Okay... Ryan sent me a text needing proof about the badness of socialized medicine. I don't have it and that's not what this post is about, so just bear with me and answer my questions, please.
1) If a national health insurance bill passed, removing the burden of "benefits" from employers and placing it on the federal government (John and Suzie Taxpayer) would there be an economic bounce? A good bounce? Because that's a large chunk of change companies aren't paying out anymore.
2) If a national health insurance bill would cost us $1,000,000,000,000 (wow... write that number out and it still is impossible to wrap your brain around...) over ten years, is there ANY comparable INCOME to offset this expense over the same time frame? If the feds tax the businesses the SAME or slightly more money for the federal health insurance as what they're paying out now, where has the economic benefit gone?
3) Would this federal health insurance be run for a profit? If so, if it is designed to be self sustaining, then were is the advantage other than the universal aspect of coverage? You still have a large insurance entity gouging clients, the very thing people are bemoaning now.
4) If the federal health insurance is NOT to be run for a profit, then what precedent are we setting in the business world?
#4 is a very important question and I want you guys to think about this. I look outside my patio door right now and I see empty lots where businesses and homes once stood, empty lots that will remain empty as long as no one can get insurance for the homes and businesses that would replace those lost during Katrina. The second largest profit earnings raked in the last quarter of 2005 and all of 2006, second only to oil, was insurance. State Farm, Allstate, you get it. During the largest national disaster in this nations history these companies made billions. So the model for an insurance program MAKING money is there... If the feds choose to follow it and ease the burden on the taxpayers.
5) Are there some aspects of American society that should NOT be for a profit?
I spoke to the champion of Camelot for three hours last week concerning federal health insurance and she answered the tough questions without hesitation and without shame, something Obama has not done yet. She suggested a moderate tax on big businesses, (those employing over 500 people) and a tax increase on the top ten percent income bracket. She immediately stated that this would NOT cover the trillion dollar over ten year cost of the coverage, but stated in Camelot style that we choose to do the hard things and not pass the buck to future generations, and as a society we FIND ways of making it happen. She also stated that it's the RIGHT thing to do, and as a Christian nation we need to start doing the right thing as a society.
My personal opinion is this. Most of my youthful idealism was lost in the debris removal of Katrina. I have very little faith in the federal government and its ability to help me directly. But more frightening than this nation's financial bankruptcy is its growing MORAL bankruptcy. I am NOT saying we're the great Satan so fire down, but we all have looked in the national mirror and seen the Culture of Death looking back at us. I have been without health coverage for thirteen months and, knock on wood, dodged bullets. I'm one health incident away from bankruptcy myself. I'm not a fan of Obama at all. Could Bobby Jindhal make this happen? Could Haley Barbour? Could Patraeus? HOW could they do it?
What if F. Ryan got elected with all the conservative mandates intact SAVE universal health coverage? How would we make it happen? Work with me on this, it'll be fun. And maybe someone will steal these ideas like they did the troop surge.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
"Captain Sobel doesn't hate Easy Company private, he just hates you."
Well thank you Titus.
I admit, I laughed as soon as I read your title, I knew what was coming in the first paragraph ... hehehe.
Well - Van Jones is out. The idea that we even have a "green jobs czar" position strikes me as a sad commentary on our national course heading. It might as well be named "post industrial America czar." At any rate this is no mere partisan head hunting commentary (not that we engage in that here anyway), for this individuals ideology was shockingly radical, read: dangerous to the US economy. Among his infamous affiliations he became an avowed communist after the Rodney King verdict (I'm still trying to figure out what one has to do with the other, I mean does he prefer a shorter anagram then LAPD to conduct his citizen beatings ... say KGB?); he has described capitalism and societies that embrace it in the most derogatory of terms; he insisted we as a nation must move to an "eco-economy"; quipped that "it's white kids, not black kids that shoot up entire schools" (a Columbine reference); and the 2nd of his biggest dust-ups: he referred to Republicans (on video) as "a** holes." Now that last one I find least offensive of all, in fact I don't find any offense truth be told. Some Republicans ARE a** holes. We learned that in the bailouts, original TARP money, the Southern border debates, etc. One comes to mind immediately ... I'm thinking of a name ... rhymes with Karaln Fector ... I'll think of it in a minute. At any rate the offense that finally sealed his fate was evidence that he signed an online petition asking the US Government to reveal its role in staging the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, what exactly IS the vetting process at the White House? Or even more scary to consider - perhaps Jones aced that process. And THAT is why this resignation holds relevance - our president continually asks us to suspend our senses and buy into the notion that whether it's Reverend Wright, or Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dorn, or his warm greeting of Chavez, the off script comments about "spreading the wealth around", all the way to hiring an actual Communist in his White House, that ALL OF THIS is some series of isolated events and coincidental people within his life, and in truth he is not a socialist himself, not a practicing neo-Marxist, not a statist, that what he has in common with all of these people is a love of sports I suppose. At some point any clear thinking independent voter that was giving him the benefit of the doubt last election cycle is going to conclude that the mosaic of his life points in a very definite direction, and there goes 2012, perhaps sooner, 2010.
Well ... I do appreciate your kudos on "Berkley boy." My only regret is you weren't standing floor during all of this. But it occurs to me that the one most in need of support & encouragement going forward is his soon to be bride. I didn't mention this in my last. See, I asked him if she enjoyed politics and history, if his bride to be shared that interest of his (in an attempt to lighten the conversation at one heated point). He responded, and I quote: "Yes, we talk politics some times, but she comes from a lower socio-economic background then I."
HA! I laughed & murmured to myself, "Well buddy, I'll see you back here when you're trying to get over your divorce." Hehehehe.
I admit, I laughed as soon as I read your title, I knew what was coming in the first paragraph ... hehehe.
Well - Van Jones is out. The idea that we even have a "green jobs czar" position strikes me as a sad commentary on our national course heading. It might as well be named "post industrial America czar." At any rate this is no mere partisan head hunting commentary (not that we engage in that here anyway), for this individuals ideology was shockingly radical, read: dangerous to the US economy. Among his infamous affiliations he became an avowed communist after the Rodney King verdict (I'm still trying to figure out what one has to do with the other, I mean does he prefer a shorter anagram then LAPD to conduct his citizen beatings ... say KGB?); he has described capitalism and societies that embrace it in the most derogatory of terms; he insisted we as a nation must move to an "eco-economy"; quipped that "it's white kids, not black kids that shoot up entire schools" (a Columbine reference); and the 2nd of his biggest dust-ups: he referred to Republicans (on video) as "a** holes." Now that last one I find least offensive of all, in fact I don't find any offense truth be told. Some Republicans ARE a** holes. We learned that in the bailouts, original TARP money, the Southern border debates, etc. One comes to mind immediately ... I'm thinking of a name ... rhymes with Karaln Fector ... I'll think of it in a minute. At any rate the offense that finally sealed his fate was evidence that he signed an online petition asking the US Government to reveal its role in staging the 9/11 attacks. Seriously, what exactly IS the vetting process at the White House? Or even more scary to consider - perhaps Jones aced that process. And THAT is why this resignation holds relevance - our president continually asks us to suspend our senses and buy into the notion that whether it's Reverend Wright, or Bill Ayers or Bernadine Dorn, or his warm greeting of Chavez, the off script comments about "spreading the wealth around", all the way to hiring an actual Communist in his White House, that ALL OF THIS is some series of isolated events and coincidental people within his life, and in truth he is not a socialist himself, not a practicing neo-Marxist, not a statist, that what he has in common with all of these people is a love of sports I suppose. At some point any clear thinking independent voter that was giving him the benefit of the doubt last election cycle is going to conclude that the mosaic of his life points in a very definite direction, and there goes 2012, perhaps sooner, 2010.
Well ... I do appreciate your kudos on "Berkley boy." My only regret is you weren't standing floor during all of this. But it occurs to me that the one most in need of support & encouragement going forward is his soon to be bride. I didn't mention this in my last. See, I asked him if she enjoyed politics and history, if his bride to be shared that interest of his (in an attempt to lighten the conversation at one heated point). He responded, and I quote: "Yes, we talk politics some times, but she comes from a lower socio-economic background then I."
HA! I laughed & murmured to myself, "Well buddy, I'll see you back here when you're trying to get over your divorce." Hehehehe.
That was priceless...
However, there were symptoms of your Berkley-boy that any outsider would have recognized in YOU when I first met you.
Not symptoms of liberalism, or leftist ideology, or blanket indoctrination from your educational experiences... but you did have a nasty habit all those years ago of basing your initial opinions on someone else's observations (admittedly, most were conservative pundits... but not all).
Now, the biggest difference here (and I am NOT bashing Ryan... far from) is that Ryan has shown a capacity... nay, a passionate drive... to develop and improve his perspective on all things political. Berkley-boy will not begin to do that until he admits that neither he, nor his "sources", are the end-all authorities on political, economic, or social topics. He is basing his ENTIRE political and (probably) historical point-of-view on someone else's observations and commentary, and has no objective, personal hand in gaining insight into the topics he professes to be an expert in because he "wrote a paper".
By the way, if only I could express to anyone reading this how often I have "written papers" (both for myself and others... hehe) on topics that I literally knew NOTHING about and still got 3.8 or greater grades each and every time, I'd go a long way to making this Berkley-boy seem rather tame in his "authority"... but I can't adequately express how my mild ability in the realm of "fiction-writing" has earned me more A+ grades than anything my research ability got me. I mean, really... I once took a class in college called "A Political History of Post-War Poland, from 1945 to 1985" and I guaranty you there was never a drier, more boring class taught in all of human history. I attended the first two or three lectures on the class, then decided I was more likely to learn something by watching ALF or CHEERS, so I stopped going altogether. Come the end of the term, I walked in, took the final exam (which was three hours of essay questions) and passed with an A-. That alone would make me stop listening to Berkley-boy upon hearing him expostulate on his expertise due to writing a paper... sheesh.
Anyway... back to the topic... Berkley-boy will only stand successful in his ability to defend his position if he remains surrounded by like-minded idiots, particularly those that graduated from the same school. His encounter with you should have taught him just how vulnerable his "opinion" is when faced with someone that has the ability to balance political opinion with an historical perspective and an objective eye. He will never be able to do that AND maintain his radical opinions, because his radical opinions do not stand up to the kind of yardstick history holds up.
So, to make a long post longer...
Well done, Ryan! That's one Berkley graduate down... 350,000 more to go before you've hit them all since 1999.
Not symptoms of liberalism, or leftist ideology, or blanket indoctrination from your educational experiences... but you did have a nasty habit all those years ago of basing your initial opinions on someone else's observations (admittedly, most were conservative pundits... but not all).
Now, the biggest difference here (and I am NOT bashing Ryan... far from) is that Ryan has shown a capacity... nay, a passionate drive... to develop and improve his perspective on all things political. Berkley-boy will not begin to do that until he admits that neither he, nor his "sources", are the end-all authorities on political, economic, or social topics. He is basing his ENTIRE political and (probably) historical point-of-view on someone else's observations and commentary, and has no objective, personal hand in gaining insight into the topics he professes to be an expert in because he "wrote a paper".
By the way, if only I could express to anyone reading this how often I have "written papers" (both for myself and others... hehe) on topics that I literally knew NOTHING about and still got 3.8 or greater grades each and every time, I'd go a long way to making this Berkley-boy seem rather tame in his "authority"... but I can't adequately express how my mild ability in the realm of "fiction-writing" has earned me more A+ grades than anything my research ability got me. I mean, really... I once took a class in college called "A Political History of Post-War Poland, from 1945 to 1985" and I guaranty you there was never a drier, more boring class taught in all of human history. I attended the first two or three lectures on the class, then decided I was more likely to learn something by watching ALF or CHEERS, so I stopped going altogether. Come the end of the term, I walked in, took the final exam (which was three hours of essay questions) and passed with an A-. That alone would make me stop listening to Berkley-boy upon hearing him expostulate on his expertise due to writing a paper... sheesh.
Anyway... back to the topic... Berkley-boy will only stand successful in his ability to defend his position if he remains surrounded by like-minded idiots, particularly those that graduated from the same school. His encounter with you should have taught him just how vulnerable his "opinion" is when faced with someone that has the ability to balance political opinion with an historical perspective and an objective eye. He will never be able to do that AND maintain his radical opinions, because his radical opinions do not stand up to the kind of yardstick history holds up.
So, to make a long post longer...
Well done, Ryan! That's one Berkley graduate down... 350,000 more to go before you've hit them all since 1999.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Excercises in masochism ...
Why?
Why oh why do I do this to myself?
I learn that a 30-something PhD in "presidential politics" is on my game, and that he graduated from the University of California at Berkley, and I proceed, nay INSIST, on pressing a political discussion. By the way, he was there for his bachelor party weekend.
Where should I begin? Now while I'm certainly not going to recitre the entire 90 minutes let me give you some highlights. I referred, not in pssing sacharrin style but with earnest intent that Obama is definitionally a neo-Marxist. Which he of course denied. But then informed me, and I quote: "Marxism is essentially about equal opportunity." No, I explained, it's about equal outcomes, not opportunity. At which point the phrase was uttered by he that I would hear again no less than 3 dozen times in 90 minutes - "Trust me, I wrote an entire paper on this." Oh, well, why didn't you say so, you put pen to paper, well it must be true then. The absolute dismisiveness in tone and thought directed at me, whom he mistook for unwashed simply because I am unpublished, was thicker than War and Peace. My friend, I went on, I realize you're not used to siting down in a recreational setting with others that have also read the Communist Manifesto, but the "opportunity" you speak of is opportunity defined by the ideology, thus the state, and not the individual, which ultimately means that the outcome is defined by the state, i.e. equality of outcome. And while I am at it, if Marx was so "fair", so laudable, why are you going to such great lengths to convince me that Obama is NOT a Marxist? That one set him back for a second ... we moved on to health care.
"Can you name me another industrialized Western nation that DOESN'T offer public health care." To which I responded, "no." And added my own question - can you name an industrialized Western nation, or ANY nation regardless of classification, that has advanced treatment and medicine superior to that of the US? Can you name one whom enjoys superior economic or military status? "Well that is separate and away from health care." Really? Or is that portion of the DNA within our character which rejects socialized medicine also responsible for the superpower status we now enjoy, in other words is that rejection of a public option but an example of how our notions of government and governance has enhanced the human condition more in the last 233 years then in the previous 5000? He responded by telling me the NHS (National Health Service) approval rating in the UK, which he claims is 85%. We went on to Reagan ...
"Reagan raised taxes 8 times. All in a recession too." Now I admit I thought he would trip me up if I simply answered with a flat "False!", and cite some obscure FCC fee that appears on your phone or cable bill. So, I simply asked him what the top marginal rate was at Reagan's ascension (it was almost 70%) and what it was when he left office (which was roughly 39%). It is indisputable that he cut taxes, and doubled receipts to the National Treasury, thus proving in the real world that the Laffer Curve Theory was correct. That cutting taxes RAISES revenue because the result is the creation of more tax payers rather than more tax law. We moved to cycle & hammer tee shirts ...
I asked him, given he lives in Santa Barbara, why these 17 tear old children of yuppies are fascinated with spending their capitalist parent's money on Soviet tees and Che Rivera shirts, not to mention a Mao & Stalin pictorial belt (yes, a belt for one's pants) I witnessed first hand at my own local mall? I submitted that the cycle and hammer should be AS offensive to democratic societies as the Swastika. He of course disagreed, stating that Marx never murdered anyone, and those were the regimes of Lenin and Stalin et al. I noted that Marxism's end game IS INHERENTLY "Stalinism" because it conflicts with natural law, but putting that aside our question is centered around symbolism, not Marx, and that symbol represented a murderous, repressive regime for 70 years, responsible for the murder of nearly five times that of the National Socialist Party in Germany, so why would he not be just as offended? He interrupted me with a question on doubling down on soft 15 against a 5 and we didn't return to the subject.
We called last shoe and as that shoe came to a close he offered his hand and noted: "Let me leave you with this - just don't call people on the left, people you disagree with, anti-American or unpatriotic. There;'s too much of that on the right." To be honest I find their singular sensitivity to that claim curious, because I've never done such a thing nor witnessed any other member of the "right" do so. In return I replied, "Well let ME leave YOU with this - either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there's no in between." Which got wild applause from his entourage. He asked which Founding Father? I noted Jefferson, and the authors of the Federalist papers, Madison & Hamilton. He immediately noted Hamilton's avocation of a central bank, which got my eyes to roll, I mean as if my beef with Obama centers around his support for a central bank, come on already. So I refined that oft repeated phrase of mine: "Well then. Either the conclusions drawn at the Constitutional Convention are correct, or Obama is."
He said I should watch less Fox News, and politely left.
I learned 2 very valuable things. One, although I rarely do it anyway I will NEVER AGAIN attempt to lend credibility to my argument by prefacing it with the phrase: "I wrote a paper on this." That is THE MOST obnoxious statement as a point of argument one could ever hear and I regret I used it in my youth once or twise. The facts must speak for themselves. I mean to tell you I listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell on the radio today and not once did he preface his statements with a statement about his degrees or writing, and this is a man that's published 43 books. Secondly, I realized that if you go into researching history in order to affirm your political ideology, rather than inform it, you get the man I argued with tonight.
He picks a school that is simpatico. Courses and professors that are the same. Surrounds himself with colleagues that are, and simply dismisses the average American as (and he actually said this): "unable to comprehend nuance." Realize now that he says this while engaged in a nuance laced conversation with an "average American." An academic whom believes to his core that Americans are simply incapable of making self beneficial decisions on their own behalf ... sounds like the job qualification for "CZAR" if you ask me.
Why oh why do I do this to myself?
I learn that a 30-something PhD in "presidential politics" is on my game, and that he graduated from the University of California at Berkley, and I proceed, nay INSIST, on pressing a political discussion. By the way, he was there for his bachelor party weekend.
Where should I begin? Now while I'm certainly not going to recitre the entire 90 minutes let me give you some highlights. I referred, not in pssing sacharrin style but with earnest intent that Obama is definitionally a neo-Marxist. Which he of course denied. But then informed me, and I quote: "Marxism is essentially about equal opportunity." No, I explained, it's about equal outcomes, not opportunity. At which point the phrase was uttered by he that I would hear again no less than 3 dozen times in 90 minutes - "Trust me, I wrote an entire paper on this." Oh, well, why didn't you say so, you put pen to paper, well it must be true then. The absolute dismisiveness in tone and thought directed at me, whom he mistook for unwashed simply because I am unpublished, was thicker than War and Peace. My friend, I went on, I realize you're not used to siting down in a recreational setting with others that have also read the Communist Manifesto, but the "opportunity" you speak of is opportunity defined by the ideology, thus the state, and not the individual, which ultimately means that the outcome is defined by the state, i.e. equality of outcome. And while I am at it, if Marx was so "fair", so laudable, why are you going to such great lengths to convince me that Obama is NOT a Marxist? That one set him back for a second ... we moved on to health care.
"Can you name me another industrialized Western nation that DOESN'T offer public health care." To which I responded, "no." And added my own question - can you name an industrialized Western nation, or ANY nation regardless of classification, that has advanced treatment and medicine superior to that of the US? Can you name one whom enjoys superior economic or military status? "Well that is separate and away from health care." Really? Or is that portion of the DNA within our character which rejects socialized medicine also responsible for the superpower status we now enjoy, in other words is that rejection of a public option but an example of how our notions of government and governance has enhanced the human condition more in the last 233 years then in the previous 5000? He responded by telling me the NHS (National Health Service) approval rating in the UK, which he claims is 85%. We went on to Reagan ...
"Reagan raised taxes 8 times. All in a recession too." Now I admit I thought he would trip me up if I simply answered with a flat "False!", and cite some obscure FCC fee that appears on your phone or cable bill. So, I simply asked him what the top marginal rate was at Reagan's ascension (it was almost 70%) and what it was when he left office (which was roughly 39%). It is indisputable that he cut taxes, and doubled receipts to the National Treasury, thus proving in the real world that the Laffer Curve Theory was correct. That cutting taxes RAISES revenue because the result is the creation of more tax payers rather than more tax law. We moved to cycle & hammer tee shirts ...
I asked him, given he lives in Santa Barbara, why these 17 tear old children of yuppies are fascinated with spending their capitalist parent's money on Soviet tees and Che Rivera shirts, not to mention a Mao & Stalin pictorial belt (yes, a belt for one's pants) I witnessed first hand at my own local mall? I submitted that the cycle and hammer should be AS offensive to democratic societies as the Swastika. He of course disagreed, stating that Marx never murdered anyone, and those were the regimes of Lenin and Stalin et al. I noted that Marxism's end game IS INHERENTLY "Stalinism" because it conflicts with natural law, but putting that aside our question is centered around symbolism, not Marx, and that symbol represented a murderous, repressive regime for 70 years, responsible for the murder of nearly five times that of the National Socialist Party in Germany, so why would he not be just as offended? He interrupted me with a question on doubling down on soft 15 against a 5 and we didn't return to the subject.
We called last shoe and as that shoe came to a close he offered his hand and noted: "Let me leave you with this - just don't call people on the left, people you disagree with, anti-American or unpatriotic. There;'s too much of that on the right." To be honest I find their singular sensitivity to that claim curious, because I've never done such a thing nor witnessed any other member of the "right" do so. In return I replied, "Well let ME leave YOU with this - either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there's no in between." Which got wild applause from his entourage. He asked which Founding Father? I noted Jefferson, and the authors of the Federalist papers, Madison & Hamilton. He immediately noted Hamilton's avocation of a central bank, which got my eyes to roll, I mean as if my beef with Obama centers around his support for a central bank, come on already. So I refined that oft repeated phrase of mine: "Well then. Either the conclusions drawn at the Constitutional Convention are correct, or Obama is."
He said I should watch less Fox News, and politely left.
I learned 2 very valuable things. One, although I rarely do it anyway I will NEVER AGAIN attempt to lend credibility to my argument by prefacing it with the phrase: "I wrote a paper on this." That is THE MOST obnoxious statement as a point of argument one could ever hear and I regret I used it in my youth once or twise. The facts must speak for themselves. I mean to tell you I listened to Dr. Thomas Sowell on the radio today and not once did he preface his statements with a statement about his degrees or writing, and this is a man that's published 43 books. Secondly, I realized that if you go into researching history in order to affirm your political ideology, rather than inform it, you get the man I argued with tonight.
He picks a school that is simpatico. Courses and professors that are the same. Surrounds himself with colleagues that are, and simply dismisses the average American as (and he actually said this): "unable to comprehend nuance." Realize now that he says this while engaged in a nuance laced conversation with an "average American." An academic whom believes to his core that Americans are simply incapable of making self beneficial decisions on their own behalf ... sounds like the job qualification for "CZAR" if you ask me.
Friday, September 4, 2009
A road map ...
So my sister texts me to say that my nephew's school in MS sent home a letter to parents explaining that the school will NOT be airing the president's much talked about "Obama youth" speech. The reason listed? It, "interferes with the children's lunch schedule." Hehehe. And I've heard these similar reports from my various family members (& given we're Irish Catholic or Mormon, that's a considerable number) across the fruited plain. And it occurred to me ...
... when this speech is all said and done I'd bet that you could take a map of districts/counties that "opted out" of this speech, lay it over a map of voting districts and get a fairly good picture of where the president stands come the 2010 midterms, and even the 2012 presidential race. And given we are looking at an extended fight on public health care over the coming months as the president is forced to get even more specific, that map only stands to get worse for the Democrat Party.
Be it the Communist "green job czar" Van Jones whom makes Reverend Wright look like a sedated school librarian, & remember he is actually IN the administration (by the way, if there was such a thing as green jobs the private sector would of created it - it's either a job or it is not); or the original trio of Weather Underground friends; or socialist professors once and still embraced; or the "spread the wealth around" comments, all the way to finding the Constitution "too cumbersome", apologizing for America or "Americanism" abroad or desiring the nation to undergo a "fundamental transformation," the American people are waking up to the reality of this president's ideology. And he is rapidly finding that being a stealth Marxist is much easier as "candidate Obama" then it is as President Obama.
And I would ask anyone whom still "believes" this president is on the right course to consider this ... either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there is no in between.
... when this speech is all said and done I'd bet that you could take a map of districts/counties that "opted out" of this speech, lay it over a map of voting districts and get a fairly good picture of where the president stands come the 2010 midterms, and even the 2012 presidential race. And given we are looking at an extended fight on public health care over the coming months as the president is forced to get even more specific, that map only stands to get worse for the Democrat Party.
Be it the Communist "green job czar" Van Jones whom makes Reverend Wright look like a sedated school librarian, & remember he is actually IN the administration (by the way, if there was such a thing as green jobs the private sector would of created it - it's either a job or it is not); or the original trio of Weather Underground friends; or socialist professors once and still embraced; or the "spread the wealth around" comments, all the way to finding the Constitution "too cumbersome", apologizing for America or "Americanism" abroad or desiring the nation to undergo a "fundamental transformation," the American people are waking up to the reality of this president's ideology. And he is rapidly finding that being a stealth Marxist is much easier as "candidate Obama" then it is as President Obama.
And I would ask anyone whom still "believes" this president is on the right course to consider this ... either the Founding Fathers were right or Obama is, there is no in between.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The President's "Lesson Plan"...
Sometimes I think this nation is comprised of... well, idiots.
On the chilly morning of Jan 20, 1961, we heard the last great Democratic President of the United States say, during his Inaugural Address, that we should "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Now, we see the White House planning an address that will will focus on school children and how they can "help the President" reach his goals in education and national reform. This address will be pumped into classrooms across this nation, from pre-kindergarten to the high school level, and will be accompanied by a "lesson plan" appropriate for the ages involved. This plan includes having the younger children write letters to themselves pledging to "help" the President, and outlining how they will do that, to having the older children study the background and history of our President and his rise to the highest office in the land.
The "liberal Left" in this country does not seem to see a difference between the two calls. They see Obama's address as a logical continuation of the Kennedy call made 48 years ago... something they seem to feel has been forgotten (this according to the First Lady herself).
In 1961, Kennedy called for a renewed sense of patriotic and civic duty. His call was to give notice that the incoming Democratic administration would NOT continue the "New Deal" policies of either the outgoing Republican administration or the previous Democratic plans of FDR and Truman. The message was that the Federal Government was NOT there to support and determine the "general welfare" of the society, but that IT depended on the support of the people. Kennedy understood that a society without the incentive to contribute voluntarily would necessarily be forced to make contributions to the society compulsory, and that such compulsory actions detract from our personal freedoms and liberties as defined by our Constitution.
Obama's plans seem to remove the focus from the "country" and move that focus to the "President" himself. Aside from the superficial and narcissistic nature of such a request, I am afraid that this would send a dangerous message to future generations. In a society such as ours, where we routinely refer to the men that helped found our Republic as the Founding Fathers, and we point to these men as role models for today's youth. These men fought (and some died) for the defense of the inherent right to disagree with authority, to dissent and voice a contrary opinion to stated policy. Obama himself made many allusions to the "patriotic" nature of the dissenter's voice in American politics, repeatedly saying that opposition to Administration policy DID NOT equal "un-American" or unpatriotic actions... on the contrary, he led us to believe it was the height of patriotism and a yardstick for American diversity in politics.
Should a child of mine voice a dissenting opinion to the policies and agendas laid out in this upcoming speech to the children of our nation, can Obama guaranty that they won't be marginalized? Can he show me that the "lesson plan" he is proposing will not make support and adherence to the Obama administration seem "mainstream"... if not compulsory... to our students? Would I be wrong in urging my kids to write a letter to themselves stating that they will openly, and with enthusiasm, oppose any stated policy or position taken by the Administration that they feel is outside the scope of Federal government as defined by our Constitution... especially if the schools and teachers couldn't guaranty objective and open environments for such lessons? I think not...
In 1961, the torch did, indeed, pass to a new generation. The Obama White House, however, is trying its damnedest to pass on a "new torch" rather than show the world what the "next generation" is capable of with the torch we have held for more than 225 years. That isn't simply partisan in its nature... it is criminal, in my opinion.
On the chilly morning of Jan 20, 1961, we heard the last great Democratic President of the United States say, during his Inaugural Address, that we should "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Now, we see the White House planning an address that will will focus on school children and how they can "help the President" reach his goals in education and national reform. This address will be pumped into classrooms across this nation, from pre-kindergarten to the high school level, and will be accompanied by a "lesson plan" appropriate for the ages involved. This plan includes having the younger children write letters to themselves pledging to "help" the President, and outlining how they will do that, to having the older children study the background and history of our President and his rise to the highest office in the land.
The "liberal Left" in this country does not seem to see a difference between the two calls. They see Obama's address as a logical continuation of the Kennedy call made 48 years ago... something they seem to feel has been forgotten (this according to the First Lady herself).
In 1961, Kennedy called for a renewed sense of patriotic and civic duty. His call was to give notice that the incoming Democratic administration would NOT continue the "New Deal" policies of either the outgoing Republican administration or the previous Democratic plans of FDR and Truman. The message was that the Federal Government was NOT there to support and determine the "general welfare" of the society, but that IT depended on the support of the people. Kennedy understood that a society without the incentive to contribute voluntarily would necessarily be forced to make contributions to the society compulsory, and that such compulsory actions detract from our personal freedoms and liberties as defined by our Constitution.
Obama's plans seem to remove the focus from the "country" and move that focus to the "President" himself. Aside from the superficial and narcissistic nature of such a request, I am afraid that this would send a dangerous message to future generations. In a society such as ours, where we routinely refer to the men that helped found our Republic as the Founding Fathers, and we point to these men as role models for today's youth. These men fought (and some died) for the defense of the inherent right to disagree with authority, to dissent and voice a contrary opinion to stated policy. Obama himself made many allusions to the "patriotic" nature of the dissenter's voice in American politics, repeatedly saying that opposition to Administration policy DID NOT equal "un-American" or unpatriotic actions... on the contrary, he led us to believe it was the height of patriotism and a yardstick for American diversity in politics.
Should a child of mine voice a dissenting opinion to the policies and agendas laid out in this upcoming speech to the children of our nation, can Obama guaranty that they won't be marginalized? Can he show me that the "lesson plan" he is proposing will not make support and adherence to the Obama administration seem "mainstream"... if not compulsory... to our students? Would I be wrong in urging my kids to write a letter to themselves stating that they will openly, and with enthusiasm, oppose any stated policy or position taken by the Administration that they feel is outside the scope of Federal government as defined by our Constitution... especially if the schools and teachers couldn't guaranty objective and open environments for such lessons? I think not...
In 1961, the torch did, indeed, pass to a new generation. The Obama White House, however, is trying its damnedest to pass on a "new torch" rather than show the world what the "next generation" is capable of with the torch we have held for more than 225 years. That isn't simply partisan in its nature... it is criminal, in my opinion.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
We haven't talked about Russia in a while...
So, Putin is defending the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty of 1939... while on a state visit to Poland, no less.
Many is the time we have argued the accuracy of "revisionist" interpretations of history, and if we can do it, there isn't any real reason why Putin can't either. But I'd love to hear his defense of the statement.
In light of the bigger issue, however, I feel this is another stunning example of Putin reaching for (what he perceives as) the "lost glory of the USSR". He wants "his" Russia to encapsulate all the "good" that was Russia (and the USSR) of the past, without accepting any of the responsibility for the "bad".
Last year, in a sanctioned article in a "mainstream" magazine, Joseph Stalin was listed as the 3rd "greatest" Russian of all time... even though he was born and raised just outside of Tblisi, Georgia. Putin has claimed that the fall of the USSR was the "greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century." He has openly admitted to rebuilding the Russian military in a manner that would recapture the "national promise" of the Soviet-era... presumably, this means that Russia would again be able to project force into distant regions and theaters with impunity, as they did as late as 1988 under the Soviets. He spent hundreds of millions of rubles to plant a "flag" under the polar ice cap, "claiming" the ocean floor there as Russian.
Claiming that the "Western" Munich Agreement of '38 ended all possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance between the USSR and the West is something we can debate at our leisure, but when seen in the light of Putin's previous actions since 1999, I'd say that Russia is still a strategic and economic threat that no one in Washington right now is paying any attention to at all.
Many is the time we have argued the accuracy of "revisionist" interpretations of history, and if we can do it, there isn't any real reason why Putin can't either. But I'd love to hear his defense of the statement.
In light of the bigger issue, however, I feel this is another stunning example of Putin reaching for (what he perceives as) the "lost glory of the USSR". He wants "his" Russia to encapsulate all the "good" that was Russia (and the USSR) of the past, without accepting any of the responsibility for the "bad".
Last year, in a sanctioned article in a "mainstream" magazine, Joseph Stalin was listed as the 3rd "greatest" Russian of all time... even though he was born and raised just outside of Tblisi, Georgia. Putin has claimed that the fall of the USSR was the "greatest political catastrophe of the 20th Century." He has openly admitted to rebuilding the Russian military in a manner that would recapture the "national promise" of the Soviet-era... presumably, this means that Russia would again be able to project force into distant regions and theaters with impunity, as they did as late as 1988 under the Soviets. He spent hundreds of millions of rubles to plant a "flag" under the polar ice cap, "claiming" the ocean floor there as Russian.
Claiming that the "Western" Munich Agreement of '38 ended all possibility of an anti-Nazi alliance between the USSR and the West is something we can debate at our leisure, but when seen in the light of Putin's previous actions since 1999, I'd say that Russia is still a strategic and economic threat that no one in Washington right now is paying any attention to at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
