Republican votes to achieve any of their goals. They could have passed the health care bill last year and Obama would have signed it. The Republicans in the House and Senate were impotent to stop them. The Democrats certainly didn’t need the votes: they had them all along.

I don’t know what’s worse: the Republicans in Congress who refuse to stand up for the Conservative principles they frequently campaign on, or the Democrats who can’t seem to get their agenda accomplished in spite of their full ownership of Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Helping the poor?

How are the policies and practices of the Democrats and their Republican accomplices helping the poor? Isn’t that the stated purpose of the Left?

How has the “Little Man” benefitted by the loss of over 1 million jobs in America since Barrack Obama was elected? How many private sector jobs have been created by Nancy Pelosi’s personal wealth or as a direct result of her ideas and policies? How many jobs have been made by making more people poor? How’s that war on poverty coming? Democrats have only been fighting that once since FDR almost 80 years ago.

Since the election in 2008 the Democrats took control of the White House and gained greater majorities in the Senate and the House. Until the election of Scott Brown a few weeks ago to the US Senate Democrats held a super majority in the Senate. With all that elected empathy for the poor able to write and pass laws why are we still so poor in America? How come things aren’t any better since we’ve all been told repeatedly that the Republicans are the ones who destroyed America?

Don’t get me wrong; the GOP have plenty of complicity in the mess we’re in, but they didn’t cause the halving of the stock market; they didn’t solely increase the national debt to numbers that nobody can fully comprehend. Certainly no Republican administration in the history of the United States has ever plunged this country into the kind of debt that we will never recover from.

Nevertheless the question remains why are things so bad when Democrats for so long have claimed that if given the power they’d make America into a utopia. Well guys (and gals), you’ve had over a year now to show that you can make things better. We’re not asking for overnight improvement — just show some improvement. Just so you know, millions of lost jobs and trillions of lost wealth is not an improvement.

We already offer free education

All the discussions over free healthcare for all has neglected to remind voters that we already have free public education for all.

Education in America has become a “right,” and as such children are compelled (ironic, isn’t it?) to attend school on the taxpayer’s dime, although public education is not directly mentioned or addressed in the US Constitution. We spend billions of dollars a year to educate children so that they can grow up to become taxpayers (at least that’s been the goal — Obama has different plans) and contribute to the system that educated them. This education is sold as the pathway to helping people get jobs and become self-sufficient, in other words, not reliant upon government for assistance.

Education is billed as the pathway to a better way of life, including money, luxury, health care, etc. So why is it that government is trying to force taxpayers to foot the healthcare bill for everyone when public education is supposed to be the pathway to success and the ability to afford your own healthcare?

Socialism is here

Our slide to socialism will be complete when the US Government buys into the American automobile industry. Health care will soon follow.

Socialism is never an all-at-once proposition, but comes in like the fog; before you know it, it’s enveloped you and you can’t see your way out of it.

It started with FDR and most recently was expanded by Congress’ gift to the US Secretary of the Treasury — complete ownership and control of the US financial system. Now the “Big 3″ American automakers are getting ready to turn the keys over to their businesses to a bunch of squabbling idiots who can’t balance their checkbooks, much less run a company (or country) properly.

How historic: our first black president will also preside over the formation of the United Socialist States of America.

The GOP’s rise to insignificance

For all the navel-gazing into why McCain and other so-called Republicans lost the answers are fairly simple:

1. Republicans did not articulate Conservatism. Conservative values were nowhere to be seen in these races. The closest anyone got to articulate Conservatism was when Gov. Sarah Palin spoke.
2. Republicans did not contrast themselves with the Liberal/Marxist/Socialist statements, votes, etc. of Democrats. Instead, Republicans simply offered “Socialism Lite.”

Too many Republicans are more concerned with how they’re portrayed in the Mainstream Media than with articulating the values of most Americans. Instead, Republicans (namely John McCain) tried to out-Democrat Obama and other Democrats.

I’m sick and tired of Republicans running from Conservative values! I’m sick and tired of Republicans trying to “redefine” the party and themselves. We don’t need the Democrat Party to attack us and tear us apart; we’ve got traitors destroying the party from within. Moreover, all this redefinition, change and genuflecting before Democrats simply angers people like myself who ache for true Conservative leadership. Republicans obviously have a very short memory: the 1994 landslide that Republicans won in the House and Senate, simply put, was because Conservatism was articulated and celebrated. When those who won on those Conservative values later surrendered like the French Army, it left a bunch of us disenfranchised and unwilling to support the Republican Party.

I’m still looking for the political difference between John McCain and Barrack Obama. For all of Obama’s accusations that John McCain was George Bush’ Siamese twin, McCain is probably much closer to Obama than he’s willing to admit.

For many Republicans, particularly the Conservatives, McCain’s support in the General Election was due in large part to Gov. Palin, but also because McCain was clearly the lesser of two evils for Conservatives. Many of us weren’t voting so much for McCain but against Obama. As we heard Gov. Palin speak and got to understand her ideas, voting for McCain became more palatable, even though to many Conservatives, McCain’s “moderate” stance borders on Liberal. For example, his campaign finance reform that he helped craft with some Liberals, clearly violates the First Amendment.

The idea that Palin drug down the Republican ticket is laughable. If anything, Palin is the reason McCain didn’t immediate sink into a black hole of insignificance and irrelevance after the conventions were over. Let’s not forget, McCain wasn’t really picked by the Republicans; he was picked in large part by the Mainstream Media and their Liberal cohorts who rightly figured that their best opportunity to win the election was for the Republican nominee to be anything BUT Conservative.

To think that McCain was the best the Republican Party could do in this election is embarrassing. It’s sad that there weren’t any better people who could articulate Conservative values to run for president.

Obama is a Marxist

With the release of more speeches given by Sen. Barak Obama, it becomes crystal clear the pattern of his thoughts. It also illuminates the likelihood an Obama presidency would place in plunging the United States of America into a depression and utter chaos as he seeks to institute his Marxist policies.

The 2001 interview with a former Chicago-area NPR program called Odyssey, illustrates Obama’s radical thoughts on the US Constitution, and illuminates just how dangerous he is. In it he makes some statements that ought to be a call to action for anyone who enjoys his or her freedoms and liberties.

In Obama’s own words: “… to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution [emphasis added!] — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

Did you get that: break free from the constraints of the Constitution? What the government can’t do TO you? That the Constitution is somehow a “charter of NEGATIVE liberties? Graves are quaking right now as our Founding Fathers quiver and heave. US Sen. Dianne Feinstein made a very similar statement several years ago and it went completely unnoticed by many people, including the Mainstream Media.

Anyone who wants to “constrain the Constitution” is dangerous and needs to be treated as such. The very notion that the Constitution is somehow a roadblock to government ability to govern completely misses the point, though it’s half right. The Constitution was enacted to constrain and reign in the government and keep it from oppressing the people. The Constitution was never designed to give government authority, but to limit government’s reach into our lives and thereby limit its authority. The antithesis of which is an oppressive government that has complete rule and the ability to do unspeakable acts, including murder. History has proved this. A limited government is what our Founding Fathers envisioned and ultimately established as they penned the Declaration of Independence and later the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

Much of the Declaration of Independence was an indictment of King George and the liberties one man sought to usurp from the governed. As a result, those who fought to break away from this oppression did so at great cost because it was the right thing to do. Some 200-plus years later we have a candidate for President openly proposing that we need to “constrain the Constitution” for the good of the people.

Constraining the Constitution will only serve to oppress the people. It’s disgusting to watch as Obama continues to receive applause and ovations to his Marxist ideals. Where’s the Mainstream Media in challenging him on these Marxist ideals? How is it that so many people are so ignorant to what’s made this country great? What is it that’s so appealing about establishing a dictatorship where one person gets to assume complete authority and control over the governed.

I dare anyone with an ounce of logic to read the Declaration of Independence — all of it. Study this document, not so much for its historic relevance, but for what it has to say about the ideals of human freedom. As a bit of assistance here, focus on the second paragraph of the document. Study the sentences and how they fit together, not only in this document, but also in context with the very ideals that formed the US Constitution. Nowhere in these documents, or in the ideas that formed them, are notions that the governed are better off under a form of government that seeks to constrain personal freedoms and liberties. Most certainly missing from these documents and the ideas therein is the notion that we need to “spread the wealth” by instituting the Marxist ideal that says, in Karl Marx’ own words: “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

The only logical conclusion to draw from Obama’s comments throughout the campaign is that Obama is a Marxist because nobody who supports the ideals upon which this country was founded would dare propose such limits on our liberty and freedom, which are anathema to our very sovereignty.

Birth Announcement: American Socialism

American Socialism was born Oct. 3, 2008 in Washington D.C. to the United States Congress and United States Senate. American Socialism weighed in at more than $700 billion.
Also welcoming American Socialism into the world is Uncle George W. Bush and numerous cousins on Wall Street and many distant European Socialist relatives.
An expanded version of this birth announcement is published at:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MELTDOWN_PAULSON?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT