Arlene Taber sent the following…MUST READ video:
Dealing With Muslims. ……spoken by Allen West, now a House Representative from Florida:
Arlene Taber sent the following…MUST READ video:
Dealing With Muslims. ……spoken by Allen West, now a House Representative from Florida:
Sorry, Lefties of the World…..Some things ARE more beautiful than others. There usually is a distinct difference between good and evil.
Some folks, such as president Barack Obama have serious problems recognizing any difference between the lies they communicate and reality or truth. Mr. Obama went to college and has never really recovered. But not all politicans are either evil or corrupt.
Fellow conservative Regina Reed sent me the following video, the photographer of which has a great eye for beauty and skill to display it; a realm of beauty which exists all around us yet passes by our observation.
Until recently our Nation for the vast majority of its inhabitants has been a beautiful place in which to live despite the dangers which haunt every living creature .
Every living entity is in constant battle with its neighbors seen and unseen, known, unknown or unknowable to maintain its moment of existence for the purpose of continuing its life or perish.
Obama folks are indoor folks, verbal folk, deceitful folk determined to fulfill a mission they imagine to be holy….Marxism. They do not believe in equality. They are devoted to create and maintain equality of others.
Which of the following elements of beauty shown on the video below, do you think Mother Nature, if she were an Obama Marxist, should become the standard for all living things to mimic?
If Americans re-elect the Democrat, Barack Obama, they will have announced that America should be like Western European countries — governed by left-wing values. Americans will have decided that America’s value system — “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” “E Pluribus Unum” — should be replaced.
The election in November is therefore a plebiscite on the American Revolution. The usual description of presidential elections — “the most important in our lifetime” — is true this time. In fact, it may be the most important election since the Civil War, and possibly since America’s founding.
The left knows what is at stake. And the most left-wing president in American history knows what is at stake. Candidate Obama announced shortly before the 2008 election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
He described the left’s aim perfectly: to fundamentally transform America. It seeks to replace Liberty, In God We Trust, and E Pluribus Unum.
That is what “fundamentally transform” means. In fact, those words are proof that American values and leftist values are fundamentally opposed to one another.
The right, on the other hand, seeks to maintain America’s values. Conservatives want to improve America, but, as its name implies, conservatism seeks to conserve, not transform.
“Liberty” means, first and foremost, limited government — because bigger government means less individual liberty. “In God We Trust” means that America must be rooted in Creator-based values. There are no inalienable rights if no rights derive from God. And “E Pluribus Unum” means the assumption of an American identity by all citizens regardless of their racial, ethnic or national background.
The left seeks to replace Liberty with Equality. Material inequality is the great evil, and if individual liberty needs to be sacrificed to attain equality, so be it.
Creator-based values are to be replaced by government-based values. “God-fearing” is to be replaced by “State-fearing.” God must be removed from schools and wherever else the left can succeed in doing so.
“E Pluribus Unum” is to be replaced by multiculturalism. For leftism, the very words “American identity” conjure up chauvinism, if not fascism.
For these reasons, this election is not just a choice between a Democrat and a Republican. It is between Americanism and leftism.
This does not mean that left-wing Americans are un-American or unpatriotic — or that they do not love their country. The conflict between Americanism and leftism is between ideas, not between decent and indecent people. But it is an unfortunate fact of life that decent people can believe in bad ideas. If this were not so, few of the greatest evils would ever have occurred.
If this election is indeed a plebiscite on America, Mitt Romney cannot campaign solely, or even primarily, on the state of the economy. First, what if the economy even slightly improves? What happens then to Governor Romney’s appeal? Moreover, relying for one’s success on the suffering of one’s fellow Americans is morally as well as politically perilous. Second, Americans want to vote for more than an economic Mr. Fix-It, as desirable as such a person is.
So, too, Mr. Romney should not overly personalize his campaign. He is running against Obama, but Barack Obama is not the biggest issue. The left’s desire to transform America is the biggest issue. Barack Obama is to be opposed because he is a man of the left.
Mitt Romney and the entire Republican Party need to describe this election as the plebiscite on America that it is. The most urgent task in American life is to make clear, and then repeat as often as possible: leftist values and American values are in conflict.
Instead of asking, “Are you better off than you were three years ago?” Every Republican needs to ask, every day, “Do you want to fundamentally transform America?” If they do, Barack Obama is their man. If they don’t, Mitt Romney is.
The Obama-Biden campaign made quite a splash recently when it released a new web ad called “The Life of Julia.” This unusual piece of campaign propaganda tracks the life of a fictional character named Julia and enumerates the benefits she would receive from the government at successive ages should Obama win reelection. Some examples:
♦ 3 Years Old. “Julia is enrolled in a Head Start program to help get her ready for school. Because of steps President Obama has taken to improve programs like this one, Julia joins thousands of students across the country who will start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.”
♦ 25 Years Old. “After graduation, Julia’s federal student loans are more manageable since President Obama capped income-based federal student loan payments and kept interest rates low. She makes her payments on time every month, keeping her on track to repay her student loans.”
♦ 27 Years Old. “For the past four years, Julia has worked full-time as a web designer. Thanks to Obamacare, her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.”
♦ 42 Years Old. “Julia starts her own web business. She qualifies for a Small Business Administration loan, giving her the money she needs to invest in her business. President Obama’s tax cuts for small businesses like Julia’s help her to get started. She’s able to hire employees, creating new jobs in her town and helping to grow the local economy.”
The ad is certainly a direct play for women voters, and it caused quite a stir in the conservative blogosphere for the blatant pandering. But the pandering is actually quite revealing. In ways Team Obama doubtless didn’t intend, “The Life of Julia” illustrates precisely what has gone wrong with the modern Democratic party. To see this, it is helpful to take a few steps back.
We usually conceive of American politics in terms of just two broad ideological tendencies—liberalism and conservatism. But there are of course other lines of thought present in the body politic, including some ideas and principles that both liberals and conservatives claim to embody. Of particular importance in the United States is the concept of republicanism, or the idea that the government should represent the interests of all the people, rather than just a select few.
Both liberals and conservatives believe they are republicans, that their policies will benefit all Americans, not just a privileged elite. Furthermore, both political parties pay lip service to this republican view of government, but in reality they are often ready, willing, and able to play favorites, doling out government benefits to their supporters (paid for, usually, by their political opponents).
And that is what “The Life of Julia” is all about. It is liberalism, for sure, but it certainly is not a republican brand of it. It is almost a perfect articulation of antirepublican, client group liberalism, which unhappily has come to define the Democratic party under Obama. Put simply, the message of the ad is that this woman should vote for Obama because of all the great benefits he will offer her.
Michael Barone has often referred to Obama’s political approach as the “Chicago way,” and here we can see a version of that method at work. It was the urban political machines—like Chicago’s Daley operation and before it New York’s Tammany Hall—that mastered the decidedly antirepublican relationship of patron and client as well as any organization in world history. Politics was not a contact sport in the big cities so much as it was a contract sport. Recall Rod Blagojevich’s colorful description of Obama’s open Senate seat: “I’ve got this thing and it’s [expletive] golden, and . . . I’m not going to give it up for [expletive] nothing!” Blago is in federal prison for this style of politics, but it really characterized urban government for over a century: The government has lots of services, and you have votes: Want to trade?
Ironically, it was Franklin Roosevelt—the very president who destroyed the Tammany operation—who adapted its clientelism to national government. This is how the antirepublican practices of urban politics found their way into the national Democratic party. FDR had two purposes in mind with his New Deal: to use the vast regulatory and redistributive potential of the federal government to fight off the Great Depression and to establish a permanent Democratic majority. Whereas Tammany had once been limited to ticky-tacky items like contracts and jobs, FDR could use sweeping legislation like the Agricultural Adjustment Act to buy off the entire Southern plantation gentry at a stroke of the presidential pen.
The problem, though, is that once the door was opened to this brand of clientelism, it could never again be closed. Over the decades, the Democrats have added scores of clients to their operation: trade and industrial unions, African Americans, environmentalists, feminists, govern-ment unions, consumer rights advo-cates, big business, and big city bosses and their lieutenants. All of them are with the Democratic party in part because of the special benefits it promises them when in office, and all have a major say in how the party behaves in government. With more and more clients who needed constant tending, it became harder and harder for subsequent Democratic leaders to focus on the public good. Thus, in the years since FDR’s tenure, the Democratic agenda has looked less like republican liberalism and more like clientele liberalism—big government activism not for the sake of the whole country, but for the sake of the voters whom the Democrats privilege.
And under the Obama administration, clientele liberalism has achieved a kind of apotheosis. The stimulus, the health care bill, cap and trade, and the financial reform package were all designed with heavy input from the party’s clients, and ultimately each reflects their priorities, so much so that any kind of national purpose the legislation might have served was totally undermined. The stimulus catered far too much to Democratic clients, hence its measly effect on the economy; Obamacare was a veritable smorgasbord of goodies for Democratic backers, from feminists to unions to big business, while the average American will see no material improvement in the cost or security of his health insurance; and financial reform ultimately won the backing of the mega-banks on Wall Street, which not coincidentally had given overwhelmingly to Democrats in the 2008 cycle.
When viewed in light of these legislative monstrosities, “The Life of Julia” begins to make more sense. It is not merely an artless appeal to a swing demographic, it also symbolizes the modus operandi of the modern party. No longer interested in or capable of operating on behalf of the public good, the party is intent on buying its way to 50 percent-plus-one of the electorate. The message: Vote for Obama and you’ll get stuff!
What a tragic decline for the Democratic party. Andrew Jackson founded the party precisely to fight this kind of governmental favoritism. When he vetoed a bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States in 1832, Old Hickory warned:
Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers—who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government.
This remained a kind of mission statement for the Democratic party for generations. Whether it advocated limited government (as under Jackson) or big government (as under FDR), the party always claimed to be the party of equality, fighting the inevitable tendencies of the government to create “artificial distinctions” that privilege the politically well connected over the “humble members of society.”
Yet today, sadly, the heirs to Old Hickory constitute a party of privilege, and it offers its clients a simple deal: Vote for us and as long as we’re in office, we’ll take care of you.
Jay Cost is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard and the author of Spoiled Rotten, a new critical history of the Democratic party (Broadside Books).
By Bill Frezza
A powerful YouTube video essay that premiered on Earth Day has since gone viral. I first saw it when it cracked 100,000 views. At last count, over 1.7 million people have seen it, a number that grows daily. It started out being passed along by conservative Americans but has begun spreading into wider circles.
This video, entitled, If I Wanted America to Fail, can be best described as a pithy five-minute antidote to Al Gore’s ponderous and plodding film, An Inconvenient Truth. Written and narrated by a young Floridian political activist named Ryan Houck from an organization named Free Market America, the piece is loosely modeled on Paul Harvey’s famous 1965 radio sermon “If I Were the Devil.”
But this is not a religious screed. It is an anti-religious screed. The religion it attacks is radical environmentalism, and the priesthood it exposes is the runaway bureaucracy of the regulatory state. The philosophy it proposes as an alternative is free market capitalism.
It’s not just the crisp production values and skilled emotional manipulation that makes this piece so notable. It is the structure of the repeated refrain that tacitly asks the most important questions one could ask about both radical environmentalism and the wider basket of progressive policies that are now strangling our economy.
The questions are: Should government policies be judged by their intentions or their results? Should political leaders be judged by what they say they want to accomplish or by what actually happens after they gain the reins of power?
If you believe that the answers to these questions are yes, you must watch this video.
The piece opens: “If I wanted America to fail … to follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream. I would start with energy.”
What follows is a steady drumbeat of indictments depicting the actual results of environmental regulatory policies that have demonized the energy infrastructure that keeps us all alive. In example after example, Houck drives the message home. This is not working. This is not making us better off.
While the essay lays the blame at the feet of global warming hysteria, it does not engage in a debate on the scientific merits of that controversial theory. It merely notes that all of this economic devastation is being justified by the highly speculative notion that somehow, someday, these economically destructive policies will deliver a greater good.
Note that Houck does not directly accuse progressives of wanting America to fail, yet that is exactly what progressives hear-and it is the only thing they hear-when they listen to this piece. He merely states that if failure were your objective, then the energy policies our government has espoused would be a very effective way to go about it.
Most of my friends are liberals, not just because I live in an extremely blue state but because I enjoy their company. I believe them when they say that they want what’s best for America. While numerous Cloward-Piven strategists may lurk in academia hoping to overload our current system so badly that it comes crashing down, I believe that these radicals are a tiny minority, even within the Democratic Party.
There is no reason not to take the good intentions of environmentalists and progressives at face value. Sure, it’s fun to point out the hypocrisy of jet-setting environmental celebrities and their heated swimming pools, but no political group has cornered the market on hypocrisy.
Rather than questioning motives-which almost never leads to fruitful dialogue-this essay invites us to question results. Have government policies created a viable, scalable, economically sustainable solar power industry? Has the biofuels movement reduced or increased our carbon footprint? Can windmills really generate enough reliable electricity to replace coal, or would we end up living with rolling blackouts if we let the EPA shut down the coal industry?
Is it rational to expect that current policies will make electric vehicles a meaningful portion of the automobile market in the foreseeable future? Has blocking an oil pipeline from Canada forced those dirty oils sands to stay in the ground? Has an explosion of promised green jobs actually arrived to reduce unemployment and help pull us out of recession?
As Houck eloquently points out, can we condemn logging, mining, and farming while we expect to have roofs over our heads, heat in our homes, and food on our tables? If we demonize prosperity because it is not instantaneously enjoyed equally, should we expect to get more or less of it?
Finally, I’d like to ask my liberal friends: If failure is not your objective then why are you demanding that failed policies be continued, and even expanded?
I recommend you invest the four minutes and 39 seconds it takes to watch this video, even if you are a radical environmentalist. Especially if you are a radical environmentalist. Because this guy is your worst nightmare. Ignore him at your peril.