Archive for the democrats Category

Do it for the children!

What a cliche. Really? Four more years: “For the children!?” What a putz. What a sleazy, fake, piece of crap manchurian candidate.

Addressing Iowa Democrats, Obama frames 2012 race as one ‘for our children’

“Part of what 2012 is about is both reminding the American people of how far we’ve traveled and the concrete effects that some of our work … but part of it is also framing this larger debate about what kind of country are we going to leave for our children and our grandchildren,” he said. ~dailycaller.com

Thanks asshole. Please have four more years to complete your total destruction of America.

Ditto, Mr. Surber. Ditto.

This says it all. ALL!

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.   ~blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber

You should read it all. It sums up everything I’ve felt this last week.

Imagine…

“We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex–but Congress can.”

~Cullen Hightower

Yeah, so true.

American Democracy

The failure of Obama’s initial steps in fundamentally transforming America has brought on accusations that our government is broken and ungovernable… but this is silly. The only thing that has failed is Democrat overreach.

Democrats failure is actually evidence of the system working exactly as it is supposed to. The founding fathers attempted to construct a system that would thwart tyranny with checks and balances. If they had wanted to create a socialist paradise I suppose they would have done so.

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. ~Alexis de Tocqueville

Civil Society

Civil Society is a term used to describe the interactions of free citizens. The collective action of free citizens acting outside of government for the betterment and enrichment of fellow citizens and society. De Tocqueville had it right when he said that, “The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.” This is democracy: power in the hands of people.

Unfortunately, progressives and liberals have an agenda that seeks to effectively crowd out  all interactions that are outside of government. For the life of me I don’t understand why. Government is no different from any other large ‘corporate’ entity. The only thing I can think of is that it is the religion of Marxism which permeates progressive ideology. For the left, voluntary grassroots uprisings are illegitimate unless their ultimate purpose is to unite in collective action through government or to empower government. All else is heresy.

So when the issue of which nations of the world are more charitable the left can only reference how much governments spend. Ignoring the private donations of individual citizens. The definition of charity, of how much one cares about the poor and the sick, can only be accounted for by how much you want government to spend on the problem. This is why conservatives are called heartless and evil by liberals. Why they are accused of wanting to starve children and old people. Of wanting the sick to die… because they oppose government taking over healthcare.

Representative Republic

Democracy is rule by the people. As opposed to rule by a privileged few. Our founding fathers realized that direct democracy was not a stable form of government, but they also viewed a privileged ruling class akin to royalty as an abomination to human liberty. So they tempered pure democracy and created the United States as a representative republic able to retain the rights of the people to rule themselves and still have characteristics of conservative stability.

The problem Democrats and liberals are having is not new. Friedrich A. Hayek describes how progressive economic planning always devolves into the need to force people to comply with the plan.

Planning and Power

IN ORDER to achieve their ends, the planners must create power—power over men wielded by other men—of a magnitude never before known. Their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power. Democracy is an obstacle to this suppression of freedom which the centralized direction of economic activity requires. Hence arises the clash between planning- and democracy.

Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power.  ~jim.com/hayek.htm

When Lincoln spoke of, “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” he was not endorsing a dictatorship of the proletariat. He was expressing the political idea that the government is the people. That the power of government resides in every citizen. That it should be citizens exercising power over the state not the other way around.

In contrast, the government of Obama sees Americans as subjects to be taken care of and this requires the state to take upon itself more and more power and responsibility that should rightly be left in the hands of individual citizens.

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  ~nypost.com

A government that cannot yet enact this kind of sweeping control over entire sectors of the economy and override the decision making rights of millions is not broken. The fact that we are still debating whether or not to socialize healthcare is a sign that something is broken: the commmon sense of way too many politicians.

A new leftist era?

Obama and Chavez brother handshake

Obama and Chavez warm handshake

It certainly looks like Obama is handing over Central America to commie dictators. But then what do I know? On the other hand, Tom Hayden seems convinced. He seems to believe that Obama is in league with the commies in our southern hemisphere. At the very least he believes Obama is highly sympathetic to the cause of global communism. But maybe he just sees what he urgently hopes for.

Apparently, Obama and Chavez have had lengthy (friendly) talks.

According to eyewitness sources, under the apparently blind eye of the global media, the two leaders had lengthy conversations. The media covered the friendly photo of the initial handshake between the two leaders, then made much ado about an apparently-impertinent Chavez handing Obama a book in Spanish by Eduardo Galleano.

What has not been reported is that Obama, leaving his advisers behind, held lengthy private conversations with Chavez where only an interpreter was present.  ~tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com

Couple this with the fact that Obama has erroneously backed a leftist ally of Chavez who attempted to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and what you have is an apparent preference for 21st century socialism.

The idea that the left here in this country defends Obama and the would-be dictator Zelaya should be a caution. Is this something the left would approve of here in the US? The left views our own consitution as a, ‘flexible,’ ‘living document,’ that can be reinterpreted as they see fit for every ‘new era.’

Meanwhile Obama (and his news media) is silent about Chavez’s threats to invade Honduras to install Zelaya as a puppet of the new socialism. In fact, Chavez even printed the illegal ballots for Zelaya’s overthrow of the Honduras constitution.

What I think this reveals is that Obama is a stealth candidate whose purpose must remain mainly concealed from the general public because his true leftist policies would be completely rejected by a majority of Americans.

Thus Obama has to rely on doublespeak and alternating liberal and conservative messages about his policies. He says one thing while doing another. He claims to be for fiscal responsibility but then increases the deficit by a trillion dollars. He claims a, “fierce moral urgency,” in ending indefinite detention but then continues the policy. He claims not to be hostile to capitalism but then begins nationalizing the auto industry and begins the nationalization of the heath care industry.

Chavez, Zelaya, Castro, and Obama, captains of a new era.

The coup that wasn’t

Why can’t Obama get his facts straight about the removal of Honduras President Zelaya? Is it because Zelaya is closely aligned with socialist dictator Hugo Chavez?

Obama and democrats: imagine that as Bush approached the end of his second term he ordered an ‘opinion poll’ authorizing a convention to write a new constitution so he could serve a third term and then a fourth. Would removing him from office at that point properly be called a ‘coup’?

Constitutional assemblies are convened to write new constitutions. When Zelaya published that decree to initiate an “opinion poll” about the possibility of convening a national assembly, he contravened the unchangeable articles of the Constitution that deal with the prohibition of reelecting a president and of extending his term. His actions showed intent.

Our Constitution takes such intent seriously. According to Article 239: “No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform [emphasis added], as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.” ~csmonitor.com

The congress of Honduras along with the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the military to remove Zelaya from office after his illegal actions attempting to prolong his term of office. This is the definition of the rule of law not a coup. So why can’t Obama get his facts straight?

“We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered [?] the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term. ~reuters.com

Does Obama ally himself with leftist dictators because he longs to be one? It would make things easier for him in transforming America.

Continuismo – the tendency of heads of state to extend their rule indefinitely – has been the lifeblood of Latin America’s authoritarian tradition. The Constitution’s provision of instant sanction might sound draconian, but every Latin American democrat knows how much of a threat to our fragile democracies continuismo presents. In Latin America, chiefs of state have often been above the law. The instant sanction of the supreme law has successfully prevented the possibility of a new Honduran continuismo.

The Supreme Court and the attorney general ordered Zelaya’s arrest for disobeying several court orders compelling him to obey the Constitution. He was detained and taken to Costa Rica. Why? Congress needed time to convene and remove him from office. With him inside the country that would have been impossible. This decision was taken by the 123 (of the 128) members of Congress present that day. ~csmonitor.com

So why is Obama intent on reinstalling Zelaya who basically threatened to overthrow the constitution of Honduras and who no doubt would like to transform Honduras into a copy of Venezuela? Are they all just brothers-in-arms? Comrades in the struggle? Co-workers of light?

Destroying America

Literally. The Obama administration wants to bulldoze entire swaths of American cities in order to re-engineer them. The next logical step is forced re-locations.

Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic “shrink to survive” proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline. ~telegraph.co.uk

Even I would not have dared suggest that Obama would already be moving forward with the physical destruction of America so soon.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential [liberal] Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes. ~telegraph.co.uk

I think that this is just a taste of the future in a progressive America. A shrinking America. Bulldozed and socially engineered according to what the best and brightest minds have deemed proper. Cram everyone into urban centers where they are more easily controlled and regulated. When leftists complain and bemoan about ‘Urban sprawl’ what they really mean is that people have too much freedom of movement and choice. They fail to make the right choices, i.e. the ones the left wants, and when people make the wrong choices (according to them) then government has to step in and correct yet another ‘market failure’.

Limiting growth is not just a side effect of an economic downturn it is in fact the goal for the left. Much of the popular liberal ideology focuses on downsizing America as a public good. Limited growth is the ultimate end goal of the left.

He said: “The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.” ~telegraph.co.uk

The left has plans for where and how you should live, what you will eat and how much you will have to exercise. Once the government is paying for your health care your exercise and eating habits will no longer be a matter of personal choice, it will be a matter of national economics. Once the government begins paying for your life it will own you and then the government will be deciding your life for you.

Obama: my muslim faith

Barack Hussein Obama defending his faith?

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)  ~whitehouse.gov

Kind of reminds me of this quote we are supposed to ignore: “my muslim faith”

“You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” Obama said, before being corrected by Stephanopoulos.  ~suntimes.com

Thanks to BeldarBlog for noticing this.