Category Archives: Political philosophy

COMPARING MARTIN LUTHER KING TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

King was born in the deep South in the middle of poverty, attended segregated public schools and graduated from Morehouse College, a Negro institution.  He saw a nation sorely divided and devoted his life to uniting it.  Obama was born into relative affluence in Hawaii, attended private schools and graduated from Harvard.  He saw the nation King fought to unite and proceeded to polarize it.  King fought for equal opportunity for everyone, a decidedly conservative notion.  Obama strives to equalize wealth, a decidedly socialist notion.  King had a dream.  King’s dream was of a color blind America where all men would be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin.  Obama also has a dream.  His dream is from his father whose vision was of a utopian world without a superpower he deemed to be oppressive.

Where King sought healing, Obama seeks reparations.  King sought to transform America he saw by ridding the nation of segregation and racism.  Obama has vowed to transform America but has never revealed exactly how he Hopes to Change it.

Martin Luther King is rightly honored by a holiday.  If Barack Hussein Obama gets a postage stamp it will be enough.

The heart of the speech starts at the 12 minute point.  You can skip to it, but do so only if you must.  Or go here for a shorter portion of the speech ( and better audio).

THEY STILL DON’T GET IT

David Brooks, writing for the New York Times laments, Where Are the Liberals?  “This should be the golden age of liberalism” he says.  And yet, declared conservatives outnumber declared liberals by a factor of two to one.  “How can that be?” he asks.

“The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing” says Brooks, inferring that conservatives and the Republican Party are one and the same.  The author is perplexed as to why the foibles of the Republican Party don’t lead more conservatives to join the liberal camp.  One has to wonder what he thinks the Tea Party is all about.

Brook’s reasoning is also myopic.  The relative popularity of the two philosophies was put to a test in the 2010 elections.  The rest of us know who won that popularity contest.  And embarrassment?  What could be more embarrassing than having to grant waivers to more than 1,200 companies and over 4 million employees to excuse them from compliance with a law that was so poorly constructed there was little other choice?  The answer is granting waivers to a law your own Party rammed through Congress against the will of the people; that’s what could be more embarrassing!

“Over the past 40 years, liberalism has been astonishingly incapable at expanding its market share.” 

Now I ask what is astonishing about the fact that something that doesn’t work, doesn’t sell very well?  Mr. Brooks thinks he has the answer.

The most important explanation is what you might call the Instrument Problem.  Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems.  They don’t trust the federal government.

You can bet your belly button they don’t!  And it is not just the instrument they don’t trust; they don’t trust the players either.  Holders of the liberal point of view put their faith and trust in the wisdom, integrity and leadership of an elite few, oblivious of the fallibility of man.  When it fails they blame the few.  Even after it became obvious that the Soviet Union was failing the Russian people, the left didn’t find communism to be at fault.  The problem was simply that Stalin was the wrong man for the job.

Finding a better instrument to play the liberal theme isn’t the answer to the problem.  The liberal theme itself is the problem.

DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE

We have occasionally made reference to Orwell’s ‘Memory Hole’ down which the Ministry of Truth dumped everything The Party did not want ever to have existed.  It was the duty of the Thought Police to enforce The Party Policy that once something was thrown down the Memory Hole it was never to be thought of as truth again.

When Orwell wrote “1984” he wrote fiction,…or did he?

Obama administration pulls references to Islam from terror training materials, official says

In a … Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

It is not just the water temperature in your shower that The Party wants to control.  It’s also your very thoughts.

The ONLY THING OUR ECONOMY NEEDS IS A NEW PRESIDENT

Roosevelt Redux: How Obama is Creating a Great Depression of His Own

By Robert R. Barker

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) is to liberals as Ronald Reagan is to conservatives, a greatly revered hero of their cause.  Barack Obama is following in FDR’s shoes.  Roosevelt was more destructive to the economy in his own time than Obama has been in his… thus far.

Roosevelt responded to the recession he inherited with a combination of massive spending on new government programs and sweeping controls over private industry, (sound familiar?).  His thinking was that government spending would get people back to work, and controls over private industry would end deflation.  Rules and regulations over private industry were put in place designed, incredibly, to increase the prices of goods.  The President and his advisors thought deflation was a cause of the recession.  But of course it wasn’t a cause; it was a result.

The Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) were formed.  The WPA was created to carry out infrastructure projects (sound familiar?) and the CCC to provide government jobs for young men by performing work of a conservation nature on government-owned land.  The WPA and CCC were prime elements of FDR’s stimulus program.  Both programs increased the size of government and added to the Federal payroll but did little for private industry which is the heart of an economy.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was a government sponsored organization (GSO) structured somewhat like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The RFC was expanded by Roosevelt and served as the money conduit for bailing out failing banks.  It was funded with over 5 billion dollars in taxpayer money, equivalent to 84 billion today after adjusting for inflation.  According to Wikipedia, “The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disperse much of its funds.  It failed to reverse the problem of mass unemployment.”  (Sound familiar?)

FDR created a Farm Board with the power to control the amount of production and the price of grains and livestock.  The board mandated that crop farmers let some of their fields lie fallow.  Agriculture farmers were paid by the government for crops that didn’t exist because they were forbidden to plant them.  Livestock farmers were not overlooked either.  Six million young piglets were ordered destroyed at taxpayer expense.  The purpose was to reduce the supply of pigs and increase the price of bacon and pork.  Instead of pigs, Obama chose to destroy used cars.  At least that move is more humane.

Roosevelt’s first legislative victory was congressional passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act to be administered by the National Recovery Administration (NRA).  This new law created a new agency giving Washington vast powers of control over private enterprise.  It established maximum and minimum wages and price controls over many goods and services.  It was the most contentious of all the programs in Roosevelt’s “New Deal.”  Had it not been for the economic crisis then at hand, such sweeping legislation could never have been enacted.  (Sound familiar?)

But the NRA turned out to be a step too far.  In an attempt to end the controversy surrounding the program, Roosevelt chose to make an example of a kosher chicken processing firm run by two immigrant brothers in Brooklyn, NY.  The proprietors were arrested, tried, found guilty and jailed for selling chickens at prices below those allowed by the law and for permitting wholesale customers to pick and choose which birds they wanted to buy.  Both acts violated regulations set by the National Recovery Administration.

The strategy backfired when the proprietors, the Schechter brothers, fought back.  The case went to the Supreme Court where, by a unanimous decision, the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared to be unconstitutional.  The NRA which administered the Act was dismantled.  Today we see parallels in Obama’s use of czars and broad powers of regulation to control the private sector.  If the question of the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as  ObamaCare, winds up in the Supreme Court it will be one more instance of Roosevelt redux.

Eight years after Roosevelt was first elected, unemployment stood at 14.6%.  Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1934-1945, admitted to himself in a written in his personal diary that the stimulus spending programs had failed.

“We have tried spending money.  We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work…  We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”

Then on December 7th 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.  The unemployed went back to work.  Assembly lines ran around the clock making tanks and planes, guns and ships in the all-out war effort.  FDR, already the only President to win a third term, went on to win a fourth.

Obama is treading the same path as FDR, repeating the same steps that turned a recession into the Great Depression.  But fear not; we survived the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II.  We’ll survive Barack Obama as well.  But we must make certain he only reigns for one term.

o 0 O 00

This article was first published in American Thinker on June 14, 2011 and is reprinted verbatim here.

PAUL KRUGMAN GETS ONE RIGHT

Depression and Democracy is the title of Krugman’s column in the New York Times today.  I know little about the Hungarian political party known as Fidesz, but beyond that, what Krugman wrote was dead right as far as it went.  Democracy is under threat.

…the gravity of European political developments isn’t widely understood.

First of all, the crisis of the euro is killing the European dream. The shared currency, which was supposed to bind nations together, has instead created an atmosphere of bitter acrimony.

…a Europe-wide recession now looks likely

Europeans [are] furious at what is perceived, fairly or unfairly (or actually a bit of both), as a heavy-handed exercise of German power.

Nobody familiar with Europe’s history can look at this resurgence of hostility without feeling a shiver.

The ecojournalist doesn’t hesitate to use the H word either.  Krugman never was known for his political correctness, if you will pardon the pun.

…ominous political trends shouldn’t be dismissed just because there’s no Hitler in sight.

Now we must delve into uncertain territory, what the author thinks but doesn’t say.  Just which movement on the current scene does he think a figure like H best represents?  Krugman limits his remarks in the article to political parties in Europe.  Speaking domestically, would it be the Occupy movement or the Tea Party?

Spokesfolks from the left see the problems; they just don’t see the causes so they come to the wrong conclusions about the solutions.  They are looking at the malaise through a window when they should be using a mirror.

THE TEA PARTY vs. THE OCCUPIERS and OTHER RANDOM THOTS

There is no comparison.
The Tea Party members stand for less federal spending, less federal debt, less government restriction, more personal liberty, more growth and more jobs.  As a group they are peaceful, familial, respectful of private property, employed and proud of their American heritage.

The Occupy movement still hasn’t decided what it stands for as a group.  Members have taken stands against corporate bailouts, unequal wealth, capitalism, Israel, anything military and the notion that there is any reason whatever to be proud of their country.  They have asked for bailouts for individuals, free college tuition, higher taxes on other people, (the demonstrators themselves pay little or none), and redistribution of the wealth of others unto themselves.  Their methods are disruptive, sometimes destructive and occasionally violent and frequently illegal.  They show disrespect for the American flag, private property and the rule of law.  They have been unable to control criminal activity within their own group.

Our president expresses support for the Occupiers and holds Tea Party members in contempt.  Until Barack Obama we had never had a President like this.

Where’s the swamp?
The ripest department for corruption in any town is the housing department.  If you have ever dealt with one you know how involved the permitting and inspection process can be.  It is rich with opportunities for those in power to ‘earn’ a little income on the side.  The big opportunities are in the realm of awards to private contractors for municipal construction and other town services.  This is by no means an indictment of these departments as a whole for malfeasance, but where corruption does exist this is where you are most likely to find it because it’s the most fertile ground.

At the federal level, the equivalent that comes to mind is infrastructure programs.  Think about it.

More Republicans should play chess.
Republicans in Washington fell into a trap because they didn’t anticipate the Democrat’s future moves.

The Republicans were set up when they supported a temporary suspension of the payroll tax.  Now the Democrats want to extend it and the Republicans do not.  Obama has been given ammunition for his class warfare battle.  Now Republicans “want to increase taxes on the working man but never on the rich”.

Continuing the payroll tax suspension also plays into the Presidents plan to spread the wealth.  As it stands, the working man is contributing nothing to fund the Social Security he will collect.  Obama wants to keep it that way.

WHO ARE THE PEOPLE WORSHIPPING AT THE ALTER OF MATERIALISM AND GREED ?

A combination of the success of the free market system and gradual increase of government largess has all but eliminated depression style poverty.  The poverty argument no longer engenders the same level of anger when those classed as poor have cell phones and iPads, drive cars, own homes and still pay no income tax.

Today’s anger is not about poverty; it’s about riches.  The Wall Street protesters are not fighting poverty; they are protesting the unequal distribution of wealth.  They are protesting the fact that some people have more than they do and they want some of it.  All you need to do to see why the Occupiers have less is to examine a cross section of them and compare it a cross section of Tea Party types, or upper East-side New York liberals for that matter.

All the rich want to do is keep some of their own money and pay out the rest in taxes and give some to charity.  They don’t want to take money from someone else just because someone else has it.  Wanting more money may be greed, but isn’t wanting someone else’s money without earning it an even greater greed?  The Occupiers want someone else’s money.  And they want it to they can buy the latest iPods and better cars.  If they really want to end greed they should get a job.

FASCISM IN AMERICA

Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota, says he is leaving the United States, labeling it a fascist nation.  Anger over dismissal of his lawsuit against Homeland Security’s TSA for unnecessary groping that led Ventura to make the outlandish accusation about the USA.  But let’s take a look.  It may not be as outlandish as it seems.

Few words are as carelessly and callously thrown about as is the word fascist.  The term “fascist pig” is commonly enough applied to conservatives to be included in the online Urban Dictionary as an identifier for right wing thinkers.  In this use, fascist is purely an epithet, an insult.  The word has been detached from its meaning, just as calling someone a bastard is no longer a reference to the circumstances of his birth.  The distortion of bastard is complete but the meaning of the term fascist is still in transition.

Merriam Webster defines fascism as:

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.  (emphasis is ours)

Benito Mussolini bragged that he had made Italy a Fascist nation before WW II.  The left enthusiastically embraced the idea at the time.  Mussolini’s version brought the means of production under government control whereby assets owned by the private sector could be converted to the public good without the need to nationalize and pay for them.  Mussolini’s fascism was a central planning concept.

Ventura’s assertion doesn’t look so quite so outlandish in this light.  Remember Hugo Chavez’s expression of admiration and envy when Barack Obama gained control of General Motors without violence or force, without even paying for it through nationalization.  That’s the appeal of fascism.  If you can have the milk without buying the cow, why buy the cow?

Does any objective and knowledgeable person doubt that the Solyndra Corporation was a tool of the Obama administration?  It was the poster boy for the president’s green energy program.  He chose a Solyndra facility as the location for a speech touting government commitment to financing green corporations like Solyndra at a company facility.  The company owed its very existence to the government, short lived though it was.  Some of that money was expected to find its way back in campaign contributions.  We only know about the Solyndra affair because it blew up.  How many others are there that we don’t know about?

If fascism is government control of privately held assets, then wouldn’t preventing Boeing from building airplanes in the state of their choice be a fascist act.

Jesse Ventura, you misused the term but thank you for bringing up the point.  However, I would have more respect for you if stayed to fight and not just whine and leave.

OCCUPY OAKLAND – THE MOST TELLING

This is a powerful video.  If you still have questions in your mind on what the Occupy movement is about, this is the video will remove all doubt.

The existence of sizable groups of people embracing the beliefs expressed in the video is not a new phenomenon.  As Stanley Kurtz explains in his book  RADICAL-IN-CHIEF, Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism, this is the world Obama chose in his youth.  The question is did he ever leave it?  His actions as President are consistent with the notion he did not.

OCCUPY ATLANTA – IS THIS THE FACE OF MARXISM?

No doubt you have seen the video.  Scary, isn’t it.  Raises goose bumps.  The weirdness of it raises many questions as well.  Who are these people?  What’s their agenda?  Are they connected with Occupy Wall St?  If so, then how?  Who was the man at the microphone?  Who was his sidekick in the crowd?  Where are they from?  Are they or are they not a typical Occupy group?  If they are part of the liberal left, why did they deny John Lewis a chance to speak?  Could they be a conservative group?  Why was there a paucity of blacks in the crowd?  Is this or is it not the face of Marxism?

We will try to answer some of these questions.  It is too soon to come to any firm conclusions but it is not too early to examine the evidence.  Let’s ‘go to the tape’

The first thing that we notice is the use of the cultish technique of speak and chant.  The technique accomplishes several things.  It slows down the presentation and allows the speaker to stay in control.  It allows the speaker to lead the crowd in the desired direction and fool the crowd into thinking that the decisions were theirs, and not those of the facilitator.  Chanting mesmerizes the mind, blocking out independent thinking.  Chanting together in a crowd unifies the members creating the impression of universal agreement.

Next we notice the raising of hands in the air.  This gesture is reminiscent of religious practice more common among the more fundamental denominations.  The reason given here for the raising of hands at the demonstration is because clapping prevents people from being heard.  That reason is absurd.  The people were clapping to hear someone speak, not to shut them up.  Nevertheless, the programmed crowd chants the reason back.  With that, they have verbalized agreement with the leader, bypassing individual thought.  And so it goes with decisions on other matters as well.  If someone in the crowd speaks up with an opinion that is contrary to the leader’s position but popular with the crowd, there will be no clapping.

Watching the video, it is abundantly clear from the start that many in the crowd wanted to hear John Lewis.  In fact it certainly appeared like the majority wanted to hear him.  Majority or not, just “many” should be enough unless the minority is to be denied a voice.  There was very positive finger waving in the beginning when the facilitator asked the crowd how they felt about John Lewis.  There was also a lot of clapping which prompted the facilitator to restrict any more of that.  Nevertheless, the leader and his sidekick in the crowd were successful in maneuvering the people to get behind them and deny John Lewis the opportunity to speak.

Exactly why the organizers didn’t want Lewis to speak remains a puzzle.

In case you are wondering, the facilitator was asking what the block or blocks have said, not what the blogs have said.  He used the term block to mean the Occupy group.  At the end the repeated chant was “mic is dead”, meaning Lewis will not be given a live microphone to speak.

Now play the video again to see how much you agree with the assessment given here.

TO BE CONTINUED